Talk:Jerome Corsi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Jerome Corsi/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Cleveland  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cleveland, the scope of which includes Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland Area; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Corsi calls for impeachment of George W. Bush[edit]

Corsi has called for George W. Bush's impeachment many times. I think this needs to be incorporated into the article somehow. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/the-obama-overr.html

Do we have a direct link to where Corsi says this? We66er (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJRYzuLehT8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see someone added it to the article. Has he said this in his WorldNetDaily articles? We66er (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Material from the Freep[edit]

It would seem to me that the decision to include Corsi's personal opinions from the Free Republic website is improper material for a NPV article.

why is that? no viewpoint is offered of these political opinions. it simply states that he is controversial partially because these Free Republic postings became publicly known. that's not point of view, it's reporting a highly public controversy and documenting part of the reason. since his work is political in nature, a controversy over his politics seems relevant to me. also, we report perhaps unflattering publlic utterances by many figures, such as michael moore and ann coulter. is it pov to report those?
Corsi has apologized, which means, he admits they were in poor taste.[1] Furthermore, he has been called a bigot.[2][3][4][5] That people have this view of his comments is noteworthy considering this remarks are racist. Such as, "The book includes lines that some might consider racially insensitive, such as, ' Obama's mother chose another Third World prospect for her second husband, a second man of color, to be her mate '."[6] WP:NPOV reads "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" are to be included. Wikipedia does not censor comments that are "mean." We66er (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about bias[edit]

This article is blatently biased against Corsi and is far from NPOV. This is one more example of liberal control over Wikipedia -- a state of affairs which, ultimately, will doom this experiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.255.134 (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The evidence presented at Wikipedia against Corsi is supported in voluminous academic, journalistic, and political studies. Corsi's racially tinged discourse and his politically motivated falsehoods and slander make him the very living definition of racist, liar, and demagogue. This is one Wikipedia entry that is amply and clearly cited, and the tone of the article is judicious -- far too judicious--considering what an execrable character he reveals himself to be via his loathsome revival of unrepentant, long-lived McCarthyism that the Republican Party's Rightwing culture has bequeathed to the nation's politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.167.14 (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that you think Wikipedia exists to fight "Rightwing" culture? It is amply cited alright, chock full of quotes from "Media Matters," Hillary Clinton's propaganda machine. Aletheon (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not exist to attack any view, but to present things the way they are. Corsi's views are controversial (North American Union, 9/11 Truth Movement, abiotic oil, Democratic politicians[7], etc) and the article needs to reflect that. PS Media Matters, isn't ran by Clinton. On contrary to your conspiracy, it was started and ran by David Brock- author of such attack books as The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. We66er (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The point is that Media Matters should not be used as a credible third-party news source for Wikipedia articles. They do not perform a neutral journalistic function. Their own stated purpose on their website admits that they are anti-conservative, thus, reporting their views on Wikipedia in a context where they appear to be "factual rebuttals" is in violation of neutrality. As for their connection to Hillary, why did she herself claim to have founded Media Matters, if she isn't closely involved? Aletheon (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You got a cite for that? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd like to see a cite for that too. Also I'd like Aletheon to demonstrate, in the particular instances in this article, why he doubts the crediblity of MM. Again, I'm asking for specific demosnrations of the particular claims in this article, not some Bill O'Reilly style attack accusing "the left" of some giant conspiracy. Also since Corsi has publiclty criticized MM's criticisms and even has debated their representatives, it seems like it would only be a political move to remove their criticism because of their "anti-conservativism." But I'll hear you out. Iii33lll (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to say that wherever I find statements and criticisms from MM about anything cited in Wikipedia, it is clearly noted that they are a non-conservative organization and the reader must take that for what it's worth. If you know cases where this is not the case, Aletheon, treat it like any other cite to a strong-POV source, just as you would a criticism from Accuracy in Media. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I cited my source quite clearly, Media Matters' own website. Re-read, carefully, what I wrote above. Neither "Orangemike" nor "Iii33lll" have given a substantive response to my challenge of Media Matters as a credible (read: neutral) third-party source of information. Aletheon (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Provide a direct link where Clinton "herself claim to have founded Media Matters." Also being non-neutral doesn't disqualify it as a source. Should we remove all references to Fox News (Fox News Channel controversies) too?
The Media Matters links in there: 1) on their criticism for Unfit to Command 2) one identifying Media Matters, with their platform, 3) on their criticism of Obama Nation 4) on Corsi's controversial internet postings (which is cited alongside other sources) 5) on Corsi and a MM representative debating on Larry King. You need specific examples that contradict or discredit what's in the article (only 5 MM links out of 88). MM doesn't cite anything that others haven't said. Their view gets heard too. We66er (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
So no source? I didn't think so... We66er (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
To the quibbling and equivocating anonymous pontificator from New York, you, also, fail to give any cogent reason why Media Matters should be considered a credible (which in this context means neutral) third-party source of information. Aletheon (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
We frequently cite the likes of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Well, both of those media outlets have lied to me. I cannot recall any instance in which a Media Matters for America statement proved to be inaccurate. JamesMLane t c 10:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Aletheon resorts to the very same low-road, high cant as does his putative "tribune," the extremely mendacious Jerome Corsi, to wit: When challenged on the logical fallacies and blatant mendaciousness of his "arguments," Corsi resorts to the risibly ridiculous riposte that his critics engage in "quibble" and "equivocating." And now we see that Aletheon resorts to same said "strategy." Now that we have established the slatternly slavishness of said Aletheon with respect to his "tribune" of choice, let us further educate Aletheon thus to the fallaciousness of his "reasoning": "To quibble" is to make a "slight objection or criticism." But in fact, this "pontificator" of New York excoriated Corsi for his (a) "racially tinged discourse and his politically motivated falsehoods and slander,” which make him (b) “the very living definition of racist, liar, and demagogue.”

But then, perhaps Aletheon, like so many Right wing Conservatives, consider racially tinged discourse, politically motivated falsehoods, and slander merely worthy of, well, a "quibble."

As to the demonstrably false charge of "equivocating," I riposte by way of repost, as it were: Voilà, three academic sources that both provide illuminating histories about the origins of the paranoid style of American Right wing politics while exposing, cataloguing, and critiquing their debasing, destructive means and ends: 1) "Anatomy of Fascism," Robert Paxton (Columbia University) 2) "Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right," L. McGirr (Harvard University) 3) "The Paranoid Style in American Politics: And Other Essays" (Richard Hofstadter, late of Columbia University).

With respect to the utterly unrespectable and coarse Corsi, the Wikipedia entry on his infamy provides ample citation, of which I not only alluded to in my original posts, but also provided the aforementioned academic works for contextual support.

By contrast, Aletheon has made only baseless – not to mention base -- charges that Hillary Clinton "founded" Media Matters. Upon this crude canard, Corsi's acolyte then claims, laughably, that Media Matters is thus not a valid source. Au contraire. First, Media Matters for America (MmfA) a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and author DAVID BROCK, a former Right wing hatchet man, is not a Hillary Clinton vehicle. MMfA bases its withering critiques on a range of sources that includes the mainstream media of record, e.g., The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, and the actual documented historical and legal record versus the lies and paranoid hysteria Conservative demagogues trade in as a matter of course (see the aforementioned classic, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics: And Other Essays").

For example, in a recent article, MMfA refuted a false claim by David Freddoso, a Conservative partisan, in which said partisan charged that the Illinois Department of Public Health and a letter from the Illinois attorney general's office takes to task Obama's statements with respect to the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. Much to Feddoso's chagrin --assuming he has any sense of shame ––i MMfA reprints the germane section of the letter, which clearly shows that Freddoso willfully "misrepresents" (e.g., distorts, lies, prevaricates, etc.) as to what said document actually states (refer to http://mediamatters.org/, last accessed 8/20/08).

So, let us look at the score: 1) New York Pontificator proves that he EXCORIATED Corsi, not "quibbled" with the sot, as Aletheon so falsely claimed. 2) New York Pontificator demonstrates that Aletheon either does not know the meaning of "quibble" or willfully misuses the word to advance a false notion. 3) New York Pontificator demonstrates that Aletheon attempts to misrepresent the facts yet again in his false charge of "equivocation," given that Big Apple’s Pontificator has posted this extended, annotated riposte, and finally [home run] 4) New York Pontificator cites definitive works by noted scholars, whereas Aletheon merely restates his earlier falsehoods, as if repeating Rightwing twaddle would somehow convince the readership that down is up, rubbish is gold, and Conservative demagoguery is the light of reason.

No. they aren't.

Well, gee, Aletheon, you are down not by just three, but all four points. If this were baseball, the New York pontificator would have made all of the bases and strolled safetly to home. And you? You struck out and then some. "Damn Yankees," huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.167.14 (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Quoting someone who calls Corsi a neoconservative and a conspiracy theorist is a joke. Why don't you quote me while you're at it. That's not a legitimate source of information or a fact at all. Comments like that have no business being on this site and should not be presented as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.164.156 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This posting is so unprofessional that I have been motivated to join the wiki movement to make sure it stays on track. I was researching Mr. Corsi and found it impossible to learn anything factual. This is a high profile post and it has ametuer moderation. I think collaborative projects like this are the future but my faith has been rattled and confidence weakened by this pitiful display of opinion and no objective facts. This is an editorial and has no place in a reference library. Shame on the moderator. You are contributing to the downfall of this medium. Inserting opinion does not keep the project alive but kills it. No ones mind is soft enough to be persuaded by a one sided argument and those that question the material are repelled upon discovery of bias. As well even if there is a well established argument, a reference source is not a good forum for argument. Perhaps argument can be a node but not all encompassing. CheckItDontWreckIt (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph was biased, ending with 3 cherry picked authors who criticize Dr. Corsi's 2 New York Times best sellers as having "innacuracies". What about the many people who consider his books credible and pushed it to the top of the NY Times Best Seller List? If he was not credible, people would not buy his books. I added "yet were deemed accurate enough by the public to become best sellers" to the first paragraph. This is an undeniable objective fact, and should be included in Wikipedia. University Internet Cafe Booth 6 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying the reason it was on the best sellers list was because it was viewed as accurate? There seem to be clear evidence that the books were best sellers, but implying it was due to being "accurate enough" appears to be original research. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV marker[edit]

An NPOV marker has been applied to this page, but there is no ongoing discussion. What is the problem? -Willmcw 08:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is further discussion, I'm pulling the NPOV tag. -Willmcw 23:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I certainly thought it is pov. But not because of the quotes, but because it lingers on negative things about him. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is less POV now. HKTTalk 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
So long as they're presented in a factual, balanced manner I don't see the problem.
I added some of the plagiarism allegations that Debbie Schlussel has made against him.
I also think there should be some more material about his impromptu alliance with Jim Gilchrist, and his work in the Iranian freedom/no nukes for Iran movement.
Personally, I think Corsi is a complete and utter fraud, who latches onto noble, popular causes, e.g. the campaign against John Kerry, the fight against illegal immigration, the movement against the IRI, etc., in hopes of enriching himself and attracting publicity.
That being said, I won't insert my own admittedly biased opinions into this article.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not read Corsi's books and have no view which of his criticisms of Bush, McCain, Kerry, Obama and others are valid. But I was immediately struck by how much this article is an "attack piece" prior to an important election:

1) NPOV doesn't require "further discussion" to stay. Once it's been shown not to be neutral, the point doesn't need to be made again.

2) But just in case the reasons this article is not NPOV have been missed, here are three principles: (a) If someone's views have been attacked and you cite the attacks, you should also cite the defenses offered by the person himself or his supporters. (b) If you select criticism of his views of Kerry or Obama, you should also cite some of his strong arguments against those men so the reader can judge. (c) the neutral way is not to give a laundry list of criticisms of a political activist, but to simply say some have one view, some have another. And you either omit BOTH or you include BOTH.

3)The article includes -nothing- supporting anything Mr. C says and is full of quotes or statements of people who have a viewpoint but *only* those who criticize his views, his integrity, etc. (I suspect if you went to the National Review or WorldNetDaily or even the Wall Stree Journal on the right, to balance the New York Times and mainstream press on the other side, you would have been able to find pages and pages of his arguments and of support for his arguments.)

Here are examples from the article of 'piling on' with only critics being cited.

Below, in brackets, I indicate why the NPOV of view is violated no less than six separate occasions:


i) “ [his books] have received much criticism, including allegations of serious factual errors”

--- [Has it not also received much praise? Including claims that he is –accurate- on many serious factual matters?

ii) “The book was criticized for containing interviews with people who did not serve with Kerry, and many who did serve with Kerry called the book's claims false.[28] Of those interviewed for the book, some asserted that their statements were edited to strip out material favorable to Kerry.[29]”

--- [Is it invalid to include comments about Kerry which relate to issues outside of his military service, or to raise questions about him by people who did not serve? What about those who “did serve with Kerry” who called the books claims true? Do footnotes prove that this is the only point of view possible?]

iii) “a number of controversial comments — some interpreted to be anti-Islam, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic and homophobic[30] — made by Corsi”

--- [What were these comments? Is it worth including if someone ‘interprets’ something but someone else would interpret it in a very different way? Or is this just a smear given permanence in a Wikipedia entry?]

iv) “The Obama campaign issued a 40 page rebuttal called "Unfit for Publication" on his website FightTheSmears.com, alleging serious factual errors.[41] The Democratic National Committee responded calling him "One of the most vile smear peddlers of the 2004 election" and he was "too crazy even for Swiftboat liars."[42] According to various American news sources, many of the accusations made in the book are unsubstantiated, misleading, or inaccurate.”

--- [What about those news media or even websites or bloggers who have a different point of view? Surely they EXIST for a book atop the best seller list with thousands of enthusiastic readers?]

v) “The Obama Nation has been criticized by Paul Waldman as being "filled with falsehoods", [56] and in a debate with Corsi on Larry King Live, Waldman accused Corsi of using baseless innuendo as a tactic to 'smear' Obama.[57]”

--- [What about a differing point of view? What about some of arguments the author himself offers?

vi) “...has accused Corsi of plagiarizing”

--- [What about a defense? Hasn’t anyone defended him on this charge? If you are going to include one, why don't you slip in the other?]

<>Ulysses

Errmmm... because it's difficult if not impossible to find a reliable source that backs up his claims? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What one needs to do in NPOV is either not present unproven opinions at all (accusations of plagiarism without proof would certainly be an unsubstantiated opinion, as well as all the exclusively negative reviews of this individual) or present reasonably articulate representatives of both sides.

Not cherry pick to find only those who support a POV on a controversial person or issue and then label only them (and all of them) as 'reliable sources'.

And, just to avoid straw men, one needs to allow the person being attacked to have his -best- arguments quoted. To speak articulately for himself.

Remember that if the viewpoints on the other side are weak or poorly reasoned, the reader must be allowed to see them and weigh them for himself.

Otherwise, Orangemike, you are engaged in manipiulation - something akin to brainwashing or thought control in the guise of an encyclopedia article.

(Respond to my previous post in more detail if you still want a serious argument.)

<>Ulysses


Most all of you are talking slander against someone. This is supposed to be factual. Your "opinions" of this man either way have no place in this forum. Remove your need to convince and persuade. Simply discuss. This is my first time posting on Wikipedia and having just read the talk page guidlines most of you are in violation of it. Read it.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtrequired (talkcontribs) 19:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Military Service?[edit]

I see no mention of Jerome Corsi's military service, which I believe is fair as he besmirched one of American's Viet Nam heroes (i.e. John Kerry).Sea Wolf 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source covering his military service, or lack of it, then add it (with neutral wording). However we shouldn't editorialize by drawing a connection betwqeen his own career and that of the people he criticizes. Movie reviewers don't have to have made films, and pundits don't need to have been politicians. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Will is right, of course; I may suspect Corsi is just another chickenhawk, but that suspicion has no place here unless it is both true and a major source of criticism in verifiable venues. --Orange Mike 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Will, Oh, I truly think a connection can be drawn between his own career and those he criticizes with erroneous data. I believe a far more eloquent Will once wrote, "He jests at scars that never felt a wound."Sea Wolf 01:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's been mentioned in the press that one of his books is about veteran's views even though he isn't a veteran. We66er (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Corsi's statement that Barack Obama endorses abortion even after the birth of the child[edit]

The item which repeats Corsi's statement that Barack Obama endorses abortion even after the birth of the child is entirely correct. I witnessed just tonight Sean Hannity repeating that charge (out of many) from Corsi's book on Obama, to which Corsi instantly agreed and confirmed that was his charge.

It would seem obvious that this charge is contained in Corsi's recent hatchet job book on Obama as this was the topic of discussion when the claim was made.

The article says citation needed. I suggest that Corsi's book be used as the citation, though no amount of money could get me to read it myself. Perhaps some other more daring soul could find this charge within the book and then provide the citation called for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.69.209 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Include Corsi's 9/11 conspiracy interview/ research?[edit]

As reported in the press, Corsi's interview with Alex Jones about a 9/11 conspiracy is popular on the internet. Should we add a link under "external links" (listen here) to the offical interview? Or to the youtube audio mentioned? --Iii33lll (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Has this been posted anywhere with a bit more editorial oversight than a blog? It might be suitable for a mention, but I'm dubious. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
A google search for ("jerome Corsi" "alex jones") turns up 23,000 google hits. Just today its mentioned in the press here: [8][9][10] and on Obama's page. Since this appears to have been recently discovered, likely by his critics, it seems relevant to mention and will likely draw interest in the next coming weeks. It's silly not to include this given the interest in Corsi's research and work. Iii33lll (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Fair enough. I see you also linked the same on The Obama Nation and haven't yet been contested (it may be more appropriate over there, in the long run?). I'll put it back in, for now, pending any further discussion or opinions from other editors. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Also the story popped up in the foreign press. Iii33lll (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It also in [11] and is mentioned in Obama's rebuttal.[12] We66er (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

North American Union[edit]

Maybe the article should discuss the North American Union conspiracy more? He talks about it a lot: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] We66er (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just expanded it. We66er (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Even more Corsi talking about a North America Union. Corsi radio, "conspiracy", on criticism from conservatives over it, defends Paul on it, replace the US and Republicans and the conspiracy. As Corsi even notes, people have called his claims on the North American Union "a crazy conspiracy (conservatives criticism him here).
Criticism towards Corsi about a North American Union: [22][23][24][25][26] Iii33lll (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Corsi talking about a North American Union[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]
Corsi being criticized for it:[42] [43][44][45][46][47][48]
Combining these, it seems like there a lot here for a larger portion to be added. Iii33lll (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Abiotic oil is a fringe view[edit]

Corsi's view of abiotic oil is a WP:FRINGE view and must be reported as such. 1) The abiotic oil article gives the history of the concept and explained it only has standing in certain circles in Russian-Ukrainian (former Soviet Union). 2) As the article cited on the Corsi wiki page reviews the history of the idea, the actual science behind the theory is lacking. Thus, by WP:ATT the dispution to the author it makes it sound as if this theory is accepted when in fact he reviews the history to say it does not have consensus in academia. The source for the claim and other information is wiki-linked, demonstrating the fringe view. Corsi is not a scientist and wikipedia must present claims based on due weight.

Until Corsi or others convince the scientific community Petroleum#Formation is wrong the article will present Corsi's claim as WP:FRINGE. We66er (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not So Fast[edit]

The comments in the article to the effect that the abiotic oil idea is utterly daft and not worthy of further consideration are a bit over the top. See for example the Wikipedia article on Thomas Gold. He was a respectable scientist, pretty much an establishment scientist at that, who is fondly remembered for his contributions. Actually he was quite distinguished and was frequently honored by his peers. He was one of the originators of the abiotic origin theory.

Also, I'd drop the snide insinuation that Corsi believes that others think that oil is formed from "dinosaurs", rather than from algae or whatever. Is there no "milk" in human kindness then? It's called a metaphor.75.165.82.251 (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Abiotic oil a "conspiracy theory"?[edit]

Well, I guess there must have been (or is) lots of life on Titan then, because it's got seas of hydrocarbons. I can understand why there might be disagreement on this issue, but to call it a "conspiracy theory"? It's a scientific hypothesis and in science it's not truth by consensus. We know with good confidence that hydrocarbons can be created without life. If this postulate is false, that would mean that Titan indeed at one time had lifeforms. Have we seen what is called oil created by the decomposition of living material - and is there a theory on how biological lifeforms transform into what we call "oil"? Not yet.

The two hypothesis aren't even incompatible. It could very well be that hydrocarbons we mine are created abiotically, and biotically both. To call this a "conspiracy theory", seems more to do with left over Cold War hysteria than established fact. In fact, it may turn out that the path to abiogenesis starts with abiotic hydrocarbons in which case it would suggest that both hypotheses are correct.

BTW, methane has been detected on Mars as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.176.58 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

When discussing Cori's book on the subject, this article itself implicitedly acknowledges that Corsi's view are (perhaps now) non-fringe. So I removed the reference from the lede because it previously suggested Corsi's view were fringe. Weazie (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Corsi and claims that the government planned 9/11[edit]

From THE NEW YORK TIMES http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/anti-obama-author-on-911-conspiracy/

Mr. Corsi says, “The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he’s produced,” Mr. Corsi said. “So when you’ve got science that the hypothesis doesn’t explain–evidence–then the hypothesis doesn’t stand anymore. It doesn’t mean there’s a new hypothesis you’ve validated. It just means the government’s explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres–these microscopic spheres–that Steven Jones has proved existed within the W.T.C. dust.”

This needs to be mentioned. His connection to the 9/11 Truth movement has been cited in many stories in the media, lately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in there, read the article. We66er (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Obama Overreach: Refuting A Few of Corsi’s Smears By Re-Writing History (ABC NEWS)[edit]

See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/the-obama-overr.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heardt (talkcontribs) 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What should we included about it? The author calls Corsi a 9/11 Truther and highlighted an issue and said "But that’s one man’s opinion." Then, "Certainly it’s not “baseless” to question why Obama was using Patrick’s words as his own without crediting him . . ." Should we also included the same allegation made against John McCain?[49] I don't think either is valuable enough for an entry mention.
That article hightlights that issue "it doesn’t belong alongside the more unhinged Corsi smears." It also says Obama's response confused "anti-Israel" with "anti-semite." Though the author concludes, "I’m not defending Corsi. Much of what he writes is troubling and fictional."
I don't see where we can add these two minor issues since they have little value, especially when that article calls into question Corsi's work. But I'm open to hear some ideas. Iii33lll (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist[edit]

Him being a promoter of conspiracy theories needs mentioned in the lead not only because of many sources, but because the majority of his books, four, are about it compared to his political attack books, two.

  • Black Gold Stranglehold: "expose[s] the fraudulent science that has been sold to the American people in order to enslave them."
  • Atomic Iran: Democratic politicians are corrupted by Iranian money and are helping the mullahs, who seek nuclear weapons, in Tehran.[50]
  • The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada: "I began to see a pattern of North American integration under SPP that developed into the major argument of my current New York Times best-selling book, "The Late Great USA"[51]
  • Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders: "President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," ... His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union."[52]

Thus, the lead needs to explain what some, in this case the majority of his work has been called. The four books are conspiracies. And that doesn't even include all of this internet columns linked above. We66er (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Material[edit]

1) Barack Obama is NOT in favor of abortion after birth... that is stupid, ignorant, fallacious and an absolute lie and should be clearly identified as such. To allow such a falsehood to go unchallenged is inexcusable. Obama's votes of "present" in the Illinois Senate, while seemingly evasive, are quite politically adept. Such votes are neither "yes" nor "no". Simultaneously protecting vulnerable members in conservative districts and avoiding personal attacks from the majority Republicans. see http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html

2) Poor Corsi couldn't perform in the service of his country :( He has eczema according to his appearance on "CPAN This Weekend" this morning (8/16/08). I personally watched it.

3) The majority of his sites ("footnotes") are either to himself, one of his blogs, or some right-wing, mostly discredited blogs. He calls himself a journalist (he fails to use the appropriate adjective, yellow). Common opinions identify his "books" to be screeds.

4) Media Matters at least researches their blogs. Lplzydeco (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)lplzydeco in Denver, CO

How do these statements add to the article in question? I see nothing at adds or improves upon it simply a defense for Mr. Barak Hussein Obama. This is not a place for discussion or topics only about improving this article.Jason 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well sourced material material from reliable sources may be a "defense" for Obama in your book, but its wikipedia policy and common sense. You can't just make stuff up because you don't like a canidate. We66er (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama "questioned whether the born alive legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated Born Alive would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies." He went on to say "[Let] nature be done" and "What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.” http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

There is no such thing as "abortion after birth", since abortion is defined as "the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." Providing no medical for an infant is homicide, and has been tried as such for those that do not provide medical care for anyone from infants to the elderly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.164.156 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nationality[edit]

Can somebody re add nationality to the lead. I was removed recently without explaination by an IP. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What's an explaination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.125.82 (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Today's Irish Times cites this article[edit]

I never heard of this Jerome Corsi guy, but his claims are the subject of a very critical article in The Irish Times this morning. 'Using a PhD as a weapon of mass disinformation': http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0826/1219679947282.html 86.42.119.12 (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's completely inappropriate and misleading self-promotion. Have changed this article's offending first sentence. Nwe (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The controversy paragraph of the article is the more appropriate area to list controversial questions and criticisms. Replacing the lead sentence of this article with negative opinions of the individual, or criticisms, distorts the point of view of the whole article to one which is obviously not NPOV. Such criticism and a reference to the Irish Times criticism are significant, but let's work together to maintain NPOV and list controversies involving the individual where they are in similar biographical articles. Best regards. Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing even remotely controversial about the straightforward description of Corsi as a conspiracy theorist (see above discussion). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
4 out of his 6 books allege a conspiracy. To remove that would be inaccurate not give WP:DUE to what people say about him. He's a conspiracy theorist. We66er (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist?[edit]

Nice editorial, dumbasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.51.9 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not disparage other editors and call them names. I've added a citation supporting this characterization of Corsi. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Corsi being a promoter of conspiracy theories needs mentioned in the lead not only because of many sources, but because the majority of his books, four out of six, are about it compared to his political attack books, two.
  • Black Gold Stranglehold: "expose[s] the fraudulent science that has been sold to the American people in order to enslave them."
  • Atomic Iran: Democratic politicians are corrupted by Iranian money and are helping the mullahs, who seek nuclear weapons, in Tehran.[53]
  • The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada: "I began to see a pattern of North American integration under SPP that developed into the major argument of my current New York Times best-selling book, "The Late Great USA"[54]
  • Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders: "President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," ... His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union."[55]
or look at the articles
Corsi talking about a North American Union[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]
Corsi being criticized for it:[71] [72][73][74][75][76][77]
There is ample sources calling him a conspiracy theorist, which should be reflected in the lead. We66er (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the information should be given, but it would be better to describe the topics covered by his books and mention the cited opinions of critics and let readers figure it out themselves. WP readers are smarter than you might think. :-) Redddogg (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Several WP:RS notes he has been called a conspiracy theorist. Certainly a mention of it in the body is relevant to his writings. As such, WP:V is the rule of thumb here in describing his work. We66er (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

New NPOV[edit]

This blatantly partisan article about a Blatantly Partisan individual is borderline libelous. http://www.nndb.com/people/244/000059067/ Jerome corsi is a practicing Catholic that was and is disgusted with the actions of the Hierarchy of his Church, as many Catholics are. I understand that partisans hate him for going after Democrat Party Presidential Nominees, but this isn't the place to vent. They imply that he is comparable to some Anti Papal KKK member that took delight in the Church Abuse Scandal and took candid dialogue out of context. His book The Obama Nation had been throughly lawyered, so by their standard I could go to Obama's Wiki Page and start posting the content from his book, which I'm sure would last all of 5 minutes there. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, you allow them to post innuendo from the Nation and other Partisan Rags with axes to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosthatolboy (talkcontribs) 05:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you're not raising an issue regarding this particular Wikipedia article; instead, you're talking about some other article at nndb.com, which I don't think anyone here has even suggested is a reliable source. "This is not a forum for general discussion of Jerome Corsi." Mike Doughney (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Corsi has been criticized by liberals, conservatives, media personalities, etc. is of little concern here. Wikipedia articles are based on WP:V from WP:RS. Simply put, the majority of sources regard his work as false, polemic political attacks. Thus, the article reflects that. If you want to discuss making changes to other wikipedia articles, I suggest you discuss that on that repsective wikipedia talk page.
Furthermore, can you give examples of "innuendo" in the article. If you can we can fix it. We66er (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I also posted a POV tag. I don't object to giving the readers any amount of cited information which makes Mr. Corsi look bad. However I think the tone and wording should be a bit more neutral. For instance calling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. Also the incident in Kenya is very minor (unless they kill him ;-)) and should be moved down the page. Redddogg (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in both cases. Both issues should be moved down, out of the intro. We66er (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I took my tag off, not because the article is perfect but because it is being improved. Redddogg (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:

This article could have been a press release from the Obama Campaign. I flagged this because it seemed partisans wanted to impugn this man because he wrote books they didn't like. sure, you can talk about his faults and his gaffes, you don't have to employ all out character assasination against him. This is the equivilent of me posting malicious inneundo about Maureen Dowd or Keith Olbermann just because I found a partisan source to corraberate my assertions. The nndb source was to establish his Roman Catholic Faith. Wiki wouldn't tolerate my doing this to a Left Wing Pundit or Columnist, I just want the same standards applied. Sorry about the gap, I had forgotten about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosthatolboy (talkcontribs) 23:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the intro?[edit]

I really don't think he is a neoconservative, even if one source did say so. Mostly they are pro-Bush internationalists. He seems to be best known as an author, maybe the subjects of each of his books can be mentioned in the intro. Then his conspiracy nature would be evident without having to say so. Could we add something like "activist" to "author" as his secondary notability? Redddogg (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV thing to do would be to report all sides of the matter. For example, "Corsi has been called 'neo-conservative' by the CSM, and XX by YY." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems like only one source called him that.Redddogg (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
What do other sources call him? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
If they say anything they mostly just say he is on the right. I think "far-right" or "right-wing" would be better than "neoconservative." Redddogg (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I would change it but I just made some other edits to the intro and I want to see how those fly first. Redddogg (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not for us to decide what he is. We're just here to report what reliable sources say. If sources diagree, we describe the disagreement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about the fifth word in the article. I don't think we can stop there to give various disagreeing opinions. Either "conservative" or "right-wing" would reflect the general way he is viewed, better than "neoconservative." Redddogg (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We don't need to describe his political orientation in the fifth word of the article. If the matter is disputed it might be better to move it later in the intro, or even to the main article. It looks now like the article uses the CSM as a source for "right wing", though I don't see that term in the source. Am I missing it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I will take out the word altogether then. I have a feeling that will not be popular with the other editors. In general articles on people like Mr. Corsi have words like "controversial", "neoconservative", "right-wing", etc. as close to the start as possible. :-) Redddogg (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I was't suggesting deleting it outright, just sourcing it properly and describing the dispute, if any. But where it is covered we should only use sources that actually support the assertions we're making, and conversely, we should only assert what we find in sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I like it better without an adjective there. There is not really a dispute. When he attacks the Democrats he is called a right-winger. When he attacks the Republicans he is called a conspiracy theorist. Redddogg (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
What are the first two sources for? I don't see the word "activist" in either source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think they just establish that he exists. I personally feel that an introduction can be written without every word coming from a source. You can disagree and you might be right. However, what he is doing seems to be activism to me. Redddogg (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
When we delete sourced information we should delete the sources too, not simply move them to other statements that aren't in the sources, as that would mislead readers. I've now deleted them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I took out "activist." The sources almost always call him an author, or the author of such and such book. Redddogg (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It't not hard ot find a source that calls him a "conservative activist". I've added that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Good job. I think the opening sentence now describes him well and I will not criticize your source. :-) Redddogg (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

George Obama[edit]

I took out the information that he wanted to give money to George Obama. This is very trivial. Also George Obama's statement that he would not accept the money seems kind of worthless since we don't know the circumstances of him saying that. Redddogg (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivial according to whom? Are we only allowed to quote people if we know the full circumstances of their comments? I'm not aware of that policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
According to the sources George Obama never met Corsi. Why should a statement by him be quoted in this article? I can well imagine that he was told that this American who hates Barack Obama came to Kenya to give him money. What would you expect him to say to that? If he had said, "Yeah, I would like him to give me some money" he might be afraid of being thought a traitor. p.s. The whole stunt was intended as publicity for the book and against Barack Obama. We already say that his reason for going to Kenya was to promote the book and he got kicked out.Redddogg (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the basis for your objection to the quotation. Can we include a quote from one person about another only if they've met personally? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
What does the statement by George Obama that he would not accept money from Jermoe Corsi have to do with Mr. Corsi, who is the subject of this article? I am sure that there are plenty of statements by people who do have something to say that could be included if we feel the article needs more quoted opinions. I think it gives a good picture of Corsi as it is now. Redddogg (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That last is probably the best reason I've heard yet. If we went with a "personal acquaintance" standard we'd have to cut countless quotations from articles across the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
How does adding the fact that Mary Matalin is the chief editor for the division that published one of his books help us to give a good picture of Corsi? We aren't asserting that she agrees or with or endorses his book, are we? Should we mention the president of Simon & Schuster too? How is it relevant to his biography? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that being removed, but then I wasn't the one who put it in. (I just reworded it so that it wasn't an exact quote which seemed kind of awkward.) Redddogg (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It might be relevant to the book, but that's covered in it's own article. I'll remove it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW the "controversy" about Barack Obama's relationship with George Obama is not mentioned on the Obama family article. Why should it be brought up here? (As for myself, I don't have a half-brother so I don't know how I would feel. I do know that historically the relationships of half-siblings have sometimes been difficult.) Redddogg (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the Obama family go to that talk page. This is the Corsi article, which is about notable things Corsi has said or done. One of those is a PR campaign, which he said he wanted to give money to George and George's thoughts on it. We66er (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't especially want to talk about George Obama. But if I did I would certainly do it on the talk page of his article, as you suggest. Redddogg (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Homophobic?[edit]

The article says he has made homophobic statements. I don't think being against the sexual abuse of children is homophobic. I don't really think the whole last paragraph about his web postings is really needed anyway. Redddogg (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Who said he is being called homophobic for "being against the sexual abuse of children"? I think you are confused. He is called homophobic by a variety of sources as "accused Corsi of being anti-Islamic, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic and homophobic, and of exploiting racial prejudices in an attempt to scare white America"."
He has been widely criticized for the comments and thus they are notable. People looking for information on him would find things he has been widely criticized for of importance. We66er (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Please quote one of his homophobic statements then. All that is quoted so far is statements about child abuse. Redddogg (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I, unlike yourself, am not interested in interpreting primary sources. Because the issue is WP:V from WP:RS. Wikipedia is not about "Truth". If you want to investigate the issue for your own interest, I suggest contacting the authors of the newspaper articles that call him that. We66er (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think that the whole "criticism and controversy" section should be removed. Second-hand allegations and web postings are usually not considered so reliable on Wikipedia. There also seems to be enough solid information on Corsi in the article already. However, I will not make an issue about it if people like the controversy section. Redddogg (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Some needs worked into the above sections. We66er (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reopening issue: I think "homophobic" should be removed. A person being called "homophobic" by a left-wing source is no more remarkable than a person being called "a member of the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world" (or whatever) by a right-wing source. Neither one should be repeated in an encyclopedia article. Redddogg (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

After rechecking the sources I couldn't find the word "homophobic" in a mainstream source, so I removed it again. Redddogg (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is what the Nation said: "Jerome Corsi (who was sidelined by the Swift Vets after news reports disclosed he had made anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim comments)..." Redddogg (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian- cited right above- isn't mainstream? It says "accused Corsi of being anti-Islamic, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic and homophobic, and of exploiting racial prejudices in an attempt to scare white America." We66er (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian (a British publication) said that the US press had made these accusations. Yet no one has found an example of a US publication calling him homophobic. Media Maters just quoted his statements, crude as they were. Redddogg (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am personally, deeply offended when the sexual abuse of children is defended in the name of "homophobia" or "religion" or "culture" or any other reason. Having said that, I think we have to use our judgement. Only one source added "homophobia" to the other 3. I think it would be fine if the article left it off. Especially since this is a biography of a living person and is subject to more strict WP rules. Redddogg (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am personally, deeply offended when the homophobic rants of a conspiracy theorist are excused with bringing up a completely unrelated issue-- sexual abuse of children. All forms of hate, including attacks on homosexuals is wrong. There are many examples of Corsi being a homophobe:

CORSI: First let's undermine the US in Vietnam. Then we can go for gay marriage. When you get to be Pres. JFK-lite, there will be no end to how much of America we can destroy. (05/17/2004)

CORSI: Perfect Liberal -- lesbian, self-absorbed, hates America, anxious to impose her values on everybody else. [on Martina Navratilova] (06/26/2002)

CORSI: And now we get Pooh-LEFTY pushed on us by the RATS as Minority Leader in the House -- here come the SanFrancisco liberals -- hope the RATS go back to focusing the debate on gay marriages and other pro-choice topics close to Pelosi's heart. (11/18/2002)[78]

Corsi fans hate. And this type of hate against gays gets people like Matthew Shepard, Paul Broussard, Jody Dobrowski, Roxanne Ellis, and many others killed. Why not get offended about that too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP1956 (talkcontribs) 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. I didn't know about these statements. When I made my comments the only statements of his in the article were ones protested the abuse of boys by men in Arab society and in the Catholic Church. Go ahead and call Corsi a homophobe then, with cites of course. Redddogg (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Activist?[edit]

I'm not denying that we have sources that call him that, but do most sources describe him as an "activist"? ([79]) It almost sounds positive. Khoikhoi 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this a bit above. If one term is most frequently used then that should be placed first, but we should include all significant viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've found that it's better to start an article out "in neutral" and let the readers make up their own minds as they go through it. :-) Redddogg (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Reporting, with the neutral point of view, what reliable sources say about a subject is how we help readers make up their minds. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Technically, "conspiracy theorist" is a point of view, so we should include that as well? Khoikhoi 07:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
If it's not what he calls himself then I wouldn't put it in the lead sentence. But yes, if that's a significant viewpoint then we should include it somewhere. WP:NPOV requires it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It is mentioned in several places that some people consider him that. Redddogg (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that Corsi considers himself to be an activist? I'm not so sure if this itself is a "significant viewpoint". I guess we can all agree on "author". Khoikhoi 01:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"Activist" is a pretty broad, and neutral term. But if there are more sources that call him author then that should go first. You don't think he's regarded as an activist by a portion of the interested population? I'd say that the AP's viewpoint is usually significant.[80] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I hate to appeal to "truth" rather than "consensus of what the sources say." But anyway, it seems like his two main purposes in life are to sell books and to promote his various theories and ideas. I think "author and activist" describes this well. "Author and advocate of fringe theories", "author and political agitator", or even "author and conspiracy theorist" would also be possible. (Just "author" does not seem like quite enough.)(BTW on WP we can take longer to consider this than a newspaper reporter who has to write the story quickly and it's not about Corsi but about the controversy he is stirring up that day.) Redddogg (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
We don't know what the "truth" is. Rather than trying to decide exactly what he is, we should just summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming that what the mainstream press says about his actions is true. However, I do think that we on WP have a little freedom in how to sum that up in one sentence. Redddogg (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the mainstream media doesn't speak with one voice. Also, we don't need to sum up everything in one sentence. All we need to do is find the most commonly used terms and place those in the lede, then discuss any remaining issues later in the intro or article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You are making a great contribution to WP Will. I have worked with you on other articles. However, I think you are going a little too far on this issue. For example: High school football. I am sure that 99.99% of newspaper articles about high school football give it totally positive coverage, while .01% talk about things like injuries and explotation and abuse of the players. Should WP's article reflect that percentage? Redddogg (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that we can accurately determine the exact percentages, nor is that the correct measurement. I don't follow high school football, but I'd imagine that most articles simply report games without actually discussing the game. Among articles that specifically discuss the game, the percentages may be different than you suggest. Getting back to policy, WP:NPOV says, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." I'm not sure what is being disputed here. Don't we all agree that the content of this article should summarize reliable sources, and exclude unsourced information? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I don't have a problem with the article. I am a little uncomfortable with the idea that WP should just be a digest of what "reliable sources" say, without us using our judgement to produce an article which accurately reflects reality. Of course I might also be misunderstanding your concept. Redddogg (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to get too abstract, but how do we determine reality in a verifiable manner other than through sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC) w
I'm with you. But we have to use our judgement too. To reuse my example: High school football has killed or injured many more people than Jerome Corsi ever did, yet its article is totally positive. Corsi, really, is just the author of a number of outrageous, offensive books. "Reliable sources" have said a lot of negative things about him, but there is freedom of speech in the USA. Just because most people don't like him, or even if he is completely wrong about everything he says doesn't mean that his article should reflect hatred towards him. Redddogg (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
If the high school football article fails to mention the deaths and injuries then it is incomplete. Likewise, if this subject is the target of negative comments in reliable sources then the article would be incomplete without mentioning that fact. The trick is to report all views in the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. Redddogg (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're right on that, though, Redddogg; I would reason that Corsi's book contributed to Shrub's election (not re-election, of course; you have to be elected to be re-elected); therefore Corsi is responsible for the deaths of the Americans and Iraqis killed since then who would have lived had Kerry been elected instead. But that's all POV and doesn't belong in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
In that case I think it would be more effective if we wrote a fair article about him, not go down to his level of unfairness. Redddogg (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WP and the TRUTH[edit]

See above:

I, unlike yourself, am not interested in interpreting primary sources. Because the issue is WP:V from WP:RS. Wikipedia is not about "Truth". If you want to investigate the issue for your own interest, I suggest contacting the authors of the newspaper articles that call him that. We66er

This is precisely what's wrong with wikipedia and the media. All you have to do is report somebody else's unsourced opinion and that becomes a "fact." Reporters reporting on reporters reporting on reporters. Yes, it's a fact that the opinion was stated, but the opinion itself is not a fact. Face it, whether you like Corsi or not, this article is biased. That's an opinion. That wikipedia is largely biased, however, is a verifiable fact. Sign me "unsigned." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.148.45 (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you are what's wrong with wikipedia. You are criticizing policy without even reading it, and clearly have no understanding of its tenets. If you really have a problem with wikipedia and are not pushing a political agenda, then go to WP:RS, WP:TRUTH and WP:V. If you make a convincing case you get policy changed.
PS I do find it funny you are criticizing wikipedia for "unsourced opinion" when wikipedia policy is WP:RS. In contrast Corsi's books are full of unsourced opinion (and yes, I do own three of his books).
PPS Articles present what available WP:RS there are. The majority of them have a low opinion of Corsi and the article reflects that. We66er (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool[edit]

I believe that he has appeared multiple times on The Political Cesspool, a white nationalist radio show; in fact, he has canceled an appearance on the show recently after Media Matters published a report of him. [81] [82] Rock8591 06:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can find sources that give that information I think it would be worth mentioning in the article. Redddogg (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Never mind; it looks like such was already incorporated into this article, before I even looked it through. Sorry. 65.189.23.127 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Edited one sentence[edit]

I edited one sentence for being POV, and other reasons. Here are the two sentences for comparison.

The Reuters report details reasons which may point to another likely reason for his detainment, which is the potential for embarrassment of the Kenyan government as a result of information to be released at the press conference which was abruptly interrupted by Kenyan immigration officials.
Press reports gave another possible reason for his detainment: accusations directed towards the Kenyan prime minister Raila Odinga allegedly to be made at the press conference, which was abruptly interrupted by Kenyan immigration officials.

I changed "Reuters report" to "press reports" because the Reuters report doesn't quote anyone on this particular point except Corsi's publicist, who only said "But the government did not want him to launch his book on Kenyan soil."

The Times report referenced "a source at Nyayo House". However, this source did not give any grounds for thinking that the government would be embarrassed by the accusations. It is equally likely that they simply didn't want Corsi making false accusations about them, and the Times report gives reason to think the accusations are false. --Mujokan (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Distributing child pornography[edit]

According to Mwenda wa Micheni in the Africa Business Daily:

Ironically, Mr Corsi has also been involved in a child pornography scandal.

In 2003, US authorities indicate, Mr Corsi was indicted for distributing child pornography, a case that eventually disappeared after he was handed a lenient judgment — something that inspired several conspiracy theories in the US.[83]


Africa Business Daily is part of Business Daily, a daily newspaper, published by the Nation Media Group. IP1956 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If the case disappeared it probably has to be rediscovered before we can mention it. Redddogg (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can one person's opinion of some of Corsi's positions be enough verification to call someone a conspiracy theorist?[edit]

That looks like what we're dealing with, especially given that the debate between Corsi and the person being cited is not waht we'd call harmonious. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's general consensus that he's a conspiracy theorist; indeed, he subscribes to several of them. Nothing controversial about that. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Where? Sources are necessary, BLP, etc. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I just looked this up and found a number that call him a conspiracy theorist. But even more to the point, he himself refers to what he calls conspiracies, such as the so-called "North American conspiracy".[84]   Will Beback  talk  05:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If Corsi refers to his theories as conspiracies, and other RS do as well, can't everyone agree that he is a conspiracy theorist? Also (in breaking news) water is wet.Capitalismojo (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That most recent link is actually a quote from the same opponent from earlier. Again - can we find a neutral, reliable source for this or not? If not, we should remove it per BLP. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Corsi does seem to be a promoter of a large number of very fringe theories. Many of the theories (e.g. birtherism, claims that President Obama is homosexual) have been widely debunked and labelled as "conspiracy theories". It would not seem WP:SYNTH to describe somebody who promotes such theories as a "promoter of conspiracy theories". --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Dubious[edit]

This idea that there has been numerous factual debunking or whatever is very poorly sourced and only reflects one side of the issue. We have 3 refs on that one - one cites the Democratic opposition, one is an op-ed referring to "Goons" and implying that Corsi is one of them, and one is the normally-reliable Factcheck.org, which I have no problem with using as a reference but having issue relying on as the single arbiter of truth in this situation. I think the wording is horribly POV and needs to change. [[User:Ed Wood's Wig|]] (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A fact is a fact, and truth is truth regardless of source. Are you saying that Democrats can not convey the truth, or Op-Ed articles can not contain facts? The content is sourced to Newsweek, which references Factcheck.org, and that meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. I reviewed that source, and they were quite clear that numerous inaccuracies and falsifications existed in Corsi's books -- and not "allegedly" so.
All that aside, we are not relying on sources as "arbiters of truth", but as explained in the very first sentence of WP:V:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
The fact that it is true is self-evident, but irrelevant in this situation. Even so, it has been documented in countless additional sources, including: ABC News, NY Times, Politico, MediaMatters, Seattle Times, etc. In some sources, Corsi even admits to "errors" but tries to wave it off. In light of all that, I don't understand your concerns about truth in this circumstance. Fortunately for us as editors, we have Wikipedia policy, and need not get bogged down by our personal feelings. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
We can just as easily find verifiable instances of those "facts" being validated. Where I stand is of no matter - I do not believe Corsi does a damn thing to advance the discussion in this country, but I think policy is not on your side on this. Specifically, I think the op ed and the use of sources that are directly opposed to him is a problem - I'm in favor of removal of those and working with the FactCheck one for sure. [[User:Ed Wood's Wig|]] (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
No, we can not just as easily find verifiable instances of those factual errors being validated. The numerous factual errors that have been shown to exist in his books have not been shown to not exist. If you believe otherwise, you are encouraged to introduce these "validations" into the article. Good luck with that.
As quoted above, policy is clear in this issue. The content is verifiably cited to a reliable source with the Newsweek citation. Therefore, the "dubious" tag is not applicable, and is used inappropriately in this instance - it has been removed. (Please note, you do not need a tag in the article to be allowed to discuss the article on this talk page.)
The other citations may be superfluous when supporting the content about "numerous documented factual errors", as we only need one citation, but I don't believe that is why they are there. The other two citations are in support of the content that says Corsi's books "were strongly criticized", and as such, are applicable. Your opinion that the Boston Globe newspaper is a source that is "directly opposed" to Corsi seems odd, and I disagree. Would you care to elaborate on that? As for op-ed pieces, they are usually not used as sources for assertation of fact, but they are valid reliable sources for opinions and criticisms of their author, if they are printed in a reliable news source. See WP:RS. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Politicized, heavily Partisan, Sophomoric entry on Wikipedia[edit]

Corsi is a critic of all parties on international policy. Again, we must call on the adults at Wikipedia to clear out the propagandist mentality and hold students to the scholarly concept of factual objectivity regarding individuals, organizations, & historical events.Wiki truth enlighten (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters for America[edit]

Notice: Media Matters for American has generally been agreed upon to be an unreliable source for Biographies of Living Persons. As such I will be removing any use of it as a reference from this article. Most of what has been written is backed up by multiple sources, but in the event that MMfA was the only source I will probably delete the corresponding info also, please feel free to re-instate the info under a new source. Thank you. Ink Falls 23:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've undone an edit that appears to remove citations to the Washington Post, Boston Globe and other sources under the pretext of removing content cited to Media Matters. Was this an oversight? I've read the discussion to which you linked above, and I see where you have expressed your opinion of MMfA as an unreliable source, but the "general agreement" indicates it may be used, and each application needs to be evaluated individually. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The other sites I took down because I thought they were blogs, I don't remember taking anything down from the Washington Post or the Boston Globe. In general what I got from that discussion is that Media Matters isn't a reliable enough source for controversial or critical claims within a BLP and I feel others would largely agree with me. That place is a cesspool (as well of right wing alternatives) where criticism of anybody right of center can be found and attached onto their article without any type of oversight.
As for the other material in the lead. I don't think it's appropriate to discuss criticism in the lead which is only there to establish notability. Ink Falls 02:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree - remove MMfA for failure to be WP:RS complaint, etc. I am amazed at all the times the MMfA soapboxers have to push MMfA into article after article as if MMfA were a legitimate source for unbiased news and information. And what a coincidence, MMfA appears not only as a supposed RS, but also in the main text of the article. It's like Kilroy was here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America has been agreed upon as unreliable by who, exactly? The reality is that they cite their own sources for every article they publish. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Article heavily slanted[edit]

This article is heavily slanted against Corsi, which is why I added the POV tag. It is true in all of the sections, but especially the introduction. I do not think that attacks against the author's books belong in the intro to an article about the author. Would we put discussions of the Harry Potter books' alleged relation to witchcraft in the first paragraph of an article about JK Rowling? That material belongs in the subsection of the article that discusses the books. Lunixer (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that his books are widely dismissed as inaccurate is central to his career and reputation. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The same argument could be made of Michael Moore and Al Gore, but those pages seem to be protected. Now why is that, exactly? And when you say "widely dismissed", it means "widely dismissed in the left-wing democratic circle of friends". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.244.145 (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
[EDIT CONFLICT] Corsi is mostly known for his books. That his books are considered by all reliable sources to be poor, inaccurate, partisan hackery is a fact. To remove this from the lede is to slant the article. Readers to deserve to be given an accurate view of him/his work in the lede: That is, the shoddy research, conspiracy and personal attacks in his work need to be reflected in the article and the lede. If you have a problem with the Gore or Moore articles-- then take it up on those article talk pages. This is the Corsi article. We are discussing Corsi's work. AhhtySen (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we would put "discussions of the Harry Potter books' alleged relation to witchcraft in the first paragraph of an article about JK Rowling", if that was the most significant factor of her notability. As noted above, Corsi is best known for his controversial, sensationalistic and fact-challenged attacks, in print, of political figures. He's quite adept, however, at exploiting the market for such material. Can the original poster give specific examples to illustrate his concerns, or perhaps propose rewording? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The three sources that are cited for the alleged factual errors are mostly liberal. We have an article titled, and I quote, "Democrats say Corsi's book full of lies, an article by Eugene Robinson, a widely known liberal (and no expert on the subject), and FactCheck.org, which alone is not enough to make this statement, and is very liberal itself (though I do consider it a reliable source). I propose rewording the second sentence in the first paragraph to: Both books, the former written in 2008 and the latter in 2004, attacked Democratic presidential candidates. Their accuracy is considered questionable by some sources. This would be similar to the wording in the second paragraph, which implies that he could be talking about "conspiracy theories" but establishes that there is debate. I am adding back the POV tag because an agreement has not been reached. Lunixer (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I do agree with 70.91.244.145 above. Shouldn't Corsi be given the same treatment on Wiki as Michael Moore, Al Gore (for his writing, not his political aspirations), and Al Franken? Their books have questionable accuracy (especially Al Gore), are widely debated in various circles, and they believe in "conspiracy theories," none of which is mentioned in their intros. Lunixer (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The Michael Moore and Al Gore articles are protected because they’re popular targets for hit-and-run IP vandalism. If that were the case for the Corsi article, it would be protected too. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 11:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The idea that factcheck.org is "very liberal" is absurd, and their reputation and reliability are such that it is enough to support such a claim in the intro with that source alone. But those three sources are hardly the only ones - that Corsi's work is riddled with falsehoods is a pretty universal view everywhere but the far right wing. By contrast, that Rowling's work supports witchcraft is a fringe view that barely belongs in an article at all, much less an introduction. Gamaliel (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"The three sources that are cited for the alleged factual errors are mostly liberal."
I am unaware of what "alleged" errors you are refering to, but we're not discussing those anyway. Let's stick with just the actual errors for purposes of this discussion, and we can discuss "alleged" ones later. The "sources" of these errors are Corsi's publications. These errors have been described and documented in dozens of publications, many of which are cited in this article. You have selected 3 of these many articles, and asserted these 3 are "mostly liberal", as if that were relevant. Are you trying to say that one must have conservative political leanings in order to document that 2+2 ≠ 7 ? Forgive me, but I don't see what you are arguing here. His books were criticized for containing numerous factual errors, a fact that is key to Corsi's noteriety, and thus is mentioned in the article lede.
As for your concerns about the Wiki-articles on Moore, Gore and Franken, you should raise those issues on the Talk pages associated with those articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Born in Ohio?[edit]

The article claims he was born in Ohio, but offers no proof. Where's the birth certificate? --TimSPC (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Section for "Where's the Birth Certificate?"[edit]

Should a section be added for "Where's the Birth Certificate?"? I know that it has it's own article already, Where's the Birth Certificate?, but there have been sections for other recent books.Naraht (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though these sections should be kept quite short. They seem rather long considering that there are already full articles on them. A single mid-length paragraph is sufficient, with a sentence or two on the thesis and another on the reception, etc.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Early career[edit]

  • In 1972 Corsi researched the political protests ...
  • In 1995 Corsi helped launch...

If any source mentions it, it'd be nice to give some indication of what the subject was doing between 1972 and 1995. It's a large gap, not that this is a resume.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this from his Amazon.com bio?

...beginning in 1981, Dr. Corsi worked with banks throughout the United States and around the world to develop financial services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and services to their retail customers.[85]

JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That looks like a sufficient source.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theorist" - WP:BLPN[edit]

I have raised an objection in WP:BLPN. Interested editors are invited to comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(per request reposted from that discussion) Clear opinions, as always, no matter who holds them, are only valid as claims of "opinion." The current standards for WP:BLP tend to make exceedingly good and strong sourcing a minimum for any such claim, I seem to recall a statement You would need a good source that called his view a conspiracy theory. It is a very strong term, and means more than a theory that a conspiracy existed which would imply a strong standard for calling any view a "conspiracy theory" and, by extension, anyone would need fully as strong a source for calling anyone a "conspiracy theorist" under the current BLP rules. I would suggest that a single source would not meet that requirement, and likely three independent sources would be a good idea. Collect (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested to note that our Birther article refers to Birther ideas as a conspiracy theory and references Corsi as a significant promoter of this conspiracy theory. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Good for the "birther article"...Obama's own brother says that he was not born in the US. Unless we are going to put conspiracy theorist on Anderson Cooper's page for his Trump/Russia theories this stuff needs to be in own section. Putting pejorative terms in the lead of the article violates wikipedia policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.76.129 (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What Obama's brother might have insinuated, or another Wikipedia article, does not justify removing from the lede what others have said about Corsi (as noted in reliable sources). Weazie (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of relliable academic sources[edit]

When someone publishes in an academic journal that an individual is prominently known as a conspiracy theorist, we can use that as a lreliabe source for this fact. See the last diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerome_Corsi&action=historysubmit&diff=430675099&oldid=430673364 for the source which is to an expert in conspiracy theorists.

Please do not remove this fact unless you have a reliable source which disputes it. I have found none in researching this individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please. WP:RS "facts not in evidence". While the cited source may be academic, Mr. Berlet is no "academic". From Wikipedia (emphasis mine)...

John Foster "Chip" Berlet (born November 22, 1949) is an American investigative journalist, and photojournalist activist specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the United States, particularly the religious right, white supremacists, homophobic groups, and paramilitary organizations. He also studies the spread of conspiracy theories in the media and on the Internet, and political cults on both the right and left of the political spectrum.

He is the senior analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit group that tracks right-wing networks,...

I'll leave it to other editors as to whether a cite from an apparently hyper-biased "investigative journalist" satisifes WP:BLP, WP:RS criteria for objectively maligning Mr. Corsi as a "conspiracy theorist". JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Polemical sources aren't reliable. Yworo (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The source in question is a book published by what certainly appears to be a reasonable publishing house not known for printing polemical tracts (unlike some closely related to the subject here). Seems like a good source to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If Chip Berlet was hyper-biased in his evaluation of Jerome Corsi, surely the editor from the academic press who published him would have called him on it and made him eliminate the bias. The typical way one "shoots the messenger" for academic imprints is not by evaluating the author but by evaluating the publisher upon whose reputation the reliability of the manuscript is staked. Presumably, an author can wear many hats and be polemical in some circumstances while disinterestedly academic in others. We are not equipped to decide one way or the other and so must base our conclusion on whether the source (in this case, an academic journal) is reliable or not. No one has impugned the journal itself thus far, so we are left to conclude that the source is reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the IP. There are writers across the spectrum who write both political and academic works. Their individual political views, whether left or right, have no bearing on reliability. TFD (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It is less a question of WP:RS for "opinion" than WP:RS for "fact". Mr. Corsi is nowhere self-described (that I'm aware of anyway) as a "conspiracy theorist", the application of the characterization is, by no means, universal in its employment and, of those who employ it, a political bias is, IMHO, plausible if not likely. Is this the type of strong sourcing that would justify an unqualified, unattributed, objective Wikipedia characterization of "conspiracy theorist" under WP:BLP standards? I think not.
Just for the record, a few "biographical sources" for consideration, none of which employ "conspiracy theorist" in their respective treatments...
  • The bid to raise money off of birtherism also needles author Jerome Corsi...Chicago Tribune

  • Jerome Corsi, senior staff writer at the extremist website WorldNetDaily and a chief enabler of the Obama-as-foreigner lie,...Los Angeles Times

  • Biography - Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers The Obama Nation and Unfit for Command. Along with serving as WND's senior staff reporter, Corsi is a senior managing director at Gilford Securities. Barnes and Noble

  • Biography - Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972. He is the author of the #1 New York Times bestseller The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality and the co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, which was also a #1 New York Times bestseller. He is a regular contributor to WorldNetDaily.com. Simon and Schuster

  • Biography: Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in Political Science in 1972. He has written many books and articles and is an expert on political violence and terrorism. In 1981, he received a Top Secret clearance from the Agency for International Development, where he assisted in providing anti-terrorism/hostage survival training to embassy personnel. Coast to Coast with George Noory

  • Biography - Dr. Jerome Corsi is a Senior Staff Reporter for World Net Daily where he works as an investigative reporter. In 2004, Dr. Corsi co-authored the #1 New York Times bestseller, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. The success of Unfit for Command permitted Dr. Corsi to devote full time to writing. In the past 5 years, he has published 5 New York Times bestselling non-fiction books. In August 2008, he published The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, which was a #1 New York Times bestseller for a month and remained on the NYT bestseller list for 10 weeks. Amazon

  • Biography - Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. His latest best-seller was The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada. He is a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.com and the author of two books on contemporary Iran: Atomic Iran and Showdown with Nuclear Iran. In his 2005 book Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil, which he co-authored with Craig. R. Smith, Dr. Corsi predicted oil prices at over $100 a barrel. Bookwire

JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You, uh... you realize that all of these bios of him from book sales sites, etc., are submitted by PR reps, and are thus nowhere close to being an RS? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps so, perhaps not, but your observation is pure speculation nonetheless. Nor were the cites compiled with an eye towards supporting content inclusion within the article itself but solely to demonstrate that "conspiracy theorist" is not an objective characterization employed in any "biography" of Mr. Corsi that I was able to discover via Google search. Perhaps you can provide some "biographical" treatment to the contrary? JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
People do not self-describe themselves as conspiracy theorists. However, birtherism and the North American Union are leading conspiracy theories and World Net Daily is a leading promoter of conspiracy theories. Whether or not every story about them mentions this fact is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
"People do not self-describe themselves as conspiracy theorists."
Little wonder. It's a pejorative and defamatory characterization that shouldn't find an unqualified, unattributed home in this article.
"However, birtherism and the North American Union are leading conspiracy theories and World Net Daily is a leading promoter of conspiracy theories."
See WP:SYNTH.
"Whether or not every story about them mentions this fact is irrelevant."
Hardly. This is a pejorative, defamatory term and both the breadth and sources of its employment are highly relevant as to its unqualified, unattributed incorporation in this article under WP:BLP. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I added two additional sources for Corsi as a conspiracy theorist including a book written by another conspiracy theorist who uses scare quotes to indicate that the mainstream conception is one as Corsi as a conspiracy theorist. Collect at BLPN asked for three sources, so I give three sources. We could add more, but it hardly seems necessary. Both supporters and objective academic observers describe him as a conspiracy theorist, so he must be one. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
"...supporters...describe him as a conspiracy theorist..."
Can you please cite sources purportedly supporting this assertion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no requirement to have three sources, just one good source. TFD (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Your understanding of WP:BLP standards as to the inclusion of unqualified, unattributed pejorative and defamatory characterizations is considerably different than mine. Perhaps an RfC on the subject might be appropriate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You both probably understand WP:BLP well enough. Your disagreement appears to be centered around whether "conspiracy theorist" is a "pejorative and defamatory characterization" or an objective, accurate and useful descriptor used in the opening sentence — a location usually reserved in BLPs for the subject's most defining characteristics. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement that Corsi has significant notability as one who speaks and writes extensively on subject matter described as conspiracy theory. Subsequent paragraphs in the lede convey this. Describing such a person as a "conspiracy theorist" appears to be a case of calling a spade a spade, irrespective of the numerous reliable sources that also use that description of Corsi. Since no one is arguing against the truth or accuracy of the description, but only against the use of the specific term "conspiracy theorist" as negative, has anyone proposed an acceptable alternative wording as a solution?
If someone is proposing that an RfC be initiated to establish "conspiracy theorist" as a pejorative, they may be disappointed. It is no more a pejorative, or less accurate, than other descriptors like "Liberal" or "Fundamentalist", where the 'insult' exists in the mind of the ideologically opposed critic using the term, and not in reality. Our own Wiktionary doesn't define it as a pejorative, but does acknowledge it has been used to dismiss:
"The phrase conspiracy theory is sometimes used in an attempt to imply that hypothetical speculation is not worthy of serious consideration, usually with phrasing indicative of dismissal (e.g., "just a conspiracy theory"). However, any particular instance of use is not necessarily pejorative. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form."
Dictionary definitions do not define the term as a pejorative at all. Including Mirriam-Webster, Farlex Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, etc., — you get the picture. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
"If someone is proposing that an RfC be initiated to establish "conspiracy theorist" as a pejorative, they may be disappointed."
Perhaps so, perhaps not...but your recent edit to Conspiracy Theory (which, by the way, I technically agreed with but deleted nonetheless as apparently unsupported by the cited source) might suggest otherwise (and as evidenced by the academic source I cited). To be continued here pending resolution to an anticipated editorial kerfuffle at Conspiracy Theory. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you have overlooked my question above. Might you have such a proposal?
re: The Conspiracy theory Wikipedia article, I don't even have it on my watchlist, and wasn't expecting a "kerfuffle". But since you have directed my attention to your edits there, I'll give some hopefully helpful input. Aside from routine copy edit fixes (i.e., one does not usually place a full stop smack in the center of a sentence; one does not quote an individual in the lede without indication of whom or what is partially quoted; one doesn't usually cite non-reliable sources such as this, etc.), I might suggest a lead paragraph something along the lines of:
"Conspiracy theory" is used as a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy.[1] It is frequently used to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning,[1] and some consider it a pejorative label used to refer to a new explanation of events as dismissable.[2]
By the way, the content noting that fringe theories about conspirators weilding extraordinary power and cunning to carry out plots is indeed supported by the cited source (see pgs. 42-47, 176, etc.). He gives quite a few examples. I'm not real enthusiastic about citing your Rudmin as a source supporting statements of fact, seeing as that particular article (if we can find a copy of it at a reliable source) was likely a defensive piece written in response to critics of his own pro-conspiracy theories expressed in his earlier "A cognitive history of popular American beliefs in conspiracy theory", presentation. Yeah, he's a bit of a conspiracy theorist, himself. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you have overlooked my question above.
Can we desist with the rhetorical gamesmanship at the outset? As you are hopefully aware from our rather in- depth prior discussions, any perceived "overlooking" on my part is purposeful tableing...not evasion. It will be addressed...eventually.
Might you have such a proposal?
Not right now, given your prior positioning. You stated...

It (conspiracy theorist) is no more a pejorative, or less accurate, than other descriptors like "Liberal" or "Fundamentalist", where the 'insult' exists in the mind of the ideologically opposed critic using the term, and not in reality.

I believe the credibility of your assertion will not stand up under scrutiny and warrants further discussion/resolution. My citation of Rudmin's observation was simply the first to emerge from a Google search and I'm rather confident more like-minded sourcing can be found. We'll see. At any rate, this aspect of the discussion is more appropriate to Conspiracy Theory and its introductory/content and I intend to develop it further there...not here...at least not now.
Your observation, however, on my sourcing question is on point to the question I raised in Conspiracy Theory - Talk and I encourage you to both post it and participate further there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"Can we desist with the rhetorical gamesmanship at the outset?"
If you are going to launch immediately into that kind of unwarranted attack, I think I'll pass on your invitation to engage you on other articles, or at length here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you have overlooked my question above....
...is no love letter mon cheri. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
That's correct; it's neither a love letter, nor rhetorical gamesmanship, so please refrain from the perssonal attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a pejorative descriptor of an academic (no matter how controversial) as I brought up months ago under the header of "Article Heavily Slanted" on this talk page. Unfortunately, Wikipedia as a whole is a heavily slanted platform, probably because most of the people who edit it are young. Anyway, how would everybody hefre feel if we called Obama a socialist in the lede of his article? That would be no more reliable than calling Jerome Corsi a conspiracy theorist. Or, for that matter, what if we called Al Gore, Michael Moore, or Al Franken conspiracy theorists. All of them have also written poorly sourced, poorly researched, books that make unverifiable claims. Anyway, I think that WP:BLP #"writing style" clearly says

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

Lunixer (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There is little doubt as to the pejorative nature of "conspiracy theorist" as applied to Corsi in this treatment. Given Lunixer's comment above, there is now no clear consensus for its inclusion and it should be removed under WP:BLP policy until this issue is resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Lunixer: To answer your question about how I would feel about calling "Obama a socialist in the lede" -- I have no feelings about it at all, if it is properly sourced and accurate. "Socialist" is also not a pejorative term. The same applies to your question about Gore, Moore, Franken, et al. Reviewing the recent posts above (as well as the prior posts by Lunixer in the section titled "Article Heavily Slanted"), I notice that no one has explained why they assume "conspiracy theorist" is pejorative, as Jake says, "as applied to Corsi in this treatment". It isn't. Editors seem to forget that descriptors like "socialist" or "conspiracy theorist" or "fundamentalist" or "nationalist" or any other "-ist", are actually neutral descriptions, and there is no "pejorative nature" except in the reader's imagination, or when the description is inaccurately applied. Consensus appears to be quite clear on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JakeinJoisey and have removed the libelous information from the article until we can reach consensus. Lunixer (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Wikipedia and have returned properly cited, non-libelous content to the article. (By the way, no amount of "consensus" can justify the addition of "libelous information" to a Wikipedia BLP.) As for reaching consensus, I would like to participate in the consensus-building; can you specifically raise your concern here? Also, does it relate the the concerns already raised at the BLP Noticeboard here? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then the content is libelous and should not be included per WP:BLP. Consequently, I have removed it again. Lunixer (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"Libelous"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Just because you keep saying the information is libelous, doesn't make it libelous. Please see the Wikipedia article on this very topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

PhD in Philosophy, NOT Political Science[edit]

According to: https://post.harvard.edu/olc/pub/HAA/register/register.cgi [1] Searched: Jerome Corsi Results: Degree Doctor of Philosophy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostach (talkcontribs) 20:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Well PhD means "Doctor of Philosophy". Corsi's Doctor of Philosophy degree is in Political Science. His thesis was "in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Political Science" in the Department of Government. Corsi, Jerome R. (1972). Prior Restraint, Prior Punishment, and Political Dissent: A Moral and Legal Evaluation (Thesis). Harvard University.  Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Do the wedding-ring theory deserve a mention in this article?[edit]

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-ring-there-is-no-god-but-allah/ http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/weddingring.asp Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The theory didn't originate with Corsi. I don't think it belongs in the article.Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jerome Corsi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is anything but balanced, fair or informative. Reading the section on Corsi's latest book "Obama Nation" I learned nothing about what the book might contain, only varying degrees of attacks on Corsi by the NYTimes, DNC, Obama's own campaign. All very unbiased sources! Apparently the author of the article and the sources he cites don't want us to know what is actually in the book. At the very least there is a clear conflict of interest because the attacking sources cited are all part of the political machine for Obama. Prof Corsi is absolutely accurate in is new book "America for Sale" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.106.157 (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 19:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jerome Corsi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pejoratives need to be removed from the lead[edit]

Pejoratives need to be removed from the lead. Put editorial opinions critical of the subject of the article in it's own section. Article violates NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.76.129 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As previous discussions indicate, various reliable sources have noted Corsi's extensive involvement in conspiracy theories, and some have labeled him as a conspiracy theorist. --Weazie (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)