Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-10T20:48:31Z

Rainedaye: /* Muslim Votes */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I think this article doesn't go far enough. I think there should be a picture of Hitler as the top photo, just like the Evolution page.

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

Why does it say he MAY be the first Muslim President (a horrible, false claim) and he MAY use the Koran to be sworn in

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. unsigned JohnFA

This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.

I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 ''U.S. states''. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya ==

The definition of Taqiyya in this article (''(allowed if) ... it advances the cause of Islam'') is incorrect for the Sunni Muslims. Taqiyya is only allowed when it will danger their lives otherwise.
Also, even with this allowance, many chose instead a honorable death.

Shi'ites (shia) is the one who practices this (taqiyya) in almost any situation that will cause discomfort to them otherwise.

Sunni muslim and some branches of Shi'ite, because of their extreme stances, are pretty much a different religion. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

The single photo lacked context, and the writer of this article, unfortunately, chose to translate it negatively. A more balanced discussion is available on Snopes : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 10:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== First Muslim President ==

I found this claim quite amusing at first, especially with Snopes already had it debunked quite extensively : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Then I remember that we, Indonesian, also got the wrong information. We thought Obama is a muslim, and we rejoiced.
We found out later that (1) clearly his parents are quite liberal on religions (2) the context at that time in Indonesia is that most Muslims were not religious. We were pretty laid back then. My parents drink alcohol and misses their obligatory religious duties.

So even if (again, IF) Obama was a Muslim, there's no way he's enrolled in a "radical Wahabi school". It just didn't exist back then.

Anyway, if we, Indonesians, were wrong about Obama at his time in Indonesia, it's quite understandable if others were also mistaken. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]

:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== Barack raises the bar ==

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)
: Wow. I have no idea of what to say to that.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== A hypothetical article ==

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

== Birth Certificate Controversy ==

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM

Obama attending his Grandma's funeral? No mention from the O-MSM! --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 01:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.

Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...

: Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.

::: I have decided the same thing, though maybe not to that extent.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Is going to be the next president==
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==
Article should be updated accordingly
: President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== What happening with the muslim section? ==

I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.

Also some points that really stand out to me,
*''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''
In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me
*'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)
*''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.
*''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.

I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Copyediting needed ==

I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:

"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."

is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? ==

That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.
Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A Muslim President-elect! ==

Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following:

"Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and will probably use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office."

and:

"It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== "70's terrorist" ==

I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"

he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist

we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Good point, [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]]. Thanks for the edit. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed ''property'', which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on ''people''. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is ''despicable''. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or ''tactful''. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Except that the Weather Underground did in fact kill people - 3 of their own, in a bomb-making accident. Sometimes that happens when you set off bombs, even if it's not what you had in mind. I would put other property-destruction crimes such as cross burning in the terror category as well. I do agree that Obama's association with Ayres is minimal, at best, and I have huge issues with all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by the McCain campaign. I'm not taking a stand on the content of this article one way or another. I'm just trying to organize it and cite it as best I can. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::I don't believe an accidental death of their own people should be considered "terror" though. People could technically die while making signs for a normal type of protest, not as likely, but an accident is an accident. Although I do think that some property destruction like cross burning could be argued to be terroristic because it is done in order to terrify a group of people and incite violence against that group. However I still think that what the weather underground did does not quite carry that same connotations. They were protesting a war, and doing so by costing the government money and drawing attention to their cause, at no time was a group of people targeted in a way that would indicate that they were in danger directly from a hostile organization, unless you were an office desk or a public statue/monument. To use the word "terrorist", especially nowadays, in the case of Bill Ayers is misleading, and it is a word that should not be tossed around lightly. It seems that people believe that Ayers = Terrorist, so therefore he must have killed people or tried to kill people, and this article does little to correct this misconception. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== MInd Control? Really now? ==

The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of ''fortune tellers'' so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a ''better'' president) this doesn't mean much. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:I agree. I am a practicing stage hypnotist (practicing because I still need work :) and I can tell you that most hypnotists use nothing but their voices and physical presence, and those who do use props traditionally use a pencil. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 13:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== Absence of Dancing ==

Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is [[Barack Obama]] rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?

One explanation is that the Islamic [[sharia]] disfavors dancing.[http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/islamic-scholars-denounce-dancing-say.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:When's the last time you went dancing, Andy? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::um, lol?
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpxJQABkSsQ Dancing in Puerto Rico]
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axH9bhwI8os Dancing to Snoop Dogg]

::so there it is... at least three different places where he's seen dancing. Here's my question: lets see you find videos of Mccain dancing! xP your Islamic assumption thingy holds no water since you can say the same for McCain! [[User:Ema|Ema]] 11:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::Ah! Ema, don't be fooled by this [[deceit]], he might secretly be a [http://www.dankphotos.com/whirling/ whirling dervish!] They're members of [[Sufi]] Islam, by the way. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

:::: I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you?

:::: It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Your argument is that he is a bad dancer so he must be a Muslim? Seriously Andrew, take a deep breath and relax, proving him to be a Muslim is not going to get him impeached, he has the presidency and that is that. In four years it might matter, but that means you have poor years to find less circumstantial evidence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: No, Brendanw, it is obviously not my argument that he is a "bad dancer." I think you understand my argument perfectly well and won't admit it. Suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Brendan's right about one thing at least. All the evidence listed is either circumstantial or draws illogical conclusions. The one about him when he says he joins a church after a suggestion does not in any way imply him as a muslim, though it might imply him as a disingenuous Christian. The two are mutually exclusive. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Well please explain it to me differently, initially you said he didn't dance, and now that we have three videos of it you say that he "dances with out dancing" what does that mean if not bad dancer? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Andy's saying that, in those three videos, Obama isn't really ''dancing'', in the sense of crossing a line of Muslim (im)morality. It's like being against swearing, but recognizing that words like "heck" and "geez" don't really cross that line. That said, however, I did run across a video where [http://splicd.com/wzyT9-9lUyE/31/52 Obama dances] by anyone's definition.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::RossC, this video is obviously faked. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point. (see: Berg) [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:In some Islamic traditions dancing is not allowed, in some christian traditions dancing is not allowed, some people regardless of religion just don't dance with enthusiasm (was he supposed to be [dancing inappropriately with] Ellen? While Barrack is a hottie I'm not sure she would let him do that) I was raised catholic and as a result I am a very quiet person who does not raise his arms in celebration. This is just such a far stretch that it doesn't mean anything. Heck if he were keeping his faith hidden and not praying to meca and not following the rules of Islam in order to complete the 35 year long mission that was trained in to him at a public school in indonesia at the age of 10 don't you think he would dance anyways? And his wife is a great dancer, in Islam men have a whole lot more freedom than women. this just doesn't add up to anything but crazy. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:30, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I love to dance. For what it's worth, I have seen an Obama campaign button with a picture of him dancing, and the words "Dance Yes We Can" on it. It caught my eye because I take dance lessons. See here [http://www.zazzle.com/obama_dance_button-145707809176961889] for a picture of the button. Over the years, I have met homeschooling moms of various faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) who are careful about their children dancing for modesty reasons. Not everyone enjoys dancing, of course, particularly men. While it's an interesting facet of Obama, to be honest I don't see it as a strong indicator of his religious beliefs. When weaker arguments are included, it detracts from the stronger ones, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't dance, and I can assure you that I'm not a Muslim. I'm a lousy dancer, and self-conscious about it. I also don't have a tinfoil hat, which might be why this whole conversation seems ludicrous to me. Godspeed.[[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 21:40, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::The very conservative former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, did not dance in public. This is despite the fact that his treasurer, Peter Costello, and his rival and current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, both danced on national television. Is this evidence that John Howard is a Muslim? Certainly not. There is a much less sinister and blatantly obvious explanation for Obama's lack of dancing - he isn't good at it. Just have a look at the videos posted, he has clearly received minimal dance instruction and is evidently self conscious.

And just out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen John McCain dance? How about Palin or Biden? If these three have not then why should the explanation for their lack of participation not be extended to Obama? [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Not to mention the fact that Spectral Evidence was outlawed in America back in the 1600's after 19 people were murdered for being accused of witchcraft. Get with the times, Schlafly. [[User:DRuss|DRuss]] 08:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:What is different about Obama that makes it unusual for him to not be much of a dancer? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 09:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on an answer, Andy. When'd you last hit the dance floor? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)

: Though irrelevant to the issue, I dance in times of celebration, and have also arranged for the availability of dancing by attendees at such events. Pursue this irrelevancy further and your account will be blocked, per my comment on your talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:41, 7 November 2008 (EST)
:: He does somewhat have a point, even if his methods of conveying it are a little childish. He's pretty much pointing out that your accusation opens up a big can of worms. If I was to say that Obama's lack of dancing must mean he is Muslim due to Islamic Sharia, I could also say that if I saw you sitting on the floor you must be a Muslim who is kneeling to Mecca. [[User:St0dad|St0dad]] 09:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== Anti Americanism ==

Many points in this article could be summarized into a section called "Anti Americanism"

I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. Anti Americanism should be a given a very prominent place in this article.

: I like this idea because I feel the article is too fragmented and not organized. People are adding self contained ideas in various points in the article, especially at the top, which disrupts the flow and readablity. I cleaned up the first paragraph, but I can't smooth up everything [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

If I make such an edit will I be banned? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== "Muslim Faith" comment ==

I believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or at least more sympathetic to them than Christians, but the "Muslim Faith" statement is taken out of context. I removed it as part of the evidence of him being Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't like that video btw, I only posted it to show the full context [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: On a side note, the entire section, for accuracy's sake, should be called "Why Barack Obama is not a Christian" since the only parts that are not circumstantial are in regard to disingenuous Christianity. Beyond that the idea of him not changing his name making him muslim is ridiculous. He was named for his Father. Example from reality: my middle name is Paul. I received it fromt he name of my grandfather. I'm no longer Christian. But I don't change my middle name because I no longer believe Paul's words. I keep it because I love and respect my grandfather. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::: I partially agree. Maybe there should be two sections. One detailing Anti-Christian facts and one for Pro-Muslim [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

: Schlafly reverted my change ... Why? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 14:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::Because you don't agree with him.[[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 15:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::So it's Schlaflypedia then? I had high hopes for Conservapedia [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I reverted your change because you deleted factual information. That reason should be obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Socialistic==
It is interesting to note that the MSM has buried the exact phrase and can only be found on blogs. The media will use the third person term, e.g. "Obama responds to McCains allegations of Socialistic." The quote itself is relevent. A play on words to blunt its' true impact. Actual charges of 'Socialism' or of being a 'Socialist'. Nobody uses "Socialistic"--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Wait==

Can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama is a Muslim? Thanks. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 23:12, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:Clearly someone's not paying attention. Not that I endorse the, uh, theory, but there's a whoooooole big section about it in the article. And several discussions on this talk page. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)

At this point the very thought that he's a Muslim is preposterous. No Muslim would willingly put Rahm Emmanuel, someone so notably Jewish and pro israel in such a powerful position (chief of staff). All in all though, a pretty good choice from the pool. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 23:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Obama isn't a muslim. He doesn't have the character we see on the trail to do so. I think Obama will be an awful President, is not a christian (it's too liberal), supports infanticide and sodomy, and won't do almost ''any'' of the thigs he has promised. That aside I don't think he's a muslim. Alot of the proof is probably just part of his warped view of multi-culturism, which includes the so-called ''peaceful'' religion of Allah and Muhammed. This should be placed on a different page and other more certain information placed on this page (e.g. a better photo should be placed on the top, not a picture of him which tries to accuse his patriotism.) He is going to be President, a bad one, but one nonetheless. Please, let us respect the authority of our time. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 07:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Think about this: If I had told you on September 12 2001, that in 6 years we'd ellect a liberal, socialist muslim named Barack Hussein Obama, who has terrorist friends, you call me crazy. But here we are. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

==Connections with Irish Terrorists==

I note that a liberal contributor has seen fit to add a line stating that The Republic of Ireland refused to extradite Rita O'Hare -- the IRA terrorist who Obama met last year -- for one of several alleged offences. Why is this of any interest? She served time in the Republic for smuggling explosives. So that country's legal authorities were in no doubt as to her status. Does Wikipedia regard shooting British soldiers in Northern Ireland as a "political offence"? If so, then should we regard killing American soldiers in Iraq the same way? I don't think so. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 18:29, 7 November 2008 (GMT)
:Well spoken Keith! I intend to contact the Irish Embassy in Washington and ask that they make a clear statement condemning our Marxist Terrorist President-Elect's meeting with these vile killers. I would encourage ASchlafly to perhaps make a television appearance about this? As a lawyer, I'm sure he can speak to the international law aspects of this very serious matter. What's next I wonder - how soon are Nobama's Shining Path, Khmer Rouge, Sandanista, and Red Brigade friends going to crawl their way from their terrorist swamps into the halls of Washington power?! Not long I'll bet! [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 13:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:Nodanca was was probably a member of the [[FLQ]], too! [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 18:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, it was the High Court in the Republic of Ireland that regarded her case as falling under the exemptions for 'political offences'. That is why they refused to extradite her to N. Ireland. Also, Arnie S., if you truly are indignant about the "vile killer" Rita O'Hare, why don't you call your members of Congress to condemn the fact that she is the duly appointed Sinn Fein Representative to the US. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 18:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)

::: I don't understand. I genuinely don't understand. My edit to the Obama page on this subject has been deleted as being "inappropriate and silly". What is the distinction between a link with the Weather Underground and a link with the IRA? Why are inverted commas placed around “terrorism” (like this) when discussing the latter organisation and not when deriding Bill Ayres's mob. I suppose it's different -- and less significant -- when Obama's pals are blowing up Irish folk rather than Americans. Would it be different if he were pictured grinning next to some PLO hoodlum? --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 02:42, 8 November 2008 (GMT)

:::: Tordenvaer (if that is your real name), I already HAVE called my member of Congress about the matter - I don't mess around! The Sinn Feiners are a terrible organization with deep terrorist roots who killed many British soldiers and people over a hundred years in Ireland. I'm as surprised as Keith is about the removal of his well-referenced material. [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 21:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Guys, grind your ax about Irish "terrorism" somewhere else. Obama has no plausible connection with it and I'm not going to waste any more time on this silliness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:Andy, why do you place quote marks around the word terrorism? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 22:08, 7 November 2008 (EST)

<- I'm not going to get involved in any discussion here, but it appears a lot of you know a fair bit about [[Rita O'Hare]]. I have started her article, please contribute and spread your knowledge. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:13, 7 November 2008 (EST)

::: If the site administrator does not think this worthy of inclusion then there is no point arguing the case. But I must again ask -- the question is reiterated above by Ferret -- why this site puts inverted commas around terrorism when discussing the IRA, but not when discussing the Weather Underground. The slaughter of innocent Northern Irish people may seem "silly" to you. It does not to us. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 12:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)
:::: Could be because Irish terrorism was largely funded by US "Irish" Catholics? [[User:GeorgeK|GeorgeK]] 07:48, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== Inciting hatred ==

Wow, have you ever asked yourselves "What would Jesus do?". I hardly think He would write such a biased and bigoted "factual" article. Real Christians don't need this sort of tripe. People are worked up over fundamentalist muslims, but it is writing like this that brings hatred on Christians and Americans and makes you just as bad, if not worse, than them. This was the first article I have ever read on Conservapedia and it will be http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.pngthe last. WWJD?

: Jesus came to tell the truth, no one can deny that. And many people hated Him for it, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi

::Now who's the ONE? [[User:Wikified|Wikified]] 10:41, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::: Gandhi deserves much respect, but I've never heard Christians cite him as an authority on Christianity. I wouldn't expect a Christian to interpret Gandhi's religion for him either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==Trust, but verify; then get an eight day block==

Trust, but verify. Though he was not the originator of this quote, it was one of Ronald Reagan's favorites. He quoted it when signing treaties with the Soviet Union and it's a useful concept in today's society. It was in the spirit of this quote that I first read and edited at this encyclopedia.

The commandments and guidelines appear to support Reagan's idiom, yet some of the people in charge feel they can rule with an iron fist and pick and choose which rules they want to follow. I experienced it first hand when I edited this article. I first made several comments about the shortcomings of this article on the talk page so anyone could give me their opinion of my thoughts. These comments highlighted various portions of the article that were factually incorrect, contained partisan sniping, unsupported assertions, gossip or deception by omission. The response I got from Aschlafly was not encouraging, yet he didn't say I was prohibited from making any changes. In fact, the pages that govern this encyclopedia say a lot about how articles must be sourced, placement of citation tags, how facts must to true and verifiable, etc. Based on reading the guidelines, I made several changes that I thought reflected well on conservatives and Conservapedia. Yet alas, I was blocked by Aschlafly for eight days. The reason given was for 'inappropriate edits', that's very vague but I was unable to get any more information because Aschlafly doesn't provide contact information for people that have questions about their block. This says a lot about a person's integrity if they refuse to follow the rules and then block other people because they made an 'inappropriate edit' that followed the spirit and intent of the commandments and guidelines.

Since this encyclopedia is being used an educational resource for home-schooled children, I'd like to think the information contained within would be factual and verifiably true. I'd feel very embarrassed for my child if she read some of the inaccurate content of this encyclopedia and then repeated it to an informed person that was educated on the true and verifiable facts of Barack Obama or others. It is my honest opinion that this encyclopedia is a long way from earning respectability; and blocking editors for making true and verifiable edits is not going to help. The administrators should clean up their act because there are a lot of people out there that will follow Reagan's advice; trust, yet verify.

In conclusion, I will continue to make the same edits proposed by the commandments and the guidelines. If an admin feels they can do without another conservative editing this encyclopedia in an ethical and trustworthy manner, it is their loss.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 16:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference 29 ==

Under the "Obama is a Muslim" section there is a point about his name, and following that there is a reference. That reference includes a big chunk of argument and then a few references of its own and some examples and its just a mess. I am about to go through and trim the fat, that means I'm going to take off the examples, and I'm going tot take off the parts that say that it is common to change your name of conversion (Obama never claims to have converted from Islam, so it doesn't really stand out as an inconsistency in his story, some might even claim its a [[straw man]]) and I am going to move the reference to the fact with in the bullet point that it supports and put up a fact tag. I am not taking down the bullet point which I would dispute. I would encourage any one who has a problem with this to go out and find a real reference that shows that most christians would not maintain their fathers name if it were tied to another religion. Please don't block me for a good faith factual edit. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:12, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim, Koran, ''redux'' ==

I removed the silly Muslim and Koran references in the first paragraph for two reasons - one, they are completely unfounded statements with no basis in reality, and two, they are repeated ''ad nauseum'' in the first "section", which is apparently intentionally placed above a TOC tag. Let's leave the panicky POV-pushing to sections, at least, in the desperate attempt for this site to resemble an encyclopedia. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:30, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama is not a muslim nor a person who embraces biblical Christianity because the evidence contradicts this matter ==

Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)

: I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:: Okay, a couple questions. 1) Where are you getting this 1% figure from? 2) How was he raised muslim? Countless acquaintances of mine who were 'raised catholic,' spending ample time learning about Catholicism in school are nothing of the sort. 3) Why would a 1% conversion rate even matter? A person's religion isn't probabilistically determined. By that logic, since 0% of previous Presidents were black, it's unlikely that Obama is president. I don't like this guy or his policy, but real criticism seems to be the way to go, not pointless claims about his religion. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 10:50, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, as he is the president now, wouldn't it be far more constructive to work on things about his articulated agenda, and how it will affect Americans, write about how to influence our Congress people to stand up to agenda, and how to work with him to reflect what real Americans want - rather than report on unproven and unsupported claims? It would be beyond comprehension if something said by panicked conservatives (not specifically here, just in genera) caused someone to think the right answer is to assassinate him. Far better to focus on what we CAN do to remind our government who they serve - themselves or us.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::There are several points wrong with youe assertion. 1) He is not the president now, George W. Bush is. 2) His muslim faith is not unsupported and is far from irrelivant. It will effect his leadership (shiria law anyone?) and his cabinet choices. It is a very big deal seeing as he is the first non-Christian president ever elected. Are we suppose to just stick our heads in the sand??[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 12:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Andy, you say that less than one percent of people raised as Muslims convert to another religion and use that percentage as if it is not a significant number. It is. Let us assume that there are one billion Muslims in the world today- this is a conservative estimate, using numbers from [http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html www.adherents.com]. Let us then assume that, for the sake of a conservative estimate, that 0.1% of Muslims convert to other religions. That means that out of the one billion Muslims alive today, one million would convert. That's more than the population of San Jose, California. This is not an insignificant number of people.

:::::My point here, Andy, is that your use of this statistic is not a good argument. Less than one percent is a far cry from none. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Statistical evidence is relevant and compelling. But it does not stand alone here. There are at least a dozen other compelling evidentiary items, and the list is growing. Supporting a ruler who has an agreement to convert the country to Islam, for example, is persuasive evidence also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::Fist of all, I think you mean Sh'''a'''ria, but seeing as how you misspelled some English words, I can't really blame you for getting that wrong. To think that just because you believe he is a Muslim (and I emphasize ''believe'', but there are already multiple sections on this page saying why he is not) he would somehow be able to implement Sharia law in the U.S. is silly. The First Amendment prevents religious laws from being able to be made from ''any'' religion. So even if he was Muslim, that doesn't mean it would make pass some sort of Muslim laws, although I'm not exactly sure what ones you are worried about anyway, no intoxicants perhaps? You may be interested in hearing that the U.S. legal system may have been founded in part on ideas from Sharia law. And last but not least, what makes you think every president was Christian? The majority were to be sure, but as far as we know Jefferson was a deist whose ideas were closest to unitarianism, and Grant, Lincoln, Johnson, and Hayes had no religious affiliation and could have ranged from anything such as some sort of personal Christianity, simple theism, agnosticism, or even atheism. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim Votes==
Wondering if the following should be added to Why barack is a Muslim. "90 Percent of American Muslims Voted for Obama." [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39031] They voted in such numbers because he is Jewish? No, because he is Muslim. They voted for him because he is a convert to Christianity from Islam? Nope, they voted for a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Correlation does not equal causation. A lot of other demographics were won over by Obama too, it doesn't make him an hispanic, a young white college student, a Native American, or a resident of California. I think a stronger reason why Muslims voted for Obama may be more of a problem with McCain's and Palin's treatment of certain minorities during the campaign such as the "he's not an Arab, he is a good family man" comment, as well as what other groups these Muslims belonged too such as their overall economic status. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-10T20:43:46Z

Rainedaye: /* Obama is not a muslim nor a person who embraces biblical Christianity because the evidence contradicts this matter */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-06T15:54:36Z

Rainedaye: /* MInd Control? Really now? */ new section

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
==Bill Ayers==
The Accusation that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father is completely and utterly ridiculous the accusation that Obama did not pen his auto biography is not fact based at all.

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

:Hmmm...I agree with you on every one of your other points concerning this astoundingly bigotted and paranoid offcut of some X Files episode, but, just for a diversion, I do think "would likely become" is correct English. It's a construction that is now becoming rare, but far from being something a "recent learner" would write, it would more likely be the sort of phrase an older, more careful and formally trained writer would use. And if someone asks me what my credentials for being a conservative might be, I would proudly put my hand over my heart and point to my love for correct and elegant English, which is more than the collection of barefoot hillybilly gun nuts and Chuck Norris worshipping semi-literates that whoop it up around this neck of the woods could declare. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:13, 6 November 2008 (EST)

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

::I reverted your edits because they were removed/and relisted already. I side with keeping it there as it was.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 19:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::What do you mean "removed and relisted?" Is that "reinstated previous version" or does that mean something else? I think you should look at the source that is currently listed (sudairy.com, a website that has no affiliations with education or any kind of scholarly research)because the website itself has no authority to claim that it is a valid source for this information. Furthermore, the website has many names undefined, reading "Old Arabic name" instead of any information. On the Hussein entry, it reads "Husain, Husayn, Hussein - Beautiful, doer of good deads; a descendent of the Prophet" and I think you can infer from the semi colon instead of a comma that this information is separate, and refers to the namesake. This theory is supported by the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, www.thinkbabynames.com, www.babynames.com, www.behindthename.com, and many other name oriented websites. It seems like it's just a miscommunication and confusing of what a name ''means'' and what a name ''comes from''. Just because your name invokes a namesake does not mean that it means that. It is a connotative connection, rather than a denotative one. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I reverted because you had this posted once before, it was removed by someone other than me. In its place was what the site owner had compiled. So in essence, you deleted his sentence and ref link. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source ''does'' say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::::This has almost as much relevance as making a connection between McCain and Cain. Yes, John McCain is obviously a descendent of a murderer, and hence, must be a murderer himself.

::One point missed. Obama is from Chicago. Chicago's zip code is 60606. Add those sixes you get the number of the Devil himself.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Are you asserting that the 2,836,658 inhabitants of Chicago are Devils, Muslims or Antichrists due to their zip code.
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

:So what is "redistrubution" (sic). You gotta laugh, some times, don't you? "Ah can't spell redistribution, but ah sure as heck am agin it." You probably wouldn't have 2 nickels to rub together, but you just KNOW that redistribution is evil, unless of course, taxpayers have to shell out trillions to bail out greedy banks. Have you guys ever worn shoes? [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:45, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surely this is all superfluous? The quotation is taken out of context; Obama clearly explains what he meant about 5 seconds later on the youtube video. The point either needs different justification (good luck) or should be deleted. It is perilously close to being libelous. --09:29, 6 November 2008 (EST)~

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

I live in the UK, and as a new, but avid, reader of your excellent web-site - indeed an refreshingly "trustworthy" source in a media full of liberal bias and 'reasoned argument' (atheist communism)- I would just like to congratulate you for electing your first Muslim president.

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]
::...Allah is Arabic for God, it's actually used by anyone who speaks Arabic no matter if they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. That and it's the same god, the god of Abraham. Also, Mohammad is an important non-divine figurehead in Islam, but I don't think "One nation under Mohammad" would be used than "One nation under Moses". I'm sure liberals as well as anyone else with the basic knowledge of religion or law ''is'' offended by your lack of understanding. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, this should be removed. If he says he is a Christian then he is a Christian. You can't go and examine the details of the life of every person to see if they are a "true" Christian or not, isn't there something in the bible about not judging people? Or should we start seeing if we can judge whether the rest of the candidates are ''really'' what they say they are. None of the points listed at the top of his page give any real plausible reason to think that Obama is a Muslim. Just because conversions are rare does not mean they are impossible. Congratulations, Obama may just be a part of that 1%. His name does not reflect his faith, every man named "Jesus" is not a Christian. Respecting a man who was Muslim does not make you a Muslim. I'm inspired by Ghandi, but that doesn't make me a Hindu. Reading a Muslim book does not make you a Muslim. I've read parts of the bible, the quar'an, the torah, the dhammapada, the Rig Veda, as well as works of fiction that include views of all of these religions. It would be silly to say that I am an adherent to all or any of those religions just because I have read them. Pronouncing the name of a country correctly is also not an indication of religion, or is General Petraeus a Muslim too? Of course I also wonder why this is such a prominent thing to begin with. He's a presidential candidate and the top of his page here is devoted to speculation about his religious faith. Isn't his policy much more important? I for one don't see the problem in having a Muslim president. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: I think it should be mentioned that he does not use the American pronunciation of nuclear - he pronounces it as it is written, rather than the correct "nucular".

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. unsigned JohnFA

This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.

I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 ''U.S. states''. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== First Muslim President ==

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]

:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== Barack raises the bar ==

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A hypothetical article ==

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

== Birth Certificate Controversy ==

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM

==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.

Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...

: Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.

==Is going to be the next president==
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==
Article should be updated accordingly
: President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== What happening with the muslim section? ==

I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.

Also some points that really stand out to me,
*''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''
In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me
*'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)
*''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.
*''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.

I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Copyediting needed ==

I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:

"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."

is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? ==

That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.
Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A Muslim President-elect! ==

Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following:

"Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and will probably use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office."

and:

"It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== "70's terrorist" ==

I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"

he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist

we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Good point, [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]]. Thanks for the edit. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed ''property'', which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on ''people''. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is ''despicable''. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or ''tactful''. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Except that the Weather Underground did in fact kill people - 3 of their own, in a bomb-making accident. Sometimes that happens when you set off bombs, even if it's not what you had in mind. I would put other property-destruction crimes such as cross burning in the terror category as well. I do agree that Obama's association with Ayres is minimal, at best, and I have huge issues with all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by the McCain campaign. I'm not taking a stand on the content of this article one way or another. I'm just trying to organize it and cite it as best I can. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::I don't believe an accidental death of their own people should be considered "terror" though. People could technically die while making signs for a normal type of protest, not as likely, but an accident is an accident. Although I do think that some property destruction like cross burning could be argued to be terroristic because it is done in order to terrify a group of people and incite violence against that group. However I still think that what the weather underground did does not quite carry that same connotations. They were protesting a war, and doing so by costing the government money and drawing attention to their cause, at no time was a group of people targeted in a way that would indicate that they were in danger directly from a hostile organization, unless you were an office desk or a public statue/monument. To use the word "terrorist", especially nowadays, in the case of Bill Ayers is misleading, and it is a word that should not be tossed around lightly. It seems that people believe that Ayers = Terrorist, so therefore he must have killed people or tried to kill people, and this article does little to correct this misconception. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== MInd Control? Really now? ==

The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of ''fortune tellers'' so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a ''better'' president) this doesn't mean much. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== MInd Control? Really now? ==

The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of ''fortune tellers'' so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a ''better'' president) this doesn't mean much. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-06T15:54:20Z

Rainedaye: /* MInd Control? Really now? */ new section

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-06T15:41:50Z

Rainedaye: /* "70's terrorist" */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-06T13:46:15Z

Rainedaye: /* "70's terrorist" */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
==Bill Ayers==
The Accusation that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father is completely and utterly ridiculous the accusation that Obama did not pen his auto biography is not fact based at all.

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

:Hmmm...I agree with you on every one of your other points concerning this astoundingly bigotted and paranoid offcut of some X Files episode, but, just for a diversion, I do think "would likely become" is correct English. It's a construction that is now becoming rare, but far from being something a "recent learner" would write, it would more likely be the sort of phrase an older, more careful and formally trained writer would use. And if someone asks me what my credentials for being a conservative might be, I would proudly put my hand over my heart and point to my love for correct and elegant English, which is more than the collection of barefoot hillybilly gun nuts and Chuck Norris worshipping semi-literates that whoop it up around this neck of the woods could declare. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:13, 6 November 2008 (EST)

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

::I reverted your edits because they were removed/and relisted already. I side with keeping it there as it was.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 19:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::What do you mean "removed and relisted?" Is that "reinstated previous version" or does that mean something else? I think you should look at the source that is currently listed (sudairy.com, a website that has no affiliations with education or any kind of scholarly research)because the website itself has no authority to claim that it is a valid source for this information. Furthermore, the website has many names undefined, reading "Old Arabic name" instead of any information. On the Hussein entry, it reads "Husain, Husayn, Hussein - Beautiful, doer of good deads; a descendent of the Prophet" and I think you can infer from the semi colon instead of a comma that this information is separate, and refers to the namesake. This theory is supported by the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, www.thinkbabynames.com, www.babynames.com, www.behindthename.com, and many other name oriented websites. It seems like it's just a miscommunication and confusing of what a name ''means'' and what a name ''comes from''. Just because your name invokes a namesake does not mean that it means that. It is a connotative connection, rather than a denotative one. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I reverted because you had this posted once before, it was removed by someone other than me. In its place was what the site owner had compiled. So in essence, you deleted his sentence and ref link. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source ''does'' say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::::This has almost as much relevance as making a connection between McCain and Cain. Yes, John McCain is obviously a descendent of a murderer, and hence, must be a murderer himself.

::One point missed. Obama is from Chicago. Chicago's zip code is 60606. Add those sixes you get the number of the Devil himself.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Are you asserting that the 2,836,658 inhabitants of Chicago are Devils, Muslims or Antichrists due to their zip code.
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

:So what is "redistrubution" (sic). You gotta laugh, some times, don't you? "Ah can't spell redistribution, but ah sure as heck am agin it." You probably wouldn't have 2 nickels to rub together, but you just KNOW that redistribution is evil, unless of course, taxpayers have to shell out trillions to bail out greedy banks. Have you guys ever worn shoes? [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:45, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

I live in the UK, and as a new, but avid, reader of your excellent web-site - indeed an refreshingly "trustworthy" source in a media full of liberal bias and 'reasoned argument' (atheist communism)- I would just like to congratulate you for electing your first Muslim president.

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]
::...Allah is Arabic for God, it's actually used by anyone who speaks Arabic no matter if they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. That and it's the same god, the god of Abraham. Also, Mohammad is an important non-divine figurehead in Islam, but I don't think "One nation under Mohammad" would be used than "One nation under Moses". I'm sure liberals as well as anyone else with the basic knowledge of religion or law ''is'' offended by your lack of understanding. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, this should be removed. If he says he is a Christian then he is a Christian. You can't go and examine the details of the life of every person to see if they are a "true" Christian or not, isn't there something in the bible about not judging people? Or should we start seeing if we can judge whether the rest of the candidates are ''really'' what they say they are. None of the points listed at the top of his page give any real plausible reason to think that Obama is a Muslim. Just because conversions are rare does not mean they are impossible. Congratulations, Obama may just be a part of that 1%. His name does not reflect his faith, every man named "Jesus" is not a Christian. Respecting a man who was Muslim does not make you a Muslim. I'm inspired by Ghandi, but that doesn't make me a Hindu. Reading a Muslim book does not make you a Muslim. I've read parts of the bible, the quar'an, the torah, the dhammapada, the Rig Veda, as well as works of fiction that include views of all of these religions. It would be silly to say that I am an adherent to all or any of those religions just because I have read them. Pronouncing the name of a country correctly is also not an indication of religion, or is General Petraeus a Muslim too? Of course I also wonder why this is such a prominent thing to begin with. He's a presidential candidate and the top of his page here is devoted to speculation about his religious faith. Isn't his policy much more important? I for one don't see the problem in having a Muslim president. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: I think it should be mentioned that he does not use the American pronunciation of nuclear - he pronounces it as it is written, rather than the correct "nucular".

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. unsigned JohnFA

This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.

I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 ''U.S. states''. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== First Muslim President ==

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]

:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== Barack raises the bar ==

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A hypothetical article ==

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

== Birth Certificate Controversy ==

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM

==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.

Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...

: Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.

==Is going to be the next president==
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==
Article should be updated accordingly
: President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== What happening with the muslim section? ==

I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.

Also some points that really stand out to me,
*''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''
In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me
*'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)
*''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.
*''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.

I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Copyediting needed ==

I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:

"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."

is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? ==

That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.
Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A Muslim President-elect! ==

Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following:

"Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and will probably use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office."

and:

"It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== "70's terrorist" ==

I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"

he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist

we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Good point, [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]]. Thanks for the edit. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed ''property'', which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on ''people''. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is ''despicable''. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or ''tactful''. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-06T04:17:52Z

Rainedaye: /* Muslim? */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
==Bill Ayers==
The Accusation that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father is completely and utterly ridiculous the accusation that Obama did not pen his auto biography is not fact based at all.

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

::I reverted your edits because they were removed/and relisted already. I side with keeping it there as it was.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 19:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::What do you mean "removed and relisted?" Is that "reinstated previous version" or does that mean something else? I think you should look at the source that is currently listed (sudairy.com, a website that has no affiliations with education or any kind of scholarly research)because the website itself has no authority to claim that it is a valid source for this information. Furthermore, the website has many names undefined, reading "Old Arabic name" instead of any information. On the Hussein entry, it reads "Husain, Husayn, Hussein - Beautiful, doer of good deads; a descendent of the Prophet" and I think you can infer from the semi colon instead of a comma that this information is separate, and refers to the namesake. This theory is supported by the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, www.thinkbabynames.com, www.babynames.com, www.behindthename.com, and many other name oriented websites. It seems like it's just a miscommunication and confusing of what a name ''means'' and what a name ''comes from''. Just because your name invokes a namesake does not mean that it means that. It is a connotative connection, rather than a denotative one. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I reverted because you had this posted once before, it was removed by someone other than me. In its place was what the site owner had compiled. So in essence, you deleted his sentence and ref link. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source ''does'' say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::::This has almost as much relevance as making a connection between McCain and Cain. Yes, John McCain is obviously a descendent of a murderer, and hence, must be a murderer himself.

::One point missed. Obama is from Chicago. Chicago's zip code is 60606. Add those sixes you get the number of the Devil himself.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Are you asserting that the 2,836,658 inhabitants of Chicago are Devils, Muslims or Antichrists due to their zip code.
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

:So what is "redistrubution" (sic). You gotta laugh, some times, don't you? "Ah can't spell redistribution, but ah sure as heck am agin it." You probably wouldn't have 2 nickels to rub together, but you just KNOW that redistribution is evil, unless of course, taxpayers have to shell out trillions to bail out greedy banks. Have you guys ever worn shoes? [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:45, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

I live in the UK, and as a new, but avid, reader of your excellent web-site - indeed an refreshingly "trustworthy" source in a media full of liberal bias and 'reasoned argument' (atheist communism)- I would just like to congratulate you for electing your first Muslim president.

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]
::...Allah is Arabic for God, it's actually used by anyone who speaks Arabic no matter if they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. That and it's the same god, the god of Abraham. Also, Mohammad is an important non-divine figurehead in Islam, but I don't think "One nation under Mohammad" would be used than "One nation under Moses". I'm sure liberals as well as anyone else with the basic knowledge of religion or law ''is'' offended by your lack of understanding. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, this should be removed. If he says he is a Christian then he is a Christian. You can't go and examine the details of the life of every person to see if they are a "true" Christian or not, isn't there something in the bible about not judging people? Or should we start seeing if we can judge whether the rest of the candidates are ''really'' what they say they are. None of the points listed at the top of his page give any real plausible reason to think that Obama is a Muslim. Just because conversions are rare does not mean they are impossible. Congratulations, Obama may just be a part of that 1%. His name does not reflect his faith, every man named "Jesus" is not a Christian. Respecting a man who was Muslim does not make you a Muslim. I'm inspired by Ghandi, but that doesn't make me a Hindu. Reading a Muslim book does not make you a Muslim. I've read parts of the bible, the quar'an, the torah, the dhammapada, the Rig Veda, as well as works of fiction that include views of all of these religions. It would be silly to say that I am an adherent to all or any of those religions just because I have read them. Pronouncing the name of a country correctly is also not an indication of religion, or is General Petraeus a Muslim too? Of course I also wonder why this is such a prominent thing to begin with. He's a presidential candidate and the top of his page here is devoted to speculation about his religious faith. Isn't his policy much more important? I for one don't see the problem in having a Muslim president. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: I think it should be mentioned that he does not use the American pronunciation of nuclear - he pronounces it as it is written, rather than the correct "nucular".

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. unsigned JohnFA

This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.

I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 ''U.S. states''. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== First Muslim President ==

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]

:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== Barack raises the bar ==

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A hypothetical article ==

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

== Birth Certificate Controversy ==

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM

==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.

Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...

: Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.

==Is going to be the next president==
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==
Article should be updated accordingly
: President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== What happening with the muslim section? ==

I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.

Also some points that really stand out to me,
*''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''
In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me
*'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)
*''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.
*''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.

I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Copyediting needed ==

I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:

"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."

is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? ==

That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.
Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-05T15:13:43Z

Rainedaye: /* Is going to be the next president */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
==Bill Ayers==
The Accusation that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father is completely and utterly ridiculous the accusation that Obama did not pen his auto biography is not fact based at all.

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

::I reverted your edits because they were removed/and relisted already. I side with keeping it there as it was.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 19:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::What do you mean "removed and relisted?" Is that "reinstated previous version" or does that mean something else? I think you should look at the source that is currently listed (sudairy.com, a website that has no affiliations with education or any kind of scholarly research)because the website itself has no authority to claim that it is a valid source for this information. Furthermore, the website has many names undefined, reading "Old Arabic name" instead of any information. On the Hussein entry, it reads "Husain, Husayn, Hussein - Beautiful, doer of good deads; a descendent of the Prophet" and I think you can infer from the semi colon instead of a comma that this information is separate, and refers to the namesake. This theory is supported by the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, www.thinkbabynames.com, www.babynames.com, www.behindthename.com, and many other name oriented websites. It seems like it's just a miscommunication and confusing of what a name ''means'' and what a name ''comes from''. Just because your name invokes a namesake does not mean that it means that. It is a connotative connection, rather than a denotative one. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I reverted because you had this posted once before, it was removed by someone other than me. In its place was what the site owner had compiled. So in essence, you deleted his sentence and ref link. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source ''does'' say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::::This has almost as much relevance as making a connection between McCain and Cain. Yes, John McCain is obviously a descendent of a murderer, and hence, must be a murderer himself.

::One point missed. Obama is from Chicago. Chicago's zip code is 60606. Add those sixes you get the number of the Devil himself.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Are you asserting that the 2,836,658 inhabitants of Chicago are Devils, Muslims or Antichrists due to their zip code.
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

:So what is "redistrubution" (sic). You gotta laugh, some times, don't you? "Ah can't spell redistribution, but ah sure as heck am agin it." You probably wouldn't have 2 nickels to rub together, but you just KNOW that redistribution is evil, unless of course, taxpayers have to shell out trillions to bail out greedy banks. Have you guys ever worn shoes? [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:45, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

I live in the UK, and as a new, but avid, reader of your excellent web-site - indeed an refreshingly "trustworthy" source in a media full of liberal bias and 'reasoned argument' (atheist communism)- I would just like to congratulate you for electing your first Muslim president.

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]
::...Allah is Arabic for God, it's actually used by anyone who speaks Arabic no matter if they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. That and it's the same god, the god of Abraham. Also, Mohammad is an important non-divine figurehead in Islam, but I don't think "One nation under Mohammad" would be used than "One nation under Moses". I'm sure liberals as well as anyone else with the basic knowledge of religion or law ''is'' offended by your lack of understanding. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, this should be removed. If he says he is a Christian then he is a Christian. You can't go and examine the details of the life of every person to see if they are a "true" Christian or not, isn't there something in the bible about not judging people? Or should we start seeing if we can judge whether the rest of the candidates are ''really'' what they say they are. None of the points listed at the top of his page give any real plausible reason to think that Obama is a Muslim. Just because conversions are rare does not mean they are impossible. Congratulations, Obama may just be a part of that 1%. His name does not reflect his faith, every man named "Jesus" is not a Christian. Respecting a man who was Muslim does not make you a Muslim. I'm inspired by Ghandi, but that doesn't make me a Hindu. Reading a Muslim book does not make you a Muslim. I've read parts of the bible, the quar'an, the torah, the dhammapada, the Rig Veda, as well as works of fiction that include views of all of these religions. It would be silly to say that I am an adherent to all or any of those religions just because I have read them. Pronouncing the name of a country correctly is also not an indication of religion, or is General Petraeus a Muslim too? Of course I also wonder why this is such a prominent thing to begin with. He's a presidential candidate and the top of his page here is devoted to speculation about his religious faith. Isn't his policy much more important? I for one don't see the problem in having a Muslim president. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. unsigned JohnFA

This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.

I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 ''U.S. states''. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== First Muslim President ==

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]

:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== Barack raises the bar ==

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A hypothetical article ==

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

== Birth Certificate Controversy ==

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

==Is going to be the next president==
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Mutation

2008-11-05T01:41:49Z

Rainedaye: /* Mutations don't lead to evolution? New genetic information? */

Is there a reason why the TOE paragraph is at the top instead of the paragraph explaining what mutations are?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

There are some serious mistakes in this article. First off, RNA is not found in the nucleus of the cell unless its mRNA, and in that case would not be mutated or affect the genetic makeup of the organism in question. mRNA is copied from the DNA structure itself and thus cannot alter DNA. Second, ribosomes are not responsible for correcting the DNA structure, they are responsible for protein synthesis and production of tRNA. It should also be mentioned that most mutations have no effect on the codons read to synthesis proteins due to similar 3 base codes. {{unsigned|Biology}} June 2007

==Gain-of-Function Mutations==

Sickle hemoglobin is a gain of function mutation Conservative.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:05, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

I have to ask, after reading this article and having much background knowledge of Sicklic hemoglobin, why anyone one would label it as a gain or a loss of function mutation? Heterozygous carriers of the Sicklic hemoglobin trait have hemoglobin that binds O2 just as regular hemoglobin does the only difference is in low O2 environments where the sicklic hemoglobin changes to a sicklic shape, otherwise it functions just like normal hemoglobin. I am not a biologist so I do not know how this relates to functional mutation grouping but I am a biochemist and I know for a fact that the sicklic hemoglobin is caused by a point mutation, where there is a change in the beta subunit to the amino acid valine at position 6 instead of the glutamic acid that is found in normal hemoglobin. As for homozygous carriers it has been found that the degree of anemia varies widely between patients. In general, patients with sickle cell disease have hematocrits that are roughly half the normal value (e.g., about 25% compared to about 40-45% normally). Patients with hemoglobin SC disease (where one of the beta globin genes codes for hemoglobin S and the other for the variant, hemoglobin C) have higher hematocrits than do those with homozygous Hb SS disease. The hematocrits of patients with Hb SC disease run in low- to mid-thirties. The hematocrit is normal for people with sickle cell trait. So depending on the variant of the disease caused by the homozygous carriers the disease does not have to be life threatening.

If anything I believe that a good example of a gain of function mutation would be found in HIV. SIV Vpu is not a viroporin, HIV-1 O Vpu is not a viroporin, however HIV-1 M Vpu is a viroporin (gated cation channel specific to Na+). This is a new activity that evolved in HIV after the split from SIV over a 10 year timeframe and is part of the reason that the HIV-1 M clade is the most common type of HIV in the world. This cation channel is gated and therefore more complicated than just a simple ion channel, considering that this is a new viral component found only in the HIV-1 M clade it is a safe conjecture to say that this is an example of a gain of function mutation considering that the HIV clades before HIV-1 M did not contain a gated cation channel specific to Na+.

Apolipoprotein AI is another example of what I believe would classify as a gain of function mutation. The Apolipoprotein AI Milano allele is the mutated allele. In an experiment where reconstituted HDL particles made of Apolipoprotein AI were infused into arteriosclerotic rabbits, the rabbits had fewer and less extensive plaques. There was decreased aortic cholesterol, and decreased cell proliferation (both of which improve cell wall flexibility. These experiments all point to the Apolipoprotein AI as a lipid-binding protein that is a major component of High Density Lipoprotein particles, and therefore play an important role in removing cholesterol from cells. Subsequent detailed research of the Apolipoprotein AI mutation has demonstrated that it has improved biological function that directly contributes to lowering the incidence of cardiovascular disease in the individuals carrying it.

Perhaps the two examples I listed above should be placed into the article since they are well researched in the scientific community due to the amount of press heart disease and HIV both get.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 15:40, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Feel free to add them, although keep in mind the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Article level|target audience]].
:The sickle hemoglobin is sometimes used as evidence for evolution (as opposed to creation), and I suspect that is why it was included in this article. However, leading creationists only dispute ''information-gaining'' mutations, and accept that there are ''information-losing'' mutations, such as apoliproprotein AI, which result in a gain of function or a benefit in some circumstances.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2107]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:I will look into the APO-AIM but for now if it does not meet the standards then it should be left out. The HIV example though I know meets because it also increased the size of the genome of HIV. So I will add it in.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:59, 15 November 2007 (EST)

== No new genetic info? ==

The statement that "mutations that create new genetic information have never been observed" is simply false, unless you're using some unusual definition of genetic information, in which case that should be explained. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 21:55, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:No, it's not false, and I would consider it a usual use of "information", although not the meaningless (literally) definition that evolutionists often use (i.e. any change (except perhaps a deletion) is by definition new information). However, I do take your point that the definition wasn't explained. As a partial answer to that, I've linked "information", and although that article doesn't specifically mention ''genetic'' information, it's better than nothing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:24, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==According to Molecular Pathology==
There are three main classes of mutation with several subclasses.
*Deletions
:Deletions of DNA ranging from 1 bp to megabases.
*Insertions
:Insertions of DNA including duplications.
*Single base substitutions
:*Missense Mutations
::Replacement of one amino acid with another in the gene product.
:*Nonsense Mutations
::Replacement of an amino acid codon with a stop codon.
:*Splice Site Mutations
::Create or destroy signals for exon-intron splicing

Within these main classes a mutation can be consided a loss of function or gain of function. There are also Frameshifts and Dynamic Mutations. Since I did not start this article I want to know if anyone would object if I made these corrections as well as provide some background information about what exactly these mutations trully are?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:07, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Ok, I am assuming that this is fine and will start adding it in.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:Sounds good. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Mutations don't lead to evolution? New genetic information? ==

What's this about no new genetic information never being observed? Is it talking about a whole new genetic code? Mutations change DNA, which changed RNA, which changes proteins. This has been observed numerous times such as the nylon eating bacteria who have evolved to produce nylonase. To say that mutations are produced, but that they are neither new information nor beneficial is wrong and naive. Mutations simply create differences in bonds, in physical properties, it may make a protein more hydrophobic or change it's stability. Inherently they are neither good nor bad, it is only to the organism to whom these differences apply that may have worse or better effects depending on the circumstances of the molecule.
Also, mutations don't cause evolution on their own. It is only with natural selection that mutations can cause evolution to occur. Also, bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. They may not meet most people's definition of "evolved", but they are some of the most successful organisms on earth. For instance it would be a lot easier to wipe out humans as "highly evolved" as they seem to be than bacteria as the current problems with antibiotic resistance show. And please that Mayr quote is taken out of context, Mayr gave many examples of how such complex organs could be improved by mutations, surely you could replace it with something from AIG or something that doesn't go against the life's work of the author. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 22:43, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: When talking about genetic information, we are talking about data ''with meaning''. If you randomly change a sentence, for example, you don't introduce any ''new meaning''; you only corrupt the sentence. There is evidence that the nylon-eating bacteria is not a random change, but something that appears to have been designed for[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1586/].
: The article does not say that beneficial mutations are not produced, only that ones with new information are not produced.
: "''Also, bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. They may not meet most people's definition of "evolved", but they are some of the most successful organisms on earth.''": First you assert that it happens, then you admit that it may not be evolution, then you try and justify that it is evolution on the grounds that they are successful! That's a series of non-sequiturs.
: You would accept a quote from AiG? Why do I have my doubts? Nevertheless, you have a point, and although I'll leave the quote in, I'll clarify it.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::So you admit genetic information can change, but not obtain new meaning? I really don't understand your concept of "new meaning". If you have the sentence ''THE HAT WAS RED'' a H->C mutation occurs ''THE '''C'''AT WAS RED''. I would call this new meaning, although you could probably argue that it was 'corrupted' from it's earlier version in that it no longer carries the same meaning, but I don't see that as a problem. And I was commenting on that people have different concepts of what is "evolved", a lot of people believe that dogs are somehow ''more evolved'' than worms. Bacteria are successful, in that they are not static. There happens to be a site that refutes that very article [[http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm]], and I'm very glad they have since I have little time to go through and pick it apart myself. Honestly, I find it hard to go through their lines of reasoning, it seems as if they don't fully grasp the idea of plasmids.
::And I wouldn't myself accept a quote from AIG as a satisfactory argument, I have very little respect for their work. However, they are used commonly on this site as an appropriate if not authoritative source. It's just that if a preacher spent his whole life studying the bible and said once: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that an invisible supernatural being exists which was able to create everything we know." despite explaining afterwards what he meant, and backing up his claims in numerous books, it would be misleading to use this quote single-handedly to try and discredit his life's work. Although, I do thank you for changing it to read a little more accurately. Perhaps you should pick up ''What Evolution Is'' by Mayr, it's written for the general reader (I assume you haven't taken undergrad biology courses?) and sums up Mayr's reasoning well. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::: A mutation is a ''random'' change. Did you ''randomly'' change a letter in the sentence "THE HAT WAS RED", or was some ''intelligent design'' involved on your part? How about trying that again with a ''random'' change, and see what you get. I've done the same sort of thing a number of times before, but I always make a ''random'' change (close my eyes, move the cursor back an arbitrary number of spaces, then press a key at random, before opening my eyes). And you know what? I've ''never'' had to repeat that because I've actually added new information!
::: Furthermore, information is not normally found in isolation. If your sentence was in a discussion about a person and their clothing, then "THE CAT WAS RED" would make no sense, despite it being grammatically correct.
::: Now it is ''theoretically possible'' that the sentence is in a context where there is a cat, and elsewhere creationists have admitted that the odd ''extremely rare'' information-gaining mutation might occur, so even if the Nylon bug is one, it's about the only one (and it's about the only one people keep telling me about), whereas if evolution was true, there should be ''many'' examples. And the odd very rare such mutation is going to be swamped by all the information-destroying ones, so it offers little comfort to evolution. By the way, the article you linked to is ''not'' a response to the one I linked to, although it does have a link to such a response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, dear I was really hoping the "random" thing wasn't going to be a problem. You see I could have ran that sentence through a program that randomly changed one letter in the sentence to any others in the alphabet and listed them all. Of all of these one would be "THE CAT WAS RED" which in this example let's consider a beneficial mutation along with others such as "THE BAT WAS RED", and "THE MAT WAS RED" that still make plausible sentences in English. If we consider these sentences as mRNA and each word as a codon for a protein (reading left to right) in this four protein molecule then these mutations in the first base of the second codon will change the type of amino acid to be inserted into this protein. In the proteins for the "beneficial" mutations that I have stated above the new amino acid would do something like alter the configuration of the protein or change it's hydrophobicity in a way that would enable it to carry out it's function more effectively (it could have other consequences, but this is an example so let's keep it simple). We can say that mutations such as "THE PAT WAS RED", "THE SAT WAS RED", and "THE NAT WAS RED" that are all made up of English words, but don't make grammatical sense as mutations that may change the amino acid sequence, but change it to something similar (like Asn->Glu, both negatively charged with similar pKa values) to where it's function is not affected. Also third base pair changes such as "THE CAN WAS RED" would still code for the same amino acid (in this case) since their is redundancy in the the genetic code and would therefore have the same protein produced as from the original sequence. That mutation would have little or no effect on the fitness of the organism, unless for a complex biochemical one (such as changing the stability of the DNA by going to a G/C->A/T base pair). All the other mutations that make nonsense sentences "THT HAT WAS RED", "THE GAT WAS RED", and "THE HAT WAS NED" let's call harmful mutations that make the protein less effective at what it does. When natural selection works on these mutations the positive ones get selected for and the harmful ones start declining in the population. So after many generations some may be left with "THE CAT WAS RED" which despite being random in the first place looks like it was designed, since all the much more likely harmful mutations occurred and were selected against.
::::And I do apologize for linking the wrong article, tabbed browsing is a boon and a curse. ^^ --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:49, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Using intelligent design to demonstrate evolution ''is'' a problem, and always will be. Including ''systematically'' trying all combinations. And stopping the "mutations" there. No microbes-to-man evolution is going to stop at a single mutation. How about ''randomly'' making one mutation (even trying every combination), then ''another'' random (not systematic) mutation to the sequence that already has a mutation, then ''another'' random mutation to that, and so on. And then see how many still make sense.
::::: Further, you didn't address the point about whether the "mutated" sentence actually did make sense ''in context''.
::::: Lenski's research involved bacteria going through about 44,000 generations before he got ''one'' that he could claim was novel (not that it truly was). Humans, if they evolved from apes, must have had ''thousands'' of information-gaining mutations, and there's been nowhere enough time for that to happen (44,000 generations is about one million years). And with sexual reproduction there's only a 50% chance that any beneficial mutation will be passed on anyway! (See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827 here] for more on that.)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was not stopping the mutations there, nor "systematically" trying them all. In a large populations over a large period of time the improbable is possible, all combinations might arise. Mutations can arise on top of each other, but given the occurrence rate of mutations and the size of most genomes, mutations happening in the same gene aren't likely (but yes, they do happen! improbable is not impossible!). As for whether or not the sentence made sense in context, the changing of one base pair in a gene isn't the same as changing a letter in a sentence. It might be my fault for trying to use an example to make things simpler, but addition before algebra. I'm not sure what you mean by the "context" a protein might find itself in, but a single amino acid change can do a lot or a little. Changing the hydrophobicity for example can make it more or less effective at what it does, but not necessarily take it "out of context". And before we start discussing on the accumulation of mutations, just how much time are you talking about here for age of the earth? --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 21:11, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: You may not have ''intended'' to stop the mutations there, but that's as far as your example went, and continuing it would have changed the result.
::::::: Time is not the magic wand that saves the argument. Trains run on tracks. Not when there are active processes working to weed out misfits, etc.
::::::: Not every combination of letters—even just three letters—constitutes a valid English word. And not every combinarntion of valid English words makes sense. And not every combination of valid English sentences make sense. And so on. In the case of DNA, there are only 64 ''possible'' "words", and, unlike English, every single one of them "makes sense", i.e. codes for an amino acid. But does every combination of amino acids make sense? And every combination of proteins? And so on all the way up the chain, even to the whole organism. A brain cell in a liver doesn't make sense, for example. This is what I mean by context. You would have wondered what my reference to trains was there for. The words of that sentence are all valid. The sentence itself makes sense. But the sentence ''in this context'' doesn't make sense. (It even ''disrupts'' the flow of thought, as the next sentence seems to refer to it, although it's not meant to.) A random change in a very small unit (e.g. a gene) might well make sense locally, but not in the wider context, especially the wider you go. The wider you go with the context, the greater the chance that it makes no sense at all.
::::::: I'm out of time now, but I hope that's clear enough.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Well a sense of the time in which these processes occur in does help with the understanding, as does knowing how often mutations do occur. However, I don't think that your argument about context works against the idea of beneficial mutations. A mutation that doesn't "make sense" in a larger context and decreases the fitness of an organism is selected against. But not all mutations do that. The likelihood of a series of mutations rapidly occurring to make brain cells appear in the liver is not likely. And even if you may not think that it is "in context" it doesn't mean it couldn't be beneficial in some way. Lots of structures have lost their original function and are used for something else, such as legs becoming mouth parts in lobsters. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 20:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)

== KathrynMonroe's edit ==

I've reverted KathrynMonroe's edit because most claims of information-gaining mutations having been ''observed'' turn out to be bluster or misunderstanding the issue, and because:
* The first reference, to "Susumu Ohno 1984" is not elaborated on, so it can't be checked.
* The second reference, to Sean Carrol, appears, from the abstract, to be to a claimed mutation that occurred "prior to the emergence of the adaptive immune system in vertebrates", so could not possibly have been ''observed''.
* The third reference, from a quick read, also doesn't appear to make any claims about actual ''observation'' of such mutation.
It also makes unsubstantiated claims about old and mined quotes.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

:I apologize since my wikifying is a new skill I"m trying to develop. I've fixed the wording and provided a better example of the first point - the creation of the nylon-digesting enzyme complex. I also clarified the quote by Grasse. Hope those help!
:: You've now provided a different first reference, but haven't addressed the comments I made about the other references.
:: Also, your revised comment about quotes is slightly better, but still not good enough, and implicitly falsely treats creationists and scientists as two mutually-exclusive groups. Your comment near the end about some claims being opinion is factually incorrect.
:: I'll do some work on it.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mutation

2008-11-03T02:11:40Z

Rainedaye: /* Mutations don't lead to evolution? New genetic information? */

Is there a reason why the TOE paragraph is at the top instead of the paragraph explaining what mutations are?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

There are some serious mistakes in this article. First off, RNA is not found in the nucleus of the cell unless its mRNA, and in that case would not be mutated or affect the genetic makeup of the organism in question. mRNA is copied from the DNA structure itself and thus cannot alter DNA. Second, ribosomes are not responsible for correcting the DNA structure, they are responsible for protein synthesis and production of tRNA. It should also be mentioned that most mutations have no effect on the codons read to synthesis proteins due to similar 3 base codes. {{unsigned|Biology}} June 2007

==Gain-of-Function Mutations==

Sickle hemoglobin is a gain of function mutation Conservative.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:05, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

I have to ask, after reading this article and having much background knowledge of Sicklic hemoglobin, why anyone one would label it as a gain or a loss of function mutation? Heterozygous carriers of the Sicklic hemoglobin trait have hemoglobin that binds O2 just as regular hemoglobin does the only difference is in low O2 environments where the sicklic hemoglobin changes to a sicklic shape, otherwise it functions just like normal hemoglobin. I am not a biologist so I do not know how this relates to functional mutation grouping but I am a biochemist and I know for a fact that the sicklic hemoglobin is caused by a point mutation, where there is a change in the beta subunit to the amino acid valine at position 6 instead of the glutamic acid that is found in normal hemoglobin. As for homozygous carriers it has been found that the degree of anemia varies widely between patients. In general, patients with sickle cell disease have hematocrits that are roughly half the normal value (e.g., about 25% compared to about 40-45% normally). Patients with hemoglobin SC disease (where one of the beta globin genes codes for hemoglobin S and the other for the variant, hemoglobin C) have higher hematocrits than do those with homozygous Hb SS disease. The hematocrits of patients with Hb SC disease run in low- to mid-thirties. The hematocrit is normal for people with sickle cell trait. So depending on the variant of the disease caused by the homozygous carriers the disease does not have to be life threatening.

If anything I believe that a good example of a gain of function mutation would be found in HIV. SIV Vpu is not a viroporin, HIV-1 O Vpu is not a viroporin, however HIV-1 M Vpu is a viroporin (gated cation channel specific to Na+). This is a new activity that evolved in HIV after the split from SIV over a 10 year timeframe and is part of the reason that the HIV-1 M clade is the most common type of HIV in the world. This cation channel is gated and therefore more complicated than just a simple ion channel, considering that this is a new viral component found only in the HIV-1 M clade it is a safe conjecture to say that this is an example of a gain of function mutation considering that the HIV clades before HIV-1 M did not contain a gated cation channel specific to Na+.

Apolipoprotein AI is another example of what I believe would classify as a gain of function mutation. The Apolipoprotein AI Milano allele is the mutated allele. In an experiment where reconstituted HDL particles made of Apolipoprotein AI were infused into arteriosclerotic rabbits, the rabbits had fewer and less extensive plaques. There was decreased aortic cholesterol, and decreased cell proliferation (both of which improve cell wall flexibility. These experiments all point to the Apolipoprotein AI as a lipid-binding protein that is a major component of High Density Lipoprotein particles, and therefore play an important role in removing cholesterol from cells. Subsequent detailed research of the Apolipoprotein AI mutation has demonstrated that it has improved biological function that directly contributes to lowering the incidence of cardiovascular disease in the individuals carrying it.

Perhaps the two examples I listed above should be placed into the article since they are well researched in the scientific community due to the amount of press heart disease and HIV both get.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 15:40, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Feel free to add them, although keep in mind the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Article level|target audience]].
:The sickle hemoglobin is sometimes used as evidence for evolution (as opposed to creation), and I suspect that is why it was included in this article. However, leading creationists only dispute ''information-gaining'' mutations, and accept that there are ''information-losing'' mutations, such as apoliproprotein AI, which result in a gain of function or a benefit in some circumstances.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2107]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:I will look into the APO-AIM but for now if it does not meet the standards then it should be left out. The HIV example though I know meets because it also increased the size of the genome of HIV. So I will add it in.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:59, 15 November 2007 (EST)

== No new genetic info? ==

The statement that "mutations that create new genetic information have never been observed" is simply false, unless you're using some unusual definition of genetic information, in which case that should be explained. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 21:55, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:No, it's not false, and I would consider it a usual use of "information", although not the meaningless (literally) definition that evolutionists often use (i.e. any change (except perhaps a deletion) is by definition new information). However, I do take your point that the definition wasn't explained. As a partial answer to that, I've linked "information", and although that article doesn't specifically mention ''genetic'' information, it's better than nothing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:24, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==According to Molecular Pathology==
There are three main classes of mutation with several subclasses.
*Deletions
:Deletions of DNA ranging from 1 bp to megabases.
*Insertions
:Insertions of DNA including duplications.
*Single base substitutions
:*Missense Mutations
::Replacement of one amino acid with another in the gene product.
:*Nonsense Mutations
::Replacement of an amino acid codon with a stop codon.
:*Splice Site Mutations
::Create or destroy signals for exon-intron splicing

Within these main classes a mutation can be consided a loss of function or gain of function. There are also Frameshifts and Dynamic Mutations. Since I did not start this article I want to know if anyone would object if I made these corrections as well as provide some background information about what exactly these mutations trully are?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:07, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Ok, I am assuming that this is fine and will start adding it in.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:Sounds good. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Mutations don't lead to evolution? New genetic information? ==

What's this about no new genetic information never being observed? Is it talking about a whole new genetic code? Mutations change DNA, which changed RNA, which changes proteins. This has been observed numerous times such as the nylon eating bacteria who have evolved to produce nylonase. To say that mutations are produced, but that they are neither new information nor beneficial is wrong and naive. Mutations simply create differences in bonds, in physical properties, it may make a protein more hydrophobic or change it's stability. Inherently they are neither good nor bad, it is only to the organism to whom these differences apply that may have worse or better effects depending on the circumstances of the molecule.
Also, mutations don't cause evolution on their own. It is only with natural selection that mutations can cause evolution to occur. Also, bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. They may not meet most people's definition of "evolved", but they are some of the most successful organisms on earth. For instance it would be a lot easier to wipe out humans as "highly evolved" as they seem to be than bacteria as the current problems with antibiotic resistance show. And please that Mayr quote is taken out of context, Mayr gave many examples of how such complex organs could be improved by mutations, surely you could replace it with something from AIG or something that doesn't go against the life's work of the author. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 22:43, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: When talking about genetic information, we are talking about data ''with meaning''. If you randomly change a sentence, for example, you don't introduce any ''new meaning''; you only corrupt the sentence. There is evidence that the nylon-eating bacteria is not a random change, but something that appears to have been designed for[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1586/].
: The article does not say that beneficial mutations are not produced, only that ones with new information are not produced.
: "''Also, bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. They may not meet most people's definition of "evolved", but they are some of the most successful organisms on earth.''": First you assert that it happens, then you admit that it may not be evolution, then you try and justify that it is evolution on the grounds that they are successful! That's a series of non-sequiturs.
: You would accept a quote from AiG? Why do I have my doubts? Nevertheless, you have a point, and although I'll leave the quote in, I'll clarify it.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::So you admit genetic information can change, but not obtain new meaning? I really don't understand your concept of "new meaning". If you have the sentence ''THE HAT WAS RED'' a H->C mutation occurs ''THE '''C'''AT WAS RED''. I would call this new meaning, although you could probably argue that it was 'corrupted' from it's earlier version in that it no longer carries the same meaning, but I don't see that as a problem. And I was commenting on that people have different concepts of what is "evolved", a lot of people believe that dogs are somehow ''more evolved'' than worms. Bacteria are successful, in that they are not static. There happens to be a site that refutes that very article [[http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm]], and I'm very glad they have since I have little time to go through and pick it apart myself. Honestly, I find it hard to go through their lines of reasoning, it seems as if they don't fully grasp the idea of plasmids.
::And I wouldn't myself accept a quote from AIG as a satisfactory argument, I have very little respect for their work. However, they are used commonly on this site as an appropriate if not authoritative source. It's just that if a preacher spent his whole life studying the bible and said once: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that an invisible supernatural being exists which was able to create everything we know." despite explaining afterwards what he meant, and backing up his claims in numerous books, it would be misleading to use this quote single-handedly to try and discredit his life's work. Although, I do thank you for changing it to read a little more accurately. Perhaps you should pick up ''What Evolution Is'' by Mayr, it's written for the general reader (I assume you haven't taken undergrad biology courses?) and sums up Mayr's reasoning well. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::: A mutation is a ''random'' change. Did you ''randomly'' change a letter in the sentence "THE HAT WAS RED", or was some ''intelligent design'' involved on your part? How about trying that again with a ''random'' change, and see what you get. I've done the same sort of thing a number of times before, but I always make a ''random'' change (close my eyes, move the cursor back an arbitrary number of spaces, then press a key at random, before opening my eyes). And you know what? I've ''never'' had to repeat that because I've actually added new information!
::: Furthermore, information is not normally found in isolation. If your sentence was in a discussion about a person and their clothing, then "THE CAT WAS RED" would make no sense, despite it being grammatically correct.
::: Now it is ''theoretically possible'' that the sentence is in a context where there is a cat, and elsewhere creationists have admitted that the odd ''extremely rare'' information-gaining mutation might occur, so even if the Nylon bug is one, it's about the only one (and it's about the only one people keep telling me about), whereas if evolution was true, there should be ''many'' examples. And the odd very rare such mutation is going to be swamped by all the information-destroying ones, so it offers little comfort to evolution. By the way, the article you linked to is ''not'' a response to the one I linked to, although it does have a link to such a response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, dear I was really hoping the "random" thing wasn't going to be a problem. You see I could have ran that sentence through a program that randomly changed one letter in the sentence to any others in the alphabet and listed them all. Of all of these one would be "THE CAT WAS RED" which in this example let's consider a beneficial mutation along with others such as "THE BAT WAS RED", and "THE MAT WAS RED" that still make plausible sentences in English. If we consider these sentences as mRNA and each word as a codon for a protein (reading left to right) in this four protein molecule then these mutations in the first base of the second codon will change the type of amino acid to be inserted into this protein. In the proteins for the "beneficial" mutations that I have stated above the new amino acid would do something like alter the configuration of the protein or change it's hydrophobicity in a way that would enable it to carry out it's function more effectively (it could have other consequences, but this is an example so let's keep it simple). We can say that mutations such as "THE PAT WAS RED", "THE SAT WAS RED", and "THE NAT WAS RED" that are all made up of English words, but don't make grammatical sense as mutations that may change the amino acid sequence, but change it to something similar (like Asn->Glu, both negatively charged with similar pKa values) to where it's function is not affected. Also third base pair changes such as "THE CAN WAS RED" would still code for the same amino acid (in this case) since their is redundancy in the the genetic code and would therefore have the same protein produced as from the original sequence. That mutation would have little or no effect on the fitness of the organism, unless for a complex biochemical one (such as changing the stability of the DNA by going to a G/C->A/T base pair). All the other mutations that make nonsense sentences "THT HAT WAS RED", "THE GAT WAS RED", and "THE HAT WAS NED" let's call harmful mutations that make the protein less effective at what it does. When natural selection works on these mutations the positive ones get selected for and the harmful ones start declining in the population. So after many generations some may be left with "THE CAT WAS RED" which despite being random in the first place looks like it was designed, since all the much more likely harmful mutations occurred and were selected against.
::::And I do apologize for linking the wrong article, tabbed browsing is a boon and a curse. ^^ --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:49, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Using intelligent design to demonstrate evolution ''is'' a problem, and always will be. Including ''systematically'' trying all combinations. And stopping the "mutations" there. No microbes-to-man evolution is going to stop at a single mutation. How about ''randomly'' making one mutation (even trying every combination), then ''another'' random (not systematic) mutation to the sequence that already has a mutation, then ''another'' random mutation to that, and so on. And then see how many still make sense.
::::: Further, you didn't address the point about whether the "mutated" sentence actually did make sense ''in context''.
::::: Lenski's research involved bacteria going through about 44,000 generations before he got ''one'' that he could claim was novel (not that it truly was). Humans, if they evolved from apes, must have had ''thousands'' of information-gaining mutations, and there's been nowhere enough time for that to happen (44,000 generations is about one million years). And with sexual reproduction there's only a 50% chance that any beneficial mutation will be passed on anyway! (See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827 here] for more on that.)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was not stopping the mutations there, nor "systematically" trying them all. In a large populations over a large period of time the improbable is possible, all combinations might arise. Mutations can arise on top of each other, but given the occurrence rate of mutations and the size of most genomes, mutations happening in the same gene aren't likely (but yes, they do happen! improbable is not impossible!). As for whether or not the sentence made sense in context, the changing of one base pair in a gene isn't the same as changing a letter in a sentence. It might be my fault for trying to use an example to make things simpler, but addition before algebra. I'm not sure what you mean by the "context" a protein might find itself in, but a single amino acid change can do a lot or a little. Changing the hydrophobicity for example can make it more or less effective at what it does, but not necessarily take it "out of context". And before we start discussing on the accumulation of mutations, just how much time are you talking about here for age of the earth? --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 21:11, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== KathrynMonroe's edit ==

I've reverted KathrynMonroe's edit because most claims of information-gaining mutations having been ''observed'' turn out to be bluster or misunderstanding the issue, and because:
* The first reference, to "Susumu Ohno 1984" is not elaborated on, so it can't be checked.
* The second reference, to Sean Carrol, appears, from the abstract, to be to a claimed mutation that occurred "prior to the emergence of the adaptive immune system in vertebrates", so could not possibly have been ''observed''.
* The third reference, from a quick read, also doesn't appear to make any claims about actual ''observation'' of such mutation.
It also makes unsubstantiated claims about old and mined quotes.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

:I apologize since my wikifying is a new skill I"m trying to develop. I've fixed the wording and provided a better example of the first point - the creation of the nylon-digesting enzyme complex. I also clarified the quote by Grasse. Hope those help!
:: You've now provided a different first reference, but haven't addressed the comments I made about the other references.
:: Also, your revised comment about quotes is slightly better, but still not good enough, and implicitly falsely treats creationists and scientists as two mutually-exclusive groups. Your comment near the end about some claims being opinion is factually incorrect.
:: I'll do some work on it.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

User:Rainedaye

2008-10-31T00:13:11Z

Rainedaye:

"Religion without doubt turns fanatic."

=Links=

==Evolution Information==

[http://www.talkorigins.org/ Talk Origins]
[http://tolweb.org/tree/ Tree of Life Web Project]
[http://www.pandasthumb.org/ Panda's Thumb]

===Evolution Based YouTube Channels===

[http://www.youtube.com/user/AndromedasWake AndromedasWake]
[http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa AronRa]
[http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007 cdk007]
[http://www.youtube.com/user/ExtantDodo ExtantDodo]
[http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54 potholer54]
[http://www.youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks potholer54 debunks]
[http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t Thunderf00t]
[http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 DonExodus2]

User:Rainedaye

2008-10-29T22:58:30Z

Rainedaye:

Methanol

2008-10-28T02:15:24Z

Rainedaye:

'''Methanol''' (CH3OH), or methyl alcohol, is a light, volatile [[alcohol]] eligible for [[gasoline]] blending. Methanol is the simplest alcohol, containing only a methyl group. Methanol is also highly soluble in [[water]]. Methanol is highly toxic and can relatively small quantities can cause death. In case of methanol poisoning it's best to consume [[ethanol]] in order to help flush it from the body.

[[category:Chemical Compounds]]

Bacteria

2008-10-28T02:08:13Z

Rainedaye:

[[Image:Bacterial cell.png|right|200px]]
'''Bacteria''' are single-celled microorganisms. Modern [[pathology]] and [[medicine]] are based on the findings of [[Louis Pasteur]] and later [[Robert Koch]] and [[Charles Laveran]] that bacteria cause many ailments.

Bacterial [[disease]] was a source of fear for humankind for most of [[history]]. This fear was largely abated by the development of [[antibiotic]] drugs in the last half of the 1900s. The general impression was that most bacterial diseases could be cured, relatively quickly and easily. But bacteria gain resistance to certain types of antibiotics, making their continued treatment in a recurrent infection difficult at times.<ref>[http://www.chemheritage.org/educationalservices/pharm/antibiot/readings/evolve.htm antibiot-readings]</ref> However, this is not [[evolution]], since the bacteria do not change from one type to another, they only gain or lose a few genes involved in the antibiotic and no new information is created. Bacterial disease is becoming a more serious medical problem, particularly in hospitals which tend to harbor a population of drug-resistant bacteria.

Bacteria are tiny one-celled organisms present throughout the environment that require a microscope to be seen. The vast majority of bacteria are not harmful to human beings. Many of them are normally found on or in the human body, and not only do not cause disease, but provide some benefit. For example, the human gut normally contain a complement of ''intestinal flora'' which assist digestion.

Some food products involve bacteria in their production. [[Sour cream]], [[buttermilk]], [[yogurt]], and some kinds of [[cheese]] contain living cultures of live bacteria when eaten. Vinegar is traditionally produced by the growth of the ''Acetobacter'' bacterium in wine. ([[Wine]] itself is produced, not by bacteria, but by [[yeast]], which is also a [[microorganism]] that is classified as a [[fungi]].)

While not all bacteria are harmful, some cause disease. The technical term for these is ''pathogenic'' bacteria (''pathogenic'' being nothing more than a combination of the Greek roots for "disease" and "causing").

Examples of bacterial disease include diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, ''Haemophilus influenza'' and pneumococcus (pneumonia).

==See also==
*[[Drug resistance]]
*[[Lactobacillus]]

== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:microbiology]]

Carbon dioxide

2008-10-28T02:04:51Z

Rainedaye:

[[Image:CO2phase.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Phase diagram]] for CO2]]

'''Carbon dioxide''' (CO2) is an odorless, colorless [[gas]] formed by the [[oxidation]] of [[hydrocarbon]]s, both naturally, in animals, and artificially, as fuel<ref>If not enough oxygen is present, [[carbon monoxide]] will also be produced, in a process called [[incomplete combustion]].</ref>. It is one of the [[human]] body's major waste products, being excreted through exhalation.

It is used by [[plants]] in the process of [[photosynthesis]] to create complex carbohydrates ([[cellulose]] and [[sugar]]s), using water and the [[energy]] from [[sunlight]]. The waste product in this process is [[oxygen]].

At room temperature and atmospheric [[pressure]], carbon dioxide is a gas. It becomes solid at -78 ºC at standard atmospheric pressure, forming dry ice. When it thaws, it turns directly into a gas again (called [[sublimation]]). <ref>"Dry ice is frozen carbon dioxide. A block of dry ice has a surface temperature of -109.3 degrees Fahrenheit (-78.5 degrees C). Dry ice also has the very nice feature of sublimation -- as it breaks down, it turns directly into carbon dioxide gas rather than a liquid." [http://www.howstuffworks.com/question264.htm How Stuff Works] </ref> This can be seen from the phase diagram to the right, where at 1 atmosphere of pressure, there is no liquid state separating the solid and gas as temperature rises.

CO2 is one of the so-called [[greenhouse gas]]es. Heat-trapping by CO2 has been observed on [[Earth]] and [[Venus]]. The extent of its role in the current increase in average global temperatures is a topic of active political and scientific debate. Rising CO2 levels have also been attributed to the acidification of the world's oceans.

The Lewis structure indicates it has two double bonds:

[[Image:CO2.gif]]

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Chemical Compounds]]

His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-10-28T01:13:55Z

Rainedaye: /* Awards */ removed out of place opinion sentence

'''''His Dark Materials''''' is a trilogy of children's [[fantasy]] novels written by [[Britain|British]] author [[Philip Pullman]]. Modelled on classics like [[C. S. Lewis|C.S. Lewis']] ''[[Chronicles of Narnia]]'' and [[John Milton|Milton's]] ''[[Paradise Lost]]'', the trilogy is an [[allegory|allegorical]] indictment of organised religion and has been widely perceived as an attack on traditional Christian [[theology]].

The trilogy consists of ''[[The Golden Compass]]'' (originally published as ''Northern Lights'' in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1995), ''[[The Subtle Knife]]'' (published in 1997) and ''[[The Amber Spyglass]]'' (published in 2000). The title of the trilogy refers to a line from the 17th century poem ''[[Paradise Lost]]'' by [[John Milton]], <ref>http://www.kirkcenter.org/bookman/44-1-bernthal.html</ref> a line that is stated at the start of ''The Golden Compass''.

==Plot==
{{Spoiler}}

The main action of the trilogy centers around Lyra Belacqua, an 11-year old girl raised in [[England]] in another universe, and Will Parry, a 12-year old boy from London in our [[universe]].

===The Golden Compass===
The first novel is primarily concerned with Lyra, a girl living in [[Oxford]]. In Lyra's world, a person's [[soul]] is represented as an animal known as a "daemon". Children's daemons can change their shape at will, but once a person reaches maturity their daemon becomes "fixed" and stays in one shape for the rest of its life. Lyra's world is ruled by "The Church", a [[religion|religious]] organization that wields immense power. The Church worships a powerful being known as "The Authority"

The story follows Lyra as she travels across the North to rescue her friend Roger, a servant at the college in which she lives, who has been kidnapped by a mysterious organization known as the Gobblers. She is also on a mission to rescue Lord Asriel, her father and an explorer, who has been imprisoned at a castle ruled by talking bears. Her primary assistance on this journey is a golden, compass-like object called an alethiometer, which can tell the future. Along the way, she encounters allies like flying witches, aeronauts (balloon operators), and tribes of seafarers called Gyptians.

Eventually, she is captured by the Gobblers and learn that they are a branch of The Church known as the General Oblation Board. The Board is led by Lyra's mother, Mrs. Marisa Coulter. Their goal is to separate children from their daemons to prevent a mysterious, invisible substance known as "Dust" from settling on them. This Dust is believed to be [[Original sin]] by the Church. Unfortunately, the separation of a child and their daemon always results in the death of both. With the aid of her allies, Lyra escapes the Oblation Board with Roger, freeing the other prisoners in the process.

She ends up in Svalbard, the kingdom of talking, armored bears known as ''panserbjorne''. With her bear ally Iorek Byrnison, she topples the corrupt bear king and frees Lord Asriel. However, Asriel betrays her and uses Roger's daemon to open a massive portal to another world. The process of opening this portal results in Roger's death. Lyra vows to find the source and identity of Dust, and enters the portal.

===The Subtle Knife===
The second novel takes place several weeks after ''The Golden Compass'', and introduces Will Parry, a 12-year old boy who lives with his mother in Oxford in our world. His father has been missing for many years after going on a voyage to the North. At the start of the novel, he accidentally kills a thief, and is forced to go on the run from the law. He finds a portal to another world and meets Lyra, who has been searching for knowledge about Dust.

Meanwhile, a minor character from ''The Golden Compass'' receives a major storyline: Lee Scoresby, an aeronaut from the [[Texas]] of Lyra's universe. He undergoes a quest to locate Stanislaus Grumman, an explorer who may hold answers to some of the mysteries surrounding Dust and be able to help Lord Asriel, who is amassing forces in another world. Eventually, Lee finds Grumman, where it is revealed that the explorer is John Parry, Will's long-lost father, who accidentally went through a portal on his expedition. The pair are followed by large war zeppelins and soldiers loyal to the Church. While holding them back, Scoresby is sadly killed, but his sacrifice enables Parry to continue on his journey.

Lyra and Will try to unravel the mysteries of Dust, meeting Mary Malone, a scientist from Will's world. She has been studying Dust and discovers that it mostly settles on objects of human design and origin, while avoiding natural objects such as plants or uncarved wood. Will and Lyra avoid the people looking for Will and return to Cittagazze, where they find an unusual device known as the Subtle Knife. This knife, which can create portals to many different worlds, also wards off Specters.

This discovery inadvertently results in the original owner being attacked by Specters, which angers the children who still reside in the city. They almost kill Lyra and Will, but the two are saved by Lyra's witch allies who have entered Cittagazze. The protagonists learn that the Subtle Knife would be helpful to Lord Asriel, who is amassing a large army to combat the Authority. Before this can happen, however, they are attacked by Specters under the control of Mrs. Coulter, and Lyra is captured.

Will, confused and disoriented, meets a wandering man who introduces himself as Stanislaus Grumman. He tells Will to give the Knife to Lord Asriel. As they see each other's eyes, they realize their familial connection. Unfortunately, before father and son can be truly reunited, John Parry is killed by a witch whose love he scorned because of his faithfulness to his wife. This witch commits suicide shortly thereafter. As Will tries to decide what to do, he encounters two invisible beings who introduce themselves as [[angels]] and promise to take him to Lord Asriel.

===The Amber Spyglass===
''The Amber Spyglass'' begins shortly after the end of ''The Subtle Knife''. Lyra has been taken captive by Mrs. Coulter, who keeps her sedated in a cave in yet another new world. Despite her strong loyalty to the Church, Mrs. Coulter's motherly instincts take over, and she decides to hide Lyra from both the Church's forces and Lord Asriel's.

Will goes on a journey to find Lyra, led by one of the two angels, Balthamos. The other angel dies early in the book while delivering a message to Lord Asriel. From the angels, Will learns that The Authority is only the first and most powerful angel, formed from Dust, who has convinced everyone that he created everything. Since he is so old, The Authority is now senile, and his Regent, Metatron, rules in his stead. A select few of the angels have rebelled against The Authority and Metatron, and now join forces with Asriel to defeat them and end their rule over everything.

Meanwhile, Dr. Mary Malone of Will's Oxford is being hunted by authorities and enters the same portal Will went through in ''The Subtle Knife''. She enters a strange world populated by intelligent, elephant-like creatures called "mulefa". She learns about Dust from their legends and customs, and constructs a spyglass with an amber lens, through which she is able to see Dust as particles of light. She discovers that Dust is slowly leaving the worlds, which will eventually result in disaster.

Traveling throughout the worlds, Will, Balthamos, and Iorek Byrinson the new bear king eventually reach Lyra and help her escape. The forces of Asriel and the Church wage battle all around them and Balthamos flees in terror. Will and Lyra attempt to enter another world, but the Subtle Knife breaks as a result of Will's emotions. Iorek fixes it using a makeshift forge. The two children eventually decide to enter the [[afterlife|world of the dead]] in an attempt to help Roger, John Parry, and Lee Scoresby.

Mrs. Coulter is captured by Asriel's army and taken to his fortress. She escapes using a powerful flying machine and returns to the Church. However, she learns that the Church plans to kill Lyra, using a form of odd science, before she can face some "temptation" that has the potential to destroy everything the Church stands for, an explicit analogy to [[Eve]]. Mrs. Coulter again switches sides, and is able to prevent this murder from happening, returning to Asriel's fortress.

Will and Lyra are aided by two spies of Lord Asriel, members of a race of extremely small people called "Gallivespians", in their efforts to reach the land of the dead. They eventually enter it by use of the Subtle Knife, but Lyra is forced to leave her daemon behind, an act of complete betrayal. Though the protagonists are reunited with their loved ones, they learn that the afterlife is little more than a [[prison]], where all of the dead are emotionally tortured by monsters called harpies who feed on their sadness. They manage to convince the harpies to let them lead the dead out of the afterlife, and they cut a portal that leads them through the center of the world.

The final battle between the forces of Lord Asriel and the forces of The Authority and Metatron has officially begun, and Lyra and Will lead the dead right into the middle of it. Mrs. Coulter uses the flying machine to go to The Authority's palace, where she sees The Authority being carried out in a large glass cage. She eventually seduces Metatron into following her to the center of the world, where she says Lyra is being held. In reality, it is a trap for the angel laid by her and Lord Asriel, and they both push Metatron over the edge into an abyss, killing themselves in the process.

Lyra and Will find the cage containing The Authority, who is being attacked by animals. They drive off the animals, and free the being from his cage. Unfortunately, his frail body can not withstand a gust of wind, and he dies. The battle is not yet over, and Lyra and Will are saved from soldiers by the dead. After their task is done, the dead dissolve into the air, becoming one with the world.

Lyra and Will escape the battle by entering another world, the world of the mulefa. They meet Mary Malone again, and she tells them of the time that she lost her faith in [[Catholicism]]. Because of her descriptions of love, Lyra and Will realize that they are in love, and it is implied, but not clearly stated, that they engage in intercourse. This somehow makes the flow of Dust return to normal, and fulfills the "temptation" mentioned earlier in the series. Not long after this, Lyra is reunited with her daemon and Will is able to see his for the first time.

A [[priest]] sent by the Church to kill Lyra is almost given a chance to kill her and Will, but is stopped by Balthamos, who is ashamed of leaving Will and Lyra before. The assassin is accidentally killed, and it is implied that Balthamos dies of his wounds.

Will and Lyra delight in their new-found love, but they soon learn that the many holes cut by the Subtle Knife will need to be closed before the supply of Dust runs out. They also learn that staying in a different world for a long period of time will eventually cause a decline in a person's health, killing them. They decide that despite their feelings that they cannot stay with each other, since they have to leave one portal open to allow the dead to return to the living world. They each go back to their respective Oxfords, and resume their normal lives, basing them around teaching other people to live their lives to the fullest and not bother with [[faith]].

==Religious Views==
Dust is a primeval substance from which all life, consciousness and free will sprang. However the Authority and Magisterium seek to suppress this knowledge because it contradicts their doctrine of supremacy, and therefore equate it with sin or loss of innocence. At an allegorical level this can be seen as the Church's work to eliminate sin conflicting with the need for free will. As the characters rediscover this dust and embrace its life-giving power, they choose to free themselves from the oppressive theocracy of the Magisterium.

===God===
The character of "The Authority" is definitely the [[Judeo-Christian]] [[God]], evidenced by many of his names <ref>http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html</ref>. [[Yahweh]], one of the names mentioned, is a common name for God in the [[Bible]]. The Father the Almighty, another name, is a term from the [[Nicene Creed]].

Despite this, The Authority's traits clearly depart from the God depicted in the Bible. He is mortal and his powers are clearly limited, while the Judeo-Christian God is immortal and omnipotent. In a sense it mocks the belief of Christians and Jews, telling them that the God they worship is a powerless creation and worthy only of pity and disgust.

===Jesus===
[[Jesus]] is only referenced directly once in the books. Near the end of ''The Amber Spyglass'', when talking of her former devotion to the Catholic faith, Mary Malone (a minor character) says:

''"I wanted to take my whole life and offer it up.. and place it in front of Jesus to do as he liked with."'' <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 33, "Marzipan"</ref>

In an April 2004 interview alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pullman stated that he felt that Jesus' teachings were antithetical to organised religion, and wanted to mark this by his absence in the story.
<blockquote>

"...He doesn't figure in the teaching of the church, as I described the church in the story. I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1</ref>
</blockquote>

===Christianity===
However, the religion started by Jesus appears many times in the books. The Church of Lyra's parallel universe is specifically stated to be a descendant of the [[Calvinist]] faith in ''The Golden Compass''. <ref>''The Golden Compass'', Ch. 2, "The Idea of North"</ref>

===Angels===
[[Angels]] are a separate race in the books' world, complete with their own backstory. Apparently, most of the angels were formed out of the substance known as Dust at sometime in the past, and are very old. The Authority was the first angel formed, and convinced the following angels that he had created them. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref>

[[Human]]s can become angels somehow, although the process is not described in detail. The characters Baruch and Metatron were once human brothers. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 5, "The Adamant Tower"</ref> Metatron's former name was Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalalel. These three names are commonly cited as direct descendants of [[Adam]]. <ref>[http://www.marshallgenealogy.org/bible/pafg35.htm Bible Genealogy, Descendants of Adam]</ref>

===Homosexuality===
Though it is not a major part of the story, it is extremely heavily implied that the angels Balthamos and Baruch have a [[homosexual]] relationship. This is most seen in several instances of them or other characters referring to the two as "loving each other with a passion" or similar phrases. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref> It is unclear whether the same rules of gender apply, due to their non-human ancestry, but Pullman stated in an August 2000 interview that he "liked the idea of two male angels who love each other and who are, themselves, very different characters. They play an important part in the moral education, so to speak, of Will, but also in the outcome of the story."<ref>http://www.powells.com/authors/pullman.html</ref>

==Religious Response==
Online Christian criticism brands the trilogy overly [[atheist]],<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58341</ref> [[pantheism|pantheist]]<ref>http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pullman.php</ref> or [[humanist]].<ref>http://literarycatechist.blogspot.com/2007/11/his-dark-materials.html</ref> It has also come under heavy fire from several [[Christian]] groups, most famously the Catholic League, who called for a Christian boycott of the film adaptation.<ref>http://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=October&read=2322</ref>
There are some Christian supporters of the books, most notably Rowan Williams, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]].<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml</ref>

==Awards==
The series has won some awards<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/features/pullman/author/author.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.philip-pullman.com/about_the_author.asp</ref>
*the Astrid Lindgren Award
*the Carnegie Medal
*the Guardian Children's Book Award
*the Whitbread Book of the Year award, the first time it had been given to a children's book

==References==
<references/>
==See also==
{{Nb Atheism}}

[[Category:Novels]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-27T20:50:30Z

Rainedaye: /* Muslim */ typos

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source ''does'' say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::::This has almost as much relevance as making a connection between McCain and Cain. Yes, John McCain is obviously a descendent of a murderer, and hence, must be a murderer himself.

::One point missed. Obama is from Chicago. Chicago's zip code is 60606. Add those sixes you get the number of the Devil himself.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Are you asserting that the 2,836,658 inhabitants of Chicago are Devils, Muslims or Antichrists due to their zip code.
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

==Muslim==

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]
::...Allah is Arabic for God, it's actually used by anyone who speaks Arabic no matter if they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. That and it's the same god, the god of Abraham. Also, Mohammad is an important non-divine figurehead in Islam, but I don't think "One nation under Mohammad" would be used than "One nation under Moses". I'm sure liberals as well as anyone else with the basic knowledge of religion or law ''is'' offended by your lack of understanding. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, this should be removed. If he says he is a Christian then he is a Christian. You can't go and examine the details of the life of every person to see if they are a "true" Christian or not, isn't there something in the bible about not judging people? Or should we start seeing if we can judge whether the rest of the candidates are ''really'' what they say they are. None of the points listed at the top of his page give any real plausible reason to think that Obama is a Muslim. Just because conversions are rare does not mean they are impossible. Congratulations, Obama may just be a part of that 1%. His name does not reflect his faith, every man named "Jesus" is not a Christian. Respecting a man who was Muslim does not make you a Muslim. I'm inspired by Ghandi, but that doesn't make me a Hindu. Reading a Muslim book does not make you a Muslim. I've read parts of the bible, the quar'an, the torah, the dhammapada, the Rig Veda, as well as works of fiction that include views of all of these religions. It would be silly to say that I am an adherent to all or any of those religions just because I have read them. Pronouncing the name of a country correctly is also not an indication of religion, or is General Petraeus a Muslim too? Of course I also wonder why this is such a prominent thing to begin with. He's a presidential candidate and the top of his page here is devoted to speculation about his religious faith. Isn't his policy much more important? I for one don't see the problem in having a Muslim president. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mutation

2008-10-27T14:49:59Z

Rainedaye: /* Mutations don't lead to evolution? New genetic information? */

Talk:Mutation

2008-10-26T14:54:56Z

Rainedaye:

Talk:Mutation

2008-10-26T02:43:43Z

Rainedaye: /* Mutations don't lead to evolution? New genetic information? */

Talk:Mutation

2008-10-26T02:43:10Z

Rainedaye: /* Mutations don't lead to evolution? New genetic information? */ new section

Phenotype

2008-10-26T02:12:37Z

Rainedaye:

The '''phenotype''' is the observable traits or characteristics of an [[organism]], for example hair color, weight, or the presence or absence of a [[disease]]. Differences in phenotype are caused by differences in genotype, but not all phenotypes necessarily have the same genotype. Organisms that contain a [[dominant allele]] and a [[recessive allele]] for a trait will have the same phenotype as an organism that has two of the same alleles for the dominant trait.

== Sources ==
http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=phenotype

[[Category:Genetics]]

Homozygous

2008-10-26T02:08:22Z

Rainedaye: New page: A trait that is homozygous is one that is only expressed in an organism when it contains the same copy of two alleles. Recessive genes are expressed in the phenotype of an organism onl...

A trait that is homozygous is one that is only expressed in an organism when it contains the same copy of two alleles. [[Recessive gene]]s are expressed in the phenotype of an organism only in individuals that are homozygous for that trait.

Dominant gene

2008-10-26T02:04:52Z

Rainedaye:

{{merge|Dominant allele}}

A '''Dominant gene''' is an allele of an gene that gets expressed over a different allele when the organism has two different copies of a gene (and is therefore heterozygous). Black hair is dominant over blond hair in humans since when individual contains one copy of the gene for black hair and one for blond hair (therefore having a black and blond genotype), the black haired gene gets expressed and gives the individual a black-haired phenotype. However, this is a simplification of a complex process and many genes are not truly dominant.

[[Category:Genetics]]

Allele

2008-10-26T01:56:36Z

Rainedaye:

An '''allele''' is one of the variant forms of a [[gene]]. They can produce variation in inherited characteristics such as hair color or blood type. However, most alleles don't have any effects. Individuals that are homozygous for an allele contain the same two copies, individuals that are heterozygous contain two different alleles for a gene.

In the case of simple inheritance, one form of the allele (the [[dominant gene]]) may be ''expressed'' more than another form (the [[recessive gene]]) in heterozygous individuals.



[[Category:Genetics]]

Deoxyribonucleic acid

2008-10-26T01:51:31Z

Rainedaye:

[[Image:799.gif|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Deoxyribonucleic acid''' (DNA) is an [[organic compound|organic]] [[chemical compound]] made up of [[molecule]]s shaped like a [[double helix]]. The individual monomeric building blocks of DNA (and other nucleic acids) are [[nucleotide]]s, which themselves consist of three principle moieties: A nitrogenous base, a [[sugar]], and a [[phosphate]] group.

DNA contains genes that code for proteins by first being transcribed into RNA. All organisms contain DNA, except for a few viruses. Offspring of sexually producing organisms contain DNA from both parents.

==History==
In the late 19th century [[Friedrich Miescher]], a Swiss [[biochemist]], discovered an unusual [[acid]] in the [[nuclei]] of cells. The acid was named deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. In 1944 the American [[biologist]]s, [[Alfred Hershey]], [[Thomas Gilmore]] and [[Martha Chase]] used experiments with [[bacteria]] and [[bacteriophage]]s to show that DNA passed [[gene]]s from one generation to the next.

At that time, it was unclear how this simple molecule could hold all the complex information controlling the development of humans, animals and plants. Scientists knew it was made of four chemical bases called [[adenine]] (A), [[thymine]] (T), [[guanine]] (G) and [[cytosine]] (C), plus [[phosphoric acid]] and a [[sugar]]. They also knew that the ratios of A and T as well as G and C were always the same, but they did not know the rules that controlled the arrangement.

British scientists [[Rosalind Franklin]] and [[Maurice Wilkins]] passed [[X-ray|X-rays]] through DNA to study the patterns made when the crystals diffracted them. From studying photographs of patterns, Rosalind Franklin concluded that DNA must be be a [[helix]]. [[James Watson]] and [[Francis Crick]], working in [[Cambridge]], used this information to help them solve the puzzle of DNA structure. They built a model showing that if A always paired with T and G paired with C, DNA must be like a ladder made of two strands twisted together in a double helix. The sugar and phosphoric acid were the sides of the ladder, and the rungs were the paired bases that were held together through hydrogen bonding.

Watson and Crick suggested that DNA could unzip itself into two separate strands, and each strand could act as a pattern to grow a new strand. Crick showed later that areas of the DNA known as genes worked in groups of three to code for amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. These groups are called [[codon|codons]]. They make about fifty thousand different types of [[protein]], which make all the different types of cell in the body. Indian biochemist [[Har Gobind Khorana]] made all the possible codons and worked out which codons controlled which [[amino acid]]. Most codons are redundant and code for the same amino acids, these mostly are different in only the third base pair. This means that differences in genotype can build up in the third position (thereby changing the genotype) without changing the protein (keeps the same phenotype).

If the DNA in one cell was stretched out, it would be about three feet long. Although DNA has a very simple structure, it can carry an enormous amount of [[information]]. Scientists do not yet understand the function of all DNA, but in 1991 a project called the [[Human Genome Project]] began to use computers to map the three billion base pairs which make up the 46 human [[chromosome|chromosomes]].

==Modern understanding==
[[Image:818.gif|right|thumb|Structure of DNA.]]
Small lengths of DNA called [[gene]]s serve as the instructions for the body to carry out its functions and give rise to the physical traits of the organism. <ref>"Eye-color genes, through the proteins they encode, direct the amount and placement of melanin in the iris." [http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fgenetics%2Fans_044.html Ask A Scientist - Genes and eye color]</ref> DNA is packaged into [[chromosomes]]. Each individual human being has 23 pairs of chromosomes, where one set is inherited from his/her mother and the other set is inherited from his/her father. 22 of these chromosomes are referred to as autosomes, while the remaining chromosome is the sex chromosome that determines gender.

[[Prokaryotic DNA]] is circular (a closed loop), while [[eukaryotic DNA]] is linear (with ends) with the exception of [[Mitochondrial DNA]] and chloroplast DNA which is separate from that of the eukaryotic organism. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts were thought to once be prokayotic organisms that became symbiotes within eukaryotic organisms, this explains why they still retain their circular DNA. The ends of eukaryotic DNA is protected by [[telomere]]s, which are joined together in knots, except when the cell is undergoing [[mitosis]]. DNA in [[prokaryote]]s usually consists only of one closed loop chromosome.<ref>Campbell, Neil A, et. al. ''Biology''. 6th ed. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2002. 299, 530-31.</ref>

Some viral [[genome]]s are composed of DNA, such as that of the [[influenza]] virus.

Mutations in DNA accumulate over time and build up to create differences between organisms. Most mutations in DNA are harmless and don't affect the phenotype of the organism. Others can have beneficial effects, but some can disrupt important functions. Many diseases such as Autism and Ellis-van Creveld syndrome have been shown to occur due to these harmful genetic mutations.

DNA is [[transcription|transcribed]] into [[mRNA]], which is in turn [[translation|translated]] into [[proteins]] built from [[amino acids]]. Additionally, DNA maybe transcribed into functional RNAs such as ribosomal (rRNA) or transfer (tRNA) that do not undergo translation. [[RNA]] can also be reverse-transcribed back into DNA, which is the called [[Complementary DNA]] or [[cDNA]].

==DNA fingerprinting==

DNA can help police track down criminals if an attacker leaves something like hair or blood at a crime scene. Everybody’s DNA is unique unless they are identical twins, and the genetic ‘fingerprint’ of this material can be enough to confirm if a suspect was at the scene.
Genetic fingerprinting can also show if somebody is closely related to somebody else. Archaeologists used samples from living relatives to identify whether bodies found buried in a forest in [[Russia]] were the remains of the [[Tsar]] and his family, killed during the 1919 [[Russian revolution]].

As well as showing how different we all are, DNA shows how much we are all the same. Only one small part of one chromosome distinguishes a boy from a girl. Genes give us different colored eyes, hair and skin, but 99.5% of any human's DNA is in the same order as everybody else’s.

Human DNA is made up of the same components as the DNA of other organisms, most species even share the same genes which code for the same proteins. This is why even fruit flies and mice can be used as model organisms in order to help better understand human genetic diseases.

==External links==
*[http://www.learner.org/interactives/dna/index.html Interactive DNA] Learn about genetics, genetic engineering, the Human Genome Project and the ethical implications of these new technologies.
*[http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/trun/artwork/Animations/cloningexp/cloningexp.html Animated guide to DNA cloning]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Genetics]]

Genetics

2008-10-26T01:27:50Z

Rainedaye: /* Terms used in genetics */

'''Genetics''' is the study of [[heredity]] and [[genes]].

==Terms used in genetics==

*[[DNA]] - Double stranded helical organic molecule composed of nucleic acids, sugars, and phosphate groups.
*[[RNA]] - Single stranded organic molecule composed of nucleic acids, sugars, and phosphate groups.
*[[chromosome]]- Condensed DNA and proteins.
*[[allele]]- Differences in genotype among individuals for a single gene.
*[[gene]]- Regions of DNA that are transcribed to RNA.

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Life Sciences]]

Genetics

2008-10-26T01:20:28Z

Rainedaye: /* Quotes */ removed useless quote

'''Genetics''' is the study of [[heredity]] and [[genes]].

==Terms used in genetics==

*[[DNA]] - very long organic molecule, with two strands linked with spokes
*[[RNA]]
*[[chromosome]]
*[[allele]]
*[[gene]]

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Life Sciences]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-24T21:16:12Z

Rainedaye: /* Muslim */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source ''does'' say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::::This has almost as much relevance as making a connection between McCain and Cain. Yes, John McCain is obviously a descendent of a murderer, and hence, must be a murderer himself.

::One point missed. Obama is from Chicago. Chicago's zip code is 60606. Add those sixes you get the number of the Devil himself.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Are you asserting that the 2,836,658 inhabitants of Chicago are Devils, Muslims or Antichrists due to their zip code.
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

==Muslim==

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]
::...Allah is Arabic for God, it's actually used by anyone who speaks Arabic no matter if they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. That and it's the same god, the god of Abraham. Also, Mohammad is an important non-divine figurehead in Islam, but I don't think "One nation under Mohammad" would be used than "One nation under Moses". I'm sure liberals as well as anyone else with the basic knowledge of religion or law ''is'' offended by your lack of understanding. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, this should be removed. If he says he is a Christian then he is a Christian. You can't go and examine the details of the lives of every person to see if they are a "true" Christian or not, isn't there something in the bible about not judging people? None of those points give any real plausible reason to think he is a Muslim. Just because conversions are rare does not mean they are impossible. Congratulations, Obama may just be a part of that 1%. His name does not reflect his faith, every man named "Jesus" is not a Christian. Respecting a man who was Muslim does not make you a Muslim. I'm inspired Ghandi and that doesn't make me a Hindu. Reading a Muslim book does not make you a Muslim. I'm read parts of the bible, the quar'an, the torah, the dhammapada, the Rig Veda, as well as works of fiction written by the views of all of these religions. It would be silly to say that I am an adherent to all or any of them just because I have read them. Pronouncing the name of a country correctly is also not an indication of religion, or is General Petraeus a Muslim too? Of course I also wonder why this is such a prominent thing to begin with. He's a presidential candidate and the top of his page here is devoted to speculation about his religious faith. Isn't his policy much more important? I for one don't see the problem in having a Muslim president. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-24T21:10:53Z

Rainedaye: /* Muslim */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source ''does'' say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::::This has almost as much relevance as making a connection between McCain and Cain. Yes, John McCain is obviously a descendent of a murderer, and hence, must be a murderer himself.

::One point missed. Obama is from Chicago. Chicago's zip code is 60606. Add those sixes you get the number of the Devil himself.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Are you asserting that the 2,836,658 inhabitants of Chicago are Devils, Muslims or Antichrists due to their zip code.
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

==Muslim==

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]
::...Allah is Arabic for God, it's actually used by anyone who speaks Arabic no matter if they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. That and it's the same god, the god of Abraham. Also, Mohammad is an important non-divine figurehead in Islam, but I don't think "One nation under Mohammad" would be used than "One nation under Moses". I'm sure liberals as well as anyone else with the basic knowledge of religion or law ''is'' offended by your lack of understanding. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, this should be removed. If he says he is a Christian then he is a Christian. You can't go and examine the details of the lives of every person to see if they are a "true" Christian or not, isn't there something in the bible about not judging people? None of those points give any real plausible reason to think he is a Muslim. Just because conversions are rare does not mean they are impossible. Congratulations, Obama may just be a part of that 1%. His name does not reflect his faith, every man named "Jesus" is not a Christian. Respecting a man who was Muslim does not make you a Muslim. I'm inspired Ghandi and that doesn't make me a Hindu. Reading a Muslim book does not make you a Muslim. I'm read parts of the bible, the quar'an, the torah, the dhammapada, the Rig Veda, as well as works of fiction written by the views of all of these religions. It would be silly to say that I am an adherent to all or any of them just because I have read them. Of course I also wonder why this is such a prominent thing to begin with. He's a presidential candidate and the top of his page here is devoted to speculation about his religious faith. Isn't his policy much more important? I for one don't see the problem in having a Muslim president. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-24T21:04:02Z

Rainedaye: /* Muslim */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source ''does'' say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::::This has almost as much relevance as making a connection between McCain and Cain. Yes, John McCain is obviously a descendent of a murderer, and hence, must be a murderer himself.

::One point missed. Obama is from Chicago. Chicago's zip code is 60606. Add those sixes you get the number of the Devil himself.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Are you asserting that the 2,836,658 inhabitants of Chicago are Devils, Muslims or Antichrists due to their zip code.
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

==Muslim==

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]
::...Allah is Arabic for God, it's actually used by anyone who speaks Arabic no matter if they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. That and it's the same god, the god of Abraham. I'm sure liberals as well as anyone else with the basic knowledge of religion or law ''is'' offended by your lack of understanding. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, this should be removed. If he says he is a Christian then he is a Christian. You can't go and examine the details of the lives of every person to see if they are a "true" Christian or not, isn't there something in the bible about not judging people? None of those points give any real plausible reason to think he is a Muslim. Just because conversions are rare does not mean they are impossible. Congratulations, Obama may just be a part of that 1%. His name does not reflect his faith, every man named "Jesus" is not a Christian. Respecting a man who was Muslim does not make you a Muslim. I'm inspired Ghandi and that doesn't make me a Hindu. Reading a Muslim book does not make you a Muslim. I'm read parts of the bible, the quar'an, the torah, the dhammapada, the Rig Veda, as well as works of fiction written by the views of all of these religions. It would be silly to say that I am an adherent to all or any of them just because I have read them. Of course I also wonder why this is such a prominent thing to begin with. He's a presidential candidate and the top of his page here is devoted to speculation about his religious faith. Isn't his policy much more important? I for one don't see the problem in having a Muslim president. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Autism

2008-10-24T02:28:06Z

Rainedaye: /* Material moved for purpose of discussion */

I once visited, on a business trip, a school for autistic children in England, with the local MP. You would not believe the love that MP, the teachers, and everyone we were with, had for these children. That is Christ's love truly functioning in our world.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 21:33, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

May I ask which school this was?
[[User:Flardox|Flardox]]
_________________________
I'm a mother of a mild to moderate autistic boy. I have put this on my yahoo asd list, so that they can come and edit as well. I'm hoping that those more knowledgable then I come by. I added in external links to while granted liberal sources, are also known for their knowledge in autism. moonwolf23(not sure how to put my hyperlink to my username in here)

== Expert needed? ==

I think this page is in serious need of an expert on the subject. I have been correcting spelling, bias, and grammar in this article since I saw it.

I have no experience in the subject, so there's no way of checking the content for accuracy as well.

Maestro pointed out that there's a difference between autism and idiot savants, which I was unaware of.

Also, I think we need a balanced view regarding the vaccine issue; not everyone believes that vaccines cause autism. Wasn't one of the scientists behind the research recently criticized for something in the news? I'm rather skeptical, since cavity fillings contain mercury as well (as far as I know).

Are there any Conservapedian psychiatrists here? :) -[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 18:33, 8 December 2007 (EST)

-----------

This is my first edit on Conservapedia (I just joined), so I'm not sure if this is the way you'd like edits done. Anyhow, here is my reply to the above question:

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I am: a psychologist; a Conservapedian; a mother (retired from homeschooling) with one child on the autism spectrum (now grown up) and my other child is neurotypical (also going to homeschool); a grandmother with Asperger's syndrome; and an advocate for people on the autism spectrum.

I've also lived most of my life with my mouth filled with amalgam fillings (all the teeth left in my mouth, that weren't pulled out, had cavities develop all through my childhood), so I can offer the before and after effects of removing all the mercury out of my mouth.

For those who might not know, Asperger's syndrome is allegedly a form of autism refered to as "high-functioning autism." Because there is much more to learn yet about autism and Aspergers, this debate most likely will continue for some time. --[[User:Faithfilly|Faithfilly]] 06:39, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

_________

- It's called savant syndrome, and it's not a "type" of autism. Also, the vaccine/autism hypothesis has zero credible support among bona fide scientists. A diagnoses of autism is based on behaviors that were present by the age of three. Asperger's is technically "autism spectrum disorder".

- The increase in autism prevalence is most certainly due to changes in the diagnostic criteria, increased public awareness, increased social services, and better diagnoses by physicians.

- In addition, autistic-like behaviors can be present in a number of neurological conditions without an actual autism diagnosis. A closed head injury, for example, can mimic autism, as can a brain inflammation.

== Material moved for purpose of discussion ==

I am moving this here for discussion:

<blockquote>

Warning: Autism Speaks is a multi-million dollar scam created to take advantage of autism for the purpose of making money. It is the largest organization for autism and is highly controlled. Autism Speaks many lies and does not allow adults on the autism spectrum to speak at their conventions. The only adults on the autism spectrum who they permit visibility are those who will not challenge their agenda (profits). Likewise, Generation Rescue is a non-evidence based fringe organization that promotes the debunked hypothesis that autism is caused by vaccines.

The ABA therapy of "retraining the brain" is merely a fancy way of saying "brainwashing." Autism is not a disease that gets "cured" by "treatments." Because this is so highly complex and time-consuming to grasp an understanding of, most people eagerly go for what looks good. Admittedly it does appear on the surface to seem very good, but the long-term consequences provide a lot of risk. The "therapy" society needs, in regards to autism, is education to eliminate the ignorance and misleading information about autism; plus, to eliminate the bigotry and intolerance of those who are neuro-A-typical.

Here are a couple of better links:

#http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/
#http://ani.autistics.org/

[http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer Autism Society of America] Clubs is another huge organization to beware of. The best advice for doing research to get information is to go straight to the source and skip the organizations (at least until you've become properly educated). Either go to autism blog lists like those found at [http://autism-hub.com/ Autism-hub] and [http://www.blognetnews.com/autism/ Blognetnews.com/autism] or search online to read about what bloggers on the autism spectrum have to say. A lot of mothers of ASD children blog and have become quite knowledgeable also.

Also, be discerning when reading books published on this subject ---> especially ones written for parents of ASD (Autism Spectrum Different) children by 'professionals' (who are neurotypical and do not have any children on the autism spectrum).

One of the best books to own is by Tony Attwood called, "The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome." A couple of other good ones are: "Theory of Mind and the Triad of Perspectives on Autism and Asperger Syndrome" by Olga Bogdashina and "Asperger Syndrome: Natural Steps toward a Better Life" by Suzanne C. Lawton.

----------
</blockquote>

First off, blatantly calling some organization or another a "scam" without proof is just asking for trouble. I suspect the person who added it (who has not added anything else anywhere) is not who they claimed they are. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:17, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:It does sound a bit foamy, someone seems to have some personal issues with these groups. But it's right about Generation Rescue, they do still claim that autism was caused by shots despite all the evidence to the contrary. They are a pretty dangerous group in that they cause parents to worry about their children, and maybe even to stop vaccinating them so I can see how someone would be a little angry against them, but I'm sure there is a better way to write that for an encyclopedia article so it doesn't sound just like ranting. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 22:28, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Vaccine

2008-10-23T19:10:31Z

Rainedaye: /* External Links */

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Avian flu]] vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

Since the adoption of mass vaccination programmes, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

==Adverse Events==
Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection. All vaccines vaccines can cause illness, but this is commonly a hypersensitivity reaction (similar to an allergic response), not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

A number of vaccination reactions are deemed serious enough to contraindicate further vaccinations of the same type. These include extensive swelling and redness at the injection site, prolonged fever, [[bronchospasm]] and laryngeal [[edema]](narrowing of the airways causing difficulty in breathing), and collapse/seizures with or without unconsciousness and/or encephalitis.<ref>[http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=2067071044 General Practice Notebook - vaccine reactions]</ref>

==Influenza Vaccine==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]". When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated.<ref>{{hnb|Glezen|2004}}</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

==Mandatory vaccination==
The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

Bulging or swollen [[fontanelle]]s have been linked with many vaccines commonly given to infants, such as the [[diptheria]]-[[tetanus]] (DPT) vaccine. Many families, out of concern for their child's health, have sought legal justice for the potential health damage.<ref>http://legaljustice4john.com/fontanellebulging.htm</ref>

== See also ==
*[[HPV vaccine]]
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
===External Links===
*[http://www.909shot.com/ National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)], a non-profit anti-vaccination organization
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/uploads/Compare_Risks.pdf Compare the Risks], A PDF detailing the risks between vaccination and non-vaccination
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/Home.html Stop Jenny McCarthy], A site devoted to fighting vaccine misinformation, contains many vaccine related resources.

==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2008-10-23T19:08:16Z

Rainedaye: /* See also */

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Avian flu]] vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

Since the adoption of mass vaccination programmes, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

==Adverse Events==
Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection. All vaccines vaccines can cause illness, but this is commonly a hypersensitivity reaction (similar to an allergic response), not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

A number of vaccination reactions are deemed serious enough to contraindicate further vaccinations of the same type. These include extensive swelling and redness at the injection site, prolonged fever, [[bronchospasm]] and laryngeal [[edema]](narrowing of the airways causing difficulty in breathing), and collapse/seizures with or without unconsciousness and/or encephalitis.<ref>[http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=2067071044 General Practice Notebook - vaccine reactions]</ref>

==Influenza Vaccine==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]". When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated.<ref>{{hnb|Glezen|2004}}</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

==Mandatory vaccination==
The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

Bulging or swollen [[fontanelle]]s have been linked with many vaccines commonly given to infants, such as the [[diptheria]]-[[tetanus]] (DPT) vaccine. Many families, out of concern for their child's health, have sought legal justice for the potential health damage.<ref>http://legaljustice4john.com/fontanellebulging.htm</ref>

== See also ==
*[[HPV vaccine]]
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
===External Links===
*[http://www.909shot.com/ National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)], a non-profit anti-vaccination organization
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/uploads/Compare_Risks.pdf Compare the Risks], A PDF detailing the risks between vaccination and non-vaccination
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/Home.html], A site devoted to fighting vaccine misinformation, contains many vaccine related resources.

==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Autism

2008-10-23T19:02:31Z

Rainedaye:

'''Autism''' is a neurological disorder, characterized by inability to interact socially; linguistic disability; intense, narrow interests; and repetitive behaviors. These are called stims or stimming. They include walking on tiptoes, flapping of hands, staring at objects for a prolonged period of time, oral fixation, spinning in circles, and other repetitive activities. Other signs include lack of eye contact, playing alone, lack of words, or in the case of Asperger's syndrome possessing a large vocabulary and intense knowledge of specialized areas but a lack of social skills or inappropriate behavior. It is usually detected by the time a child is four years old but in some cases, autism goes unnoticed into adulthood. There are many intelligent and talented autistic individuals.<ref>Temple Grandin, "Thinking in Pictures, Expanded Edition: My Life with Autism" amazon link http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307275655/ref=wl_it_dp/103-3432247-4184629?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1CWNFSEUCIXQL&colid=49VN3HJC5OQK</ref>

Diagnoses of autism has increased from 1:10,000 in 1988 to 1:166 people today. Some estimates are as high as 1 in 150 people <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/faq_prevalence.htm</ref>, and it has been rising. Among boys, 1 in 94 has the disorder. In New Jersey, which has the highest rate in the nation, 1 in every 60 boys has autism and 1 in every 94 children is affected.

It has been claimed by some that a [[mercury]] preservative used in [[vaccines]], thimerosal, is the cause of injury in many recipients, including a cause of increase in autism rates.<ref>[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:952MmAWeCOsJ:www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf+jpands&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines,
Neurodevelopment Disorders, and Heart Disease in the United States]</ref> Thimerosal is a inorganic form of mercury that was widely used as a preservative, but since FDA and CDC action in 1999 and 2000 thimerosal usage in vaccines has been either removed or lessened to around 0.01% in [[vaccines]] that still use it, including influenza and DT vaccines. However, U.S. rates of autism have increased rather than declined.{{fact}} Vaccines have been shown not to be a likely cause for autism <ref>http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13703.html,</ref><ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75KN-4DJ97VJ-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c555dd340aa6cb7c3a18806ba0fd162a</ref><ref>http://www.iom.edu/?id=27771</ref>, but worries about the vaccine still linger in people who have not been informed of these findings and their subsequent refusal to vaccinate their children have been the leading cause in recent outbreaks of these diseases.<ref>http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.425/pub_detail.asp</ref>

Autism is a spectrum disorder which means there is a range in how it affects different people. There is the fragile x syndrome, Asperger's syndrome, pdd nos, mild autism, moderate autism, severe autism, and some [[idiot savants]]. Autistic children will not all act like the character portrayed in the movie ''[[Rain Man]]''. Nor are all autistic children uncaring or unable to show emotion, in fact many are very caring.

Autism was first identified in 1943 by Dr. [[Leo Kanner]]. Dr. Hans Asperger also did some research into autism at about the same time and discovered Asperger's syndrome. As early as the 90's many psychotherapies were used to treat it. One very effective treatment, though not a cure, is Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA therapy).

==Theories of causes of autism==

As noted above, there is a strong interest in whether a possible link exists between the increasing numbers of people being diagnosed with autism, and the use of thimerosal (which contains mercury) as a preservative in vaccines. However, this has been disproved as a likely cause of autism and now most data indicates that autism is a mostly genetic condition. <ref> ''American Acadamy of Family Physicians'' http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020301/tips/14.html </ref>. The genetics of this condition are not yet fully understood and could be caused by complex interactions between multiple genes which would account for the "spectrum" like differences in the severity of many cases <ref> http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:7kMNqvTgRtoJ:www.ikhebeenvraag.be/mediastorage/FSDocument/52/Freitag-2.pdf+</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17764594</ref>

Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre at the [[University of Cambridge]] (U.K.) notes the strong evidence that males and females are hardwired for different behavior, with boys tending to be stronger at mechanics, categorizing and systemizing information, mathematics, etc. and girls stronger at emotionalizing and empathizing. He has proposed that autism is merely an extreme version of the male brain type, in which the (female) urge to empathize is nearly absent and the brain is almost entirely hardwired for the (male) tasks of systemizing.<ref>Baron-Cohen, Simon. ''The Essential Difference'', Basic Books 2003.</ref>

Leo Kanner in a 1949 paper identified "parental coldness" and a "lack of maternal warmth" in the parents of autistic children, leading to the term ''refrigerator mother''. The theory here is autism is caused by incomplete [[socialization]] during early childhood because of emotionally cold parents. The book ''Toxic Psychiatry'' by Peter Briggin notes that the frigid mother theory of autism was abandoned in recent years due to pressure groups.<ref>Briggin, Peter R. ''Toxic Psychiatry'', New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.</ref>

Lenny Schafer, editor of the ''Schafer Autism Report'', rejects outright the current characterization of mild social retardation (such as "Asperger's syndrome") as forms of autism. He notes that autism is a disability, and if a person is not disabled from participation in society by their condition, in such areas as being able to hold a job or communicate, including communication over the Internet, they are not autistic and should not be diagnosed as such. He accordingly rejects that there can be such a thing as autistic self-advocacy, as anyone who is truly autistic would not have that ability.<ref>http://www.sarnet.org/</ref>

''Wired'' magazine has referred to autism as a "geek syndrome", or essentially as a form of identity-politics-for-computer-nerds.<ref>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html</ref>. Those favoring this interpretation of autism have coined new terminology, including "neurodiversity" for a population with and without autistic individuals , and using the term "neurotypical" for those without autism.

==External Links==

#http://www.autismspeaks.org/
#http://www.autismdigest.com/
#http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/
#http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer
#http://www.autismlink.com/

==References==
<references/>

[[category:psychology]]
[[category: medicine]]

Autism

2008-10-23T18:48:48Z

Rainedaye: /* Theories of causes of autism */

'''Autism''' is a neurological disorder, characterized by inability to interact socially; linguistic disability; intense, narrow interests; and repetitive behaviors. These are called stims or stimming. They include walking on tiptoes, flapping of hands, staring at objects for a prolonged period of time, oral fixation, spinning in circles, and other repetitive activities. Other signs include lack of eye contact, playing alone, lack of words, or in the case of Asperger's syndrome possessing a large vocabulary and intense knowledge of specialized areas but a lack of social skills or inappropriate behavior. It is usually detected by the time a child is four years old but in some cases, autism goes unnoticed into adulthood. There are many intelligent and talented autistic individuals.<ref>Temple Grandin, "Thinking in Pictures, Expanded Edition: My Life with Autism" amazon link http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307275655/ref=wl_it_dp/103-3432247-4184629?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1CWNFSEUCIXQL&colid=49VN3HJC5OQK</ref>

Diagnoses of autism has increased from 1:10,000 in 1988 to 1:166 people today. Some estimates are as high as 1 in 150 people <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/faq_prevalence.htm</ref>, and it has been rising. Among boys, 1 in 94 has the disorder. In New Jersey, which has the highest rate in the nation, 1 in every 60 boys has autism and 1 in every 94 children is affected.

It is claimed by some that a [[mercury]] preservative used in [[vaccines]], thimerosal, is the cause of injury in many recipients, including a cause of increase in autism rates.<ref>[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:952MmAWeCOsJ:www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf+jpands&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines,
Neurodevelopment Disorders, and Heart Disease in the United States]</ref> Thimerosal is a inorganic form of mercury that was widely used as a preservative, but since FDA and CDC action in 1999 and 2000 thimerosal usage in vaccines has been either removed or lessened to around 0.01% in [[vaccines]] that still use it, including influenza and DT vaccines. There has been no subsequent decline in US autism rates (indeed the opposite).{{fact}}

Autism is a spectrum disorder which means there is a range in how it affects different people. There is the fragile x syndrome, Asperger's syndrome, pdd nos, mild autism, moderate autism, severe autism, and some [[idiot savants]]. Autistic children will not all act like the character portrayed in the movie ''[[Rain Man]]''. Nor are all autistic children uncaring or unable to show emotion, in fact many are very caring.

Autism was first identified in 1943 by Dr. [[Leo Kanner]]. Dr. Hans Asperger also did some research into autism at about the same time and discovered Asperger's syndrome. As early as the 90's many psychotherapies were used to treat it. One very effective treatment, though not a cure, is Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA therapy).

==Theories of causes of autism==

As noted above, there is a strong interest in whether a possible link exists between the increasing numbers of people being diagnosed with autism, and the use of thimerosal (which contains mercury) as a preservative in vaccines. However, this has been disproved as a likely cause of autism and now most data indicates that autism is a mostly genetic condition. <ref> ''American Acadamy of Family Physicians'' http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020301/tips/14.html </ref>. The genetics of this condition are not yet fully understood and could be caused by complex interactions between multiple genes which would account for the "spectrum" like differences in the severity of many cases <ref> http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:7kMNqvTgRtoJ:www.ikhebeenvraag.be/mediastorage/FSDocument/52/Freitag-2.pdf+</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17764594</ref>

Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre at the [[University of Cambridge]] (U.K.) notes the strong evidence that males and females are hardwired for different behavior, with boys tending to be stronger at mechanics, categorizing and systemizing information, mathematics, etc. and girls stronger at emotionalizing and empathizing. He has proposed that autism is merely an extreme version of the male brain type, in which the (female) urge to empathize is nearly absent and the brain is almost entirely hardwired for the (male) tasks of systemizing.<ref>Baron-Cohen, Simon. ''The Essential Difference'', Basic Books 2003.</ref>

Leo Kanner in a 1949 paper identified "parental coldness" and a "lack of maternal warmth" in the parents of autistic children, leading to the term ''refrigerator mother''. The theory here is autism is caused by incomplete [[socialization]] during early childhood because of emotionally cold parents. The book ''Toxic Psychiatry'' by Peter Briggin notes that the frigid mother theory of autism was abandoned in recent years due to pressure groups.<ref>Briggin, Peter R. ''Toxic Psychiatry'', New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.</ref>

Lenny Schafer, editor of the ''Schafer Autism Report'', rejects outright the current characterization of mild social retardation (such as "Asperger's syndrome") as forms of autism. He notes that autism is a disability, and if a person is not disabled from participation in society by their condition, in such areas as being able to hold a job or communicate, including communication over the Internet, they are not autistic and should not be diagnosed as such. He accordingly rejects that there can be such a thing as autistic self-advocacy, as anyone who is truly autistic would not have that ability.<ref>http://www.sarnet.org/</ref>

''Wired'' magazine has referred to autism as a "geek syndrome", or essentially as a form of identity-politics-for-computer-nerds.<ref>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html</ref>. Those favoring this interpretation of autism have coined new terminology, including "neurodiversity" for a population with and without autistic individuals , and using the term "neurotypical" for those without autism.

==External Links==

#http://www.autismspeaks.org/
#http://www.autismdigest.com/
#http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/
#http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer
#http://www.autismlink.com/

==References==
<references/>

[[category:psychology]]
[[category: medicine]]

User:Rainedaye

2008-10-23T18:30:34Z

Rainedaye:

"Religion without doubt turns fanatic."

Autism

2008-10-22T14:25:38Z

Rainedaye: Removed person opinion statments, biased language

'''Autism''' is a neurological disorder, characterized by inability to interact socially; linguistic disability; intense, narrow interests; and repetitive behaviors. These are called stims or stimming. They include walking on tiptoes, flapping of hands, staring at objects for a prolonged period of time, oral fixation, spinning in circles, and other repetitive activities. Other signs include lack of eye contact, playing alone, lack of words, or in the case of Asperger's syndrome possessing a large vocabulary and intense knowledge of specialized areas but a lack of social skills or inappropriate behavior. It is usually detected by the time a child is four years old but in some cases, autism goes unnoticed into adulthood. There are many intelligent and talented autistic individuals.<ref>Temple Grandin, "Thinking in Pictures, Expanded Edition: My Life with Autism" amazon link http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307275655/ref=wl_it_dp/103-3432247-4184629?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1CWNFSEUCIXQL&colid=49VN3HJC5OQK</ref>

Diagnoses of autism has increased from 1:10,000 in 1988 to 1:166 people today. Some estimates are as high as 1 in 150 people <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/faq_prevalence.htm</ref>, and it has been rising. Among boys, 1 in 94 has the disorder. In New Jersey, which has the highest rate in the nation, 1 in every 60 boys has autism and 1 in every 94 children is affected.

It is claimed by some that a [[mercury]] preservative used in [[vaccines]], thimerosal, is the cause of injury in many recipients, including a cause of increase in autism rates.<ref>[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:952MmAWeCOsJ:www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf+jpands&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines,
Neurodevelopment Disorders, and Heart Disease in the United States]</ref> Thimerosal is a inorganic form of mercury that was widely used as a preservative, but since FDA and CDC action in 1999 and 2000 thimerosal usage in vaccines has been either removed or lessened to around 0.01% in [[vaccines]] that still use it, including influenza and DT vaccines. There has been no subsequent decline in US autism rates (indeed the opposite).{{fact}}

Autism is a spectrum disorder which means there is a range in how it affects different people. There is the fragile x syndrome, Asperger's syndrome, pdd nos, mild autism, moderate autism, severe autism, and some [[idiot savants]]. Autistic children will not all act like the character portrayed in the movie ''[[Rain Man]]''. Nor are all autistic children uncaring or unable to show emotion, in fact many are very caring.

Autism was first identified in 1943 by Dr. [[Leo Kanner]]. Dr. Hans Asperger also did some research into autism at about the same time and discovered Asperger's syndrome. As early as the 90's many psychotherapies were used to treat it. One very effective treatment, though not a cure, is Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA therapy).

==Theories of causes of autism==

As noted above, there is a strong interest in whether a possible link exists between the increasing numbers of people being diagnosed with autism, and the use of thimerosal (which contains mercury) as a preservative in vaccines.

Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre at the [[University of Cambridge]] (U.K.) notes the strong evidence that males and females are hardwired for different behavior, with boys tending to be stronger at mechanics, categorizing and systemizing information, mathematics, etc. and girls stronger at emotionalizing and empathizing. He has proposed that autism is merely an extreme version of the male brain type, in which the (female) urge to empathize is nearly absent and the brain is almost entirely hardwired for the (male) tasks of systemizing.<ref>Baron-Cohen, Simon. ''The Essential Difference'', Basic Books 2003.</ref>

Leo Kanner in a 1949 paper identified "parental coldness" and a "lack of maternal warmth" in the parents of autistic children, leading to the term ''refrigerator mother''. The theory here is autism is caused by incomplete [[socialization]] during early childhood because of emotionally cold parents. The book ''Toxic Psychiatry'' by Peter Briggin notes that the frigid mother theory of autism was abandoned in recent years due to pressure groups.<ref>Briggin, Peter R. ''Toxic Psychiatry'', New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.</ref>

Lenny Schafer, editor of the ''Schafer Autism Report'', rejects outright the current characterization of mild social retardation (such as "Asperger's syndrome") as forms of autism. He notes that autism is a disability, and if a person is not disabled from participation in society by their condition, in such areas as being able to hold a job or communicate, including communication over the Internet, they are not autistic and should not be diagnosed as such. He accordingly rejects that there can be such a thing as autistic self-advocacy, as anyone who is truly autistic would not have that ability.<ref>http://www.sarnet.org/</ref>

''Wired'' magazine has referred to autism as a "geek syndrome", or essentially as a form of identity-politics-for-computer-nerds.<ref>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html</ref>. Those favoring this interpretation of autism have coined new terminology, including "neurodiversity" for a population with and without autistic individuals , and using the term "neurotypical" for those without autism.

==External Links==

#http://www.autismspeaks.org/
#http://www.autismdigest.com/
#http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/
#http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer
#http://www.autismlink.com/

==References==
<references/>

[[category:psychology]]
[[category: medicine]]

User:Rainedaye

2008-02-29T00:22:39Z

Rainedaye:

"Religion without doubt turns fanatic."

http://worldlessonperspective.blogspot.com/

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-29T00:21:48Z

Rainedaye: fixed minor error

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more research. The [[Google]] search is a start, and speaks for itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in [[Liberal logic]] [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!![[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in [[Liberal style]] . [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in [[second generation atheists]], very little shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I ''told'' you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits ''might'' reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says ''nothing'' about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing ''American'' figures with ''world-wide'' Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actually Philip, it is misleading to say that Google returns a ''worldwide'' result. It returns an English speaking worldwide result which, I would have thought, is likely to be dominated by the US (and will include basically Christian countries anyway). --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::: Incorrect? No. Misleading? Yes, perhaps you are correct there. But I would question how dominant the U.S. would be in the results. It would certainly be a large part of the results, and ''might'' even be more than half the results, but I doubt that it would be enough to overwhelm the rest so that the "world-wide" figure is pretty much the same as the American figure. There are more English speakers outside America than there are in America, although admittedly a lot of them would be in India and China, the latter, and likely the former, would not have a large presence on the English part of the Internet. But as for "Christian" countries, if you are talking ''historically'' Christian, you'd be right (ignoring India and China), but if you are talking about the percentage of the population that is sufficiently "Christian" to regularly go to church being similar to America, then you would be quite wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the [[minister's son]] article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Yet the [[minister's son]] article ''does'' have some substantiation, even if it's not a proper study. And the quote ''does'' indicate that sons of dentists outperform the sons of ''Presbyterian'' ministers, not ministers generally, and isn't the Presbyterian church in America pretty liberal? Your dismissal of the examples seems to be more misinformation than fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

'''Applying the same logic:'''
A second-generation wingnut is one descended and raised in a wingnut environment by parents who are both wingnuts. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by second generation wingnuts ... As of Feb. 26, 2008, Google retrieves no sites referring to second generation wingnuts. In contrast, liberal Australians have been strikingly productive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Your search - "second generation theist" - did not match any documents."--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used. The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist. A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions. Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Might, yes. But since you havent done a study, we simply dont know. But hey, who needs studies, when you can can use Googlefu!--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::Well, for a start, don't base the research on a google search for one little-used phrase that you have dreamt up! Seriously, though, it is an interesting question - but I think defining the samples on which to base the research would be fraught with all sorts of biases. How do you in fact track down second-generation atheists, and a control group of atheists brought up by religious parents (I assume that would be the control group), without falling foul of biases inherent in the way people describe themselves, and in how others describe them? Offhand, I don't know - but I rather doubt that a few google-searches will come up with anything meaningful. Going away to think about it ... And in the meantime I would seriously question the value of an article like this, based purely on self-defined terms and speculation - unless of course the intent is to make Conservapedia a laughing stock by means of self-parody. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Folks, please pursue [[deliberate ignorance]] somewhere else. A study would increase our knowledge, and I'm considering doing that. But no one has to pretend to be totally ignorant in the absence of a study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::I hope that remark was not addressed to me. Where is the deliberate ignorance? I am trying to engage with your suggestion, and thinking about whether it is actually possible to carry out meaningful research on your hypothesis, and how one might gather useful data. But I do think that the article in its present state is pretty pointless. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Googling "second generation atheist" gets over 900 hits. Not that it matters because it is google. Really before seeing this page I honestly never have seen the term before. I wonder what exactly is the point of this article? It seems to just be a definition for a rarely used term that anyone with basic English skills would be able to infer. It then makes an unbacked claim based off of "data" made by google in order to insult a broad group of people. I think the whole thing should justed be trashed. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

== "The Minister's Son" ==

I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Google Searches are not a way to quantify data==

second generation mushroom=126,000 hits 
second generation marshmallow =22,400 hits

Does this tell you anything? No. It is utterly, utterly meaningless, like the 'data' presented as 'relevant' in the article. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:It tells me that second generation mushrooms are far far more productive that second generation Christians. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:03, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:Searching for the ''phrases'' will tell you more than searching for any occurrence of those words. The Google hits I got on those two ''as phrases'' were four and zero respectively. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I agree completely Philip - searching for phrases is more important. However, the numbers are still irrelevant. Drawing conclusions based on a search for "second generation atheist" as a comparative exercise assumes:

#Others have referred to the exact phrase in an online article
#No-one refers to the same phenomenon in another way, e.g "second-generation atheist", "children of atheist parent", "children of atheistic parents", "offspring of atheists", etc
#the item you wish to compare to - children of Christians - are also consistently referred to.
#that such references are even on the internet to begin with

No serious research would ever include Google 'hits' as anything other than anecdotal. It's simply not quantifiable. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 21:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)
: I disagree just a little. Google searches can be useful as a rough guide, or a starting point, if you are careful to take into account the sorts of issues that you've listed above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:47, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Oh come now, Mr.Rayment. Googling the phrase "first born son" yields 282,200 hits. Googling "first born daughter" yields 37,600 hits. Do you seriously believe this tells you that seven and a half times more often, the first born child is male rather than female?

I repeat, Google hits are utterly meaningless in this context. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 22:24, 26 February 2008 (EST)
: I guess that it depends on what you mean by "this context". I did say that they ''can'' be useful, not that they are ''always'' useful, so a single example (or even multiple examples) does not disprove that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::Google hits are useful to quantify Google hits (and similar), there isn't much more than that. [[User:Nyflah|Nyflah]] 11:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::: I've already said that Google hits don't support they way that they are used in this article. Why is there such a determination to make out that they are utterly useless in ''any'' situation? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:07, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== A research proposal ==

'''Hypothesis''': "second-generation atheists" are less productive than atheists raised in religious environments. 
'''Experimental group''': atheists raised by atheist parents. 
'''Control group''': atheists raised by religious parents (it must be atheists raised by religious parents, and must not include theists raised by religious parents, which would introduce a confounding bias). 
'''Outcome measure''': various possibilities. Publications in scholarly journals (maybe citation score from the ISI databases)? Board membership of leading corporations? Political office? 
'''Study design''': it has to be a '''retrospective''' study, unless we are prepared to wait for people currently being raised by the two types of parents to reach adulthood. Maybe a '''case-control study''', with "achievers" as cases and "non-achievers" as controls (maybe take graduates from university X in year Y, and classify them on the basis of what they have achieved since, then go and investigate their backgrounds?). Or a simple '''cross-sectional study''' of atheist achievers, setting out to investigate their backgrounds, and measuring the ratio of second-generation to first-generation atheists. 

But then, regardless of the details of the study design, we hit a problem. How do we define ''atheist'' and ''religious''? Do we base it only on what people say about themselves publicly, which would presumably bias the sample towards those with strong views of whatever sort? Do we make a judgment on each person in the sample? Do we rely on what others say about them? How do we deal with those (and it may be the overwhelming majority) whose religious stance we don't know? Do we have to interview them all? And if it's difficult to establish someone's religious stance with any certainty, it is going to be even harder to find out anything meaningful about the upbringing or the parents. Further thought required ... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Also, let's not forget that this needs to include all religions - sons of Imam's, sons of Saddhus (if there are any), sons of Rabbis. It's a tricky study to coordinate, thats for sure. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 16:38, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: I'm fine with including all religions. However, the control does not have to be [[atheistic]] children of [[atheists]]. Other control groups are possible, or perhaps simply use the general population (of comparable privilege) as a rough control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: He suggested the control group as atheist children of theists, not of atheists. Atheist children of theists are the appropriate control if you are comparing ''second-generation'' atheists with ''first-generation'' atheists. But it would also be interesting to compare both groups to first-generation Christians and second-generation Christians.
:: And although you could add as separate groups other religions, lumping all theistic religions into one group vs. atheists is making a huge, and invalid, assumption about how similar various theistic religions are. So after atheists, the first group you would compare against would be Christians, and preferably Christians from a reformed background.
:: All proper studies have to grapple with problems of definitions, avoiding hidden biases, etc., and the same applies here, but I don't see any exceptionally difficult problems with a study like this. Religion, at least, is already determined by many other studies. It can be done. Achievement would not be a particular problem, although one thing to be wary of is to avoid a reliance on academic achievement, as people who have achieved academically have, for the most part, gone through a system (i.e. university and the like) that is predominantly atheistic, and which would therefore cause a bias in the results.
:: But such a study is the sort of thing that you get a grant of tens of thousands of dollars for, and takes many months of work. I very much doubt that it would be within the capabilities of anyone here.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:39, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::Trouble is, without a properly conducted study (either done by someone here or already done and tracked down), the article remains a blog-like opinion piece with no basis in demonstrable fact. Maybe it should be moved to the "essay" space. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:44, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-29T00:20:33Z

Rainedaye:

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more research. The [[Google]] search is a start, and speaks for itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in [[Liberal logic]] [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!![[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in [[Liberal style]] . [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in [[second generation atheists]], very little shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I ''told'' you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits ''might'' reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says ''nothing'' about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing ''American'' figures with ''world-wide'' Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actually Philip, it is misleading to say that Google returns a ''worldwide'' result. It returns an English speaking worldwide result which, I would have thought, is likely to be dominated by the US (and will include basically Christian countries anyway). --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::: Incorrect? No. Misleading? Yes, perhaps you are correct there. But I would question how dominant the U.S. would be in the results. It would certainly be a large part of the results, and ''might'' even be more than half the results, but I doubt that it would be enough to overwhelm the rest so that the "world-wide" figure is pretty much the same as the American figure. There are more English speakers outside America than there are in America, although admittedly a lot of them would be in India and China, the latter, and likely the former, would not have a large presence on the English part of the Internet. But as for "Christian" countries, if you are talking ''historically'' Christian, you'd be right (ignoring India and China), but if you are talking about the percentage of the population that is sufficiently "Christian" to regularly go to church being similar to America, then you would be quite wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the [[minister's son]] article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Yet the [[minister's son]] article ''does'' have some substantiation, even if it's not a proper study. And the quote ''does'' indicate that sons of dentists outperform the sons of ''Presbyterian'' ministers, not ministers generally, and isn't the Presbyterian church in America pretty liberal? Your dismissal of the examples seems to be more misinformation than fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

'''Applying the same logic:'''
A second-generation wingnut is one descended and raised in a wingnut environment by parents who are both wingnuts. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by second generation wingnuts ... As of Feb. 26, 2008, Google retrieves no sites referring to second generation wingnuts. In contrast, liberal Australians have been strikingly productive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Your search - "second generation theist" - did not match any documents."--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used. The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist. A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions. Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Might, yes. But since you havent done a study, we simply dont know. But hey, who needs studies, when you can can use Googlefu!--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::Well, for a start, don't base the research on a google search for one little-used phrase that you have dreamt up! Seriously, though, it is an interesting question - but I think defining the samples on which to base the research would be fraught with all sorts of biases. How do you in fact track down second-generation atheists, and a control group of atheists brought up by religious parents (I assume that would be the control group), without falling foul of biases inherent in the way people describe themselves, and in how others describe them? Offhand, I don't know - but I rather doubt that a few google-searches will come up with anything meaningful. Going away to think about it ... And in the meantime I would seriously question the value of an article like this, based purely on self-defined terms and speculation - unless of course the intent is to make Conservapedia a laughing stock by means of self-parody. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Folks, please pursue [[deliberate ignorance]] somewhere else. A study would increase our knowledge, and I'm considering doing that. But no one has to pretend to be totally ignorant in the absence of a study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::I hope that remark was not addressed to me. Where is the deliberate ignorance? I am trying to engage with your suggestion, and thinking about whether it is actually possible to carry out meaningful research on your hypothesis, and how one might gather useful data. But I do think that the article in its present state is pretty pointless. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Googling "second generation atheist" gets over 900 hits. Not that it matters because it is google. Really before seeing page site I honestly never have seen the term before. I wonder what exactly is the point of this article? It seems to just be a definition for a rarely used term that anyone with basic English skills would be able to infer. It then makes an unbacked claim based off of "data" made by google in order to insult a broad group of people. I think the whole thing should justed be trashed. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

== "The Minister's Son" ==

I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Google Searches are not a way to quantify data==

second generation mushroom=126,000 hits 
second generation marshmallow =22,400 hits

Does this tell you anything? No. It is utterly, utterly meaningless, like the 'data' presented as 'relevant' in the article. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:It tells me that second generation mushrooms are far far more productive that second generation Christians. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:03, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:Searching for the ''phrases'' will tell you more than searching for any occurrence of those words. The Google hits I got on those two ''as phrases'' were four and zero respectively. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I agree completely Philip - searching for phrases is more important. However, the numbers are still irrelevant. Drawing conclusions based on a search for "second generation atheist" as a comparative exercise assumes:

#Others have referred to the exact phrase in an online article
#No-one refers to the same phenomenon in another way, e.g "second-generation atheist", "children of atheist parent", "children of atheistic parents", "offspring of atheists", etc
#the item you wish to compare to - children of Christians - are also consistently referred to.
#that such references are even on the internet to begin with

No serious research would ever include Google 'hits' as anything other than anecdotal. It's simply not quantifiable. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 21:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)
: I disagree just a little. Google searches can be useful as a rough guide, or a starting point, if you are careful to take into account the sorts of issues that you've listed above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:47, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Oh come now, Mr.Rayment. Googling the phrase "first born son" yields 282,200 hits. Googling "first born daughter" yields 37,600 hits. Do you seriously believe this tells you that seven and a half times more often, the first born child is male rather than female?

I repeat, Google hits are utterly meaningless in this context. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 22:24, 26 February 2008 (EST)
: I guess that it depends on what you mean by "this context". I did say that they ''can'' be useful, not that they are ''always'' useful, so a single example (or even multiple examples) does not disprove that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::Google hits are useful to quantify Google hits (and similar), there isn't much more than that. [[User:Nyflah|Nyflah]] 11:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::: I've already said that Google hits don't support they way that they are used in this article. Why is there such a determination to make out that they are utterly useless in ''any'' situation? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:07, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== A research proposal ==

'''Hypothesis''': "second-generation atheists" are less productive than atheists raised in religious environments. 
'''Experimental group''': atheists raised by atheist parents. 
'''Control group''': atheists raised by religious parents (it must be atheists raised by religious parents, and must not include theists raised by religious parents, which would introduce a confounding bias). 
'''Outcome measure''': various possibilities. Publications in scholarly journals (maybe citation score from the ISI databases)? Board membership of leading corporations? Political office? 
'''Study design''': it has to be a '''retrospective''' study, unless we are prepared to wait for people currently being raised by the two types of parents to reach adulthood. Maybe a '''case-control study''', with "achievers" as cases and "non-achievers" as controls (maybe take graduates from university X in year Y, and classify them on the basis of what they have achieved since, then go and investigate their backgrounds?). Or a simple '''cross-sectional study''' of atheist achievers, setting out to investigate their backgrounds, and measuring the ratio of second-generation to first-generation atheists. 

But then, regardless of the details of the study design, we hit a problem. How do we define ''atheist'' and ''religious''? Do we base it only on what people say about themselves publicly, which would presumably bias the sample towards those with strong views of whatever sort? Do we make a judgment on each person in the sample? Do we rely on what others say about them? How do we deal with those (and it may be the overwhelming majority) whose religious stance we don't know? Do we have to interview them all? And if it's difficult to establish someone's religious stance with any certainty, it is going to be even harder to find out anything meaningful about the upbringing or the parents. Further thought required ... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Also, let's not forget that this needs to include all religions - sons of Imam's, sons of Saddhus (if there are any), sons of Rabbis. It's a tricky study to coordinate, thats for sure. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 16:38, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: I'm fine with including all religions. However, the control does not have to be [[atheistic]] children of [[atheists]]. Other control groups are possible, or perhaps simply use the general population (of comparable privilege) as a rough control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: He suggested the control group as atheist children of theists, not of atheists. Atheist children of theists are the appropriate control if you are comparing ''second-generation'' atheists with ''first-generation'' atheists. But it would also be interesting to compare both groups to first-generation Christians and second-generation Christians.
:: And although you could add as separate groups other religions, lumping all theistic religions into one group vs. atheists is making a huge, and invalid, assumption about how similar various theistic religions are. So after atheists, the first group you would compare against would be Christians, and preferably Christians from a reformed background.
:: All proper studies have to grapple with problems of definitions, avoiding hidden biases, etc., and the same applies here, but I don't see any exceptionally difficult problems with a study like this. Religion, at least, is already determined by many other studies. It can be done. Achievement would not be a particular problem, although one thing to be wary of is to avoid a reliance on academic achievement, as people who have achieved academically have, for the most part, gone through a system (i.e. university and the like) that is predominantly atheistic, and which would therefore cause a bias in the results.
:: But such a study is the sort of thing that you get a grant of tens of thousands of dollars for, and takes many months of work. I very much doubt that it would be within the capabilities of anyone here.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:39, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::Trouble is, without a properly conducted study (either done by someone here or already done and tracked down), the article remains a blog-like opinion piece with no basis in demonstrable fact. Maybe it should be moved to the "essay" space. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:44, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Cancer

2008-02-28T17:50:04Z

Rainedaye: New page: References need to be added in text. Would the people who know from which links the information came from please cite their sources appropriately? --~~~~

References need to be added in text. Would the people who know from which links the information came from please cite their sources appropriately? --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 12:50, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Cancer

2008-02-28T17:48:48Z

Rainedaye: Added info

The term '''cancer''' refers to many different diseases. They all have in common uncontrolled ''cell proliferation'' (growth and division). Cancers are usually named for the organ or cell type that is originally involved. After beginning at one site, cancer may ''metastasize'' (spread) to other organs. The cancer is still named by its place or origin.

==Types of Cancer==
[[Image:Cancerxray.jpg|200px|right|thumb|X-Ray of patient with tumor cancer in right lung]]
[[Image:LUNG069.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Lung tumor]]
''Data are for USA''

*Most common cancers in men:
#[[Prostate cancer|Prostate]]
#[[Lung cancer|Lung]]
#[[Colon cancer|Colorectal]]

*Deadliest cancers in men:
#Lung
#[[Prostate cancer|Prostate]]
#Colon
#Pancreatic
#Leukemia
#[[Liver cancer|Liver]]
#Stomach
*Most common cancers in women
#[[Breast cancer|Breast]]
#Lung
#Colorectal

*Deadliest cancers in women
#Lung
#Breast
#Colorectal
#Pancreatic
#Uterus
#Stomach

==Prevention and Screening==
''Preventative strategies are continuously being revised. Please see references below for up to date information.''
*[[Breast cancer]]: In women without a family history of breast cancer, mammograms should be done yearly. Clinical breast exam by a medical professional should also be done yearly. Women who have had abortions are significantly more likely to contract breast cancer.
*[[Lung cancer]]: There are no currently accepted preventative guidelines
*[[Prostate cancer]]: evidence is inconclusive, but most doctors recommend yearly PSA blood test and digital rectal exam
*[[Colon cancer]]: in people without a family history of colon cancer, most sources recommend a colonoscopy at age 50, with further studies based on the results. Fecal occult blood testing should also be conducted yearly.
*[[Cervical cancer]]: yearly Pap smears should be done on all women who have been sexually active and have not had a [[hysterectomy]]. Over age 65, women in monogamous relationships and recent normal Pap smears probably do not need to be screened as frequently.
*[[Testicular cancer]]: the evidence is unclear, however most physicians recommend routine testicular exams in young men.
*[[Skin cancer]]: keep skin protected from sunlight by use of clothing and sunscreen, and watch you skin for new moles, or changes in existing moles.

==Treatment of cancer==

===chemotherapy===
[[Chemotherapy]] is the use of drugs that kill [[tumor]] cells. Conventionally, the drugs that are used are those that target cells which are rapidly undergoing [[mitosis]]; this approach is effective but is limited by side effects, which occur because these drugs have an adverse effect on normal tissues that contain rapidly-dividing cells. Research is under way to find drugs with a wider [[therapeutic margin]]. One approach is to study specific molecular markers that may be used to identify cancer cells, and to develop drugs that preferentially kill cells that exhibit those markers.

===radiation therapy===
Radiation therapy involves the use of precisely-targeted [[radiation]] to destroy cancer cells. Because radiation damages [[DNA]] and thus has the ability both to treat and to cause cancer, this method of treatment must be administered by physicians highly-skilled in [[physics]].

===surgery===
The goal of cancer surgery is to physically remove the abnormal cells. This becomes more difficult after the cancer spreads. Often, chemotherapy is used either before or after surgery to kill cancer cells that have [[metastasis|metastasized]].

===immunotherapy===
The immune system contains a number of cell types, such as [[NK cells]] and [[cytotoxic T cell|killer T cells]] that have the capability to destroy other cells that have become infected with viruses or have become cancerous. [[Immunotherapy]] involves the enhancement or potentiation of these natural defenses against tumor cells.

===New and Experimental Treatments===
There are many new and experimental treatments for cancer developed every day. These should be viewed with skepticism until more is known about the effects that these treatments may have since many "cures" for cancer have been publicized or marketed without FDA approval and have been found to be ineffective if not harmful. An example of this is Kent Hovind supporting the use of laetrile (also known as amygdalin, or misleadingly "vitamin" B17) which is found in the seeds of raw fruits such as apricots as a cure for cancer.<ref>[http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/hovind.htm Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies, February 2008]</ref> This has never been found to cure cancer from any research but instead has been shown to cause cyanide poisoning.<ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/patient/allpages#Section_20 National Cancer Institute, February 2008]</ref> <ref>[http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/4/201 New England Journal of Medicine: A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer, February 2008]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[American Medical Association]]
*[[Doctor]]

==References==
*http://www.cdc.gov
*[http://www.cancer.org/docroot/stt/stt_0.asp American Cancer Society: Cancer statistics for 2007]
*[http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_1_4X_What_Is_Chemotherapy.asp?sitearea=ETO American Cancer Society: What is chemotherapy?]
*[http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_1_4X_How_Does_Chemotherapy_Work.asp?sitearea=ETO American Cancer Society: How does chemotherapy Work?]
*[http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_1_4X_Whats_New_in_Chemotherapy_Research.asp?sitearea=ETO American Cancer Society: What's new in chemotherapy research?]
*[http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/pocketgd.htm Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Guide to Clinical Preventive Services]
*[http://www.mayoclinic.com/print/chemotherapy/CA00029/METHOD=print Mayo Clinic: Chemotherapy: Drug treatment uses chemicals to kill cancer cells]
*[http://women.webmd.com/guide/health-myths-know-truth?page=2 Myth: Cancer cannot be prevented]

[[Category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Video games

2008-01-25T00:12:27Z

Rainedaye: /* Popular Video games */

'''Video games''' are electronic games commonly played by [[children]] and [[teen]]s. A large number of young adults, having grown up in the era of video games, also play. Many video games such as [[sports]] games and educational games are harmless [[fun]] and can actually be beneficial to a child's development especially if they allow more than one player. Some games though are violent and sexually explicit and have attracted the attention of family groups and [[Conservative]] [[Christian]]s. Games such as [[Grand Theft Auto]] and [[Mortal Kombat]] are very violent and sometimes sexually explicit. Laws have been passed to limit young people's access to these violent games but these laws are either rarely enforced{{fact}} or overturned by judges.<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> Violent video games are believed to cause violent behaviour in some children, especially those under 16 whose mind is still not fully developed.<ref>http://www.lionlamb.org/violence_vid_games_facts.htm</ref>

In the USA, the majority of games carry ESRB ratings.

== Various genres ==

Video games in the course of their existence have grown from the simple arcade style games, and have become more detailed and separated from one another. Genres can now include [[first person shooters]], [[racing]], [[Simulation]], [[Role-playing]], [[Sports]], and many others. Even then, games can combine genres, such as "Mass Effect" [[Role Playing and Third Person Shooting]], and some even create their own genre, like "Katamari Damacy".

== Popularity & Controversy ==

Games have risen in popularity over the years, as is shown in the rise of video games sales from the eighties until today. This has brought with it a various amount of controversy as the video game industry continues to grow with it's original player base.

Most of the controversy comes from the rising trend toward violence in video games, as pioneered by [[Doom]], [[Quake]], and the [[Grand Theft Auto]] series. One man in Particular, [[Jack Thompson]], has imposed a self-manned crusade against video games, which has made him a target of both the online gamer community and of the mainstream media.

== Video Games & Society ==

As video games become more popular, their impact on society becomes ever more present. A prime example of this is the massive ad campaigns for the [[Halo (game)|Halo]] series, as well as [[Grand Theft Auto]]. Advertising, merchandising, and even social pressures have changed in the ever-growing influence of video gaming.

Due to their popularity, various corporations have begun placing advertisements for their products within the context of the game. Players of [[Grand Theft Auto]] may notice real-world company ads on billboards. [[Second Life]], an Internet-based virtual world, has blurred the lines between real-world and virtual world. Companies such as Adidas Reebok and Dell have set up virtual stores selling real-world products within the game. [[Reuters]] also operates a news bureau reporting news in the game.

== Faith in Video Games ==

Faith in Video Gaming has, as a rule, either led to the creation of new and dynamic antagonists, or video games that are mediocre , such as ''Spiritual Warfare'' and ''Bible Adventure'' for the Nintendo, or ''The Bible Game'' for various systems.

The Bible, or other such religious texts, are rather used to tell a story spanning many different viewpoints. Turning these ideas into a video game, however, most often leads to games that tend to bore most video game audiences.

Religion has, however, taken a prominent place amongst the various heroes and villains in video games. The [[Breath of Fire Series]], in particular, uses God as a main antagonist in many of its incarnations. Other games to use religion include [[Final Fantasy]], [[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]], [[Xenogears]], and [[Okami]].

==Popular Video games==
*[[Grand Theft Auto]] - Highly violent. 16-18 and up depending on country
*[[The Sims]] - mild violence, some sexuality. Recommended for 13 and up.
*[[NHL]] Series - This series from EA Sports as well as other NHL series are very popular, especially in Canada.{{fact}} They are family friendly with less violence as seen on NHL hockey on television (which actually can get quite violent). There is, obviously, no sexuality.
*[[Final Fantasy]] - A very popular RPG series in both the United States and Japan. Some games contain mild violence and mild sexuality but these are mostly considered appropriate for ages 13 and up.
*[[Pac-Man]]. An old maze game. It was very popular with kids and adults back in the eighties, and like most old video games it's a clean, fun game for everyone.
*[[The Legend of Zelda]] - A popular series of fantasy action-adventure games.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]
*[[Jack Thompson]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-25T00:01:59Z

Rainedaye: /* The main premise of Wikipedia. */

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, that's typical [[liberal]] bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by [[user:KalleF|KalleF]]

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

:He's right you know ^^
"concentration camp" has negative connotations, but thats ok because it was negative. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]

== Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups ==

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
:I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
:Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
:However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
:::Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles ([[Atheism]], [[Homosexuality]], [[Theory of Evolution]], etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
:::Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like [[placement bias]]) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated info ==
Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?[[User:KalleF|KalleF]] 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about '''1 1/2 hours''' with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his '''one''' previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

*Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
::And there is a factual error in the entry: It did ''not'' take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins#Richard_Dawkins Talk page]
::That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have [[Special:Contributions/Stephenblack|User:Stephenblack]] editing [[Stephen Black]] and [[First Stone Ministries]] ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite [[User talk:Stephenblack|delighted]] about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== grammatical note ==

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], who's official website..." should read "whose official website." [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:And Committe should be Committee. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did." ==

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is ''worse'' than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Wikipedia removed the smear against the [[Democrat]], the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about [[Richard Dawkins]], where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is '''more''' wrong if it is true!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see [[Wikipedia]] using guilt-by-association to smear [[liberals]]. Instead, the biased [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] only.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Liddell&diff=3213370&oldid=3213308 edit] that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

: We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:: I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

==Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs==
I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong [[liberal]] bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed ([http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Pol-access.PNG see graph]). This should be incorporated into the article. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general [[U.S.]] public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a [[liberal bias]]? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately [[liberal]]? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Why does this matter?==
I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.[[User:Morgoth|Morgoth]] 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia {{unsigned|Echew99}}

==Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places==
I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:Aha, here it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on [[Wikipedia]]. That's quicker than the time it took [[Wikipedia]] to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the [[liberal]] "mistakes" on [[Wikipedia]] are very, very slow in being corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

: My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The ''disambiguation'' page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part.
--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the [http://www.ugac.org/ German American Heritage Foundation]. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

{{unsigned|Echew99}}

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=221970], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=346123], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:The bastards, having fun... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our [[rules]]]

: You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than [[Wikipedia]] requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Organization ==

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through [[placement bias]]. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range ==

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.177&diff=181119795&oldid=180656254 here]. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.135.49.211 here]. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how [[Wikipedia]] causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::::Uh, hello? I was accused of being a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=327742 sockpuppet] and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALardoBolger&diff=359482&oldid=299187 hostility] on my talk page. Also, the article [[liberal style]] #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as [[troll|trolling]] and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.211&diff=181148462&oldid=181148406] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I ''did'' get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. [[Sin]] is unforgivable, and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]] states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::First "I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture," and then "Don't know why you're attacking religion here." If you want to believe that when Atheists do something wrong it's because they're atheists, go ahead. But don't turn around when people do the same thing to religion.--[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::: If a Christian does something wrong, he is going against God's standards. If an atheist does something wrong... well, actually, if you're an atheist, you have no basis for right and wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:03, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::They might not have a deity, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a different basis for deciding what is right or wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but although an atheist can ''decide'' that something is "wrong", somebody else could decide otherwise, and he has no basis for claiming that something in inherently ''wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Sure, but I don't see the big difference. Also theists disagree about how their deity wants them to behave, and in the end decision how to behave remains with the individual. And of course, atheist can clearly claim that something is inherently wrong, just like many theists do when they embrace the golden rule. It seems like you claim claim that nothing is inherently wrong, but that it is wrong for some external reason. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: Define "inherently wrong". And some theists disagreeing with other theists doesn't invalidate the concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Inherent, means by nature or habit, the essential character of something. If you involve a third party to define the morality of a behavior, this third party is external. It might still provide a valid reason, but it is not intrinsic. Theists disagreeing proves that in the end every individual theist decides for himself, has to decide for himself, which rules to apply and when. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: I was after a definition of "inherently wrong" (not just "inherent") that would in principle allow one to determine if something was inherently wrong or not. Your definition doesn't allow me to do that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I gave you an example for a definition of what is inherently wrong, namely the golden rule. But if it is still unclear I am more than happy to go into detail. As far as it isn't a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: So cannibalism is not inherently wrong? I ask because in cannibalistic societies, it was often (if not always) the case that two (or more) tribes ''both'' practiced cannibalism against the other tribe. Also, what if you want to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but they don't follow (recognise as authoritative) the Golden Rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: And both of these tribes typically held theist beliefs. Thanks. Theism was often even the motivation for cannibalism. Cannibalism as it was practiced was certainly not according to the golden rule. Or would you like to live in fear that you end up as dinner, whenever you meet a group from another people? I guess not. So, you do it by talking to them if you get the chance. What is your alternative? Telling them about your deity, instead? We can expand on this, but your example shows quite nicely, that having a deity doesn't guarantee any behavior. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: ''Of course'' it depends on the deity, and what he says. And yes, they did live in fear that they would end up as dinner (although it wasn't "whenever you meet a group from another people"), but that's the point: it didn't stop them. Telling them that there is a Golden Rule is not going to stop them. That's an arbitrary imposition on them, which they have no obligation to accept. But telling them that their actions are wrong ''according to the God who made them'' does give them an obligation to accept. Of course, you do have to convince them that what you are telling them is the truth, and having free will they can choose to accept or reject that standard, but there is a logical basis for accepting that standard. (And, of course, Christian missionary influence has led to the abolition of cannibalism in many places.) The Golden Rule was, of course, a rule given by that Creator. But if it wasn't, it's just another arbitrary rule that provides no logical basis (as distinct from a self-preserving one, in this case) for them to follow that rule. The point is, when it comes to right and wrong, the only absolute basis for it is the standards of the Creator. Because He is the Creator, He can set the rules. (The fact that people have the ability to reject those rules does not change this.) If there is no Creator, the rules are set by human beings according to their opinions. There is nothing ''intrinsic'' or ''inherent'' about an action that makes it right or wrong other than whether or not it conforms to the standard of ''the One who has the authority to set the rules''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::The alternative though, Philip, is that man created God in his image and wrote the rules up according to beliefs that society has built up. Some of them for good evolutionary reasons such as look after your family/tribe members; others for power. Through centuries of social and religious development, these rules become inherent in society, e.g. it's bad to kill, steal, etc. While a prehistoric man might not have any moral compunction not to kill a competing male for resources and is therefore amoral by our standards, that same man transported and brought up in our society would be indoctrinated into our rules, either by convention or law. Claiming that man has morals and the only source of them must be God is, in my humble opinion, one of the weakest "proofs of God's existence" arguments. After all, did the tribe of Israel go around murdering and raping each other before the Ten Commandments? Of course not. They wouldn't have got very far if they did. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: Yes, that is an/the alternative explanation for how morals came to be, but that explanation doesn't provide a firm foundation for morals. I'm not claiming this as evidence of God. I'm claiming that without God, there is no solid basis for morals. And even evolutionists such as Dawkins agree with this.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/765][http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/397] The Ten Commandments were putting in writing what the Isrealites had already been told, as far back as Adam and Eve. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::So, you could ask what didn't stop them? What didn't stop them was culture, theistic beliefs, and peer pressure. And as you admit, they did live in fear, so at least you have something in common with them, and that is a basis to come to an understanding. If I understand you correctly, rather than to appeal to something they share with you, your advice is to have them first accept your version of how the world came to be, something that is probably alien and strange to them. It appears to me that trying to make them accept the story of a talking snake is not exactly the the best first move, I see two other more fundamental problems with your reasoning, moral problems.
::::::::::::: First, you admit that there are no intrinsic values. All value are externally derived from your deity. This means that morality now becomes dependent on how you interpret what a deity might have said or intended. However, we do not generally accept it if someone commits an immoral act, and defends himself by pointing to his deity. We rightfully hold the person itself responsible for its acts. You undermine free will, because you give people the option to claim that they just misunderstood the deity. And we have proof that people understand the same deity differently, now, and through history. In the end even you cannot escape that an individual makes the choice in the end for his actions, and the existence of a deity doesn't change this.
::::::::::::: Second, you will have to live together with people who do not share your beliefs about the origin of the world. It seems like you gave up on convincing others to live in peace with you, unless they accept your version of history. This is frankly a recipe for disaster. Regardless of whether your version is correct, you should be able to come to an agreement with people you disagree with. And the golden rule has been proven to be acceptable to humans of all backgrounds and convictions.
::::::::::::: Finally, and we touched on this subject before. It appears that you only treat people morally because of your relation with your creator, and not because of your relation with those other people. I in contrast think that people should follow the golden rule because they care about themselves and other people around them, and not because of fear for some deity that might not might not exist. We know that those other people exist, and we know that we care about them and ourselves. I see nothing wrong with the golden rule. And it is certainly not arbitrary. If the creator would change this rule, people should still live by it.
::::::::::::: But to end on a positive note, least we agreed that you think that there are no intrinsic values. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: What didn't stop them was their culture, the ''wrong'' theistic beliefs, and peer pressure (what peer pressure?). I'd ask you to keep in mind that I'm talking about Christianity, not theism. I don't have fear in common with them. Missionaries do quite often find something in common. One case I read (not involving cannibals) was of a tribe who worshipped the spirits of the mountains, but when you dug deeper, they had an ancient memory of the "one true God". So the missionary told them more about this true God. Regardless, to animistic cultures not tainted by evolutionary ideas, the biblical account makes a lot of sense. It's not as "strange" as it is to you.
:::::::::::::: You are confusing principles with application. Morality is dependent on what the Creator says. How we come to understand that is a separate issue. Without the Creator's standards, there is no basis for right and wrong. Atheists do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act ''because atheists don't believe in any god'', but have no reason to reject the immoral act except their own opinion. Christians do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act, ''because it is not the true God that he is blaming''. But Christians do have reason to reject the immoral act, as being contrary to what God has said. See, Christians have a basis for this; atheists don't. Yes, a person makes their own choice, and are responsible for their own actions, but you can't blame them for their actions unless you have a standard higher than them and you by which to judge them.
:::::::::::::: Your second point is pointless. Yes, I live with people who don't share my belief. And yes, that is a problem. My solution is that they should all share my belief, i.e. belief in the ''true'' Creator God. Your solution is that we should all share ''your'' belief, i.e. belief that right and wrong is whatever we consider them to be (which may or may not be that we consider them to be based on the Golden Rule). Frankly, your belief is a recipe for disaster, because it is ''in principle'' unable to solve anything. That is, even if everyone were to believe that right and wrong is decided by our opinions, there's still no guarantee that we will agree on what is right and what is wrong.
:::::::::::::: Yes, I only treat people morally because of God. Because without Him there is no basis for doing so. That is why Christians throughout history have been responsible for starting hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, welfare organisations, for abolishing slavery, etc. etc., and no other religion, including atheism, has made anything like the contribution to society that Christianity has. Because Christianity teaches that people have worth, because they are created in God's image. Non Christians have no such teaching, with the results that they have done relatively little to advance society.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4932/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_26-28.pdf].
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So even missionaries did look for things in common, that is indeed encouraging, but I wouldn't have expected otherwise. Because that is how people connect, and that is actually the basis of the golden rule, that you recognize something of yourself in the other. And that is something most humans have in common, even if they don't share similar myths. And indeed, it is probably no surprise that people that grow up in pre-modern societies recognize something in the stories from other pre-modern societies.
::::::::::::: How we understand it is not a separate issue. How do you know what the one true god wants? Supposed that it is an interventionist god, and not just some prime mover, or some unexplained natural force. So which true god is it? Is it the true god who wants us to stone obnoxious children at the gates of the city? That is probably not the true god you were looking for. Or is it the true god who finds it acceptable for you to sell your daughter into slavery? That is probably not your true god either. What about the true god who wants you to give up all your possessions, and live in poverty? That may not be the one either? Or how about the one true god who wants you to turn the other cheek? Is this the one? There are quite some choices. We know that you think to have the wisdom to chose the correct one, but we can't rely on everybody choosing the right one. Courts do not argue if the offenders interpretation of the bible is right, but if his choices and actions are. So in the end, it is your choice that matters, and you cannot escape making a choice.
:::::::::::::You don't have to follow the golden rule because of what I believe, and that is the beauty of it. You can be dead certain that if you treat other people bad, they will treat you bad, too. No matter what I believe. So rather than basing your morals on a hypothetical, you can base it on something that does actually exist. Sure, the application of the golden rule changes as society changes. And that is a good thing, because it encourages discussion about how we want to live our lives, which is in turn the essence of a democracy.
:::::::::::::I agree Europeans born in Europe have done a lot to advance western society. I am happy to accept that credit. In this context it is a bit a pity that you reject on of the key ideas that emerged during the European enlightenment, namely that of the intrinsic value of humans. But, lets not forget that also other people created orderly and civil societies, and in this globalised world, they have also a lot to contribute and to learn from.
:::::::::::::In the end, the crucial bit becomes if you accept the golden rule as a guideline or not, and the reason why you accept it is secondary. This rule should be self-evident, but if your belief in a deity is the only way for you accept it, your belief serves at least a good purpose.
:::::::::::::To conclude, I suggest we can cut this discussion short. You do not believe in intrinsic values, and that was what exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. I gave an example for a definition of what is intrinsic wrong, and I am not really surprised that you attack the example. It was actually to be expected that you try to steer the discussion on a tangent when you asked for an example. But I hadn't expected that you struggle with the golden rule itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: How we understand ''is'' a separate issue. First, do you agree in principle that if God (whomever He might be) created us, then he owns us and has the right to set the rules? That question needs to be answered before going on to deciding "which God" or how we determine what He wants.
:::::::::::::: If courts ask if a defender's actions are ''right'', by what standard are they judging "right"? Originally, courts did this on the basis of the Bible. Then laws were made, on the basis of the Bible, and where applicable the courts judged if a person's actions were "right" on the basis of those biblically-based laws.
:::::::::::::: I said that ''Christians'' have improved society, and you changed that to "Europeans", claiming that therefore we agree on that. But the people concerned did what they did ''because of their Christian beliefs'', not because they were Europeans.
:::::::::::::: The "enlightenment" was no such thing. It was more of an "endarkenment", in which God was rejected and so they had to invent alternative explanations for things, such as the worth of a human. What is the intrinsic worth of a human? Probably about $3 worth of chemicals. But even that is only because people are willing to pay for chemicals. The point is, nothing has any ''intrinsic'' worth except in the sense of what they are worth ''to others'', i.e. everything's worth is due to something ''outside'' the thing or person. Saying that people have ''intrinsic'' worth is simply deeming it to be so, with no basis. But if the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe considers you to be worth something (which He does), then boy, are you ''worth'' something! You are not just worth a few dollars, or even a million dollars, but you are worth Him coming in human form and suffering and dying a cruel death to redeem you (buy you back). That's where our worth comes from.
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So, on principle, if you make a being that is sentient, that has what we call free will, and that can suffer pain, then you don't own it in the sense that you mean. What you propose would be worse than a zoo, and close to an abusive relationship. But the crucial bit is actually that we know almost nothing about this being, "whoever it might be", and that thus everything depends on your interpretation. Some might ask you why are you still able to go online, why you do not live in poverty. They would ask if you didn't hear that your creator wants you to live in poverty? You don't because you choose not to follow this interpretation. It is was your choice to pick one interpretation over another. If person A commits an immoral act and claims that god told him to do so, and person B commits a moral act and claims that god told him to do so, we don't judge this action by checking if they did actually talk to god, but by the effect of their action on other humans. We laud person B, and loathe person A.
::::::::::::: No, they did it neither because they were Christians, nor because they were Europeans. Christians were in each debate on both sides on the aisle, as were Europeans. But it could change the world because they were Europeans, had a different access to the world and the mighty, than other parts of the worlds. Most of the progress you claim for yourself was a consequence of the "enlightment", and it changed the world because it started in Europe, like it or not. BTW: most of our legal system has pre-Christian roots. The Roman republic had and has more influence than the bible on law.
::::::::::::: So, a human is worth $3? You did admit that this is an external price, and thus not an intrinsic value. And sure, moral acts always refer to interactions between people. That is in the nature of acts. But to judge this act, you can look at these people, and it doesn't matter whether they were created by a benevolent creator, a malevolent creator, an omnicient creator, an alien, within 6 days, 6 ages of 1000 years, or 6 billion years. If someone hits you on your head, it hurts, and almost all humans can agree on this. The know this today, and they knew it in the middle ages, during the roman republic, in pre-Christian Iceland, in China during the Han dynasty, on Easter Island, in the Amazon, etc. That is something all humans have in common, and it provides a solid basis. More solid than some creation story that might or might not be true, and upon which almost no two people do agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: I made this last point already a few times, so I guess there is no point it discussing it again. Everybody has to make up his own mind about the golden rule. Leaving this behind us, can you briefly explain this story about this entity, that allegedly makes the rules, that had to hurt itself, to make up for pain that others suffered. It is customary to not ask what it actually means, because it has religious roots, but can you nevertheless make an attempt to explain the rationale for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::"''Yes, I only treat people morally because of God.''" Philip, I think (hope) I have misunderstood you. Could you just clear this up, please? Do you mean that you only treat people morally because God has directed you to and that if he hadn't you would have no problem in treating people immorally? If not, what do you mean? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Not specifically because God has directed me to, but more because of who we are (creations of God), and what we mean to Him. The last part of my concurrent post above to Order should explain it more. If we weren't created by God (an impossibility, as an uncaused universe is impossible, and complex things don't arise by chance), then there is no absolute basis for morals, which means that there's no basis for how you treat other people, except to the extent that you get something out of it. (For example, you might treat a neighbour nicely so that he will help you with something, but you might kill someone else in order to obtain scarce resources. Self-preservation can justify either scenario in different circumstances.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&diff=prev&oldid=181326376 here]:

<blockquote>
he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, '''stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off'''.
</blockquote>

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples should be restricted ==

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that ''they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias.'' You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center ''by editing it your bloody self.'' [[User:Illuminatedwax|Illuminatedwax]] 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== The last point ==
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::: I didn't say that it ''wasn't'' for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Oxford FOI statement ==

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says ''Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.'' Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia as a knowledge base ==

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. [[MetcalfeM]]

: What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.[[MetcalfeM]]

::It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way.
I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a ''scientific'' point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors ''and sysops'' who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.
: And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there ''may'' be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== More admin screwups ==

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at [[Paul]]'s letter to the Romans chapter 6:
: Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
: Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
: Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: I read your first quote and see if refers to ''persistent'' [[sin]]. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the [[Bible]] says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:: I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== 88. Jimbo on international editors ==

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]

:"I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. [[User:Ortega|Ortega]] 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Example number 14 ==

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's [[User talk:TerryH|talk page]], and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my [[User talk:TerryH#Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|original message]], I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from TheStar.com ([http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:This is an issue I brought up some time ago when the example was listed as #8 - see above. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm... Perhaps something along the lines of:

<blockquote> But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.</blockquote>

...Maybe? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error (to --> two) that needs to be fixed as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:It is not that briefly. The article spends three paragraphs on it. So I would can the "briefly". The other reference is to a blog, and we all know that it is bad style to quote some minor blogs to make a point. The second reference should be removed for that reason alone. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Feebasfactor, there is no spelling error. You're mistaken. User:Order is right about the reference to a blog, which is silly by Wikipedia to cite that as a reference. Moreover, Wikipedia implicitly admits we're right in example 14 because it weakened its criticism of Conservapedia on that point. By the way, no one seriously denies that Wikipedia is significantly more liberal than the American public, expect perhaps devout Wikipedia "NPOV" types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Right, I ''was'' mistaken... I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". Upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former, sorry about the confusion (mine...). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::Indeed, there just few people contesting it. But that doesn't give you the freedom to use shaky statistics to come up with a number. If you want to say it is more liberal do so, and find sound evidence for that. If you want to say it is six-times more liberal, then you need to have sound evidence for the '''six-times''' as well. And the article is criticizing how you arrived at this number. You are probably taller than Danny de Vito. But if you claim that you are six times as tall, the fact that Danny de Vito isn't the tallest, is not proof for you six-times claim.
::The other reference has some criticism of the six-times figure, but only in the comments. But as said, using such a blog as source is dubious in the first place. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::: I did spend hours here debating apologists for Wikipedia over the "six times as liberal" figure. I even built entries here explaining the methodology, and refuting criticisms of it, and you can find those entries with searches. Measuring temperature, or almost anything, is never perfect and there can be constructive criticisms of any measurement. But as I recall the real articles about Conservapedia did not really doubt or criticize the figure, and certainly didn't criticize the figure in a manner claimed by Wikipedia in its entry about us. Many people, including liberals, were intrigued by the attempt to quantify how liberal something is. The intense criticism of the measurement seems to be by people who think there is something wrong with quantifying how liberal a group is. Nothing wrong with it at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::::You're missing the point entirely. Your #14 is incorrect. Your entry is explicitly stating that the references do not criticize the derivation of the 6x's estimate. The references absolutely do. That's the problem here. One may be a blog, I'm surprised it's being used as it's not reliable, but the other is. You're misleading the readers of this article simply to inflate the number of biases. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Also, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia does not use the phrasing "credibility and extrapolation" anymore - and it hasn't for some time now. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::Given the time and effort that you put into defending the comparison of a poll with 3 possible answers and a representative sample to a self-identification project with 32 possible answers by a self-selected group, I did indeed wonder fairly frequently, if hadn't been easier for you to spend an afternoon on getting reliable numbers. It would have been easier and less work to do, and there would be less reason for criticism. You might get an A for persistence in a debate, but not for proper use of statistics. Yes, measurements are never perfect, but that is no excuse to measure with a rubber band. But as long as you insist on using shaky statistics you can expect that kind of criticism.
:::Anyway, the paper does criticize how you arrived at those numbers. You should be able to admit that, even if you disagree with the criticism itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Which newspaper article specifically criticized our methodology for saying "6 times more liberal"? Let's look at what the article actually said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Among the two references there was only one newspaper, so it should be obvious that the The Star was meant. And you put the point #14 yourself up [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=316514&oldid=316513] in October, so I guess that you took a look at the references. Maybe you didn't read all of it, since the article spends three paragraphs on the six-times figure, and they are not positive. Or maybe you also just forgot since October. But are you really asking that we repeat the excerpts that are critical and sometimes even condescending towards CP and yourself here? It might give the impression that you want to get victimized, but I don't see how that would further the discussion. The Star article has been cited on this page for those that are interested. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm simply asking what specifically in the reference (the Star article is it, I suppose) that you think justifies the Wikipedia statement that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', '''a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility'''." (emphasis added)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::It says nothing about it, Andy. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Wikipedia's article says that the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation, reflecting the wording in the article, and Andy, your own words. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::From the Star: "Schlafly makes a number of claims about Wikipedia. The most sensational is that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public." How does Schlafly know? He takes a list of a few hundred Wikipedia users who have self-identified as liberal compared to those who say they're conservative – about three times more. He multiples this by the fact that, he says, twice as many Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal, to come up with the number. The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation. He agrees that it's not a scientific, 'but it's the best means we have, and no one has disputed that Wikipedia editors are more liberal.'" [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: First, you're quoting the statement substituted by Wikipedia ''after'' we pointed out the bias and defect in Wikipedia's harsher statement. Second, the Star article only references "unscientific" in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific. So am I the real source of Wikipedia's claim that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''"???? That's Wikipedia bias in action: twisting and turning to do anything it can to smear a [[conservative]] source, argument, person, or movement, and hence the need for this list of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: That is uttter nonsense - it doesn't matter when it was altered, either statement on Wikipedia (back months ago and what it says right now) made it patently clear that the author of the Star was being critical of YOUR derivation/extrapolation. He calls it "hardly a solid base" and "sensational". Quit trying to dismiss or dodge Conservapedia's errors by regurgitating the same old rhetoric over and over again. "Smear", "liberal bias" etc..etc.. For once admit that maybe, just maybe some of these examples are misleading, obsolete, hair splitting or flat out wrong. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Sorry, "Wisdom", I'm afraid that you're the one in denial. Wikipedia did smear us, then changed the smear (without apology by Wikipedia or admission by you) to something less objectionable but still misleading. I admitted to the reporter that the "6 times" was not scientific, and the reporter wrote that. It is still not accurate, though not as bad as before, for Wikipedia to claim that my own admission is support for its statement that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''". Nobody ever claimed it was a scientific derivation!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Andy, I would appreciate it if you would not condescend to me by placing my alias in quotations. Thank you. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I guess the case that Andy wants to make is that it wasn't the Star criticizing CP, but that it was Andy himself. So apparently it was Andy who called it the methodology "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", and that he himself then went on and called it "unscientific". The Star was apparently just reporting. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Yes, Andy did indeed call it "unscientific" (which it most certainly is), but it was the Star itself that reported the claim was "sensational" (the MOST sensational of them all, actually) and "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it : ). But still, the only thing that gives me grief is the (seemingly) sheer inability of any Conservapedia operator to just admit when something might be inapplicable or incorrect about this list. Sure there are biases on Wikipedia, but I get the feeling this is more about racking up negative points against Wiki instead of "getting the truth out". [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperbolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present form, the statements are quite fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism/POV on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocent. I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I don't really need to go into any further detail do I? I do not feel liberals, conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Offensive Content==
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]
:That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually ''shouldn't'' see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::Actually, I'm wrong. WP does make an attempt to shield children. At the very bottom of every page (which would be after all the content in each page has been viewed by children) in small print is a link to their various disclaimers. These include "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" and "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE." Many of the images and information WP articles contain is as bad as any pornographic website, yet does WP care? Of course not. If your kids stumble upon offensive material on WP, well, that's YOUR fault, of course. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::I thought it was common knowledge among Conservapedians that Wikipedia is not censored. I could google any objectionable pornographic word I'd like and receive 10,000 pornographic hits, or sites which contain extremely offensive ads and banners. I mean really, the internet itself is an unholy cesspool for that stuff, not just Wikipedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::Well, at least pornographic websites make some kind of attempt (however minimal) to keep kids away before they see anything. And Google can be set to filter results. Of course, such filtering does not exclude Wikipedia articles, which are often near or at the top of the results. I mean, who needs pornographic websites when you have Wikipedia? (Makes me glad I downloaded a filter for our computer that can block specific articles/categories on Wikipedia.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==

Wikipedia has several disruptive userboxes. They include userboxes supporting cuba, Iraqi insurgency etc. I want to bring this fact. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am here giving some examples of these disruptive userboxes[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics]:
#Userbox with a text "This user believes that communism is an ideal system of government, in theory"
#Userbox with a text "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms"
#Userbox with a text "This user is pro-Cuba"
#Userbox with a text "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 2,000,000 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
I have given here only few examples of the disruptive userboxes which are present in wikipedia. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Yet you leave out the hundreds of alternative user boxers. Nice going [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==nummer fortie one==
I do not get it. can sumone help me? What is wrong with 99.84% ? I guess I do not get per cents so good.--[[User:Dagg|Dagg]] 19:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==Ron Paul Newsletters==
The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?
: Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"
: "I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
: Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
: If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
: Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
: Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
: Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.

:: And where is the substantiation that these are "right-wing"? It doesn't exist. This is yet another [[Wikipedia]] smear. Moreover, the adjective "tactical advice" is misleading and inflammatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Why is it misleading? Read what I posted -- they are pieces of advice regarding tactics. Hence, tactical advice. [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 21:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: I did. You should read what I posted. You didn't even quote Wikipedia's smear correctly, and the defects in your denial grow from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote some of Wikipedia's "smear", and I didn't quote anything other than "tactical advice". [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 23:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You're not making sense. Wikipedia's unsubstantiated smear includes (as an example) the statement that "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories." You've cited nothing to justify the smear of "right-wing", and you've shown nothing to justify the inflammatory statement that this "gave tactical advice," which has military-like connotations. In fact, what you describe does not appear to be "advice" at all, but merely a factual description of club rules of interest for various proper reasons.

:::: If you wrote that sentence "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories," then you should consider becoming a fulltime smear artist on Wikipedia. It's clever in the way that it smears the reputation of a good man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== #6: Axiom of Choice ==

The [[Axiom of Choice]] may be somewhat controversial in an abstract mathematical way. But what does it have to do with liberal bias? And how did it get to #6? [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] 06:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== A simple solution to grievances ==

I gotta say, if you think that wikipedia is missing an important point on a topic, edit the page to include it. Is that not kind of the point? --[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)

: No, my friend, you're missing the point. Wikipedia ''enforces'' its bias. Edits that remove [[liberal]] bias there are reverted. It is a waste of time to try to remove [[liberal]] bias. It's like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by using buckets to expel the water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I will use the number two entry as an example:

"Wikipedia's entry on Benazir Bhutto has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was pro-life and led the movement against the United Nations' creating a new international right to abortion."

You mean that a person adding a section describing Bhutto's work on abortion and citing, for example, a page from a reputable autobiography of her, will find that this addition will be removed? I'm sorry if I sound incredulus.--[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== The main premise of Wikipedia.==

If you think it's wrong, you can attempt to fix it. If the page is locked, discuss on the talk page. I honstly fail to understand how this is all lost on every last one of you... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

: Lynch mobs operate with essentially the same procedure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: So does democracy. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::: No, democracies can't survive with mob rule like what goes on at Wikipedia. Fundamental restraints on bias and bullying are essential for democracy to survive and thrive. Like, for example, a constitution that is objectively enforced against the mob to curb its bias and excesses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::: And therefore you must not attempt to fix things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Many of us, including myself, have attempted to fix things at [[Wikipedia]] -- with all the success of someone who tries to object to what a mob is doing in a lawless society. [[Ron Paul]]'s page on Wikipedia, for example, was locked. Most of the other examples of smears and gossip cannot be fixed. The mob won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: See the first post I made here. Everything you just said is tackled there.

:::::: On another note, out of naked self-interest, this is my last post on this topic for now, for I wish to remain here. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I've tried discussing things on talk pages, only to face a brick wall of opposition to anything I say (well, anything they don't agree with). I've seen others do the same, but with less self-control have hit back uncivilly at the brick wall, which then gives the brick wall cause to block or ban them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>stares at PJR's reply* ...wait, are we discussing Wikipedia or Conservapedia here? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I thought Wikipedia was for the most part unbiased, then I came here and realized they were biased...against shabby articles with outdated unverifiable sources, and against hate crime.
Thus Conservapedia was born. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 13:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)

: "Rainedaye", you have 11 edits here, and they are all talk, talk, talk. No substantive edits. Let me guess: you're another [[liberal]], right? Oh how [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. It's so obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Most of the operators here love to "talk talk talk" just as much as anyone - sometimes even more than the average user. Does that make them liberal too? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:Heh, hard to edit when the pages with the most problems are locked! And I have to be a liberal because I think some articles are grossly biased? What can I say, you caught me red-handed [[McCarthy|Aschlafly]]! --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== Sudden Jihad Syndrome ==

{{cquote|Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes. and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.}}
Okay, even ignoring spelling and grammar here, I don't see (1) how this is bias and (2) how the bit about multiple commentators is ''true'' in any practical way.

Wikipedia deleted the article because it's a term that's basically only used by Pipes. He came up with it, he ''once'' got referenced using it ("But it sure looks like another case of what Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, calls 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome.'" - The Courier Editorial, which would most likely just count as being mentioned in passing), but that's it. I don't see the "multiple commentators", unless you really go into semantics ''and'' stretch the understanding of what counts as a reliable source.

The WP discussion shows that the article, just like ours, had tons of original research, using sources that don't mention SJS ''at all'' to show how it fits into a pattern that's wide enough to make '''every Islamist on planet Earth fit into it''':
{{cquote|Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers. -- Daniel Pipes, "Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias"}}
Sorry, but Wikipedia had a good point deleting it. It's not liberal bias or some other sort of bias, it's "You didn't show reliable sources that actually use the term in a notable way, and your article was full of original research."

And the same goes for ''our'' article, by the way. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)