It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Wikipedia is not above censorship. The entry on autism use to have information on the Neanderthal Theory. After being challenged by mainscream forces it was moved to its own page. Okay, since it is hard to verify the plausibility of a viewpoint/hypothesis when so few are proponents of it.

But then they went much further and got rid of all references to the theory and banned its inventor.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by earlywatcher
the wikipedia entry does make the concession of referring to the Hawaiin birth certificate but nothing about the questions surrounding its legitimacy or whether ...


Those are discussed on the rightfully place, the conspiracy page.

Just like George W. Bush's page, there's nothing about 9/11 there but there's a whole wikipedia entry dedicated just to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

What does that prove? Besides that this is not something specific to Obama, or that he's receiving special treatment from wikipedia.



It surprises me a bit that it's still going on.


Really? You're surprised that the on-going efforts by the lunatic fringe are still going on?



Nothing is going to dislodge him from the presidency at this point.


And the reason to dislodge Obama from the Presidency would be? Please enumerate the factual and substantiated evidence that would be relevant to remove Obama from Office.



Why bother to distance himself from people like Rev Wright even now. ...
That sounds like he barely knew the fellow rather than the close relationship we know about, even naming one of his books after one of Wright's sermons.


You're quoting a wikipedia entry. Are you claiming that Obama or his people edited that part of the page?

And why do mean by even now? Are you claiming that part of his page was just now edited?

I'd like the links to the wikipedia edits that confirm this, as well as their respective dates. Thank you.



My reference to traditionally published encyclopedias had to do with the fact that the publisher chooses what goes in and what is left out.


And so does wikipedia, and it seems to me that you're bitching because unsubstantiated rumors and claims you'd like to see included in Obama's entry didn't make the cut.



If the entries are touted as user generated then they should reflect input from all users, including those who questioned the legitimacy of this candidate.


And it does, that's why you have whole pages on wikipedia that deal with, not only Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, but all kinds of theories, from 9/11 to aliens.

You'd have a point to argue if all of the discussion surrounding Obama's citizenship was censored or edited out of wikipedia, which is not the case, since there is a whole page dedicated to it.

Your problem seems that you wanted those topics discussed on Obama's page. Here, you can use that page and contact wikipedia and tell them how much you disagree with the way they've organized things on their site.

Good day.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by converge]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
People cant just go onto a web site and post anything they like, thats just daft, if that was allowed to happen the internet would be an even bigger headache than it is now, trying to sort out the facts from the fiction.

The Obama eligibility to be President has not been proven at all to be wrong, so why would they allow it to remain? IMO this is just more nonsense, trying to bring attention to a dying story, makes me laugh to think the times I've seen people on here screaming about having no proof, yet when something is posted (without any proof) on another site, and they don't agree with it's removal, sounds like hypocrisy to me.

And I'm again not talking about the OP here, but some people really need to get a life, the anger they must have inside, to continue trying to destroy everything that is good about anything.

The man is President, get over it, and he is doing a good job IMO, best he can with the crap he inherited from the shrub anyhow.

Sorry but their lives must really suck.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Have you noticed that he stutters a lot and stumbles upon words, hinting that his natal language could be something else and english could be a second language that he learnt pretty damn well



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


I believe you've mistaken me for someone else. I did not start this thread. I am merely responding to it. The title is "Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility". I am responding to that topic. I thought that's what we do here.

I'm not as adept with html as you are so I can't quote the specific bits the way you did.

Are you referring to the scrubbers as lunatic fringe? I thought you thought the questioners are the lunatic fringe. I'm surprised at the ongoing effort to keep the entry free of anything remotely critical. If you look at GW Bush's entry you will find all sorts of things, as it should be. the 911 "conspiracy" is a bit different. It refers to an event that happened while he was president and who was responsible. It's not about him personally.

The "reason for dislodging him" would be that obama turned out to be ineligible, if that were to be proved to be true. Are you unaware that this is a big issue? The first lawsuit was brought before obama was chosen as the democratic candidate. The person who brought it was a democrat who felt he was being cheated by his own party by them choosing a candidate who could not win because he was ineligible to be president, thought the republicans would harp on it. They didn't, of course. Never even mentioned it. It seems to me that that would be worth mentioning in the section on obama's campaign. There are court papers and legal dockets and all sorts of people involved. I'm sure it's on the conspiracy page if you want to look it up, or probably innumerable threads here. (I came to ATS after the election so didn't participate in those.) It's really interesting stuff. Will future generations not even know these questions were raised if there is no link to this conspiracy from the main obama page?

At this time, even if facts came out that proved obama was ineligible to run, to be elected, to serve, there is no doubt in my mind that congress would pass some little bill to grant an exemption for the public good because we really can't afford a constitutional crisis right now.

Unless that's the plan. Total chaos because of constitutional crisis. Biden becomes president. Race riots ensue. The problem with this situation is that we don't know who is really pulling the strings. But I digress...

I use wikipedia but have no knowledge of their technical practices so am not able to tell you who scrubbed and when they did it. Let me repeat: I am responding to the OP in referring to the scrubbing.

I think the wikipedia entry would be more useful if it included more detail for people who have never heard of obama or know very little and want a summary of who he is. Since I have done quite a lot of research in this area, I don't rely on his wikipedia entry for the details.

This "scrubbing" (referred to in the name of this thread) suggests a liberal bias if it can be detected in other entries as well. If it's unique to obama, that is interesting. No, I don't intend to research this issue.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by earlywatcher
I believe you've mistaken me for someone else. I did not start this thread. I am merely responding to it. The title is "Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility". I am responding to that topic. I thought that's what we do here.


What we do here is discuss and debate things, this is a forum after all, so I don't see how my responses to your posts are somehow off topic since they all address your posts and the questions being raised by the original post's article.



Are you referring to the scrubbers as lunatic fringe? I thought you thought the questioners are the lunatic fringe.


I don't think questioners are part of the lunatic fringe per se, I don't have - obviously - anything against people, or groups of people, questioning things and especially authority.

I have, however, looked at this whole Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for months now. I have discussed these matters at length here on ATS, so forgive me not repeating everything I've written before about it, but if you're interested you might want to check out these threads:

Soldier doubts ( Obama's) eligibility, defies president's orders (my posts)

Major General says president's eligibility needs proof (my posts)

The lunatic fringe is a small minority of fanatics and extremists who keep pushing this non-issue because they don't like Obama, for one reason or another, mostly that have nothing to do with the Constitution, laws or even politics.

I'm all for asking questions, but there is a difference between an inquisitive and skeptical person and a paranoid and delusional one.



I'm surprised at the ongoing effort to keep the entry free of anything remotely critical. If you look at GW Bush's entry you will find all sorts of things, as it should be.


Yes, Bush's entry has plenty of references to criticism of him and his policies, but are you saying that everything that Bush did worthy of criticism is there? You're trying to compare a President who has been in Office for 8 years, with one that has been there for less than 50 days.

You might also want to consider that another factor for this could be that Bush was really that bad that the criticisms can't be ignored.



The 911 "conspiracy" is a bit different. It refers to an event that happened while he was president and who was responsible. It's not about him personally.


Perhaps you're not aware of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, that go from accusing Bush of being complicit in the planning of 9/11, to just being an idiot who knew about the plan and played his role.

How about other conspiracies that involve him personally? Have you heard about the one where people accuse him of killing JFK Jr.? Think that one should be in his entry too?



The "reason for dislodging him" would be that obama turned out to be ineligible, if that were to be proved to be true. Are you unaware that this is a big issue?


Yes, I'm aware a non-natural born citizen being in Office is a big issue. The claims the lunatic fringe is touting as being proof that Obama isn't one, not so much.



The first lawsuit was brought before obama was chosen as the democratic candidate. The person who brought it ...


I will skip this part as apparently you thought I had never looked at this whole thing.



I use wikipedia but have no knowledge of their technical practices so am not able to tell you who scrubbed and when they did it.


If you have no knowledge of how wikipedia operates, or their policies, perhaps you should before you insinuate there's some conspiracy behind it.



I think the wikipedia entry would be more useful if it included more detail for people who have never heard of obama or know very little and want a summary of who he is.


Didn't you meant to write "The wikipedia entry would be more useful if it included all the criticism I have of him"?

Ah, your justification is that it would be for the good of the people, if only they knew about him! You think at this day and age people don't know Obama? His history and background?

And even if they don't, I don't think you should worry about wikipedia, because you know, there's something even more popular than wikipedia on the Internet, accessible to everyone, that has plenty more information on him including all the legitimate and made up criticism of him: Google.



This "scrubbing" (referred to in the name of this thread) suggests a liberal bias if it can be detected in other entries as well. If it's unique to obama, that is interesting.


That's a valid question. However, to be something other than a conspiracy theory there has to be some evidence. Thus, why I asked you for the relevant wikipedia history entries that showed this.



No, I don't intend to research this issue.


Maybe that's the problem. Without having looked at the actual evidence, or lack of, you are more inclined to believe what people tell you, including outrageous and unfounded claims on a right-wing extremist website.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by converge]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bartholomeo
Have you noticed that he stutters a lot and stumbles upon words, hinting that his natal language could be something else and english could be a second language that he learnt pretty damn well


I don't see the relevancy of that, but since we're making stuff up: Judging from his complete ignorance of the English language, from which 3rd world country do you think Bush comes from?



[edit on 9-3-2009 by converge]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Gosh, there's a huge entry on it right here:

Wikipedia Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theory

Did anyone check it out for themselves???


Yes, thanks for the link, Benevolent Heretic!

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Evkha]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
No only that, but they are also deleting references to his connections with Ayers and Rev. Wright.

www.foxnews.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
This is your idea of debate and discussion? To dismiss others' point of view?


Originally posted by converge

The lunatic fringe is a small minority of fanatics and extremists who keep pushing this non-issue because they don't like Obama, for one reason or another, mostly that have nothing to do with the Constitution, laws or even politics.

I'm all for asking questions, but there is a difference between an inquisitive and skeptical person and a paranoid and delusional one.

You might also want to consider that another factor for this could be that Bush was really that bad that the criticisms can't be ignored.


Are you telling me that you believe the reason for the lack of criticism on obama's wikipedia entry is because there are no legitimate questions to ask or activity to criticize? That is very loyal of you.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
They're trying to keep the site useful and informative, and to keep it from getting graffiti-bombed by hordes of ideological zealots.

There are entries for the various controversies, they're simply not listed on the main page, because they have little informational value regarding the subject.

It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some propaganda platform for loonies...



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trauma
I think after Obama has served his use to his puppet-masters and starts to become unpopular to the public, this issue will be brought forward to end his career. From what I remember the main issue was not even his birth certificate (although that's a big deal), it was the fact that his mother had not been in the country long enough when he was born for him to be considered a natural born citizen under the laws present when he was born.
Now there has been military personal refusing to follow his orders for this same reason. This issue has clearly not been settled, just pushed to the back for the time being.

P.s. I just thought I'd add that I am non-partisan, in fact there is strong evidence that John McCain was not even eligible to be president for the same reasons as Obama.


That seems to be already happening, his approval ratings are the lowest for any new president, he's making enemies right and left with his pacifist policies, all it's going to take is some major world event to drive his rating into the single digits..

He's a puppet, many have said it, I second, third and fourth it... I think he's being used to make a bad situation worse so that the end of this nation can be helped along by the PTB.... For once I hop ei'm worried about nothing.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by earlywatcher
This is your idea of debate and discussion? To dismiss others' point of view?


I didn't dismiss it. I have looked at what the others' point of view is, the so called evidence they tout as undeniable proof of Obama's non-natural born citizenship and, politely putting it, it's unconvincing and unfounded.

I believe my post, along with my other posts on this matter, are pretty clear on that.



Are you telling me that you believe the reason for the lack of criticism on obama's wikipedia entry is because there are no legitimate questions to ask or activity to criticize?


Again, I thought my post was explicit on this.

The reason for those things not being on Obama's main entry page is, in my opinion, wikipedia's policies. Which, by the way, have always been in effect and applied to other people, not just Obama.

But since you admittedly don't know much about wikipedia and its policies, you either take my word for it, or demonstrate that this isn't true.



That is very loyal of you.


You're gonna turn this into a partisan thing?

And please don't assume to know my political affiliations, I haven't assumed to know yours.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
You have to admit - This is a good way of drawing attention to the issue.

(Sorry about the one liner)



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
They're trying to keep the site useful and informative, and to keep it from getting graffiti-bombed by hordes of ideological zealots.

There are entries for the various controversies, they're simply not listed on the main page, because they have little informational value regarding the subject.

It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some propaganda platform for loonies...


They are doing what Obamanoids have always done, sweep his bleeping filthy dirty repugnant mob, terrorist pals and socialist past under the rug and promote an Ozzie and Harriet upbringing and a Disney persona which is so disgustingly sweet it gives me sugar diabetes.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Ok maybe you have a point converge since Bush was horrible in speaking in public; however if there is a president that has shown his citizenship to the country in the past 200 and some years, then Obama should do it to. If no president has shown is legitimate birth certificate to the country then Obama shouldn't do it, because that would be harrasment on the part of the public not just because is half black he could be white, but it just doesnt sit right. If I were Obama I would be asking myself "Why would I have to show my birth certificate to the country and every other president before me didnt have to?"



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Vitres DeLaver
 


OH you can't trust anything, the News, the history books, the internet, the vast amount if information coming at us at breakneck speed, yet what do you trust?



ive noticed a similiar thing with wiki....it is far from free it infact its always editing informaiton and deleting articles and such.

in other words wiki is part of the cover up for future ai and all their dirty deeds.

since information about obamas legitimacy is being covered up one can be sure there are real issues regarding his legitimacy...that is one way to see through the cover up you try to attain what is being hidden.
however to hide that crack they often cover up lies and disinfo to make it look real so you basicly have to learn how to look through the tiny holes in the wall to see the truth.

stormseeker....yes much of what we know is deceptive,you basicly must learn to recognise disinfo,and from the disinfo you can learn how to see the truth.
its no good looking at whats there publicly as if its there most likely it wont be the real truth or a part of the great cover up of the futures presence here,you must look at whats being hidden,what lies are being spread to hide whats being hidden and then you see the truth.

look not at the so called truths look at the lies for if you look through and analyse the lies you can see the truth.

their biggest mistake-- thinking the truth cannot be gauged from their lies,just takes practice.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by welivefortheson]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
another viewpoint on wiki,

a huge part of controlling a populations beliefs is controlling the informaiton they see,if you wish to control the information which governs what they believe and know you simply create a source of information they all use.

wiki would be a perfect example of that, the "peoples" source of information the most popular on the web.
so perhaps wiki is party or wholy designed to control the information people see therfore controlling their beliefs away from any you dont wish them to see.

in order for people to believe the info they see they must trust the source,wiki as far as ive seen is widely trusted by the people........they believe whatever they are told on it.

the same would apply to hiding or smearing secrets,you, if part of the cover up, must create sources of info on issues regarding the cover up,thus you if part of the cover up must create cover up websites which appear to be part of uncovering them when infact its pretty much the opposite.
thus we have the conspiracy world which those who wish to uncover the cover up trust,but nay the conspiracy world is designed to hide and smear the secrets involved in the cover up.
in other words to control the secrets/cover up you most control that which seeks to uncover the cover up,if you didnt you would be inept.

you must look not at what is being said in the conspiracy world,but why it is said and what isnt said.

i hear no mention of the future but many mentions of aliens,extra dimensional beings,all powerful freemasons and the like everything but the future.

i hear continious talk of all forms of mind control,electromagnetism,brainwashing,implants and so on yet never one mention of the most usefull and effective method of mindcontrol...nanotechnology...why given its by far the most effective method of MC?,for it is nanotechnology which is being used and pretty much everything else is designed to hide that fact.though i do believe scalar waves are being used which are a different form of EM,scalar waves are of course classified as pseudo science on wiki.

lastly the big one....alien bases....we hear about them all the time,why?,either there are "alien"(advanced beings in other words,future tech) bases and all the talk is designed to smear that fact by making it sound rediculous.
or all the talk is designed to distract away from the fact that the "aliens" bases are elsewhere or that they dont even need bases.
in otherwords they are amoungst us on every level of society disguised as humans,which is a piece of cake if you are advanced tech.
they dont need bases for the "aliens" are nothing but nanochips,nanobeings amoungst us inside cloned bodies,inside people.
the grays are another disgiuse....designed to hide the nanoAI beings,a dsiguise for what they non earth presence really is,they make us think they are large and biological,nay they are nanoscale.

i mean why would an advanced species need to use huge flying ships,human sized bodies and alien bases when they can compress all their functions and consiousness into a nanoscale hidden and unseen,no need for cloaking devices and secret underground bases,the only bases nanotech needs is people.
thats right they are nanotechnology,the "aliens" are nanotechnology based,unseen everywhere get it?.
the cover up is all about hiding the nanotech and its parent in the solar system,and covering up their actions on earth which are actualy damn visible once you get a lock to their habits and aims.

though of course the nanotech which they exist as on earth is just an extension of the larger civilisation,which exists on a larger scale.

they say this civ is located on the moon,on mars,under the earth,nope they are everywhere on every planet in the solar system,if they are capable of building bases on the moon or mars they can and will build them everywhere they can,so they are not in anyone place and that is the other intention of the "moon" talk,to make us think they are in one place when they obviously are capable of being everywhere.
thats why nasa exists to hide that fact,they are our solar system.

but it speaks measures why they hide from humans so much,they are that afraid of us...of we humans developing a future civilisation of our own which would rival theirs,which contains not programmble beings whos everymove can be controlled like a computer,our future fears advanced free minds,biological minds which can disobey orders at will unlike AI minds.

liking my "avatar"
regards
-RexV-



[edit on 10-3-2009 by welivefortheson]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Obama already seems to be doing more good than Bush so he could be Martian for all i care.

get over it.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Maybe there is some concerted effort to continually cause disruption just to make a point. Sound familiar?



Originally posted by MrVertigo
Wikipedia is supposed to function like an encyclopedia, meaning it's content must be as neutral & verifiable as possible.

I'm guessing this is why it's deleted...



Originally posted by converge
The lunatic fringe is a small minority of fanatics and extremists who keep pushing this non-issue because they don't like Obama, for one reason or another, mostly that have nothing to do with the Constitution, laws or even politics.[edit on 9-3-2009 by converge]


Three intelligent posts that pretty much sum up my opinion (and thanks for that) on this non-issue being trumpeted as an affront to freedom of speech. You won't find the equivalent on the George Bush page either because such unverified ridiculous rumors and accusations amount to simple smears by angry individuals attempting to spread more lies. They would have every rumor spread around about Obama (gay sex, crack, etc...) posted on his personal page as if it belonged there. If it's not there, then it's an Obama influenced conspiracy and not part of the way Wiki functions.

Find another angle this is a silly one.

- Lee



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join