Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,647 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 232,490
Pageviews Today: 309,610Threads Today: 54Posts Today: 1,062
02:05 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned

 
Krysalis
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 570987
United States
03/10/2009 05:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
[link to wnd.com]

Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.

A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry [link to en.wikipedia.org] finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.

Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief. [link to www.worldnetdaily.com]

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now! [link to www.wnd.com]

Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.

In one example, one Wikipedia user added the following to Obama's 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."

As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com

The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material.

According to Wikipedia rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."

The Obama eligibility issue has indeed been reported extensively by multiple news media outlets. WorldNetDaily has led the coverage. Other news outlets, such as Britain's Daily Mail and the Chicago Tribune have released articles critical of claims Obama may not be eligible. The Los Angeles Times quoted statements by former presidential candidate Alan Keys doubting Obama is eligible to serve as president. Just last week, the Internet giant America Online featured a top news article about the eligibility subject, referencing WND's coverage.

When the user tried to repost the entry about Obama's eligibility a second time, another administrator removed the material within two minutes and then banned the Wikipedia user from posting anything on the website for three days.

Wikipedia administrators have the ability to kick off users if the administrator believes the user violated the website's rules.

Over the last month, WND has monitored several other attempts to add eligibility issues to Obama's Wikipedia page. In every attempt monitored, the information was deleted within minutes and the user who posted the material was barred from the website for three days.

Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia, explained to WND that all the website's encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers.

"Administrators," Starling said, "are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia."

According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the seventh most trafficked website on the Internet. A Google search for the words "Barack Obama" brings up the president's Wikipedia page in the top four choices, following two links to Obama's official websites.

Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio

The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant.

For example, the current paragraph on Obama's religion contains no mention of Wright, even though Obama's association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign.

That paragraph states: "Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand 'the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.' He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades."

Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant.

WND monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers' name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:

"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge."

Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding "Point of View junk edits," even though the addition was well-established fact.

The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, "Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. ... After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession."

The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was "favorably treated due to his father's political standing" during his National Guard service." It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 06:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
King Canute can't stop the tide coming in.
G.L.
User ID: 629439
United States
03/10/2009 06:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause"
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 06:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
It makes you wonder what kind of blue touch paper he has lit.

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]


Public safety officials were quick to claim there was no threat.

The story of the first attempt at constructing a "dirty bomb" in the United States was not carried by any mainstream press outside of Maine.

"Conservatives apparently didn't want to draw attention to a radioactive, wealthy version of Timothy McVeigh coming from their own sphere, although nearly every day during Bush's reign saw "dirty bombs" hyped as the ultimate threat," summarized Wikileaks.

"The left didn't want to repeat another 'dirty bomb' story, the likes of which Republicans had used to drive hundreds of billions of dollars into Republican dominated military and security contractors."

In the report, an unnamed source noted, "state authorities detected radiation emissions in four small jars in the residence labeled 'uranium metal', as well as one jar labeled 'thorium.' The four jars of uranium carried the label of an identified US company."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 339051
United States
03/10/2009 06:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
It's because they are tired of it, we are all tired of it and wish you would move on to a new, more pertinent issue, really. There will never be anything anyone can show you to convince you because "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" We want to move forward with the President that we have and wish you would come with us,if not,fine, but please,we beg you, STFU about this issue. There are real, true battles to fight, you do not have to make shit up.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 06:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Nobody is making anything up.

The court cases are a fact.

They were brought for a reason. All he had to do was put forward the relevant documents.

What he has done is to stir up a lot of unnecessary anger by not doing so.

You have to ask yourself why.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 06:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
This all has to be fate because ...

1 Even if he brought forward a birth certificate his father is Kenyan.

2 Is he still Indonesian?

All you had to do was find a normal American person with two American parents born on American soil.

Why was it so difficult?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 06:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
300 million people. Surely there was one.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 06:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
It's because they are tired of it, we are all tired of it and wish you would move on to a new, more pertinent issue, really. There will never be anything anyone can show you to convince you because "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" We want to move forward with the President that we have and wish you would come with us,if not,fine, but please,we beg you, STFU about this issue. There are real, true battles to fight, you do not have to make shit up.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 339051


No one interested in history could have ever ignored this.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 599652
Australia
03/10/2009 06:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
it doesn't matter who's in power, there's people out there that will always
think that their government is a big conspiracy.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 558641
United States
03/10/2009 06:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Nobody is making anything up.

The court cases are a fact.

They were brought for a reason. All he had to do was put forward the relevant documents.

What he has done is to stir up a lot of unnecessary anger by not doing so.

You have to ask yourself why.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 594298



Oh, you mean all of those court cases that were thrown out? I'm sure you believe that they were thrown out due to corruption rather than the absolute absence of supporting evidence, but whatever.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 06:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
These are real lawyers with real questions. No conspiracy.

It looks like you are stuck with him anyway.

[link to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 558641
United States
03/10/2009 06:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Oh and to the "But all he had to do was show his birth certificate!!!" replies that I know are coming:


1) He did.

2) Even if he HAD NOT...so? If some random person on an internet "fringe" site demands that you show proof of anything, are you going to go "Oh yes sir, right away sir!"? Or are you going to ignore them like the fringe-conspiracy-theorist-desperate-to-stir-up-nonexistent-t​rouble that they are?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 06:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
From Donofrio's site ...

That metamorphosis has important Constitutional consequences which cannot be ignored. The Constitution provides that once we have a President-elect, the eligibility of that person can be challenged by Congress. The political question doctrine kicks in at that point and the ability of any other branch to challenge for POTUS eligibility is probably nullified. And once the President-elect is sworn in and assumes office, the Constitutional separation of powers certainly controls the issue.

Recall, Congress didn’t challenge Obama’s eligibility before he was sworn in, so those provisions are now moot. And once a person is sworn in as President, the Constitution then provides specific means for removing the President from office, none of which grant such power to the Judicial Branch. Now please consider the following two points:

1. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President.

Those who are currently petitioning the Judicial branch to challenge Presidential eligibility are seeking to subvert the Constitution.

They will argue Obama isn’t legally President and so therefore the Constitutional separation of powers can be ignored. Should a court ever accept that theory, you will have the recipe for civil war, and you will be doing more damage to the nation than you can even imagine. Protest all you like, but the US Government recognizes his authority.

Furthermore, United States Courts all the way up to SCOTUS have refused to get involved, and this was the case before Obama was sworn in when the Judicial Branch actually did have the power to adjudicate the eligibility issue. They punted. Fact.

Now that Obama has taken the office of President and is officially recognized as President, no court is going to suddenly take a leap around the separation of powers by agreeing the Constitution doesn’t apply to Obama as President. That will never happen.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 06:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Oh and to the "But all he had to do was show his birth certificate!!!" replies that I know are coming:


1) He did.

2) Even if he HAD NOT...so? If some random person on an internet "fringe" site demands that you show proof of anything, are you going to go "Oh yes sir, right away sir!"? Or are you going to ignore them like the fringe-conspiracy-theorist-desperate-to-stir-up-nonexistent-t​rouble that they are?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 558641


Relax. You are stuck with him.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 07:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
More ...

HYPOTHETICAL:

Two double agents born in the evil nation of “KILLAMERICASTAN” sneak a child into America over the Canadian border and later obtain false documents indicating they are US citizens and that their child was born in the United States. The child is raised like a Manchurian Candidate and believes his parents are US citizens and that he was born in the US. The child grows up a gifted politician and eventually becomes President. After being sworn in, the truth is discovered by US Intelligence and proved beyond any doubt. The President then refuses to leave office since he didn’t do anything wrong and had no knowledge of the plot.


There was a child registered in Canada by the name of Barack Obama at that time.

If you want Conspiracy ... this is the best one yet.

Gifted to read a teleprompter.
Krysalis (OP)

User ID: 570987
United States
03/10/2009 08:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
More ...

HYPOTHETICAL:

Two double agents born in the evil nation of “KILLAMERICASTAN” sneak a child into America over the Canadian border and later obtain false documents indicating they are US citizens and that their child was born in the United States. The child is raised like a Manchurian Candidate and believes his parents are US citizens and that he was born in the US. The child grows up a gifted politician and eventually becomes President. After being sworn in, the truth is discovered by US Intelligence and proved beyond any doubt. The President then refuses to leave office since he didn’t do anything wrong and had no knowledge of the plot.


There was a child registered in Canada by the name of Barack Obama at that time.

If you want Conspiracy ... this is the best one yet.

Gifted to read a teleprompter.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 594298


Didn't someone do a search once on the name and come up with 20 or so "Barack Obama's"
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 08:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
I read somewhere about it that there was one Barack Obama born at that time. It would probably come up on Google.

On looking further into Donofrio's post he seems to be suggesting that AG Holder could look into the case of Obama's eligibility.

[link to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com]

So, there’s probably no legal conflict of interest requiring Eric Holder to recuse himself. Any conflict of interest which exists is probably limited to the personal gratitude AG Holder may have for Obama since he appointed him. But that’s not the type of conflict which requires recusal. For example, a Supreme Court Justice does not have to recuse himself in a dispute involving the President who appointed him.

It’s not fair to suggest AG holder won’t do his job because he owes personal allegiance to Obama. I believe in fighting a fair fight even if others fight unfairly against me. It’s only fair that the man be given the chance to do the right thing. Furthermore, no verified petition has even been forwarded to the Attorney General’s office.

The federal quo warranto statute provides that the “United States attorney” may institute an action in quo warranto on his own motion. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia is Jeffrey Taylor. He was appointed to that position in 2006 by the Bush administration and certainly has no conflict of interest. I am not aware of anybody who has contacted US Attorney Taylor in this regard. It will only take one of those officials to bring the action, not both.

WHY EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE BY THE PUBLIC TO PRESSURE AG HOLDER AND US ATTORNEY TAYLOR TO INSTITUTE - ON THEIR OWN MOTION - AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT EX RELATOR PLAINTIFFS
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 08:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
He could have been born anywhere if he hasn't come up with the long form birth certificate.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 09:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Donofrio continues ...

While arguments about whether the military make the best plaintiffs have been raging, the simple truth is that a quo warranto case with the best chance of success ought to be initiated with no private plaintiffs at all. The federal quo warranto statute shows a preference for cases brought on behalf of the United States by the Attorney General or the US Attorney. And until respectful pressure is applied to those officials, the nation is deprived of the most perfect avenue to justice. Until this course of action is exhausted, I pray that all private attorneys briefly delay requesting consent from these officials while an effort is made to persuade them that it’s in the best interests of the nation for them to proceed on their own motion.

This is not a private issue. The controversy is raging. Nobody can deny that. AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor need to consider that the citizens, the military, the Government - as well as Obama himself - will all be better off once clear title to the office is established.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 09:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
I wonder if AG Holder would look into it with all his talk of 'cowards' and stuff.

hiding
Apocalypse Troll
Trollicus Apocalyptus

User ID: 590726
United States
03/10/2009 09:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Relax. You are stuck with him.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 594298



Clayton Williams said something very similar to what you just did.
attxflag
"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."

[link to www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us]
Skeptic
User ID: 631060
United States
03/10/2009 09:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
In general, I have found that Wikipedia is no better than any other encyclopedia. The person in charge of a particular article has his own point of view, and feels free to impose it. I have seen both extremes: an article that gives too much credit to a fringe hypothesis, and an article that refuses to mention a mainstream hypothesis that has now been declared "fringe" for political reasons.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 10:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Relax. You are stuck with him.



Clayton Williams said something very similar to what you just did.
 Quoting: Apocalypse Troll



I've never heard of him until you just mentioned him.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

On the whole I like Wikipedia. They have plenty on other people including Geithner. Nobody dare touch Obama because of the bots.

I wonder if anything will land on AG Holder's desk. He should at least be made to look at it even if he rejects it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 10:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Supreme Court.

Congress.

Attorney General.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 10:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
I remember him now.

[link to www.independent.co.uk]

I supppose it is similar.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 565924
United States
03/10/2009 12:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
He could have been born anywhere if he hasn't come up with the long form birth certificate.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 594298


Wrong. The place of birth is still required regardless.

Here's a refresher for you....this would be Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 12:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
He could have been born anywhere if he hasn't come up with the long form birth certificate.


Wrong. The place of birth is still required regardless.

Here's a refresher for you....this would be Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 565924


They hand them out to anybody.

Not sufficient.

Which hospital? Proof please.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 12:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Everybody has to hand over a long form certificate so why not him?

Why do you defend him?

The armed forces have to. Surely you wouldn't deny them proof from their Commander In Chief?

Why would you treat them in such a way?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 594298
United Kingdom
03/10/2009 12:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
I really can't understand why some people defend him.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 565924
United States
03/10/2009 12:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
He could have been born anywhere if he hasn't come up with the long form birth certificate.


Wrong. The place of birth is still required regardless.

Here's a refresher for you....this would be Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961.


They hand them out to anybody.

Not sufficient.

Which hospital? Proof please.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 594298


"They hand them out to anybody."

This is yet another baseless claim on your part. Try again.

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!