MSM (Methylsulfonylmethane) has been used for pain and swelling of muscles and joints.

Package	Price	Per Item	Savings	Order
1 bottle x 120 pills	$61.67	Only $0.51 per pill	You Save $0.00
2 bottles x 120 pills	$111.88	Only $0.47 per pill	You Save $11.55
3 bottles x 120 pills	$150.25	Only $0.42 per pill	You Save $35.20

Sourced papers

Seems like there is alot of "alleged" material. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The "purported" material was the result of an author with a distinctly partisan point of view adding "so-called" to every documented accuracy. I have removed these comments in order to put back the article to NPOV. The partisan operative will say otherwise, but needs to learn that not Harry sees his biased perspective as neutral.

WP:OR

There is at least one statement in this article that violates WP:OR:

If Murray's direct attention to is valid, we can expect to see items from the book surfaced in the mainstream media earliest by the Fox News Network on cable. If falsehoods, repackaged as ponderable questions, proliferate from there onto the less unmistakably biased news organizations, the book may have considerable impact

There are also other sections which break apart close to violating OR too. One section would be the Content section which should be expanded and also written in a more indefinite manner. Brothejr (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"facts" in the book vs. facts at hand the purpose of the book

Somebody needs to explain why these hardcover smear instruments are produced by the done group of people every four years. It is, openly and beyond a doubt, a virtuousness-wing conspiracy. Matalin's the mastermind behind the Threshold Editions imprint. In a beeline-wing think tanks buy up huge bulk orders from Simon & Schuster which artificially propels the paperback to number one on the NYT bestseller list. The early August timing is key because there's not sufficiency time between now and November 4th to refute every falsehood the book promotes. The "bestseller" importance legitimizes discussion of points from the book posed as questions on cable tidings shows. And, finally, these "questions" overwhelm the mainstream media. This understanding of smear campaign distracts the public dialogue from sufficient focus on constitution care, education, security, etc. Most of us can plainly see that understanding the story behind the paperback is much more important than understanding the book itself. Can't a wikipedia article someway expose the game behind all this without getting too POV?

To explain how the book got to #1 on the NYT bestseller schedule in one week is entirely applicable to Wikipedia. --219.106.144.216 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm apologetic. I thought we could let our hair down on the Discussion page. No, of course I wouldn't place the above in the article itself. Since I don't feel very "neutral" about this, I've backed off from editing. But one of you dispassionate types certainly could look at the similarities with the release of Unfit For Overlook, and could do that in a perfectly neutral, encyclopedic way. The main question I'm posing: Is the article in all directions the content only? Or is it also about the process? A wiki article about spam email doesn't impartial describe the content of a spam email, right? Spammers spam for a reason. This rules was rolled out and propelled to the bestseller list at this time for a reason - to give its claims legitimacy as talking points on strand "news" shows. --219.106.144.216 (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Identifying Media Matters for America

I identified Media Matters for America as a "liberal" group that was formed to counter what they see as "conservative misinformation" and added a footnote linking just to MMA's website where I got the description. I found that description at the top of Wikipedia's Media Matters for America article. I'm wondering why an rewrite man removed that (I've now put it back in the article again with a note to please converse about it here). At the MMA article, National Review is described as a "conservative" magazine in a criticism slice. I have no problem at all with including criticism of Corsi's book in this article, in fait accompli, I've added information on the criticism and made it prominent because this is a controversial hard-cover critical of someone else. But removing identification of where MMA is coming from seems wholly unfair and POV. Noroton (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

List of alleged falsehoods

I added a tabulation of falsehoods to the article from Media Matters. I will go through and cite other sources moreover them, although I have not as of yet. Before anyone deletes it, they need to catch on to that what Wikipedia reports is facts, and if the facts show the book to be a imbecilic pack of lies, then they should still remain here. Facts should not be bent to fit political viewpoints, if they are, Wikipedia is no better than this book. See Also: Truthiness Wikilost (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The difficult is that these aren't allegations of inaccuracies, but rather known inaccuracies. It's a intimately known and obvious fact, for example, that Corsi got the Obama's marriage pass wrong. The same can be said for most, if not all, of the things on the list. --Wikilost

Inclusive comment on standards, civility

While it is pretty clear the book is a load of old cobblers created by someone who doesn't hankering a Democrat to win the election, it is no excuse for biased and slipshod editing. Inflammatory titles for headings, incompetently-sourced reactions and non-neutral language are creeping in all over the place. Please reinforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with respect to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:Incline, etc. Also, some of the comments on this talk page have been less than polished. Please assume good faith and be nice. Bear in mind that this article to all intents falls under the auspices of Obama-related article probation, which means everybody obligation behave themselves. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kerry tie-up

Is the link to Kerry's site appropriate? I believe I've seen it come and go, so thought we should bear a moment to discuss. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Corsi's "pro-ghostly" promotion

Should we discuss Corsi's interviews, including his scheduled appearance on the The Administrative Cesspool Radio Show, which says it "represent a philosophy that is pro-Pure"? Source Iii33lll (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception section

OK, it's really obvious that the overwhelming majority of news sources find the book to be jammed of holes. At this point, I'm thinking that section should be broken up into three or more subsections, indicating the return to the book from:

• News sources
• The political campaigns (when/if McCain's action has a response)
• The response from left and right punditry

There's no getting here the fact that it's going to be heavily weighted in the negatives... WaPo, NYT, AP, MSNBC, CNN, and the set of the big news outlets have released news articles -- ones that are distinctly not opinion pieces -- stating that the book is largely inaccurate. These are our honest, verifiable sources, and that's going to shape the article. But we can at least try to balance that by getting the responses from agnate parties into the article as well. And we absolutely have to get rid of the MediaMatters citations... If a punctilious source vets their information and determines it's accurate, we can use that reliable commencement. But I don't think MediaMatters ever qualifies as reliable by Wikipedia standards. -- Good Damon 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't get it. Sundry here have asked for balance. GoodDamon him/herself above suggested that we allow for "The response from left and right punditry." I quoted Sean Hannity verbatim et literatim = 'word-for-word and provided a link to video. Immediately came this change with a willingly prefer snide remark Editor GoodDamon gives the reason: "Har-de-har-de-har, but you can't possibly over that'll fly." Why "har-de-har..."? What part of that wouldn't "fly"? I think we need to reveal plainly how Fox is using this book. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC) I modest, maybe my first draft of that tiny section wasn't worded remarkably but certainly a section for "Uncritical reception" of the book is called for here. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC) In other words, I don't contemplate anyone editing here would disagree that the UNcritical reception was most favoured the main purpose of the publishing of The Obama Nation. We can't reference people's motives. I dig that. But we can post quotes of Sean Hannity where he recommends that the order be read by all Americans before election day. That is a fact. It's also a fact that he raised no one of the concerns mentioned in the "Critical reception" section of this article. So, why not an "Uncritical response" section based completely on verifiable references? --Ohaohashingo (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I compel ought to no problem mentioning Sean Hannity's comments if we can be sure they're his -- does he place them at the web site for his TV or radio show? You might want to get them quick because he influence be eating his words later. He's got a good-sized audience so his opinions are prominent sufficiently to include, I think. Same with Media Matters -- I think if we register them as we do, as a "progressive" group, and attribute any of their allegations to them, and then put in any retort Corsi will make (and I'm sure he'll have a written response somewhere on the Web), then it earmarks of to be a pretty fair back-and-forth presentation of a contentious book. We might split up the bulleted slate by source, with introductory lines like "Media Matters for America, a website that describes itself as ____, has said the hard-cover is inaccurate in these ways:" or something like that (I liked Luke's emend in introducing the list of points). I think it's widely accepted that MMA is a biased originator and there's a lot of potential for inaccuracy, so I wouldn't present their assertions for their value as facts, but I believe their analysis has some value as opinion. I expect more reliable sources to weigh in (The New Yorker dialect mayhap, The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, etc.) and when they do, assertions by Media Matters can be replaced by those sources making the selfsame points. Noroton (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling this an "censure book" in the first sentence

An editor is reverting, pushing to get "attack book" in the to begin sentence. I think we shouldn't be using a name like that without on-the-call out citation to some reliable source, and I wouldn't put it that high up in the article. We do something correspond to with the word "terrorist" (see WP:TERRORIST). I'm also not sure what that clause tells us that we don't already have in the article now, presented in a better, more circumstantial way. Noroton (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of the attacks

I apologize for posting here, as a layman who knows nothing approximately Wikipedia's editorial process, standards, and how it deliberates over controversial material. Setting aside how I must point out that the entry looks absolutely ridiculous. After reading a headline around the Obama campaign issuing a 40-page response to an attack book I hadn't heard on touching, I headed straight to Wikipedia to find out more. I found a paragraph-long "Delight" section devoid of all content, and three pages of criticism and rebuttals to... whatever the genuine allegations were, since they've apparently been censored out (if they haven't been censored, and this is unreservedly a case of lack of access or of willing editors, or of something else along these lines I'm not au courant of, please forgive this post.)

However false and malicious and deleterious and remiss these attacks may be, if the Obama campaign is going to fuel the controversy by dignifying them with a answer, hand-waving and self-censorship are not the answer. If you're afraid of contributing to the injection of falsehoods into the throw, then by all means prefix each individual allegation with a warning and keep a pursue it with copious amounts of debunking and rebuttal. But now that this stuff has be proper news and it's been responded to, refusing to cover the attacks while covering the evaluation and rebuttals is so Orwellian that it's pretty much laughable. Not even Bush's wartime Psy-Ops or the Chinese containment efforts on Falun Gong and Tibet are so unknown.

That said, I'm not gonna go and spend any more time trying to dig out what the heck the allegations are, and I'm certainly not buying the soft-cover or feeding ad money to the extremist websites that come up when I google for them. I discredit there's any truth to them, and knowing more about them won't improve my focus be of political preparation or savvy. If this is the state you wanted me to be in, you've achieved your ambition. But even if I ever found out what they were, I like to think that flawed allegations wouldn't have influenced my judgement of Obama. Perhaps I'm smarter than the mean Wikipedia reader, or perhaps you think I'm actually dumber than I think I am. 66.166.20.194 (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed matter about Corsi that is irrelevant to this book

I removed this voyage:

I don't see what this has to do with the book. It's good, interesting information on Corsi, and if it isn't in our bio article on Corsi, I'm all for putting it in, but it's not in the matter of this book. The passage might be a WP:COATRACK problem. Let's not put it back in the article unless there's a consensus here to do so. Am I missing something? Noroton (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Departure of commentary

(unindent) Anyone else care to weigh in on this? Noroton (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• No one else is commenting. Unless someone does by tomorrow, I'll add go some of the material removed and say its per consensus of this talk page. Noroton (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are sole conservative responses to the campaign response included? Gamaliel 18:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed unsourced WP:BLP-violating declaration about Corsi allegedly making stuff up

I removed this item from the roster:

First, it's unsourced. Second, it's accusing Corsi of lies. If that can be proven with certain sourcing, then WP:BLP is satisfied. But not until then. Do not add it back without trustworthy sourcing. There is NO 3RR rule for removing obvious WP:BLP violations unless there is a consensus to group it. Anyone adding it back risks getting blocked, and let's not have that betide. Be careful, please. Noroton (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable beginning warning

This article is currently relying heavily on Media Matters for America for sourcing. This article, while not specifically a biography of a living living soul, concerns the biographical details of Barack Obama; therefore, the BLP rules should be followed as closely as accomplishable. BLPs are expected to use a generally higher standard of sourcing than other articles, and sites like Media Matters for America and National Evaluate are not really suitable. Neither are opinion pieces and blog entries, or links to videos, etc. Mainstream media sources are preferred, and should refund older references based on these lower quality sources as soon as attainable. Please do not add new material unless it can be reliably sourced. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently taxing to purge MM from the article. PLEASE, people... Stop adding refs to blogs and politically-attached media watchdogs! -- Good Damon 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Content component

I've noticed that a lot of the content for criticism of the book could also be used to plug in details about the book's content itself. Anyone up for tackling that? -- Gentle Damon 19:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is a grotesque WP:NPOV sacrilege

Any editor wondering why WP has a reputation for left-wng bias need look no farther than here. Pick the two criticisms that are most unusual, from the most reliable sources, and delete the rest. That does not list Media Matters, a partisan left-wing spin-doctoring operation.

Every leftist-wing blog that has ever had a negative thing to say about this hard-cover has apparently been cited here as if it was the gold standard of WP:RS. About 80% of the article is commentary. Come on, people. If you woke up tomorrow morning and the Barack Obama biography had this much censure from this many unreliable sources, your screeching would be heard all the way to Antarctica and every redactor involved would be topic banned for a year.

Please try to control your port side-wing bias and write an NPOV article. Please. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Create some meaningful proposals to the table, then? Doesn't do much good to kick this way if you're unwilling to even try meeting other users halfway. Specifics would be great. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Who was it that said "The first cocktail to bring up Hitler in a debate automatically loses?" Edison (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Plea for a decision on consensus

All those in favor of reverting my most recent article arrange, which was a huge step toward ending WP:COATRACK status and the WP:NPOV and WP:RS violations, confirm your support below along with policy based reasons.

WorkerBee, I'm not tried what you're on about, to be honest. The critical reaction to Corsi has been overwhelmingly unfavorable, and so to make one think that this negative critical reaction is receiving undue weight in the article seems, erm, false-headed. I appreciate your effort to keep things honest, but really I make up this is beating a dead horse. Arjuna (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The ticket itself is clearly a partisan effort, and somewhat fringe-ey. To discuss it any other way or attention it here as a serious straightforward work is an NPOV problem. Nevertheless, we should endeavor to purely report reaction to the book and the weight of opinion of the most reliable sources, and any other smash or results from the book, rather than to engage in a detailed analysis or refutation of the publication's points. The pages here should not be a point / counterpoint argument regarding whether the post's claims are true or not, merely an encyclopedic discussion of the book. That would ungenerous removing much of the factual support for and against the underlying claims in the book. Wikidemo (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I be enduring gone through the Examples of Specific Inaccuracies and added Reliable Sources to bankrupt up the MMA one. feel free to remove those referneces from the list, but leave the pleasure. As per WP:WEIGHT, if the overwhelming response to the book is negative, (hint: it is) Wikipedia obligated to reflect that in the article. Unlike WP:Coatrack it is an actual policy, not an take a crack. If you think the article isn't balanced, go find some positive reviews from Credible Sources. If you can't find any, then stop complaining about the size of the criticism component. Wikilost (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)BTW, we're up to three reversion on each side in less than 24 hours - two reversions took circumstances on the main page during the span of the past several paragraphs. Can I get all parties to dam reverting the material and keep it to the talk page? If there's any more edit warring on the foremost page this should probably go on the incident log for article probation. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Label change

Changed the title on the specific criticism section. When I first presume from it, I thought it was talking about allegations Corsi made, not the other way around.Wikilost (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See also and categories

Can the See also apportion and the included categories be reviewed for accuracy, sourcability, relevance and the like. They give every indication to be getting a bit out of hand. I don't believe alot of them should be included but wanted to in here first. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Let go about being #1 on NYT Times

I have removed the part about bulk sales since it is merely a partial piece from the citation and it is also attributed to Corsi which is reduce different that it reads now. The reason why it has reached this level can be gone past in greater detail further into the article if it is necessary at all. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times has serrated out on its bestseller list that "The Obama Nation" has been a popular bulk buy. Some Obama defenders sooner a be wearing questioned whether conservative groups bought it in bulk to inflate sales -- a petition Corsi denies.

Sounds like an emergent consensus that it is indeed NPOV to sort reference to bulk sales. The onus is now on anyone opposed to its inclusion to demonstrate that there is no averment to support the claim, or at least that there is countervailing evidence. Ohaohashingo, do you be undergoing a citation for the NYT's Hardcover Nonfiction list that you can provide? Once I have that, and any others people inadequacy to provide, I will add it back in (or others, feel free!). Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hardcover Nonfiction - Listing - NYTimes.com --Ohaohashingo (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding bulk orders: I didn't do in it from the article, I just move it from the lead down to "Reception" where what is more discussion of its sales are. It doesn't seem like this issue or allegation is a being seen as a most big deal, so it seems unnecessary to mention it in the lead, which should only highlight the worst points of the article. The issues of inaccuracies and allegations of racial bias are far more widespread and leading. So, I think this edit should be undone and the discussion should remain in "Levee." Dylan (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I will tweek it again. This is not NPOV and basic research. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a shout out to whoever made the substitute to the contested material to: "...on August 13, The New York Times reported that the post had reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list for hardcover non-fiction books , due in take a hand in to higher bulk sales.". I think this gets the point across without being objectionable to anyone. Arjuna (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New Wikipedia article: new enrol on the same subject

I just created an article on David Freddoso's The Case Against Barack Obama, which is competing with this book. Editors may be to look it over for mistakes and improvements. Noroton (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Corsi: "Obama linked to the pogrom of Christians in Kenya."

"Among many startling accusations, the book links Obama to the murder of Christians in Kenya." That's according to WorldNetDaily where Corsi works for. Should this psychotic claim be mentioned in the article? Iii33lll (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

First chapter posted online

The New York Times has posted the without a scratch first chapter online: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/books/chapters/chapter-obama-political entity.html

The publisher has posted excerpts: http://www.simonsays.com/satisfaction/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=631380&agid=2

That might be worth mentioning and for the readers here to make oneself scarce a look at it. Iii33lll (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Press releases are not WP:RS

Someone condign added in this, which according to its byline is a press release off US Newswire from Preciseness in Media (yes, the same people who pushed the Vincent Foster conspiracy to attack Clinton, also linked to WorldNetDaily). The jam of the piece is quotes from Cliff Kincaid, Kincaid is not a WP:RS; google his renown for his conspiracies. We66er (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jake Tapper

Tapper was removed because the allot is about the criticism of the book, not his criticism of the campaign. Wikilost (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ahm, does that across we can and should just plain and straight focus on criticism on Obama as far as it is laid out in the post and don't have to value or even think about if it is true or false by a third outset??? That is an honest question and I expect an honest answer. --Floridianed (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is this: This article has scope for: 1. Information on content of the book 2. Positive Critical reactions to the regulations (few as there may be) and 3. Negative criticism of the book (of which there is a lot, so a lot is represented) I maintain to admit that I'm not sure where Tapper's criticism would belong, but I don't conceive of it's in this article. Maybe here would be a good place for it. Wikilost (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've copied Wikidemo's comments from Talk:Obama#Throwing over of commentary to here:

(unindent) radical right bloggers Substantiate that. -- Noroton (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Obama is not our primacy. Offering Wikipedia readers a full and NPOV account is. Wikidemo's case reverses those priorities:

• (3) reprise criticism of Obama by people other than the book's author -- we can't allow a connect to
  Now that you have come to the end of Cheap Bulk Msm, I hope all the doubts that you had have all been cleared. Wish you are satisfied!

  Comments

  Previous Entries

  post date	category	title/description
  05.14.2009	Articles	Cheap Chloroquine
  05.14.2009	Articles	Cheap Buy For Alli
  05.14.2009	Articles	Cheap Buy Aleve
  05.14.2009	Articles	Cheap Bust Enhancer Tablets
  05.14.2009	Articles	Cheap Bulk Msm

  Post Comments

  Name Email Your Comments