Wikipedia scrubs Obama entry Options Rating

[Obesity]

You need to head over to the Obama article on Conservapedia for--shall we say--a more fair-and-balanced treatment.

A typical excerpt:

Obama is likely the first Muslim President

The argument that Obama is a Muslim is largely based on his Islamic background. It also includes:

• Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[25][26]
• Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad,[27] which most Christians would not retain.[28]
• Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[29]
  He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."[30]
• Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class Arabic accent" the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."[31]
• Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.[32]
• Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a Kenyan presidential candidate who had a written agreement with Muslim leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.[33]
• Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.[34] On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[35] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[36]
  Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
• Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.[37]
• Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"[38]
• Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam. [39]
• Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[40]
• Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;[41] "Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history."[42]
• "President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend [Sunday] church services since winning the White House earlier ..., a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors."[43]

I love that website.

Did I mention my several accounts and I were banned from Conservapedia? It was not one of my happiest days.

This post has been edited by Obesity: Mon 9th March 2009, 3:19pm

[Bottled_Spider]

You need to head over to the Obama article on Conservapedia for--shall we say--a more fair-and-balanced treatment.......
I love that website.

I see what you mean. I used to - vaguely - like Obama. Well, my eyes are open now. Damn him to Hell.

Did I mention my several accounts and I were banned from Conservapedia? It was not one of my happiest days.

I've never indulged. It would be interesting to see how long it would take for a couple of identities to get banned, there. So many forums, so little time, though.

[Tarc]

Mainstream getting on board that Wikipedia is bull donkey

"Mainstream" and "worldnetdaily" appearing in the same sentence is pretty funny, I tellya.

[Jon Awbrey]

Mainstream getting on board that Wikipedia is bull donkey

"Mainstream" and "worldnetdaily" appearing in the same sentence is pretty funny, I tellya.

Man, what a bunch o' longhairs —

I mean on their knuckles —

Makes you wonder how they type —

Ja Ja Ja

[Milton Roe]

Basically, Wikipeida is home of Obama cult love.

Wait, I thought they were so conservative that there was some question of fascism?

Well, which is it, now?

Wait, fascism is conservative?

Apparently, since that is a typical word used by The Left when speaking about conservatives.

[Jon Awbrey]

Basically, Wikipeida is home of Obama cult love.

Wait, I thought they were so conservative that there was some question of fascism?

Well, which is it, now?

Wait, fascism is conservative?

Apparently, since that is a typical word used by The Left when speaking about conservatives.

But fascists always describe themselves as leading a populist rebellion.

Y'know, like Ronnie Raygun.

Jon

[Milton Roe]

Basically, Wikipeida is home of Obama cult love.

Wait, I thought they were so conservative that there was some question of fascism?

Well, which is it, now?

Wait, fascism is conservative?

Apparently, since that is a typical word used by The Left when speaking about conservatives.

But fascists always describe themselves as leading a populist rebellion.

Y'know, like Ronnie Raygun.

Jon

You see, you neatly illustrate my point, there. Richard Nixon, too. And both of them were populists, inasmuch as they collected most of the votes in the US heartland. No, not the Left's version of Populists. Populist in the sense of representing the most numerically popular views.

Now, the Left's answer for this, is that the Silent Majority in America is actually made up mostly of fascists. With the only moderates being denizens of coastal big cities.

[Jon Awbrey]

You see, you neatly illustrate my point, there. Richard Nixon, too. And both of them were populists, inasmuch as they collected most of the votes in the US heartland. No, not the Left's version of Populists. Populist in the sense of representing the most numerically popular views.

Now, the Left's answer for this, is that the Silent Majority in America is actually made up mostly of fascists. With the only moderates being denizens of coastal big cities.

So anyone who wins an election on the popular vote is pretty much a populist — y'know, except for folks who win by the popular vote of the Supreme Court, I guess.

So the House of Reps is populist and the Senate is … what?

Jon

[Moulton]

So the House of Reps is populist and the Senate is … what?

Peerless.

[EricBarbour]

Did I mention my several accounts and I were banned from Conservapedia? It was not one of my happiest days.

And what, pray tell, were you doing on Conservapedia???
Subverting it? Or vandalizing it?

[EricBarbour]

------------
It made Fox News.....

And holy.. crap, ANI is boiling over about this story.....

Welcome to Freep Hell, boys and girls.
WP was, at one time, relatively friendly and collegial (if rather corrupt and mismanaged).

Now that it's a target for edit wars conducted by righty nut-cases, how do you like it?

is it spring break already? --Ludwigs2 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, shithead. It's Freepers-vandalizing-WP time.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 10th March 2009, 1:22am

[Milton Roe]

You see, you neatly illustrate my point, there. Richard Nixon, too. And both of them were populists, inasmuch as they collected most of the votes in the US heartland. No, not the Left's version of Populists. Populist in the sense of representing the most numerically popular views.

Now, the Left's answer for this, is that the Silent Majority in America is actually made up mostly of fascists. With the only moderates being denizens of coastal big cities.

So anyone who wins an election on the popular vote is pretty much a populist — y'know, except for folks who win by the popular vote of the Supreme Court, I guess.

I suppose so. Though the word has been used in other ways so much that even the people who call themselves "populists" really agree on what it means. Usually it means you think somebody has more power than you do, and you think that's unfair.

So the House of Reps is populist and the Senate is … what?

I have no idea. The adoption of the Constitution and thus creation of the Senate was approved by what was probably a majority vote, although the vote wasn't taken that way. So does it count, or not? Again the old problem of democracy is that you cannot settle any basic democratic issue by democratic means, since there is no way to draw democratically draw voting boundaries to begin. The US was no different. Democratic government is not a problem which admits of a solution within its own set of rules.

[Jon Awbrey]

You see, you neatly illustrate my point, there. Richard Nixon, too. And both of them were populists, inasmuch as they collected most of the votes in the US heartland. No, not the Left's version of Populists. Populist in the sense of representing the most numerically popular views.

Now, the Left's answer for this, is that the Silent Majority in America is actually made up mostly of fascists. With the only moderates being denizens of coastal big cities.

So anyone who wins an election on the popular vote is pretty much a populist — y'know, except for folks who win by the popular vote of the Supreme Court, I guess.

I suppose so. Though the word has been used in other ways so much that even the people who call themselves "populists" really agree on what it means. Usually it means you think somebody has more power than you do, and you think that's unfair.

So the House of Reps is populist and the Senate is … what?

I have no idea. The adoption of the Constitution and thus creation of the Senate was approved by what was probably a majority vote, although the vote wasn't taken that way. So does it count, or not? Again the old problem of democracy is that you cannot settle any basic democratic issue by democratic means, since there is no way to draw democratically draw voting boundaries to begin. The US was no different. Democratic government is not a problem which admits of a solution within its own set of rules.

Well, let's face it, pretty much all politicians these days describe themselves as representing the Interests, the Views, or the Will of the People.

Not that those are anywhere near the same thing.

It is usually said that the winner represents the Will of the People — but that is only because the Will is so undefined in its own right that you might as well take the winner as representing it by definition. Just like Fitness and Survival, I guess.

People may vote for the candidate who Echoes their Views, but that doesn't mean they vote for the person who Represents their Views, not by a long shot, as many a Slip of Misreading occurs between the Lip and the Echo.

Do people vote for the candidate who represents their Interests? That is even harder to tell. Unlike Views and Will, whose match or mismatch can be judged at election time, you never really know whether you elected the one who represents your Interests until several years down the road.

As for the Bicameral Congress, that was a compromise between the populism of Jefferson (the 5¢ and $2 guy) and the real estatism of Hamilton (the $10 guy). Sure, a bunch of DWG's co-founded the set-up, but what it means today is that non-populous States like Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming happily accept a disproportionate boon of Congressional Power year after year after year that allows them to doggle the denizens of populous coastal cities — like Washington DC, for instance. So much for populism. You can't get there from here.

Jon

[Emperor]

Can't find "ayers" anywhere on the page and "wright" only appears in the footnotes.

Even more strangely, these words aren't in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 or United States presidential election, 2008.

It's only in the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 article that you can get some idea what the hubbub is about.

Hey was the "Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio" section already there when I posted this? I don't remember reading it but now it's there.

[emesee]

Drudge will group what he believes are related articles together inside horizontal ruled off boxes.

Now with this WP Obama story he groups in:

--------
WIKIPEDIA scrubs Obama page clean of critical entries...

WIRE: 'Manchurian Candidate Starts War on Business'...
--------

keeps getting more interesting.

[EricBarbour]

Drudge will group what he believes are related articles together inside horizontal ruled off boxes.
Now with this WP Obama story he groups in:
--------
WIKIPEDIA scrubs Obama page clean of critical entries...
WIRE: 'Manchurian Candidate Starts War on Business'...

I sincerely hope you're not taking Drudge seriously.
There is no easy way to describe what a flake he is.....
but you can read this.

[Jon Awbrey]

Drudge will group what he believes are related articles together inside horizontal ruled off boxes.

Now with this WP Obama story he groups in:

--------

WIKIPEDIA scrubs Obama page clean of critical entries …

WIRE: 'Manchurian Candidate Starts War on Business' …

I sincerely hope you're not taking Drudge seriously.
There is no easy way to describe what a flake he is ……
but you can read this.

That's only because Obama ran against a guy who had been a POW …

Ja Ja

[LaraLove]

You need to head over to the Obama article on Conservapedia for--shall we say--a more fair-and-balanced treatment.

A typical excerpt:

Obama is likely the first Muslim President

The argument that Obama is a Muslim is largely based on his Islamic background. It also includes:

• Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[40]

Okay, well, I don't know if a post was changed or I just lost the one that contained this blog link, but that's what I wanted to comment on. The overall point is sound, but the comments in brackets were no more informed than the stupidity of the Conservapedia article. This one above, however, was my favorite. The comment in the blog was: {Presidents don't pick their own code names. The Secret Service assigns them.} Granted his source says they're assigned, but Conservapedia's got a reliable source, too, that says Obama had some say.

Regardless, I had not previously heard of "renegado" meaning "Christian turned Muslim", but even if it did, that wouldn't describe Obama, whether he was or is Muslim. The confusion around this was being discussed on Conservapedia editor Ed Poor's talk page (permanent link) back in November. Guess what Aschlafly wants, Aschlafly gets. What a nut job.

[Kato]

http://gawker.com/5167585/right+wing-write...kipedia-scandal

Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief and a frequent Fox News interviewee, took a break from covering the Middle East to fixate on the question of why Wikipedia's volunteer editors were supposedly censoring edits to Obama's Wikipedia page. According to Klein, "one user" was rebuffed when he tried to add the following paragraph to the page:
There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts.
That same user, Klein added, was given a three-day suspension after trying to add other material to the page. (Wikipedia editors, who are longtime users given extra authority, often reverse edits that they deem "fringe theories.")

Fox News picked up the tale of supposed Obamaniac censorship yesterday. But they never bothered to ask questions about the identity of "Jerusalem21," the suppressed Wikipedian. Turns out it was almost certainly Klein himself who made the offending edits, Wired notes:
Curiously, it turns out that Jerusalem21, whoever he or she might be, has only worked on one other Wikipedia entry since the account was created, notes ConWebWatch. That's Aaron Klein's entry, which Jerusalem21 created in 2006, and has edited 37 times.

[EricBarbour]

Fox News picked up the tale of supposed Obamaniac censorship yesterday. But they never bothered to ask questions about the identity of "Jerusalem21," the suppressed Wikipedian. Turns out it was almost certainly Klein himself who made the offending edits, Wired notes:
Curiously, it turns out that Jerusalem21, whoever he or she might be, has only worked on one other Wikipedia entry since the account was created, notes ConWebWatch. That's Aaron Klein's entry, which Jerusalem21 created in 2006, and has edited 37 times.

eeeexcellent.