Talk:Ben Carson/Archive 1

Link

I removed the drbencarson.com link since it is no longer upVickfan This link is now working (checked 7/17/2007) Teamember 02:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Logic Party

While in principal I dig the idea, I have a really hard time buying it from a guy who is a Seventh Day Adventist. Such a belief system for a neurosurgeon is...illogical. Quigonpaj (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Quotes

I went ahead and removed the quotes section of the article. None of the quotes seemed too terribly important to the article, and no citations were provided for any of them. —Mears man 00:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions about Ben Carson

Ben Carson's mother (Sonya Carson) to be so successful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.105.208.31 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the question about Carson or his mother? drs (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I might point out that "pre-med" is not a major, just a series of undergraduate courses required of hopeful future doctors. So, what did Carson actually major in?Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

everything here

is sourced from publications by the author. I intend to remove anything that cannot be sourced from third party sources. DGG (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC) someone seems to have done it a little too enthusiastically. I have removed the most irrelevant part. I ask again for sources on the rest, reminding everyone of WP:BLP and WP:V. DGG (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources for the further development of the Ben Carson article

• Chappell, Kevin (January 2003). "Dr. Ben Carson: Top surgeon's life and death struggle with prostate cancer". Ebony. 58 (3). Chicago, IL: Johnson Publishing Co.: 38, 41, 130. ISSN 0012-9011. Retrieved 2012-03-26.

Information about Carson included in this source

p. 38

Single mother with a third grade education

Director of pediatric neurosurgery at John Hopkins

1987, operated on Siamese twins attached at the back of the head.

p. 41

wife Candy, he met as a student at Yale University

performs between 400-500 surgeries a year

p. 130

picture of family with names. Candy, three sons Murray, Rhoyce and B.J., and mother Sonya

prays before every surgery

also, this articles describes the impact Carson prostate cancer had on him.

submitted by drs (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Holmes, Paul (March 10, 2012). "Unleashing life's crucial motivator". Paul Holmes on New Zealand. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2012-03-26.

Information about Carson from this source

Ben Carson grew up with his brother Curtis, poor, in the ghetto of a big industrial American city.

His mother was one of a family of 24 children growing up in Tennessee.

At the age of 13, she ran off with a preacher, married him, and they moved to Detroit, where he found work in one of the big factories there.

Their two children, Ben and Curtis, adored their father. He used to take them to visit some other children he knew. Then it turned out that Dad was a bigamist and those children were his other family. Ben's mother turfed his father out.

Mother had to raise early teenaged boys. She was illiterate but wise. Mother decided not to go on welfare because, as Ben says, she had observed that people who went on welfare invariably failed to get off it.

Ben started acting up at school. He had a very bad temper. He could erupt.

Mother was ambitious for her boys, however, and she rationed them to two television programmes a week and made them visit the public library, where they had to borrow two books a week each, read them and write her a report on them. She was stern about this. There was no shirking it. The boys would write their book reports for her and their mum would pretend to read them, although she could not, of course, but she pretended to. These boys were going to get an education. This was the mid-60s.

Ben found, through the reading, which is why he travels the world promoting reading, that he started to get really interested in stuff. Before his mum's library regime Ben was always bottom of his class. His classmates called him Dummy. With the reading, his grades started improving and within 18 months he was top of his class.

Somewhere around this time he discovered God in his life, a faith he retains to this day and shares with his wife, Candy.

Next thing he wins a scholarship to Yale and he's doing a degree in psychology, after which he realises that he's always wanted to be a doctor so off he goes to medical school, after which he heads into neurosurgery and discovers his life's passion.

Ben Carson is a holder of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

At the age of 33, this young man from Detroit is appointed the head of paediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland, the finest, most brilliant hospital in the United States.

One of his earliest and greatest accomplishments was to lead a team of more than 70 in a 22- hour operation to separate 7-month-old German twins conjoined at the back of their heads. It was an operation of exhausting precariousness never done before.

Also, in those days, when you separated conjoined twins, the doctor had generally to decide which one you were going to let die. In this case, both twins survived.

When they went back to Germany, their dad couldn't cope, he ran off, mother didn't cope and they became wards of the state.

When that operation was finished, after the 22 desperate hours, Carson and his major colleague - they had each worked on one of the twins after separation - went back to Ben's office and before they each finished a sentence they'd both fallen sleep, not to wake up for some three hours.

Ben Carson's message about children and reading

Carson says the more we know about the incredible human brain, the less we know. He says the most normal, ordinary brain can achieve the most remarkable things. This is why we have to invest in our children. Turn off the television and get them reading. He says a person who is a dedicated reader is a person who will achieve in life. Reading fills the brain.

Carson's message about personal responsibility

But he's got another message he received from his wonderful mother. The person who will have the most important effect and influence on our lives is ourselves. No one else. If we want to do well and have successful, rewarding and productive lives, we must do it ourselves, take charge of ourselves.We cannot blame others.

Keynote speech at the National Prayer Breakfast

President Obama and the First Lady heard Dr Benjamin Carson take exception to many current administration policies and positions. He delivered his thoughts on a wide range of issues in a light-hearted and positive manner at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. With his comments, he has entered the universe of 'politics' whether he wants to or not. Where it goes from here "will yet be seen" . . . [1]

Here are the comments from a leader in the Conservative Movement: (You can read the comments of Rush Limbaugh via his website, RushLimbaugh.com)

RUSH: Whoa! Right on. Did you hear that? This guy is talking to Obama. Obama's sitting there, and Dr. Carson is saying, "People say... 'Well, that's not fair because it doesn't hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made ten.' Where does it say you have to hurt the guy? He just put a billion dollars in the pot!" So this neurosurgeon is speaking out in favor of the 1%, the 5%, the 10% who are actually paying the freight in this country via income taxes. They're the ones actually paying the freight. What do we gotta hurt 'em for? I mean, they're already putting money in the pot. Why do we gotta hurt 'em?

He's exactly right. And then he says: You want to know why we got 602 banks in the Caymans with American money? Because they're running away. They don't want to be hurt.

I love this guy. He wasn't finished, either.

CARSON: Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed -- pretax -- from the time you're born 'til the time you die. When you die, you can pass it on to your family members, so that when you're 85 years old and you got six diseases, you're not trying to spend up everything. You're happy to pass it on and there's nobody talking about death panels.

AUDIENCE: (laughter and applause) [2] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we link to the transcript? Where can you find a transcript of his keynote? Very few places!

One place is freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2986815/posts . . . which is "black-listed" on Wikipedia. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Activity plans after retiring in June

As I watched the Glenn Beck program today, I wrote what Dr Benjamin Carson said as he was interviewed:

“I’m retiring in June; I have lots [planned] on my agenda; politics is not one of them; but if God grabs me by the collar, I am not one that would refuse.”

Dr Benjamin Carson is such a great man. I'll watch for a direct reliable source. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Most interesting, a public relations model for the promotion of "up by the boot strappers" movement. A story to be milked. --Wikipietime (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Social Political Views Prior to Obama's Administration

Could someone please add some information about his public views prior to Obama's administration. Was he pro-Iraq war and pro-spending during the Bush administration? What has he expressed in the past publicly? He's been an adult for some time now yet very little is listed in this page. Thanks. 101.51.136.60 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ben Carson speech at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Convention [CPAC]

Rand Paul won the straw poll for president; Ben Carson won their hearts! Conservatives are very excited about the wisdom and clarity that comes from Dr Carson. Here are four references: [3] "Ben Carson at CPAC"; [4] “Did Ben Carson Hint at a 2016 Run for President During CPAC Speech?”; [5] “DR. BEN CARSON RALLIES CONSERVATIVES AT CPAC, HINTS AT WHITE HOUSE RUN”; and, from the WSJ, [6] “Ben Carson for President — The Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon has two big ideas for America.” — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Carson support network

Ben Carson's article reads like a marketing plant. Who is his agent? Wikipietime (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Retirement

The subject of this article has not yet retired, although it is announced. It is stated in reliable sources that he plan to retire, but doesn't give a specific date. Therefore, do not state that he has retired per WP:CRYSTALBALL, let us wait until a reliable source has verified that the retirement has occurred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard

BLPN discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Marriage

Regarding gay marriage, this article contains negative material (e.g. "nasty, petty, and ill-informed"), which is fine. I'm not a censor trying to skew Wikipedia content, and therefore am not suggesting to remove any negative material. But this article gives no clue that Carson favors equal rights to a considerable degree, and no clue that his comments were compared to those of a famous Democratic judge. We could add:

Carson has clarified that outside of "marriage" he believes "gay people should have all the rights anyone else has". Meanwhile, Megyn Kelly of Fox News compared Carson's controversial remark to a recent concern expressed by Justice Sonya Sotomayor.

Cites: Kelly, Megyn, America Live with Megyn Kelly, Fox News (March 29, 2013), Fox News Video (accessed August 16, 2013).

"Group of Johns Hopkins Med School Students Want Dr. Ben Carson Replaced as Commencement Speaker After Gay Marriage Comments"", Fox News Insider (March 29, 2013).

These sources are reliable news stories.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the article describes a notable episode in which Carson's comments on gay marriage led to a (successful) effort by people at his institution to have him removed as commencement speaker. We describe this episode using news pieces from non-partisan reliable sources (Washington Post, Baltimore Sun). We give Carson himself the final word on his own views, quoting him directly and again using news pieces from non-partisan reliable sources. That seems appropriate to me.

I'm not seeing the need to artifically "balance" our coverage of this controversy by adding the opinion of a cable-news talking head. Carson's comments were widely remarked upon by cable-news talking heads of all partisan stripes. Why highlight only Megyn Kelly's take? If we choose to go down this road (which I think would be a mistake), then we're obligated to provide a more representative sampling of reactions, rather than just selecting an apologist viewpoint from FoxNews.

Finally, it seems you've already raised this proposal at WP:BLP/N, where outside editors thought it wasn't an improvement and in fact introduced significant BLP concerns ([7]). MastCell ^Talk 04:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment suggests to me that it is pointless to argue. The edit that I drafted quotes Carson himself explaining that he generally supports gay rights, something that is not remotely suggested by what's in the Wikipedia article now. Moreover, your disparaging comments about both written and spoken news reports from Fox (as mere "talking heads") bode ill for any rational compromise. So, we will let the article continue to slant what happened, to suppress Carson's expressed views, and to only quote a third party who calls him "nasty, petty, and ill-informed". This is precisely the outcome I expected as of 05:26, 16 August 2013. This article is removed from my Watchlist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The section doesn't quote only a third party; it also quotes Carson himself, extensively. If the "nasty, petty, and ill-informed" quote is bothering you, then it could be removed with the general sense retained (namely, that his remarks were condemned as offensive by people at his institution, from students all the way up to the dean). MastCell ^Talk 05:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

I've put in a new top image, and moved the old one down. Also organized the political section chronologically. Replaced some redundant material in the gay marriage material (he loves everyone the same) with a quote where he clarifies that outside of "marriage" he believes "gay people should have all the rights anyone else has".Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

February 2013, March 2013, etc.

This page is looking like Carson's personal website. I don't think his wikipage is supposed to include month-to-month status reports on Carson's latest speaking engagements. Thus, removing them. --Petzl (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I restored the material with better headings. I'm open to deleting it all, but I haven't yet seen any good arguments for that. This material describes his political views, which otherwise would not be included in this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Its not the headings themselves that is the issue. Changing the headings doesn't change the content. These events are described in laborious, extraneous detail. It's fine for Carson's website, but it's just not appropriate here. There's too many quotes. Then, there's too many third-party comments on his quotes; eg, "Conservative commentators from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto of Fox News praised the speech as speaking 'truth to power.'" Or: "Carson urges people to recognize..." It sounds like a right-wing press release: instead of communicating his political views, one gets the feeling that his views are being defended/expounded. --Petzl (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good reason to cut the fat, rather than cutting everything. I've got no problem if you want to try making it more concise and neutral, or you can suggest revisions here at the talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How is the "default" position to leave it "as is"? If someone wants to filter it to a few paragraphs, that would be fine (eg, this article seems to strike the right balance). As it is, what's currently there shouldn't be there.--Petzl (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent)Well, I guess the best place for you to look would be WP:Preserve: "Instead of deleting text, consider:

• rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar, more accurately represent the sources, or balance the article's contents
• correcting inaccuracy, while keeping the rest of the content intact
• moving the information to another existing article or splitting the information to a new article
• adding more of what you think is important to make an article more point-of-view balanced
• requesting a citation by adding the {{cn}} tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate
• doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
• adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself
• repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located
• merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Anythingyouwant. Most of the content that you removed is notable and supported by multiple reliable sources establishing that. The article doesn't appear to list every speech or event, but just the ones that have garnered attention due to some notoriety or criticism he's received from them. Unless there is clear violation of Wikipedia policy, there is no justification for a mass deletion. Rather, this appears to be a difference of opinion in which case you should establish the consensus of editors here before making large changes like that. - Maximusveritas (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think there are more quotations that should be included I'm open to that. I've kept almost all of his direct quotations on the given topics. I agree it might be too sparse as it stands now, but this seems to be preferable to including everything up to the Breakfast Menu at the National Prayer Breakfast. As well as the numerous quotes of [Third-Party 1] saying "[Third-Party 2] Said That What Carson Said is [good/bad]"--Petzl (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Petzl, your edit summary cites WP:COATRACK, which says: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." In this case, what is the tangentially biased subject?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Books

The Wikipedia article says:

“ Carson has written four bestselling books published by Zondervan, an international Christian media and publishing company: Gifted Hands, The Big Picture, Take the Risk, and Think Big. The first book is an autobiography and two are about his personal philosophies of success that incorporate hard work and a faith in God. ”

There is also a list of his publications at the bottom of the article. So, do people view the above paragraph as redundant? It seems to include some interesting stuff ("bestselling", "autobiography", etc). The reason I ask is because another editor has suggested deleting it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to change the heading "Publications and appearances" to "author, debater, and movie character". That should be enough. It's common in BLPs to have a publications section that lists publications, while also discussing several of those publications in the narrative portion of the BLP. I've already removed the double mention of his religion, and have no objection to removing "academy award winner" before Gooding.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Many BLPs of authors will title the section that lists their books as "Bibliography". The narrative section could just be called "Publications" or "Writer" (if it is going under the career section) and then the evolution statement could be moved elsewhere since he has expressed similar views in other venues. -Maximusveritas (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. Plus we ought to remove "academy award winner" since Gooding did not win it for this part.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Third party reaction to gay marriage comments

I have no objection to including third-party reaction to his gay marriage comments, including the quote from the Hopkins professor saying that what Carson said appeared to be "nasty, petty, and ill-informed". But, as I pointed out several months ago, it is lopsided to exclude all third-party reactions defending Carson. WP:NPOV requires some neutrality. So, I would suggest inserting this sentence:

“ While his remarks were condemned as offensive at Johns Hopkins, Megyn Kelly of Fox News pointed out that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor had recently asked whether gay marriage would lead to incest and polygamy being allowed.[1] ”

“ [1] "Group of Johns Hopkins Med School Students Want Dr. Ben Carson Replaced as Commencement Speaker After Gay Marriage Comments"", Fox News Insider (March 29, 2013). ”

Even if the Hopkins quote were simply described instead of quoted (which I am not suggesting we should do), still I don't think quoting Carson himself in any way justifies excluding all third-party comments in his defense, given the inclusion of criticism by third parties.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have started a section about this at the NPOV Noticeboard, although I don't expect much response since that Noticeboard is not very active.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that sentence is that Kelly's argument has been disputed, so it's difficult to mention it without also bringing up the counter-argument to it. Maybe a more general statement about how he was defended by other commentators or maybe include a quote from Hannity since the comment was made on his show, so his thoughts are notable. - Maximusveritas (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Kelly's argument has pretty clearly been rejected by the people at Johns Hopkins who are already discussed in the Wikipedia article, so mentioning the two opposing arguments seems well-balanced and NPOV to me. But if it would calm the waters here to simply say that he was defended by other commentators, then I guess that would be acceptable, as long as the source that I cited is among those footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you brought this up a month or two ago, and there was no support for it (neither here nor at WP:BLP/N). Has anything changed since then, or are you just raising the same question and hoping for a different response? MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, as you must have noticed above, I said today: "But, as I pointed out several months ago, it is lopsided to exclude all third-party reactions defending Carson." So, I hardly need to be informed that I brought up the matter previously. You must also be aware that the question has never been raised at the NPOV noticeboard, where I posed the question in much more general fashion today. Are you hoping that your previous position will be automatically followed now and always?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I just want to understand what's new and why you're expecting a different response this time around. One could just keep raising the same issue every month or so until one gets the answer one wants. That's not exactly how things are supposed to work, though. Is there anything new to your argument, besides trying it out in a different forum? MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this talk page is the exact same forum where you and I discussed the issue previously. Second, you have just edited this BLP,[8] presumably in response to my comments here today, so apparently you yourself feel differently than you did previously. Third (assuming that you are only objecting to my comment today at the NPOV noticeboard), the question I asked there falls squarely within the ambit of NPOV, and it is somewhat different from the narrow question posed months ago at the BLP Noticeboard. At NPOV/N today, my initial comment specifically mentioned this Ben Carson article, and provided a wikilink to it. Additionally, just to be safe following your most recent comment above, I have now mentioned at NPOV/N that there was a discussion several months ago at BLPN, and hopefully that will be satisfactory. Fourth , there are now other editors involved at this article, in addition to just you and me. Overall, I think you would be much better off discussing the BLP, than WP:Wikilawyering about supposed forum-shopping.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I read through the section being discussed here and it seem fine to me; however, why give twice as much coverage to this as to the section that follows that is twice as important? (Criticism of Affordable Care Act) The emphasis is backwards. His criticism of Obamacare is far more important. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think the ACA section is twice as important? Feel free to expand it if important material from reliable sources is missing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

First sentence in section titled “Awards and honors”

The first sentence in this section says, “Memphis business Academy of Achievement, and the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans.” Does it mean to say, “Carson received the Memphis business Academy of Achievement and the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans” (omitted comma; words in bold are suggested to be added)? —The Sackinator (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

[http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/ben-carson-obama-officials-acting-like-gestapo/ >> Ben Carson: Obama officials 'acting like Gestapo']Lihaas (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

rural Georgia

Whereabouts in "rural Georgia" was his family from?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Lenin quote

Some are criticizing Carson for using a Lenin quote that is in question: “Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” ― Vladimir Lenin[1]72.161.222.69 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not just "in question", that quote's an overt fake. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Automatic weapons

I believe the attribution under political affiliation that he supports "banning automatic weapons in large cities" is a mistake. The quotes I've found all refer to semiautomatic weapons. Automatic weapons are exceedingly rare and used in very few crimes. I don't have an original source so I won't change it myself. Here's one quote, though: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/04/dr_benjamin_carson_on_gun_control_it_depends_on_where_you_live.html 24.199.195.38 (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)del

Removal of the word 'evangelical'

I'm copying this here from my talk page:

"I kind of disagree with your edit summary, here. Would you care to expound on why you think he is not actually an evangelical? Possible at Talk:Ben Carson. Cheers, Ansell 07:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)}}"

I simply removed the word "evangelical" that said Ben Carson was an evangelical Christian. For years the evangelical movement labeled Seventh-day Adventists (SDA's) as a cult and wanted nothing to do with them. SDA's, although they believe in evangelism, they do not consider themselves evangelicals and neither does anyone else; Just like Baptist's don't consider themselves to be evangelicals. Ben Carson considers himself a devout Christian and an Adventist, but to throw the word evangelical really is an assumption and is POV. If you can show me otherwise, I truly stand and differenciate evangelicals and SDA's. --Maniwar (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Baptists do consider themselves to be Evangelical. Chryslerfan (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

References

• • • Probably should be noted somewhere on the page that he is an outspoken 'creationist'. That should get fun come 'entry into politics' time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.108.115 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that Dr. Ben Carson is an Evangelical. I also think that many people 'out there' seem to have issues in sorting out the conceptual content of what that designation includes or might include or could include. The rise of vegetarian and vegan Presidential candidates in the USA is, IMO, a matter of note also! This one is conservative; others (like Cory Booker and Dennis Kucinich) are unabashed liberals. MaynardClark (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Over-quotation

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

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

Please change SLPC to SPLC

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

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

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

Obama Czars

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

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

SPLC listing and retraction

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

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

At least two points need to be covered:

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a pretty good source that covers Carson's initial remarks, the SPLC listing, the criticism that the SPLC received, and the apology from the SPLC: [9] There is no reason why we can't rewrite this paragraph from this source, in a concise way. There is no value to including Carson's statement in it's entirety, as it should go without saying that he objects to the SPLC's criticism of his remarks. Quote mining is not a good direction to take with this article.- MrX 03:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

CPAC puts Dr Ben Carson in 4th place

He is popular at the Conservative Political Action Conference gleaming 4th place in the final straw poll.[10] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Comments on homosexuality

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

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

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

Inconsistent notifications

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

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

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

Short: Anger Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Point Scholarship

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015

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

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

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

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

Not NPOV

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

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

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

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

Moved the tag to the political position's section. I still think that there is more than can be reported on his views, and now that he is a presidential candidate, our readers deserve having all pertaining information about his views and how these have been received. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Poor political views section

The political views section is very poor. It engages in gotcha quotes, without providing any indication of attempts to represent that actual nature of Dr. Carson's views on the various issues mentioned.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it's very poor, but there is probably room for improvement. Carson's views on same-sex marriage and homosexuality are not accurately described as support of man/woman marriage. That's like describing someone's dislike of chocolate ice cream as support of vanilla ice cream.- MrX 19:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Carson clearly supports marriage as a man/woman institution. This is the way he and his allies view the issue of what is at stake. That is what he supports and what his goals are. The goals are centered on making marriage have specific limits which have more to do with keeping it in those limits than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  I support man/woman marriage too. I also support woman/woman and man/man marriage. He does not. He opposes it and has implied that love between sames sex couples is equivalent to pederasty and bestiality. I'm not aware of any notable movement to eradicate man/woman marriage, so claiming to support it as if it were at risk of disappearing can only be construed as opposing other forms of marriage. The same argument about making "marriage have specific limits" can be applied to any struggle for equal rights under the law in which one group strives to limit the rights of another.- MrX 14:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson's views on czars and gun control

Hello. Before, I added information on Ben Carson's views regarding czars; it was removed because I only referenced one third party source. However, wouldn't that mean that his views on gun control also should be removed? There is only one source given for his views on gun control, and other than it, it doesn't seem that there is much in the media on his opposition to conservatives' views on gun control. Do the two issues stand and fall together? If so, should we have his views on both czars and gun control in the article, or should we do away with them altogether? —The Sackinator (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff so we know what edit you're referring to?- MrX 23:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm refering to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Carson&diff=prev&oldid=649464713. —The Sackinator (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think either of the sources that you cited are reliable. Certainly we would want at least a couple of mainstream media sources that cover his views on Ebola czars, otherwise it would seem to be WP:UNDUE. Up until recently, I would have also considered his gun control views not notable, but it seems there has been some recent coverage: [11] [12] [13]- MrX 02:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what you're saying. I'll see what I can do with sourcing both his views on gun control and his views on ebola and czars, if I'm able. —The Sackinator (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015

I would like to add that Dr. Ben Carson announced that we will run for President on Monday, May 4th officially and made a speech at the Detroit's Music Hall Center for the Performing Arts. IllegalTrash (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

First sentence in section "Carson Scholars Fund"

Hello. I found the citation to verify this statement. However, it's already used in this article (it's the 110th citation/note, specifically the first sentence of its third paragraph), and I don't know how to cite a single reference multiple times in an article. Help would be greatly appreciated! —The Sackinator (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. (You give the ref a name, see WP:REFNAME :) Melcous (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot! —The Sackinator (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Featured article status

Do you think this article could have a chance as a featured article? If so, what needs to be done? A response will be appreciated! —The Sackinator (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

Awards and honors

Carson is a member of the American Academy of Achievement, and the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans. Carson has been awarded 38 honorary doctorate degrees and dozens of national merit citations.[31]

• In 2000, he received the Award for Greatest Public Service Benefiting the Disadvantaged, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.[28]
• In 2006, Carson was the recipient of the Spingarn Medal which is the highest honor awarded annually, by the NAACP since 1915, to a man or woman of African descent and American citizenship who attained the highest achievement during the preceding year or years in any honorable field of human endeavor in tribute to a lifetime of growth and singular achievement, from the bottom of his fifth grade class, to become the youngest ever Chief of Pediatric Neurosurgery in the United States.
• In 2008, President and Mrs. George W. Bush presented the Lincoln Medal, an annual award given by Ford's Theatre, to Carson. It honors those who, through their accomplishments or personal attributes, illuminate the character of our most beloved President.[1][2]
• In 2010, he was elected into the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine.[30]
• In 2014, an American poll conducted by Gallup ranked Carson sixth on a list of the most admired men in the world.[32]

Ljhammond14 (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Specific description for this edit request: 1) to re-organize this sub-section using the more traditional bullet point display and 2) include the highest honor given by the NAACP in this list of Awards and honors. Also, to include the earlier approved Lincoln Medal from Ford's Theatre. Ljhammond14 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

{{Infobox scientist |birth_name = Benjamin Solomon Carson |image = Ben Carson by Gage Skidmore 3.jpg |image_size = 220 |caption = Carson speaking in 2015 |birth_date = (1951-09-18) September 18, 1951 |birth_place = Detroit, Michigan, United States |party = Republican |spouse =

Candy Carson

​

(m. 1975)​

|children = 3 sons:
Murray
Benjamin, Jr. "B.J."
Rhoeyce

Ljhammond14 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC) The specific description of the edit request: To correct the birth order of his children from oldest to youngest. Citation is Carson introducing his children and identifying their birth order at his campaign announcement, May 4, 2015, in Detroit, MI.

Done Can use http://www.c-span.org/video/?325722-1/dr-ben-carson-presidential-campaign-announcement as a source to avoid using youtube, and there's a transcript on there too Cannolis (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

Personal life

Carson and his wife, Lacena "Candy" Rustin, met in 1971 as students at Yale University. They married in 1975 and have three sons: Murray, Benjamin Jr. "B.J.", and Rhoeyce.[84] They live in West Friendship, Maryland, and are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.[98][99]

Carson was baptized at Burns Seventh-day Adventist Church on Detroit's eastside. A few years later he told the pastor at a church in Inkster, Michigan where he was attending that he had not fully understood his first baptism and wanted to be baptized again, so he was. He has served as a local elder and Sabbath school teacher in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.[100] His mother was a devout Seventh-day Adventist.[101]

Ljhammond14 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC) a specific description of the edit request: 1) I corrected the birth order here as above, of his sons. He introduced them in this video, including their birth order. 2) I changed Inkster, Michigan that to Inkster, Michigan where. 3. Last, I corrected the spelling of his church from Seventh-Day Adventist to Seventh-day Adventist. This is all I know to correct now. No new information included; only corrections. Thanks for your help, editors.  :-) Lois Ljhammond14 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: Didn't use "B.J", don't see the need for it unless this article is going to go into detail about his children. reworded the Inkster bit slightly differently than your proposal, though you were certainly correct that it should be reworded. Cannolis (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015

Awards and honors

Carson is a member of the American Academy of Achievement, and the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans. Carson has been awarded 38 honorary doctorate degrees and dozens of national merit citations.[31]

• In 2000, he received the Award for Greatest Public Service Benefiting the Disadvantaged, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.[28]
• In 2008, the White House awarded Carson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.[29]
• In 2008, President and Mrs. George W. Bush presented the Lincoln Medal, an annual award given by Ford's Theatre, to Carson. It honors those who, through their accomplishments or personal attributes, illuminate the character of our most beloved President.
• In 2010, he was elected into the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine.[30]
• In 2014, an American poll conducted by Gallup ranked Carson sixth on a list of the most admired men in the world.[32]

Ljhammond14 (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: It looks like the proposed edit is to add a mention of Carson receiving the Lincoln Medal. This section is not meant to be an exhaustive, all-inclusive list of his awards/honors, some will be left out. I don't see why this particular award is more notable than others he has received and are not mentioned by name. If the Lincoln Medal had passed WP:N and had its own wiki page, that might be a different story. Cannolis (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cannolis: I take it, then, that you will be removing mention of this non-notable medal from Maya Angelou, as it is such a non-notable distinction? Scr★pIron^IV 17:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It would seem fair to me to include Dr. Carson's receipt of the Lincoln Medal because of the precedent set by Zoe Dell Nutter, Board of Trustees, Ford's Theatre Society in 2005; Dr. Maya Angelou, Civil Rights Activist in 2008, the same year Dr. Carson received it too, and Lee Kuan Yew, Minister Mentor of Singapore in 2011. Nutter, Angelou and Yew all appear in Wikipedia and their Medals are mentioned. With your approval, I would like to re-submit a Request to Edit and include this Medal on his page. Also, since you mentioned that this important Medal does not have its own wiki page, I am happy to volunteer to create this new page. I'm please that Wikipedia deemed this a notable honor before, exactly on his year and after. Please, let's correct this omission now and let me know if you would like for me to build the new article. Here's a description of the honor:

The Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medal is an annual award given to individuals who, through their body of work, accomplishments or personal attributes, exemplify the lasting legacy, and mettle of character embodied by the most beloved President in our Nation’s history, President Abraham Lincoln.

Traditionally, the Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medal is given to recipients at the Ford’s Theatre benefit, which is held annually in the theatre where President Abraham Lincoln was shot on April 14, 1865.

Recipients Recipients of Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medals should illuminate or reflect Lincoln’s legacy of leadership, service, humanity, wisdom, eloquence and vision in their body of work, accomplishments or personal attributes. As Ford’s Theatre serves as a connection point and reminder of Lincoln’s legacy, so must the recipients of Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medals, helping us understand the beloved 16th President’s lasting impact in a contemporary light, and how it continues to inspire generations of Americans.

The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Ford’s Theatre Society evaluates and determines who will receive Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medals.

Thank you for your consideration. Ljhammond14 (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Of course the list of awards will not be exhaustive (if we have a lot of awards), but it only includes 1 other, so I don't think it's a major problem to include just 2. While Lincoln Medal is a redlink now, it might not be forever, and being recognized by the president and several large medical bodies seems significant enough to deserve a brief mention to me. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert me and discuss it further. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Lincoln Medal is entirely non notable, but as you say, Carson has been recognized with the Presidential Medal of Freedom and by numerous medical bodies, and as an individual of that caliber, I would think to strive to use bluelinked awards. A medal from the board of directors of a theatre, when the medal is redlinked and the medal hasn't even been mentioned on the theatre's wiki page despite the 30-odd years of the medal's existence, doesn't seem to quite fit on the same list as the Medal of Freedom. The Spingarn Medal(as suggested by Ljhammond), seems a better fit, and I will add that now. As to ScrapIron's concerns, Angelou has won the Spingarn medal as well, and I will replace the Lincoln Medal on her page with that. Cannolis (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an instance of the page meriting being made. And note that this honor ought to be included as well at Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors, under "Awards as First Lady" -- as she was bestowed it in 1997. Pandeist (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015

Please add: The National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee helped successfully make the retired neurosurgeon the first candidate successfully drafted for president since 1964, when Republican Barry Goldwater, an early leader of the modern American conservative movement, won the GOP nomination.

Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/inside-the-super-pacs-putting-ben-carson-on-top/article/2566819 Bpw6 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: I have a question, is the Washington Examiner the only reliable source that verifies this? I am unsure whether this claim should be given weight in the article. Please provide additional reliable sources, so that way other editors can review this edit request.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2015

The Southern Poverty Law Center libeled Dr. Ben Carson, and when they got called on it, they removed his name from their hit list, and gave a public apology. Those are the facts. Any more than that is merely the SPLC trying to justify its libel, and claim that its position is supported by their nebulous reference to "most people." So as not to make Wikipedia appear to be a party to such speculative and biased opinion, the last part of the quote from the SPLC should be deleted, namely: "We've also come to the conclusion that the question of whether a better-researched profile of Dr. Carson should or should not be included in our 'Extremist Files' is taking attention from the fact that Dr. Carson has, in fact, made a number of statements that express views that we believe most people would conclude are extreme." RHVF (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - Please gain consensus for your proposed edit. This has been discussed before. The opinions of the SPLC are properly attributed. It is a fact that Carson has made some extreme public statements, as can plainly be seen in the well-referenced material in the 'Marriage and homosexuality' section.- MrX 17:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Abortion and human fetal tissue

I have added a short section on Dr. Carson's position on abortion and use of fetal tissue harvested from abortions in medical research. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015

In External links, below his campaign website link, please add this template:

• Ben Carson/Archive 1 at Curlie

71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

"The speech was garnered Carson considerable attention" should be changed to "The speech garnered Carson considerable attention" 86.138.44.143 (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Bede735 (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Organization of writing

Greetings. I would like to suggest that Dr. Carson's writing be all in one place at the end of the article, as it is in every other Wikipedia article. A list of journals and a list of articles does not belong under "Medical career". Also, why do you list every book he wrote twice? Once in the prose and once in the bibliography. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I moved all this stuff down to Bibliography. May I use "cite book" for each book? It would be nice to preserve the prose portions along with the ISBNs. The first book is in a template so you can see what it will look like. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry to anybody who dislikes templates. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2015

Under the Abortion heading, there is misleading information about the subject's views. The source cited itself proves that the statement in the article, "advocates tissue harvested from abortions for medical research" is inaccurate, as the source [59] states that he advocates using tissue from already dead tissue rather than aborted tissue, implying that miscarried fetal tissue or other deceased tissue not from abortions. Please fix this misinformation. Myson1202 (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs to be rephrased, but I'm not quite sure how to word it. What wording do you propose?- MrX 02:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for identifying this issue. I have edited the page to match recent statements and to clarify with neutral material. If you have any further recommendations please open a new request and be specific on what to place on the page with good references. This will help other editors make the changes more quickly. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia photo policy compliance issue

The photo of Carson in scrubs in the "Medical career" section is dated 2013. While the NIST website says the file was created in 2013 by V. Aceveda of the U.S. Air Force,[14] that doesn't appear to be when the photo was taken. A June 2009 article by Veronica Aceveda on the Air Force website includes it as the second photo in a clickable gallery,[15] but the article doesn't indicate Aceveda ever met with or spoke to Carson, as the article is about a son of a military member who was given an award at an event where Carson was in the audience. It's not clear if Aceveda was the actual photographer or if there was a mixup with the photo credit, because a CNN article from February 2009 credits Johns Hopkins University for what appears to be another photo in the same series, with the same backdrop, outfit, facial hair style and length and minimal gray hair pattern and hair length.[16] Indeed, that Johns Hopkins-credited photo appears on a page on the Johns Hopkins website that is copyrighted 2004.[17] The version of the photo used on Wikipedia even appears to have been included in a 2003 article in Philanthropy magazine,[18] though perhaps the photo was added afterward. The "Sears portrait studio"-style background seems a lot more likely to have been for a staff photo (like from Johns Hopkins) than for a photo taken by a reporter. If this is not actually a photo taken by a government employee for a U.S. government publication, it may not comply with Wikipedia's image use policy. Pdxuser (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The Big Bang theory

I have added a very short section on Dr. Carson's view of the Big Bang theory. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The sentence indicating that Carson believes that retrograde orbits are a violation of conservation of momentum is accurate, but doesn't take it far enough. He believes (same reference) that such orbits are proof of the invalidity of the Big Bang theory. Jestertrek (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten parts and put it in the "religion" section - this is related to the Muslim issue. He said

“I’m not gonna denigrate you because of your faith and you shouldn’t denigrate me for mine. And that’s the kind of attitude, you know – that’s the kind of attitude that I think is very important in the society in which we live today.”

The ABC interview mentioned sharia and the effect on women and gays: ABC

You know, and if you go back and you look at -- what I would like for somebody to show me is an improved Islamic text that opposes sharia. Let me see -- if you can show me that, I will begin to alter my thinking on this. But right now, when you have something that is against the rights of women, against the rights of gays, subjugates other religions, and a host of things that are not compatible with our Constitution, why in fact would you take that chance?

In my opinion, it's fair to note that Lawrence Krauss has argued that there is an inconsistency with subjecting the religious beliefs of other candidates to scrutiny, but demanding not criticism of your own. -- Callinus (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Separation of conjoined twins

This article on Ben Carson perpetuates an oft-repeated error when it says: "He is known for being the first surgeon to separate conjoined twins. . . " 

Dr. Carson is definitely not the first surgeon to separate conjoined twins. The earliest successful separation of male conjoined twins occurred in 1952. The earliest successful separation of female conjoined twins was in 1961. See web page Conjoined Twins Info, as of August 2007 ()

Oldest Conjoined Male Twins (Living) - 1952 – Ronnie & Donnie Galyon (USA, October 28 1952). They are omphalopagus. Oldest Conjoined Female Twins (Living) - 1961 – Lori and Reba Schappell (USA, September 18 1961). They are craniopagus.

The twins in the Carson surgery were conjoined at the head but Carson is not the first surgeon to separate twins joined at the head. The first successful separation of twins conjoined at the head occurred in 1955 at Mercy Hospital in Chicago. The Chicago Daily Tribune reported the surgery on April 22, 1955. The web page, Conjoined Twins in the World, As Of August 2007 ( ),includes this event in its list: "Andrews (Illinois, October 1 1954) girls, Deborah, Christine (craniopagus, separated April 21 1955)."

Carson's noteworthy accomplishment was the separation of twins joined at the back of the head. But it wasn't just his accomplishment as the surgical team included 70 people.

2601:441:C100:5AE1:D127:3E00:2417:C7AC (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Rosemary Schwedes

Fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Recentism and religion section

For context, the content removed is this, dealing with the separation of church and state:

   "A conflict between the views of Carson and the GOP base has been noted: "... Dr. Carson's primary challenge is going to be his struggle to marry the Adventist view of separation of church and state with the counter view of much of the Republican base, which calls for tearing at the wall between church and state."

Bullrangifer there's some crufty material in the religion section - Carson stated in the 2013 interview that his "debates" with Dawkins and Dennett in 2006 netted him negative attention - it violates WP:RECENTISM to push opinion pieces from the last month only.

Per WP:ONUS the onus is on people proposing the addition of material to justify it's importance and relevance in ten years time. Weasel phrases like "it has been noted" are a common way to couch bullshit.

SDA theology has a lot of unscientific beliefs, there needs to be primary sources on what Carson has said and reactions should be kept to a minimum - and ones that should be included need a clear standard as to why it matters and others don't.-- Callinus (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how RECENTISM applies to an apt opinion piece (and your objection to an opinion piece is not from policy, because it's okay to use them if they are on topic) which deals with how Carson will have to deal with the conflict between his own beliefs on separation of church and state, and the views of the GOP base. There is an obvious conflict, and the comment is very insightful. There is no other quite like it. It fills a hole in the coverage of that subject.

"It has been noted" can easily be changed. That is no excuse for deleting the whole thing.

Carson has tended to be a bit shy about his religious beliefs (even SDAs are a bit unsure about them!), so we need such content. We are just using what little is available in RS. If you find more, you are welcome to add it.

We are trying to build, not break down, the encyclopedia, so rather than remove reliably sourced content (often seen as vandalism), try to frame it better. By following WP:PRESERVE, you honor the efforts of all editors who are trying to do their part. Failure to do so denigrates other editors' efforts, discourages them, and violates the spirit of Wikipedia. You have been doing a pretty good job of framing content, but now you're paring down and paring down, all the way to the quick, until it bleeds for lack of aspects which you have removed. You may not see that, but others do.

We each do our part, and even though we may not see the merits of why someone else added something, we should still try to preserve it, unless it grossly violates policy. The whole is much larger than the part we add, and Wikipedia is made less when we remove what others have added. Try to imagine that your best efforts were being trashed; then apply the Golden Rule and honor others' efforts as you would want them to honor yours. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 07:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer A lot of articles have had bad information stick around for years before it's challenged. Wikipedia has a religion specific NPOV section specifically drawing a distinction between academic study of religion and populist religious sentiments. In my opinion, there is a vast gulf between popular opinion columns and professional legal/human rights groups when describing "persecution". In my opinion, public interest in death penalty cases like Pastor Saeed, Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, Asia Bibi are reduced by populist tabloid columnists in the Daily Mail writing that Christians are "persecuted" by jokes on TV (Rowan Williams made the point). In my opinion, the chasm between popular understanding of religious liberty and academic understanding means that academic sources should be used exclusively, and popular opinion columns avoided wherever possible.

Bull, to be blunt, you've seen a lot of bad edits to Planned Parenthood articles. If someone added to "Cecile Richards" the claim "It has been noted that 'pp sells baby parts hurr durr'" you would nuke it because you know PRESEREVE can de ignored for red flag claims on controversial topics on BLP articles.

To your other points I'll say this - you have a reasonable point, but look at the number of articles in Category:BLP articles lacking sources going back to 2006 - a lot of bad information in mainspace persists much longer than people's feelings of being disrespected by their BLP contributions being challenged. -- Callinus (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Callinus, I'm confused. I thought we were talking about the "separation of church and state" content which you deleted. Your edit summary and wording above indicated that it was that content we were discussing. Now you are drifting into generalities, or something else. I'm not even sure what, because it doesn't seem to apply to this content. I have placed a copy, with the diff, at the beginning of this section for convenience.

The SDA position on the separation of church and state is a very old one and a central pillar of SDA's understanding of the importance of religious liberty in America, and anywhere, for that matter. The opinion piece accurately points out that this creates a conflict between his religious views and those of the GOP base. That's indisputable fact.

I don't see any "bad information", recentism, BLP, sourcing, or other problems with that content. It's an accurate description. So, what's the problem?

BTW, for attribution purposes, the quote is from Preston Foster, professor of public policy at the SDA Oakwood University, a subject expert. His background is described here. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Education Policy

Why in the hell aint there a section on this guys views about Education? He plans on having the US Department of Education monitor political speech in universities. Why isn't that in there? You people! https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/21/ben-carsons-education-department-would-p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.172.156.159 (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No reason to get upset. Thanks for the suggestion. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Impeachment

Bill Clinton was not impeached by Republicans for an extramarital affair. He was impeached for lying under oath about a U.S. citizen, Paula Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.74.131 (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have inserted a little bit of detail (here italicized): "In the 1990s, Carson, who had been registered as a Republican, changed his registration to independent after watching Republicans impeach President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice regarding an extramarital affair; 'I just saw so much hypocrisy in both parties,' Carson said." I think this usefully clarifies the grounds.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This Wikipedia page in the news

I just saw this rather odd story on Twitter: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/27/wikipedia-trolls-tie-ben-carson-pedophiles-top-google-search-results/

I am posting it here because it's about Ben Carson's Wikipedia page. Kind of strange. Schematica (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the link to NAMBLA from the quotation. Per WP:LINKSTYLE, items within quotations should not generally be linked. — goethean 21:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy of questionable medical practices

While Dr. Carson was obviously a talented and pioneering neurosurgeon, the article fails to mention that since his retirement he has embraced a number of highly-questionable anti-science positions. These include an at least partial anti-vaccine position:

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2015/sep/23/ben-carson/carson-wrong-vaccine-claim/

...and personal involvement with a snake-oil supplement company, Mannatech, currently being investigated for making illegal "cancer cure" claims for its products:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396193/ben-carsons-troubling-connection-jim-geraghty http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/10/09/mannatech-ben-carsons-lack-of-critical-thinking-skills-extends-to-medicine-as-well/

It seems like these significant deviations from standard medical practice and research ought to be at least mentioned in the article, for the sake of completeness.

I would have added them myself, but editing for this article seems to be broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2015

Ben Carson's office calls people with the number <redacted>. It is an automated call,with a recording that does not really work. People find it annoying. It is a spam. Please tell Ben Carson to stop calling people with the <redacted> Thank you. 24.177.118.100 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• I suspect, based on your request, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is the talk page for the article Ben Carson. It is for talking about the article and suggesting improvements to the article. We have no contact with the subject nor can we pass along your message. We have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Summary style

Per WP:Summary style, it looks like time to start Political positions of Ben Carson, which currently redirects back here..Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I copied everything in the present "political positions" section to Political positions of Ben Carson without making any edits to that material in either article. So, the "political positions" section of the present article is now ready to be replaced with a summary, by whoever would like to do that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have done this several times, so here's what needs to be done. You need to create a proper lead there. That will be the best summary of the article it's possible to get. Then take that lead (summary) and use it, with refs, for the content in your section here. Also add a hatnote with a "main" link pointing to the sub-article. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly one way of doing it. Another option is to provide a separate summary of each subsection, and I have given that a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that might work. Whichever gives the best summary. That's the goal. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 18:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be possible to sum up each paragraph in one or two sentences. Just mention that he has opinions on the subject. We want to inspire readers to go to the sub-article, not give them the information here. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 18:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points, so we shouldn't assume or urge that they visit the sub-article. That being said, there's a lot of flexibility in how WP:Summary style is implemented. At an article like this one, a valid reason to move stuff out of here and into the sub-article alone might be to avoid big fights here about how exactly to present it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Potential additional information: Mannatech

• "Ben Carson Has Had Ties to Dietary Supplement Firm That Faced Legal Challenge: Republican candidate and retired surgeon has given speeches for Mannatech, which faced scrutiny over health claims", Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2015: http://www.wsj.com/articles/ben-carson-has-had-ties-to-dietary-supplement-firm-that-faced-legal-challenge-1444057743

• "A Mystery in Ben Carson’s Ties With Supplement Maker Mannatech", Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2015: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/08/a-mystery-in-ben-carsons-ties-with-supplement-maker-mannatech/

"Well three years ago I had an endowed chair bestowed upon me,” Mr. Carson said in his “Keynote Address” at a 2011 Mannatech convention. “And uh, it requires $2.5 million to do an endowed chair and I’m proud to say that part of that $2.5 million came from Mannatech.”

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Since this came up in the debate, here are some more sources (including one about this coming up in the debate):

• http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396193/ben-carsons-troubling-connection-jim-geraghty
• http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2015-10-29/cnbc-questioner-booed-asking-carson-about-mannatech-link

• http://gawker.com/ben-carson-denies-involvement-with-nutritional-suppleme-1739310975

• http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/10/09/mannatech-ben-carsons-lack-of-critical-thinking-skills-extends-to-medicine-as-well/

• http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/12/did-ben-carson-violate-fox-news-policy-on-produ/202092

• http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-carson-debate-question-booed-cnbc-2015-10

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add:

• http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/politics/ben-carson-mannatech/index.html

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/28/carson-denies-obvious-ties-to-controversial-supplement-maker.html

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This news story from October 29 seems useful too:

• https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ben-carson-is-calling-for-a-new-debate-format-173437145.html

Carson's position is evidently that the only thing he was paid for was speaking per standard speaking fees he received from other groups.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Evolution

In the section on "political positions" there's a subsection titled "creationism". I deleted it because, as I said in the edit summary, it's "peripheral to section titled 'political positions'. This info can be found at main article on political positions."

This whole section on "political positions" is supposed to be a mere summary of what's at political positions of ben carson, per wp:summary style. This detailed material about evolution is at best peripheral relative to his political positions, and therefore it's not necessary in a summary of those political positions. The info is available in the article political positions of ben carson, and I support keeping the info there in that article, because it is related (tangentially) to Carson's general opposition to what he deems excessive "political correctness". There is much material there in that article that is not suitable in a summary here in this article.

Moreover, there is no separate section or subsection for "creationism" or "evolution" in political positions of ben carson, so the material that I deleted here in this article seems contrary to wp:summary style for that reason as well. (Incidentally, I don't think that the word "creationism" is as familiar as the word "evolution" notwithstanding that "creationism" would come before "evolution" alphabetically.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, people prefer to just edit war rather than discuss here at the talk page. So, what I've done now is to try a different approach. I've modified the section header to say "Political and other positions" instead of "political positions", because his views on evolution seem peripheral to politics.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

His public views on evolution vs. creationism are noteworthy for inclusion in his bio. I'm not sure they are really political positions though.- MrX 14:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they're noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, though I don't think they are suitable for this main article on Carson. Having them at Political positions of Ben Carson seems enough to me. Many candidate BLPs don't even have a detailed section on political positions (see, e.g., the Hillary Clinton article which has a section on "political positions" that is only 251 words), but for Carson we make sure to include every tangential thing he's said that makes him sound weird.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, that struck me too. The fact is, we document the "sum total of human knowledge" as it's found in RS. If it's weird, it will be covered "even more", and that's why we cover it "even more". It's what we do. We don't cover it because "we" think it's weird, we cover it because "RS" think it's weird. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that at the Clinton article. Anyway, the sources for Carson's 2011 speech are very weak: Talking Points Memo (a liberal American political blog) and YouTube. Do you object if we delete this crap (retaining it at the political positions of Ben Carson)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you're apparently the only person who thinks this is "crap." --- "Carson claimed that evolution, as explained by Darwin, was actually the work of the devil."[19] or "Similarly, Carson, a noted creationist, said he believed the theory of evolution was encouraged by the devil." [20] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We're using crappy sources like blogs and primary sources and opinion pieces, in order to paint this in the worst possible light. If you would consult an actual news source, even a sketchy one like the Daily Mail, you would see that Carson has clarified and walked back a lot of this.[21] See also this story in the Detroit News.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity

This article lists Ben Carson's ethnicity as "African-American".

This field is not required for other people, specifically Bobby Jindal who would be listed as "Indian-American".

Yet the article does not state which of Ben's parents are African to warrant the term "African". His skin color is not enough justification to speculate on ethnicity. -- 14.3.207.97 (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What happens at Bobby Jindal has no effect on this article, but it would be proper to list Jindal's ethnicity as Indian American (for some reason it's there, but doesn't show).

I see you are editing from Japan, so you would not be expected to fully understand American terminology and culture, unless you are an American expat. (BTW, I was born in Tokyo to American missionary parents.) Carson, in this racist country, is considered African American because of the degree of his African genetics. I believe both his parents were African American, IOW of mixed European-American/African heritage. The color of his skin has little to do with this. His genetics is included in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Idiotic statement, initial point in this section. Sorry but that is so. Carson is African-american by any conventional measure, like him, don't like him, don't agree with him, doesn't matter 10stone5 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Facebook for sourcing?

This article uses Facebook for sources, such as for saying that Ben Carson supports civil unions. I attempted to use Facebook to be more specific on Ben Carson's fetal tissue-controversy—to show that he says his only involvement was "supplying tumors ... removed from ... patients" and that neither he "nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing." May I use this source? If not, are there any more reliable sources that depict his response this specifically? —The Sackinator (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Facebook postings are not reliable sources, especially for contentious material in biographical articles. We should not be using it here. (It's depressing to have to say this out loud on a website which ostensibly aims to create a serious, reputable reference work, but apparently it's necessary). If there's something relevant and notable, then it will be covered by real, independent, reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Education

There are inconsistencies on this page regarding Ben Carson's college education. First paragraph is incorrect. It states, "Born into poverty in Detroit, Michigan and a graduate of the Yale School of Medicine,"

Dr. Carson did not graduate from the Yale School of Medicine. The synopsis on the right margin of the page has the correct information.

Dr. Carson got his undergraduate degree from Yale University, and his M.D. from The University of Michigan.

Doriansnow (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)doriansnow

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2015

Hi there,

Please change "Born into poverty in Detroit, Michigan and a graduate of the Yale School of Medicine" (found in the introduction to the article)

to "Born into poverty in Detroit, Michigan and a graduate of Yale University and the University of Michigan Medical School".

For reference, see here. Furthermore, other references from his Wiki article confirm this fact.

Thanks!

Dranian (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Dranian

Done Cannolis (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"you know"

Hello. In this article we have a quotation where Carson says "you know" three times, in addition to the false start "it's just, we're changing..." Such a quotation would normally be edited in the printed press, without ellipsis I believe. I checked our manual of style though, and did not find anything on the matter. What do you think? Biwom (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

All 3 sources cited included the "you know"s and th false start in the quote, so it would seem inappropriate to edit those out IMO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

From my point of view the current quotation reflects poorly on the sources and more importantly on Wikipedia - through what is a highly popular article. Can we not use this and this instead of the 3 sources that are currently in the article? My two links point to articles that have an edited version of the quote. But I am unfamiliar with and unsure of the quality of the publishers (huffingtonpost.com and newsmax.com). Thanks, Biwom (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

How could it possibly reflect poorly on the sources, much less WP, when they quote Carson verbatim? Use of the actual quote, rather than replacement of "you know" with ambiguous ellipses, is the way to go. Media sources across the political spectrum have used the exact quote[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29], so the precedent couldn't be any clearer. And BTW, Newsmax is not an ideal source, especially in this case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, with much pain I have finally found a book that discusses this topic, but it doesn't give a definitive answer, far from it. Anyone interested, type "in addition to humiliating the source, that would distract the reader" in your favorite search engine. Anyway, that will be my last post on this topic, unless more people join in. Regards, Biwom (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Section on personal beliefs?

Some of Carson's beliefs are quite extraordinary, such as [30]. A section about these views would be a great addition to this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It could go under "Political and other positions".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Pyramid dates contradict his theory

Winkelvi Can you stop with this Undue business? The Bible is a Jewish book, it's quite relevant that he's contradicting the actual book he's trying to quote! Ariel. (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be relevant to you, it's not relevant to the article, Ariel.. Will you stop edit warring over it now? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

What edit war? Of course it's relevant to the article! I'm quite certain Ben Carson will not disagree with the dates Jewish belief assigns to Josef, so the only option is that Ben is ignorant, or he does not believe with the dates assigned to when the pyramids were built. Either option is quite relevant to the reader. Are you having a problem with the word "Jewish"? Ariel. (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with the pointy-ness, pushing your own agenda and trying to add irrelevant content to this article. Also, feigning ignorance of edit-warring isn't becoming or helping you. You've been here long enough and know how it works. If you keep up what you've been doing, you will very possibly be heading toward your first block. Please don't. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There isn't just one "Jewish thought", either, since Judaism (like most other religions) is not monolithic. The Karaites reject all extrabiblical sources; likewise the Samaritans have their own version of the Bible that actually differs in some respects textually. And then of course the Ethiopian Jews have quite a few unique beliefs and practices too. That's to say nothing of all the extinct Jewish sects that once existed (Essenes, etc.) but no longer do. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

News is that some of these claims are disputed

This section needs to be rewritten:

In his book Gifted Hands, Carson relates that, in his youth, he had a violent temper. He once tried to hit his mother over the head with a hammer over a clothes dispute and, while in the ninth grade, he nearly stabbed a friend who had changed the station on the radio. After this incident, he began reading the Book of Proverbs and applying verses on anger. As a result, Carson states he "never had another problem with temper".

MaynardClark (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

References

A lot of this is bogus and just the typical political season crap. Until we get reliable sources saying he admits to lying about anything, the content should stay as is. See this for more of what's being touted as the "truth" today being shown to be false and that Carson's accounts of these things are accurate and truthful. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the disputes are in dispute, but there's still ample empirical evidence of dispute, however many layers of dispute there may be. MaynardClark (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote farm

The article is quickly becoming a quote farm. We need less quotations from Carson in this article, not more. Time to write it in prose, not just endlessly copying and pasting quotes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We should use the word 'fewer' rather than 'less' (unless you're measuring space used BY the quotations). I agree that this and other Wikipedia articles ought not to become 'quote farms' (a Wikipedianism). Readers don't live by quotes alone (but by very penetrating but defensible analysis of the currently evident situation overall). MaynardClark (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

CLIMATE CHANGE SECTION: Carson rejects the scientific consensus that human activity causes climate change; in November 2014 he said that "there's always going to be either cooling or warming going on" and that he found the debate on climate change to be "irrelevant" and a distraction from protecting the environment.[84]

In 2015, after Carson expressed his disbelief about the scientific consensus on climate change, at a Commonwealth Club forum in San Francisco,[85] After this statement, Governor Jerry Brown of California sent Carson a flash drive containing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Synthesis Report, which details the scientific evidence of human impact on climate change.[85][86] Carson response, to the San Francisco Chronicle, was that "There is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not naturally caused."[85][86]

GRAMMAR CHANGES BELOW:

Carson rejects the scientific consensus that human activity causes climate change; in November 2014 he said that "there's always going to be either cooling or warming going on" and that he found the debate on climate change to be "irrelevant" and a distraction from protecting the environment.[84]

In 2015 Carson expressed his disbelief about the scientific consensus on climate change at a Commonwealth Club forum in San Francisco.^[85] After this statement, Governor Jerry Brown of California sent Carson a flash drive containing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Synthesis Report, which details the scientific evidence of human impact on climate change.^[85][86] In response to the San Francisco Chronicle Carson said, "There is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not naturally caused."^[85][86] RK4uIek9cN (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Section title change for "Media challenges to credibility"

Discussion for proposal for section title change -- the title centers on "the media" which is so specific that any comments from outside "the media" would not be proper in this long-ish section. Also, saying "credibility" is perhaps too harsh and focuses on the person, rather than the statements. Something like "historical accuracy" would focus on the comments and claims themselves, rather than the "credibility" of Carson the person. Therefore, some alternatives:

• Challenges to historical accuracy
• Challenges to Carson's accuracy
• Challenges to Carson's statements

Feel free to propose other alternatives. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenges to Carson's biographical narrative - Cwobeel (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC) - Fuzheado likes this.

Challenges to Carson's biographical narrative is my preference. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this section illustrates two separate issues, 1) the possibility that Carson has simply invented parts of his personal narrative that is central both to his campaign and his self-promotional business model, e.g. stabbing leading to religious epiphany, and 2) Carson's penchant for making ridiculous assertions of facts, e.g. pyramids as granaries. I think "credibility" is the accurate descriptor in both cases. If he's making up stories about his biography, he's not credible. If he's saying incredible things, he's also not credible. "Accuracy" is a weaker word and inaccurately suggests carelessness rather than culpability or credulity. I'd like to stick with "credibility."Lahaun (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have split the pyramids issue to a separate section. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC) - Fuzheado likes this.

Section Ben_Carson#Yale_psychology_class a mess

Ben_Carson#Yale_psychology_class - This section needs a lot of editing consolidation and cleaning up. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I've consolidated and cleaned it up, and removed your tag. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Paternity suit

In an April 2014 Op-Ed in the 'Washington Times', Carson wrote that he was the victim of an apparent shakedown by an unnamed woman in Florida who claimed he was the father of her son. Carson said he refused to submit a DNA sample to the State of Florida, on the grounds that the government (in general) was so irresponsible they would probably have linked him to a murder somewhere, and the paternity matter was resolved without further complications. The 'Washington Post' has also covered this story, emphasizing that, if the story (which was previously unknown to journalists) is true as Carson wrote it up, it's a rather bizarre way of making a "humblebrag" about having only slept with one woman in his life, his wife. Not sure if or how we should include this story, though it may help explain Carson's comment last week that the media thinks "there must be nurse out there somewhere". But if it gets more traction, we'll need a short section. It doesn't help that his credibility and biographical anecdote-telling is under fire. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article made the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report at number seven with 584,606 views for the week November 1 to 7, 2015. It was also number eleven the week before and number seven the week before that. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge the "Homosexuality" and "Marriage and LGBT issues" sections?

Perhaps these two sections should be merged? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Vietnam War

What was his status during the Vietnam War? Born in 1951 he would have been subject to the draft and the lottery.Robinrobin (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

He was an undergrad at Yale from 1969-1973, but the student deferment began to be phased out in November 1969. What was his lottery number? We've heard about him being in ROTC in high school and turning down a full scholarship to West Point (though he never applied). So what's his draft story? Good question Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe student deferment was phased out incrementally, and would have applied to Carson since he was earlier than the class of 75. Here's a source from 71 that supports that: [31] Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about the Vietnam War to the "Early life and education" section like those in the Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, and Bernie Sanders articles. Newross (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Employment among black teens

The following statement is undue and not relevant for inclusion in Carson's BLP:

“ At the fourth Republican debate, Carson said that just "19.8 percent of black teens have a job who are looking for one", but The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that 74.4 percent of them have jobs. ”

CFredkin (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20% of African-Americans aged 16 to 19 have jobs and the remaining 80% don't have jobs; many among that 80% aren't looking for jobs, but obviously they would be more inclined to do so if more jobs were available. So Carson almost got it exactly right. I do not support pointing this out in the Wikipedia BLP, even if we have reliable sources for it, because our section about Carson's political positions ought to just describe them without critiquing or supporting or opposing them. So, I agree with User:CFredkin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you know math? Per the source Ben Carson said that just “19.8 percent of black teens have a job who are looking for one.”Not quite. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that the unemployment rate for African-Americans between 16 and 19 years old is 25.6 percent. In other words, 74.4 percent of them have jobs, almost four times what Carson said. - Cwobeel (talk)

Carson was making a prepared remark and he garbled it badly ("who are looking for one" is very wrong)--turning it into a false statement. This speaks to his ability to understand major issues, and is highly relevant to his debate performance. Rjensen (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So, what's the political position in this?CFredkin (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that a question or a statement? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My previous post ends in a question mark, which indicates that it's a question.CFredkin (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A correct statement would be this: "Zero percent of black teenagers have a job, who are looking for one". After all, people who have a job are not looking for a job (though some of them may be looking for another job). So I doubt we should say that the correct percentage is 74.4.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

1987 Binder twins surgical outcome

I would suuggest that the Ben Carson article should provide more detail about the outcome of the Binder twins, such as

...In 1987, Carson successfully separated conjoined twins, the Binder twins, who had been joined at the back of the head (craniopagus twins). The 70-member surgical team, led by Carson, worked for 22 hours. Both twins survived, albeit each with significant brain damage.

Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a happy story. Both suffered significant brain damage and severe developmental disabilities (remember, they went into surgery laughing and giggling). One of the twins died sometime in the last decade. The other is 28 and has full, dark hair, but has never learned to speak.

In addition to details about the twins, we learn from the article that Dr. Carson played a cameo role in the 2003 Matt Damon/Greg Kinnear comedy "Stuck On You", about a set of conjoined twins. Carson apparently agreed to the cameo provided the film would premiere in Baltimore. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Bias on Neurosurgery Record

[I just realised there is an edit request, my apologies please add this as an edit request - I am new here ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorlegend (talk • contribs) 22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is now biased beyond reason on his achievement. This man has for the better part for his life been a world class neurosurgeon who got there by sheer hard work with a poor mother supporting him.

It's wonderful that you think the United States is a meritocracy. Now can we stick to the facts?

As much as I think his political views are insane. I don't think it's fair to reduce his medical career to one or two paragraphs. And for the lines mentioned his expertise with other types of neurosurgery to be left with [citation needed]

It's sad to see people trash this guy just because the media has said one or two bad things about him. I had read this same wiki years ago and his medical career has been completely destroyed unfairly. This is reddit hive mind think at it's worst.

For example the fact that he was the youngest director of neurosurgery ever at the time at John Hopkins at the age of just 33 is completely removed. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/03/403599009/5-things-you-should-know-about-ben-carson

the binders twins didn't get a good outcome, but that bit is stretched way long as if it's his fault. They were told it was a risky procedure the operation paved the way for many successful ones where Carson did the same procedure and the conjoined twins ended up normal and others ones which also failed including one where Carson tried to do a pioneering one on adults where the operating equipment were designed by him and his team.

On top of this Carson performed hundreds of surgeries and also revived/pioneered modern hemispherectomy a procedure that requires removing half a brain and he successfully did it where the children recovered completely to lead normal lives http://hemifoundation.homestead.com/jessiesstory.html

He also contributed to medical research in numerous publications. Authored 100 Neurosurgical Publications http://www.nationalreview.com/author/ben-carson http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/staffDetail.aspx?id=3290

This and many more, he has only a dozen cases of legal cases for somebody who has been doing more than the average amount of surgery " Carson’s career moved along relatively smoothly, even while performing as many as 400 operations per year – a high caseload for neurosurgeons." http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/04/ben-carson-malpractice-claims-doctor-for-president

If anything his stunning record should be displayed as well as the negative things that may have occured.

Maybe this will be removed, but i just wanted to say I would really like a neurosurgeon with around almost 30 years of service as a pediatric neurosurgeon to have more than 1 or 2 lines about his medical career and about 2 pages worth about his crazy political views.Majorlegend (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I agree mostly with what you are saying. "Edit request" would mean that YOU write what you want to be added/amended in the article and post it here. You could get inspired by what you see here, it's an old version of the article that has more details about Carson's record as a doctor. This was certainly removed because it was unsourced or poorly sourced. If you are able to provide good sources, then it might be restored. Biwom (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Majorlegend, nobody is going to remove what you wrote above. They are good suggestions and good sources. If somebody else doesn't get to it first I will add the info when I have a free moment (probably a day or two from today)

Please feel free to make further suggestions here on the talk page, and as you gain confidence that you understand things like WP:V and WP:NPOV, please feel free to start editing the page yourself. We are always glad to help anyone who wants to improve the page but is new at editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please simply delete the current paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 under the heading SURGEON and, in place of the last paragraph, simply state the date of his retirement. I agree with the comments above, that those paragraphs are obviously worded by opponents and are not objective. They are unworthy of Wikipedia, which is supposed to be objective. The simplest way to deal with them is to delete them.

Attacks on credibility/credibility

Given the media pile on/serious investigation of Carson's various assertions about his life history and other matters, I think it deserves a separate section, which I created, partly with new content and partly from pasting text from other sections. This is a rough draft and needs obvious improvement. In particular, until this new section undergoes further editing, I intentionally did not delete redundant material in other sections, but, as we edit this article together, I expect that to happen. This is also an especial plea not to revert this long addition to the article. Please, please improve, don't delete. With your help, I will continue to work on it. Lahaun (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There is one section there that seems superfluous and I have deleted it. If the story is plausible, there is no need to question it further. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

All kinds of good evidence now out refuting these media attacks. If we are going to include the attacks we need to include the rebuttals. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Legacypac. I have put rebuttals for some of the attacks, but there are still some left, if anyone can do so.

Also, I deleted the last sentence of the section about the Yale psychology class. (It read, "However, the link Carson provided is for the course 'Psychology 323b' which was offered in Spring 2002; the 'Perceptions 301' class Carson claimed to have attended was allegedly taught in the early 1970's.") The sentence apparently attempted to counterrebut Carson's rebuttal, but the sources did not do so—unless I missed it. Would this qualify as original research? —The Sackinator (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Sackinator: Restored. It is in the source provided "Allow me also to do the research for the Wall Street Journal reporter. Here is a syllabus for the class you claim never existed. Still waiting on the apology," Carson writes. The link goes to a page for the course "Psychology 323b," which was offered in Spring 2002. Carson claimed to take "Perceptions 301" while he attended Yale in the early 1970s.[32] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: I understand that I may be wrong, but the link I gave says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The quotation you have given does not explicitly say that the reference Carson gave was questionable; while it does give the year of the syllabus, it does not explicitly connect this with Carson's usage of it being questionable. In an example on what is original research and what is not, the Wikipedia page on original research uses the United Nations as an example. If sources say 1) that the UN's objective is to maintain international peace and security and 2) that they say that there have been 160 wars throughout the world since its creation, it would be original research to connect the two thoughts in a positive/negative way unless sources do such. In the same way, if sources say 1) that Ben Carson gave a link to a class from Spring 2002 to show that a class on Perception exists and 2) that he allegedly took a class with that name in the early 1970s, it would be original research to connect the two in a positive/negative way.

The page even goes as far as to say that if someone is accused of plagiarism, but a Wikipedian believes Harvard's definition of plagiarism to not include it, he/she may only place such an acknowledgement in the article if reliable sources 1) specifically speak of the specific instance of plagiarism by the person and 2) say that Harvard's definition would not fit in the scenario.

It is by the above that I conclude that the text in question should be reworded in the fashion that the sources themselves use. However, it appears that a lot of changes have occurred since I've said that. —The Sackinator (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Legacypac . This article seems a little biased for somebody who has for a better part of his life been a world class neurosurgeon,

the knifing thing was confirmed by his own mother

a fellow doctor robert prince also confirmed that carson told this story way before he became famous for anything

As for the Westpoint thing it was also found that they do call it a scholarship, because it is free to attend so anyone that got in would have essentially got a scholarship, it's just a matter of semantics. Carson was a student who would have easily gone into

Westpoint so it wasn't far-fetched that somebody told him that there is a scholarship for him. Also he had written these books decades later with a ghost writer. There has been no evidence that any of his claims are untrue...Majorlegend (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be more concise and more neutral. The Yale Psychology class story in particular is way too long and confusing. Westpoint contains what looks like original research. Biwom (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Outcome of other twin separations, surgical career

Winkelvi reversed my addition (see diff) with a note that said, among other things, that this Wikipedia article is not about Dr. Carson's medical career. I have to disagree, given that, for lack of prior political office, and for the fact his secondary writing and motivational speaking career is predicated on his medical achievements, his record as a surgeon is very much worthy of encyclopedic coverage. I'm up for better NPOV wording if that's what's called for, but I do think the fact that two of Carson's four twin separations subsequent to the Binder operation resulted in both twins dying, and one of those operations resulted in one twin dying and the other left legally blind and struggling to walk, is relevant to his career biography. Particularly so, I think, because he's made his twin separation surgeries a central part of the narrative he's presented to the public as a candidate. I also think yesterday's New York Times article on his surgical career and reputation at Hopkins, from which these facts were drawn, has further utility as a Wikipedia source and its link should not be deleted, even if some of its content might jar with perceptions preferred by the Carson campaign. I'm not trying to create a "fail list", as Winkelvi contends. Perhaps we can also note that Carson took on many cases other surgeons would not touch? Or that he was not the first or only to separate twins joined at the head, but that Hopkins apparently publicized the Binder operation in 1987, in many ways preparing the spotlight for Carson? That's also in this and other articles. Open to discussion... Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I support Winkelvi's reverting of your edit, although I don't understand his edit summary. To me, Carson's career as a surgeon definitely belongs to this article and should be even more developed. (see also above the section "Bias on Neurosurgery Record") However, at this point I think the section is unbalanced and biased, with undue weight put on the sad outcome of the twins separation, which now represents about 50% of the section, while Carson was performing 400 operations a year according to sources. I have read the NYT article, and I think it offers a much more balanced view of Carson's record as a surgeon than our article, and that it could be used (along with many other sources) to improve our article, which in my opinion in its current state really puts Wikipedia in a bad light. Biwom (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for better wording and NPOV. What about this article puts Wikipedia in a bad light? You seem at least to agree that yesterday's New York Times article on Carson's surgical career is valuable. So how can we use its contents to improve this article? I do think it's wrong only to trumpet Carson's "successes" while avoiding all mention of cases like Ladan and Laleh Bijani, for example, which do not fit the miracle-worker narrative. Once the media spotlight is off, does the welfare of these individuals matter? Of the 10 individuals who underwent Carson's separation surgery, five immediately died, three were severely disabled (one later died), and two are reported to be neurologically normal. I know the surgeries were all different and of course carried grave risks. But that Dr. Carson has frequently drawn the spotlight to his unique role as a neurosurgeon who has separated conjoined twins, even bringing it up at the first debate, I think anything short of mentioning this 5/3/2 success rate is a failure on our part. What, are we supposed just say he successfully separated five conjoined twins? Does the surgery still count as a success, I wonder, if the twins are buried separately? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The section is unbalanced without a representation of his successes. Another editor just chose to restore the content, taking it out of balance further. There cannot be claims of false balance as there are many more positive outcomes in Carson's neurosurgical career, more specifically with separating cojoined twins, so I'm really hoping no one tries to play that card. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Carson career is fair game in his bio, and that includes not only successes but also failures. I am amazed that we are having this discussion. Tagged as such. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• To be NPOV, the article should list successes and failures, but should also somehow get it across that the first few times someone does a new surgery the failure rate is high. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Guy Macon. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. So, two days ago the NYT published an article about Carson which was mostly about his medical career. I found that article quite balanced and informative. The way I remember it, it said that Carson was a star surgeon, and explained why, but also that this stardom was probably not fully deserved, and explained why. Meanwhile, when I read the "Surgeon" section in our article, I found it neither balanced, neither informative. What it says is that Carson was a surgeon and that he was not good at separating twins. My point is, we definitely have to talk about the outcome of the twin separation(s), but if that makes up 50% of the section, it is undue weight. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Angels of the OR charity

Excellent article covering an attempt by Carson to solving America's health care system: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/carsoncare-the-doctors-needy-patients-fund-that-went-nowhere-216111 - A section on this would be a worthy addition. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)