Talk:Ben Carson

This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and the consensus was keep: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ben Carson

Over-quotation

The article contains far too many quotes from Dr. Carson for an encyclopedia article, making this more of an autobiography than a biography. There is also too much reliance on certain sources like this American Thinker article. I would like to address these concerns by removing some of less notable quotes, and as appropriate, replacing some quotes with third party analysis. Are there any objections before I get started, or does anyone have any favorite quotes that they just can't live without?- MrX 19:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you make your suggestions first. Arzel (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I could do that, but I prefer to WP:BEBOLD and not put forth double the effort. Do you have any specific objections to reducing the extent of quotes from the subject?- MrX 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

His political position on various subjects should be represented. Don't remove the entire section if you simply do not want quotes.Psyden (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but if the entire section is a quote without context, or without third party analysis, it's pretty meaningless to our readers. For example, a quote mined comment from him about affirmative action seems WP:UNDUE since there seems to be little substantive coverage in other sources as far as I can tell. I'm sure he has a range of political positions, but we should only include the more notable ones.- MrX 21:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Short: Anger Issues

Ben Carson almost killed his friend because they disagreed on a radio station. His friend was injured after that the blade that he had broke on the friend's belt buckle. After so he ran to his house locked the door and read his bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.54.4 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right (though I'm not 100% sure about the radio station). However, we'll need sources if it's to be put on Wikipedia. Don't worry, there should be sources out there saying this; we'll just need to find them. Or do you already know a source for this? (I think Carson's book Gifted Hands says this, but I don't own it, and the source may have to be from a third party.) —The Sackinator (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just Google ben carson knife fight. There are several hits, including one from The Times, on the first page returned. 2600:1006:B142:2C28:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I found a reference. I'll make a bold edit, and we can make revisions as we see it necessary. —The Sackinator (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wait! There already is information pertaining to it: Ben_Carson#Early_life —The Sackinator (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this a reasonable source enough? http://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422#anger-issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voss749 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. Actually, we already took care of this subject (see the second paragraph of Ben_Carson#Early_life). —The Sackinator (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

Under Views on marriage and evolution the abbreviation used for Southern Poverty Law Center is SLPC. It should be SPLC.

Please change SLPC to SPLC

I'd correct the typo myself but the page is locked.

118.208.81.2 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 08:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

SPLC listing and retraction

I object to this edit by Nemd57. For one thing, it has a broken cite. It relies on a primary source which is not preferable, largely because of the potential for misuse. In this case, selected quotes were taken out of context, resulting in a non-neutral presentation. Also, the parenthetical "(according to the SPLC's page on him)" is not a good construct.

I'm open to finding a compromise wording for this paragraph, but I will be pretty insistent on using analysis in good secondary sources.- MrX 01:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

At least two points need to be covered:

1) You deleted Carson's rebuttal for the second time, while claiming that you have no objection to it (so which is it?) At minimum, we need to at least include his side of the story to have any semblance of balance, and yet you keep deleting it.

2) The paraphrase of the SPLC's charges that you want to use is badly misleading and unbalanced, because the "association with hate groups" rhetoric is precisely the main point of contention between Carson and the SPLC, and yet your version simply cites it as if it were an undisputed fact, in Wikipedia's own voice. It isn't undisputed, since it refers to Carson's association with the Family Research Council and/or other Christian groups which the SPLC has placed on its "hate list" for the same reason it placed Carson on it: these groups support the traditional Christian views on marriage and therefore oppose gay marriage. Since Carson (and many others) disagree with the SPLC's claim that traditional Christianity qualifies as "hate", it's a gross violation of NPOV to just use the SPLC's own rhetoric on these matters, especially if you keep deleting any rebuttal from Carson. The article needs to specify what these "hate groups" are and why the SPLC considers them "hate groups", so readers can judge for themselves which side has the better argument.

It's also problematic to use a vague paraphrase of the SPLC's position rather than direct quotes, for several reasons. At least the direct quotes are what the SPLC actually said, and these quotes also allow the reader to see exactly what the points of dispute are. For example, your preferred version claims that Carson compared homosexuality to pedophilia, but the only actual statement on that issue from the SPLC's website contains a quote from Carson saying that “Marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality—it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.” Since his point really had nothing to do with an explicit "comparison" - it was more of a slippery-slope argument - readers ought to be allowed to judge for themselves whether this quote truly counts as "comparing homosexuality to pedophilia". Telling the reader that he definitely made such a comparison, in Wikipedia's own voice, ignores Carson's objection to that claim and leaves no possibility for the reader to see the actual quote, and it certainly isn't balanced. This is basic stuff when it comes to a neutral point of view. Secondary sources aren't necessary if you're quoting a person or group directly, in fact it's common practice to use the original source itself.

So far, you have persistently deleted the only rebuttal from Carson that used to be in the article, while insisting on a paraphrase that assumes the SPLC's position is the correct one. That has no balance whatsoever. Nemd57 (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should not use the SPLC's rhetoric sourced directly from them, but when covered in secondary sources, the SPLC's comments become noteworthy. I also agree that the current version is not optimal, although I think it is better than the quote-laden version.

Here is a pretty good source that covers Carson's initial remarks, the SPLC listing, the criticism that the SPLC received, and the apology from the SPLC: [1] There is no reason why we can't rewrite this paragraph from this source, in a concise way. There is no value to including Carson's statement in it's entirety, as it should go without saying that he objects to the SPLC's criticism of his remarks. Quote mining is not a good direction to take with this article.- MrX 03:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree to using the source you suggested, which pretty much says what my summary did (complete with the same quote from the SPLC's website that I used). I can draw up a draft unless you want to. Nemd57 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if you could draft something that would be good. Can we try to leave out quotes?- MrX 14:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Obama Czars

Why is calling a governmental official a czar acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.11.116 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the reason: those are the words used by Dr. Carson, not those of Wikipedia: "Carson said he doesn't agree with President Barack Obama's appointment of Ron Klain, who is Vice President Joe Biden's former chief of staff, as Ebola czar, or that a czar is even needed. "We certainly have enough czars already," said Carson. "There's nothing in our constitution that allows for the appointment of czars." He pointed out that the heads of several different agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or secretary of Health and Human Services, could coordinate efforts on Ebola. "This is absolute political nonsense," he said of Klair's appointment." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

CPAC puts Dr Ben Carson in 4th place

He is popular at the Conservative Political Action Conference gleaming 4th place in the final straw poll.[2] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How much weight should that be given? In context with past CPAC straw polls maybe, or other similar straw polls.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments on homosexuality

Consideration for inclusion; Ben Carson: Prisons show homosexuality is a choice because inmates go in straight, leave gay. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, insufficient weight. If this is often repeated, and cited by multiple reliable sources, than reconsider. Right now, I say too soon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the amount of media coverage so far, plus additional overgraze of the apology, I think we're good now. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent notifications

I sometimes get notifications when changes are made to this article, but for some reason, I'm not always notified when changes are made. Any suggestions as to why? Thanks! The Sackinator (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@The Sackinator: perhaps Wikipedia:Notifications might be able to help.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! —The Sackinator (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

West Point Scholarship

What is a West Point scholarship? There is no tuition at West Point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.15.253 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. It was an appointment, not a scholarship. Fixed. PrairieKid (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015

I think a sentence or two about Ben Carson plagiarizing should in be this article.

It is well known that Ben Carson plagiarized parts of his 2012 book "America the Beautiful". He even publicly issued an apology for his plagiarism. You can look at this comparison for further proof.

Cpaloia (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not NPOV

This article is not NPOV, and missing significant criticism of Carson. Here are some sources that could be used in this regard.

• http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/two-background-players-join-the-2016-fray-carly-fiorina-and-ben-carson/
• http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201504/ben-carson-tea-party

- Cwobeel (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Just because an article doesn't have every single bit of criticism of a public figure doesn't mean it's missing a neutral point of view. This article has a lot of criticism directed towards him in it, particularly towards his comments about gays and pedophiles, as well as the SPLC labeling him an extremist. Putting every bit of criticism of a public figure in a Wikipedia article would be too much recentism, and it would be criticism overkill. There's too much criticism of him to fit in a Wikipedia article, all of it doesn't have to go in. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)