Talk:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories/Archive 1

References

I have a problem in that there are actually very few references to show that these theories are significantly believed, even by the standards of conspiracy theories. There are plenty of references backing up their falsehood, but references to show their acceptance are few and far between. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That problem has been addressed now; I added a link to a study by the University of Georgia which measured the theories' popularity during 2008; belief in the United States reached nearly 20% at one point. I haven't been able to find any studies from 2009 or 2010 yet, although I'm sure there are some. The article is still a work in progress, for sure, but it's a start. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I would like to add something. On this page I see nothing about the viral videos that have claimed to hear voices saying "thank you satan" or "serve satan" in various Barack-related speeches. I just think that this would be valuable to add. March 16, 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSS Titanic (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source for this, or possibly a link to such a video? We can't add unreferenced material to articles. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the you tube videos of Obama claiming to serve Satan? 76.114.32.52 (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to inclusion of links to the videos and/or a description of them - The other items discussed in the article - Quran, Muslim, madrassa, etc, are very well known rumors. These "viral videos are not". Wikipedia is not for spreading rumors.209.44.123.1 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The anon editor above is right. If these conspiracy theories are covered by reliable sources, no matter how "out there", then properly-cited mention should be made. Anything else straddles the line between original research and rumormongering. - Dravecky (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Recent changes

I recently made number of revisions to this rather new article which mainly involve removing POV and rewriting a few sentences for clarity. Here is a summary of my changes which I also described in the edits.

Removed "eligibility as President" because there is no religious test to become US President.

Added short descriptions of some linked terms terms so that readers do not have to switch to other articles for a basic definition. Of course, they can still clink on the links if they want more detailed information.

Removed references to claims that Obama is a communist and an elitist. Irrelevant to this article which is about rumors relating to religion.

Added a description of some of the evidence in Conservapedia which I think is a more neutral and more information than merely stating that Conservapedia had "evidence".

Added information about what Williams said when he was confronted about his statements because that throws light on the basis for his statements.

Rewrote the paragraph on the U of GA study. The source did not actually say that the entire 20% of responders who believed Obama is a Muslim were young, conservative, bible believing Christians and my rewrite reflects this. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Claims that Obama secretly practices Judaism

Ayman al-Zawahiri, a senior leader of al-Qaida, posted an audio message on the Internet in which he questioned Obama's faith, saying "You have chosen to stand in the ranks of the enemies of Muslims and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim that your mother is Christian." In the message, Zawahiri also labeled Obama a "House Negro" and compared him unfavorably to Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X.

This section is problematic for several reasons:

1. The delirious rants of a single fanatic do not a conspiracy theory make: there would need to be evidence that multiple people believed this (apart from the various jocular blogs at the Huffington Post [1][2][3][4])
2. The quote is not that Obama "secretly practices Judaism". The quote says that he had "chosen to stand in the ranks of the enemies of Muslims and pray the prayer of the Jews". Now the message was released on November 19, 2008: less that four months earlier, on July 24, Obama had visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem and very publically "donned a white skullcap, listened to a rabbi read a prayer, and inserted a folded white piece of paper between the stones," just as hundreds of global politicians had done before and will no doubt continue to do.
3. The message does not "question Obama's faith": it is simply a string of insults.

The section invents a conspiracy theory out of nothing, so I'm editing it back down to nothing. Physchim62 (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your first point: al-Zawahiri doesn't just speak for himself, he speaks for an entire organization. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No indication that others say this - Physchim is correct. I had tried changing head to "Claim" but that's not right either - this is not a claim that he practices Judaism, and it's not a conspiracy. Also no mention in the quote about "secretly", nor does it question his faith - it just insults. I'm also removing it. Tvoz/talk 05:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

True, al-Zawahiri did not use the words "Obama is a Jew", but he did say that Obama "pray[s] the prayer of the Jews, although [he] claim[s] that [his] mother is Christian,” with a picture of Obama at the Wailing Wall. That's certainly a conspiracy theory. Again, I don't think multiple people have to publicly say it, for it to be counted as a conspiracy theory. Obviously, multiple people were involved in the production and dissemination of the video, so multiple people believe in those words. Victor Victoria (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not what a conspiracy theory is, and you have presented no evidence that this claim has been made by anyone else. Doesn't matter that he speaks for an organization, this is just not what a conspiracy theory is. Find a neutral, independent reliable source that characterizes it as such, and post it here on Talk for other editors to review. Further, there's nothing there about "secret" - he was out in public, doing what a wide variety of non-Jewish people do when in Jerusalem. Absolutely no evidence presented that al-Zawahari or anyone else claims Obama is a secret Jew. Tvoz/talk 08:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Find a neutral, independent reliable source that characterizes it as such, and post it here". You've set the bar kind of high here because the fact is that you won't find any independent references calling the belief that Obama is Muslim a "conspiracy theory". I've accepted the fact that here on Wikipedia, the term "conspiracy theory" is a euphemism for "bullshit beliefs". Under this definition, al-Zawahari statement is certainly a conspiracy theory. Victor Victoria (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what is generally accepted here - the other "conspiracy theories" regarding religion and citizenship are fomented by a multitude of opponents, are widely described as fringe and conspiracy, and all together they amount to what we call a conspiracy theory. The "conspiracy" part, by the way, for both citizenship and religion, refers to the idea that there are those who know the "truth", but are keeping it secret so as to dupe the public into believing things to be true that are not. Yes, tney are bullshit beliefs, but the use of the term "conspiracy", I think, is making that additional point, crucial to these articles. Regarding the so-called "secret Jew" thing, all you've come up with is this one instance of one operative throwing in "prayer of the Jews" as an additional insult, perhaps because he wouldn't choose to use "secret Muslim" as an insult. I have no idea if there are other crackpots claiming that Obama is a secret Jew, but this instance (which says nothing at all about "secret") is just not enough to warrant this identification and certainly not a section of the article. All that has been provided is one videotape. Is there neutral, reliably sourced analysis out there that talks about this one videotape at all and makes the point that the meme about Obama "secretly" praying as a Jew is being circulated and used to convince people that he is actually Jewish? Tvoz/talk 21:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Easter bunny image

I'm perplexed as to how the Easter bunny image illustrates religion conspiracy theories. Esemono said "add image of Obama practicing pagan rituals". Egg rolling#History says "this may have become symbolic of the rolling away of the rock from Jesus Christ’s tomb before his resurrection," it's been a US presidential tradition for 200 years, and the picture looks a bit silly here. MeekSaffron (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Aren't there any PD images of Obama in a religious context, e.g. a church service or whatever? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Found an image - Obama being sworn into office on the Lincoln Bible. I've added it to the article - see what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's more related and a lot less silly, thank you! MeekSaffron (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: restored paragraph

This article, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, is about false rumors and fringe theories. A few days ago, it included a short paragraph which described religion rumors in a Conservapedia article on Obama. The paragraph was removed with the edit summary saying: "hardly a reliable source", and undue weight. I think this material was just as properly in the article as the email and blogger references, and I have restored it. In my view, it was not included as an illustration of the truth of the matter (Obama is a Muslim), or for the reliability of the source. Instead, it shows some of the content and reasoning behind the rumors and it shows the sources or spreaders - which is what this article is all about. Also, to leave Conservapedia out as a source actually gives undue weight to the emails and miscellaneous bloggers.209.44.123.1 (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't use open wikis as a source (would you cite Wikipedia for a paper or something of the sort?). Period. All the rest of the articles appear to me to be from RSes. --Izno (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is about rumors about Barack Obama's religious beliefs. It is not about whether the rumors are reliable, or even whether they are reported in reliable sources. If I was writing a paper on rumors about Barack Obama's religion, I would definitely cite Conservapedia as a conduit for the rumors, and would describe the rumors listed in Conservapedia. That is why I believe the information that you have removed twice was properly in this article. Obviously you see this in black and white terms, and might edit war. Do I think this one point is worth the time to edit war over? No, I would rather spend my time adding content and improving the writing style of the article.09:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.44.123.1 (talk)

The Conservapedia article cites Conservapedia, though. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Because WP:SELFPUB says that it is alright for Con to cite Con with respect to its own opinions, so long as the other criteria are followed. Those same criteria make them unsuitable for citation here. --Izno (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

On one hand, editors are right that the reason Conservapedia can be cited on the Conservapedia article is related to WP:SELFPUB, and fits within those guidelines. But other outlets that are not reliable sources are often cited on conspiracy sights, in order to point to the various conspiracies. For example, WorldNet Daily is cited throughout the Obama "birther" conspiracy article. Of course the claims are then refuted by actual reliable sources, but the outlets are cited nonetheless.

Saying that, I don't see anything that Conservapedia adds to this article. They make the same claims from mass emails debunked by Snopes, Factcheck.org and other outlets that debunk these types of false claims. I would also argue that there are not that many people going to the Conservapedia website and the people that do already believe these false claims. Compared to Wikipedia, the page visits aren't even close. Why direct users there for no reason? All they do there is regurgitate what was in the mass emails, rumors and attack books. It doesn't make sense. DD2K (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

DDK2K - you've make some very good points I hadn't thought of, but regardless, I didn't intend to add the cite to Conservapedia again. It is too bad, it can't be used here though, because they have done such fantastic and concise job of compiling every single rumor about Obama, lol.— 209.44.123.1 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of links

Links to Zenophobia and Islamophobia have been removed, with the edit summary stating "not really related enough". Again, I did not add these references, but I do think they are related to the article. The Islamophobia link is the more relevant of the two links, and I am restoring it. However I am not restoring the link to Zenophobia, at this time, in the hope that this will be an acceptable compromise sufficient to avoid endless discussion or edit warring.

Reason for restoring the link: Saying that Obama is secretly a Muslim would not be a negative rumor or conspiracy theory if it were not for the very negative attitudes that many Americans have about Islam. Therefore, I think the link "will help readers to understand the current article more fully" and that the link "is relevant to the article in question", as per WP:Links What generally should be linked — 209.44.123.1 (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's more than likely correct, though controversial. If accusations of being a secret practitioner of a certain religion were not passed around like accusations of being a secret pedophile, there would be no "conspiracy theory". Though I wouldn't waste too much time arguing about a stub. DD2K (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Restored links since article is no longer a stub and it is more serious now. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama Pandeism charge

This was on a different talk page, but clearly, if it belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, it is here. So, I copied this comment over:

“ Conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein recently labeled Obama's true faith as Pan-deism. He critiqued a New York Times column by Gail Collins, which is why it is titled "Happy Pan-Deism Day From Gail Collins". Collins, so Finkelstein observes, noted the coincidence of Easter and Passover falling in the same week, and quotes the observation from Collins that "Americans with less religious inclinations can look forward to the upcoming Earth Day celebrations, when the president is planning to do something as yet unannounced, but undoubtedly special, and Arbor Day, when rumor has it that he will not just plant a tree, but personally reforest a large swath of the nation of Mali". Finkelstein relates that "environmentalism has essentially become a religion, and Earth Day effectively a religious holiday. Yesterday's pan-deists, who worshiped trees and brooks, have become members of various environmental groups doing much the same thing. People like Al Gore others, and perhaps the reforesting Obama, have become their latter day shamans."

So Finkelstein is saying is that Obama (and Al Gore, and other environmental group members) are pandeists. Based on his political pedigree, it's pretty clear he means that as an insult (his next comment is "These are the same people who tend to demand the strict separation of church and state. Yet they would have teachers indoctrinate children in their modern-day Church of Gaia in our public schools"). I personlly doubt that Obama or Gore is a pandeist, but is this speculation worthy of mention somewhere?

”

The guy (Mark Finkelstein) is not even notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, so his ramblings are certainly not notable enough to be included in this article (as opposed to the Victoria Jackson comments, see above). Victor Victoria (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I just notice that Mark Finkelstein used to have an article that was deleted due to an expired PROD. So if you feel so strongly about including this rambling, the first step is to request that the article be undeleted. The second step would be to find a secondary source that thought his ramblings are notable enough to be covered. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? are we suddenly only allowed to cite people who have articles on Wikipedia? Just find out whether Finkelstien is a relevant source of reasonable credibility and let us know. LutherVinci (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Claims that Obama is the Antichrist

I've been told by McGeddon [5] this was the proper venue for the article by Lisa Miller, concerning the Lottery draw of 666. If you and him can't agree if it is or is not a conspiracy theory, I can't decide for you. Anyways, I'm waiting for consensus and will consider returning the entry thereafter. I'd like it if instead of outrightly deleting which looks like a an editing war, you could just conrrect what you think would be better written otherwise. Thanks. I put my choice in what McGeddon said but then everyone sees things differently. But if you think this would be more appropriate in some other article please tell me. Being a fringe theory is much a matter of opinion, and the crazy of the one is the truth of another as you must know. The prophets of lore were always cast out and ostracized as far as the Bible tells us. Thank you for keeping me updated. Geiremann (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The entry has been totally reformulated, it's presented in the conspiracy theory fashion now. It's improved a lot. Thank you for helping. Geiremann (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Kindly explain the NPOV explanation for deleting. If no answer is given I'll take that for agreement to put back new additions about the previous additions. Just deleting with no explanation isn't very polite. I don't know if you're an experienced editor but repated reverting is not allowed. Don't repeat it unless you come to the talk page. Editing war is not alllowed. You must speak on the talk page before doing that. Geiremann (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, the text you added was not written from a neutral point of view. Try again, this time without the personal commentary. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try, but it's a habit of saying what one thinks. Ok here goes. Crossed fingers. Oh; there are slews of U Tube videos on the Lottery draw but U Tube has copyright issues. How can one get the references about the videos ? What indirect reference can one use to tell about something that is a U Tube phenomena ? Geiremann (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That Youtube has videos about X, Y or Z does not make X, Y, or Z noteworthy. Noteworthy events receive substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. In the present case, you have a Newsweek article that mentions it in passing. That is very trivial. However, you've decided it merits mention in numerous articles and tried to create an article around it. Additionally, you aren't even accurately reflecting the content of the one reliable source you have, repeatedly saying that an organization said the drawing might be an indication, when the article says no such thing. " "It is very eerie, and I take it for a sign as to who he really is," wrote one of Strandberg's correspondents." Someone wrote about it to an organization. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

HelloSummerPhD, I just answered to your talk page, well the facts you speak of are what I answered just then. The notability of this event which lead Newsweek to pay attention to such an event. Why give the considerable wieght of serious journalism like Newsweek to this, a number in a lotto ? Well, I explain in the answer... about the coverage of the Lotto in the special victory coverage of the next day. The news coverage of the 6th of Nov. 2008, carried both the special Obama victory edition news and the Lotto result of 666. That's how a big org like Newsweek got involved otherwise they'd never talk about a lotto result. This was because hundreds of thousands or millions of newspapers were awakening peoples' faith-based fears be giving the Lotto number result in them. The Lotto draw is of course insignificant you're right, and the person talking to the org is insignificant but what is significant is that Newsweek talk about it. We can't say it's the Lotto's fault it drew that number that day. It's not the messenger's fault when an evil sign occurs or we should kill all black cats for instance. We must not go on witch-hunts to kill all evil-looking things. You don't seem to understand that irrational things govern this topic. We're talking about prophecy so you can't merely remain in material thinking and the Newsweek article managed that leap. It's not a leap for spiritual people but difficult for others. It's thinking this may be a sign which this is all about. You just have to take it at that but that's the same with all articles about faith, it'll always be a matter of belief. People are free to believe or at least the Constituion says so. One can tell them they're crazy but that's just not very charitable I believe. They have to swallow back their pride and endure.

For memory, I just sent this to your page.

>This is answer to your comment just now at this article where you deleted in full a comment. I don't get it. McGeddon and others like Dayewalker (see him say so here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lisa_Miller_%28journalist%29) said it was the best venue for info. The Lisa Miller Newsweek article about the lottery draw of 666 the day after Obama's election. We're talking about two major organisations: the State Lottery run by the Illinois Gov and Newsweek. Both notable orgs that's granted. So maybe not conspiracy theory matter. But still too big to dismiss as insignificant.

Another matter is the coverage it got. The Lottery result was in the newspapers of the 6th of Nov. which was Obama's special victory edition. Newsweek doesn't make a piece unless it's notable and all of Illinois read this Lottery result that day when it was Obama's big day.

So, I don't know if you're experienced in Wikipedia editing but maybe you have an idea better than McGeddon's about the right appropriate venue for this information. Right now you're all passing the hot potatoe back and forth but that doesn't make it any easier. I'll take this anywhere it's right but you guys have to show some sense of help to me. After all that's what Wiki is about isn't it ? Help. It's not as if I'm peddling some snake-oil. This is perfectly legitimate info and I'm not making it up as I've amply demonstrated haven't I ?

Where does this go by your estimate ? If you can't find a better place for me, I'll put it back. But I'll copy this and put it on the Talk page first because one shouldn't put back something unless one talks about it and I wouldn't want to revert. The last addition was not a "revert" because the previous person had agreed; telling me how to do it - which I did.

I find it quite comical to act as you peoples' punching ball and no one being able to decide where this info, which is legit, should go. It's like arguing parents. Also one thing, I got a message about correctly referencing additions to articles from Wikipedia. The Lottery is perfectly referenced by the Newsweek article. And Newsweek is reputable I reckon don't you ? I also have the Lottery link to provide (The Lotto's the Illinois government that's quite reputable or is the Illinois government not reliable as a source ?) and that'll be in that now for future reference. I know you're all helping me and you want information to get out as that's Wikipedia's mission, so I thank you for that. Geiremann (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC) >

P.S. Please go easy on me, I'm not a punching-ball. This is stressing. Can't you people find a compromise ??? Leave me out of it plz it's between you. G.S.Geiremann (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

About U Tube videos, forget that, I've no need for that to make my addition. I'll say "some videos found following on Internet". If that violates a great Wiki law just delete the five words ....internet video found on following.... The most important is not that... Geiremann (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find the code for "needs confirming" for the last parenthesised portion. Kindly provide that if you know what I mean. Geiremann (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the useless appeal for screenshots of the newspaper. It would be good to have that though. But it's not necessary to obtain them, because anyone knows the Lottery results were in the news edition of the next day, that's even understandable for a child. People may wonder what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the Nov. 5. Lotto result, was in the Nov. 6. newspaper. That's no contest obviously...but it's important to realize how the lotto and the victory collided in the news coverage. Not only that but it was in everyone's hands all day as they poured over the news. This explains how Newsweek got interested in this story for one....It also explains hopw this is more than just a black cat omen, but a major event in little Illinois' life. I'm actively in search for screenshots of the Nov. 6. back issue from Illinois-Chicago. If anyone has them ! Chicagoans send me the screenshots !!! I'll make videos with them for U Tube. Geiremann (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• You don't seem to understand that YouTube videos and gathering of unrelated events to form some kind of conspiracy isn't qualified to be in a Wiki article. I would delete the whole silly section, but for sure the portion you are trying to add needs to be removed. Dave Dial (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

← To Geiremann: In other words, you do not have consensus for adding this, so please stop doing so until and unless you do get consensus. Tvoz/talk 23:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• And this from Geiremann off Wiki[6] Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy. Get ready. Tvoz/talk 03:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Lordy, Lordy...Also, that page is almost tame compared to this one by the same author. Instructing the other fringe believers to go to Wikipedia to get that nonsense in articles here. I think everyone can agree the goals of Geiremann is not to make the project better, or to improve Obama articles.{Edited to add:The first time I visited the page, my Viri detection went off alerting me of a suspected Trojan Horse. I didn't receive any more warnings, but thought I should mention it. Make sure you have protection.} Dave Dial (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My goal is to serve truth. Why do you say those things ? I've been making a lot of effort to make you people come to talk to me. Kindly don't insult me. I consider the fact of saying that Obama is the Antichrist something you can't give me your PoV and imagine I just accept it for the sole reason that you said so. You're entitled to your opinion but you must give up the idea that you're the world authority on reality and understanding it. Prophecy is part of life whether you like it or not. I have Newsweek, the Illinois Lottery and John McCain to prove what I say and that you're wrong. The facts I speak about are imprtant, notable, relevant and necessary in Wikipedia. Geiremann (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to stress that I do indeed wish to serve truth alone thaat's my guideline. If you can live with that then that's fine, we agree that truth is what is needed. But I've not seen the "famous" consensus which was announced here. First off I was told this article needed consensus, so I've said again and again, OK. But when I waited for the consensus to work itself out, instead, people just sat silently. I'm sorry but doing this quickly is also part of the picture for me, not killing things by waiting. I'm not prepared to wait for people to come and comment. If no one will face me and talk then I'll find other people to talk to because Wikipedia WILL have coverage of the events of the Lottery draw, no matter how it happens. It's a major event which I will prove (it was in Obama's victory special edition's day's papers). The tactics I've witnessed here have been triple reverting of what I wrote. It's been avoiding the topic. It's been unwillingness to build consensus and it's been like that on and on and on. Whenever one person has agreed to anything - another has come along to break everything. There's been finger-pointing. I want my additions to be guaranteed by the consensus, and that any deletion post-consensus be automaticlly reverted. I also want consensus...which to me means "talk". I'm here waiting, and people have been throwing stones from what I see, but I haven't had a good gab with anyone. Someone ? Anyone ? Geiremann (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I've built up support for my addition and the news is carried by Google News to millions now. I'll write the addition in whatever way is right. I think my last job was honest, non-partisan etc...objective and factual. I want to tell you that whatever is added, will be the object of an article in the news and be broadcast to all media immediately. Very many people are interested in this topic no matter if it's true, an interpretation or even - in the mouths of mud-slingers - "crazy". A Google on-line poll found 73 % of people thinking Obama is the Antichrist or might be him. This news of added info to Wiki about Obama the Antichrist is potentially interesting to 350 million Americans. I think one must remain mainstream in thinking and that's what I am. Geiremann (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC) And avoid cult-thinking. Geiremann (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't want consensus, you want people to agree that your original research and fringe theories should be added to this, or some other Wikipedia. But the consensus is that it's undue weight, POV and should not be added here or anywhere. Dave Dial (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a wrong undestanding and that it's not becoming. There is interest in this topic but not at Wikipedia because you're not interested in prophecy or omens. Spirituality is not fringe and if Wikipedia is a scientist cult that's it's problem. Science is an obstacle to the spiritual development of the mind. Wiki lags far, far behind. It's medieval - in the Middle Ages. I don't know if you had the privilege doing of higher studies. In the Bible there are two trees of knowldge. One bears evil fruit and ther othrre sweet fruit. The first is Science. The other is Spiritual Science. You're (trying to) measur()ing things which cannot be measured by ordinary mind. You're kind of crazy. Geiremann (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We at Wikipedia "measure things" by what is said in independent reliable sources. We call it "verifiability". It is verifiable that a large number of people believe that 666 is a number associated with the concept of an Antichrist. So that's what we report: that a large number of people believe that. We do not report that the number is associated with the coming of the Antichrist. Further, we report when there is significant coverage of various beliefs held by smaller numbers of people. When, as is the present case, we have one source that reports that one person believes something, we do not report that, unless that person and their belief receive substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your claims far out-strip your facts. ONE Newsweek article mentioned that ONE person thought the lottery drawing meant what you seem to believe. Yes, the lottery results were in numerous newspapers. The eschatology is not. It is one person's opinion. We aren't interested. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to find support and get back to you, OK ? If I have massive support I suppose you'll change your mind right ? Wish me luck. It's not easy. Geiremann (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That a large number of people who know nothing of our policies come to Wikipedia because one person asked them to does not change our policies. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I speak about this talk page and the article in a new Google News article which I made ten minutes ago and should get millions of views by tonight. I'm asking for help in adding the information on the page, and for them to come and build consensus with you. We'll see how that goes. If all goes well we should be able to go forward tomorrow. Thanks for our help and for being patient. It's true I'm not prepared and have had to go find people out in the public while you are all prepared and had your act together. I'm a beginner you see so I have to build allthis from scratch. It'll be fascinating to witness the debate on this very interesting subject. This is one of the most interesting topics in the world today from what polls show. It's high time it becomes the hot topic on Wikipedia because it seems the polling is light-years ahead of WIkipedia and Wiki's lagging dangerously behind in knowledge. Geiremann (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of poorly constructed pseudo-polls aside, we will have something to discuss if and only if the theory you are putting forth results in significant coverage in independent reliable soures. Until then, I would strongly suggest you take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geiremann. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I can tell we're being trolled. He claims "millions of hits" for his blogging, but the blogs he's written concerning his efforts on Wikipedia have only garnered a couple of hundred hits, and a good portion of those are from Wikipedia editors following this thread. Rklawton (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Geiremann banned

He's banned indefinitely, shall we archive or just delete this craziness? Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hat and archive. For the records. Dave Dial (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Jackson

"Politically conservative comedian Victoria Jackson, who became famous on Saturday Night Live, claimed on her own website that Obama had "traits that resemble the anti-Christ".[13]"

This bit is well referenced (in additon to the USN&WR cited, it's covered in Newsweek and elsewhere). However, is this a "Barack Obama reigion conspiracy theory"? While it is certainly a "Barack Obama religion conspiracy theory", I do not see the "agreement between persons" needed to make this on-topic. Given the coverage, it certainly belongs at Victoria Jackson, where it currently appears in the second paragraph. I don't see how it fits here. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, the section needs to be re-written with more reliable sources. As of now, there is a reference to a chain email from PolitiFact and an obscure couple lines references from U.S. News and World Report. Both are reliable sources, but the section needs to be either eliminated, shortened or re-written. Dave Dial (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I can reference it easily (it's quite clear in the Newsweek piece that the recently banned lottery guy was using. That's not my point. How can Victoria Jackson's opinion be a "conspiracy"( a "secret agreement between two or more people")? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Personal opinion" or "Jest" - takes yer pick, but ya can't have a fringe theory or conspiracy theory of 1. Rklawton (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Ageed. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • I agree that one person can't be a conspiracy, but one person can be a fringe. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

One person can be a freak, but hardly fringe. And if one person could be fringe, they'd be a non-notable fringe. Rklawton (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, she is clearly notable. However, her remark is not significant, other than in relation to her. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Since her remarks have been picked up in secondary sources (see http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/NRSC_celeb_thinks_Obama_may_be_antiChrist_sooooo_evil.html) and the RNSC used her image, her remarks are noteworthy more than just "in relation to her." Victor Victoria (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Fifteen negative statements about Obama" in last paragraph of Polling section

The section describing the Harris poll claims that the poll includes "fifteen negative statements about Obama", and presents the opinion of someone who claims that the poll is less reliable because all 15 statements are negative. However, whether a statement is negative or not is partly subjective; there are a lot of people who think that being a Muslim is a good thing, so for those people, "Barack Obama is a Muslim" would be a positive statement (although it would still be false, of course). Likewise, calling him a socialist would be seen as a negative statement by most people, but not by Gloria La Riva; she'd probably think it was a positive statement, although she might not agree with it (and it's still false, regardless of what she thinks). So I think maybe we should reword that section a bit to say that the statements in the Harris poll are viewed as negative by many people, rather than saying they are negative. Even the "antichrist" claim might be regarded as a positive statement by some people. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not that these questions happen to be viewed in a negative subjective light by some people, but rather objectively, that the poll used questions that are negative from the collective subjective viewpoint of contemporary American voters. In other words, a poll full of leading questions. That can be useful for some purposes, and I would have to think that Harris knows what it's doing, but it has to be treated carefully here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't understand what Harris was doing. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, what's Harris' reputation as a polling organization? Are they reliable? Do they conduct survey's on behalf of clients and disclaim any responsibility for the quality of the survey? More information about Harris might help us better evaluate this particular survey. Rklawton (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OR?

I removed the statement that President Obama "...was not raised in any particular faith tradition." This may or may not be true. (He has said that he was raised as a Christian.) In summary I said it was original research (OR) to say so. I may have been not be quite right since it seems the source said so. However it doesn't seem right to assert this as a fact in the article based on one statement in a newspaper story. It also is a little off topic. It is really needed in this article? Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The removal is fine, but I would characterize it as an objection to weight, strength of sourcing (as exceptional claims require exceptional sources), a possibly erroneous source (if it contradicts stronger sources), or simply a consensus objection. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait around a while and see if anyone else says anything. I really don't think the article needs it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I undid the edit for a couple reasons. One, your removal had the edit summary/explanation of "OR removed". The source cited(Politifact.com, a reliable source) was cited on the article and references Obama himself in their explanation.

  Obama has summed up his own faith history by saying he didn't grow up in any particular religious tradition. (Obama's mother, father and stepfather are all deceased.)

  Now, there may be some confusion on just what one particular source means by "raised" or "religious tradition". There are sources citing that Obama's mother, and her parents, were all Christians. But did not emphasize religion when raising Obama. Whatever though. People can make points about including the part or not. It's my understanding that Obama, while having been instructed in mostly the Christian faith as a child, was never really religious until he was a man and graduated from college. Dave Dial (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement is accurate enough. I think it might be better to have a whole section explaining his background, as counter to the conspiracy theories, rather than just a clause at the end of a sentence. Borock (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that his background, having both Christian and Muslim relatives but not raised strictly as either and then embracing Christianiy as a young man, is already explained at the start of the article.Borock (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit war between Wikidemon and Victor Victoria

Red links

Red links are encouraged for likely articles. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Redlink, "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." It is therefore completely false to say "Redlinks are not encouraged on Wikipedia, but sometimes tolerated." Victor Victoria (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed that these are good redlinks. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your words: "two local schools in non-English speaking countries are unlikely to get their own articles anytime soon, but for the connection with Obama". That's an acknowledgment that the two articles are likely to be created. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One school has been a blue link under its actual name for a long time, if anyone bothered to look at Barack Obama and the early life article, and the other, under the English name that we have been using for years here in the Obama articles, does not have its own article and it is highly UNlikely that one will be written if none has until now. The "connection to Obama" has been known and written about here since 2007. I changed the names to the names we use, and removed the link. Frankly, this is an idiotic dispute. Tvoz/talk 09:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tvoz, for providing a blue link to the Besuki school. I still think that it now more likely that someone will write an article about the other school, Saint Francis of Assisi, especially since the school is now working to better promote itself, as reported by CBS News. The fact that nobody has written about it should not be a guideline on whether or not to make it a redlink. If all else fails, I'll just have to start a stub on that school base on the CBS News story.
I do agree with you on one thing, Tvoz, this is indeed "an idiotic dispute", and I wish we didn't have to go down this path. Victor Victoria (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

The correct spelling is Qur'an. Koran redirects to Qur'an. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Western Clothing

There is no reason to remove the quote from the Chicago tribune article that mentions that students and teachers wore western clothing. The quote is useful to emphasize that it was not a religious school. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the teachers wore western clothing indeed does not imply that Obama is not a Muslim, but it does imply that the school was not a Madrasah. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How so? We have reliable sources that say directly that the school is a public school, not a madrassa. We don't need to parade around teachers in miniskirts, and children in western clothing, to prove it to the reader. We go on facts, not arguments. Plus, that argument is a little shady in the cultural cluefulness department. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it is a public school does not mean that it's not a Midrasah. The fact that the population at the school wears wardrobes that would be prohibited in a Midrasah does indicate that the school is not a Midrasah. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH.Tvoz/talk 08:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How so? I'm not the one saying it, the Chicago Tribune said it in debunking the Midrasah rumor. Victor Victoria (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Kuhner

There is no reason to delete the fact that reporter newspaper editor Jeff Kuhner refused to divulge his source. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The argument that the sentence (that Jeff Kuhner refused to divulge his source) is "that's journalistic in tone and exposition, not encyclopedic" is an opinion, and not fact. Encyclopedia tells a story. The story is that Kuhner said that someone in the Clinton campaign told him something, the Clinton campaigned denied it, and then Kuhner refused to divulge who in the Clinton campaign told him. It's important to add the last piece because it is possible that someone from the Clinton campaign did tell him something, and the campaign did not know it (i.e. that person could have acted independently). Victor Victoria (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you mean. Judgments about Wikipedia content are all opinions. We put facts in articles, and we have opinions about which facts meet the editing guidelines. As I said, the fact that a news editor refuses to divulge his sources is just an argument that he's not being honest, it is not directly relevant as to whether or not the source exists (which is immaterial, because the statement itself was false). We don't have any specific sources on point to say that he made it up or he didn't make it up. It's just inconclusive evidence to impugn his integrity, which is not relevant here. Again, adding stuff like this makes it sound like we're arguing and advocating against the conspiracy theories, a defensive posture that hurts rather than helps the attempt to lay out the simple fact that Obama is not a Muslim, but that there are some fringe theorists and political smears to say he is.- Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You have completely lost me. I don't see why you don't want to include the complete story as laid out here.

• Rumor reported, source attributed to the Hillary Clinton campaign
• Hillary Clinton campaign denies being the source of the rumors
• Editor of newspaper in which rumor was reported refused to name source when asked to do so.

It appears that all three pieces of the story are equally important. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Other countries

The editor who made this edit made a serious editing mistake. There is no WP:RS saying that the rumor was repeated "in South Korea, Japan, and South America". The original wording was that the company that owns the paper in which the original rumor was published also owns the newspapers "in South Korea, Japan, and South America". The edit was therefore flawed, and needed to be corrected. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Wikidemon's response

This is out of sequence, which mungs up the flow and timing. Below is my commentary regarding proposed changes User:Victor Victoria has proposed by edit war to make to the article, and remain in the present version because I'm not going to try to have the last revert. The above is in part a response. By the principles of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, in theory they should be omitted until and unless consensus is demonstrated, something that at this point would mean that one of the two of us concedes and/or informed third parties weigh in one way or the other. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case [the other countries case — clarifying text added by Victor Victoria (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)], then I misunderstood the awkward sentence structure that I was trying to fix, and those superfluous facts, unrelated to the subject at hand, should indeed be removed rather than reworded. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the other proposed changes:[7]

• Adding "When interviewed by the New York Times, Insight on the News' editor Jeff Kuhner refused to name his reporter's sources for the story" - that's journalistic in tone and exposition, not encyclopedic. The question is whether Insight on the News had a source for the claim that Obama attended a madrassa. Of course there was no source, he did not attend a madrassa. Our article says that the publication said it got the scoop from the Clinton campaign, which denied that claim. The fact that the editor of the paper later refused to name the source does not prove that there was no source, it just proves that he wouldn't say. We shouldn't make that inference that because he refused to talk he was hiding something, or encourage our readers to do the same. Articles here are to lay out facts, not present arguments that imply guilt. Remove that inference and it's an irrelevant fact.
• Red-linking Santo Fransiskus Asisi and Besuki. Redlinks are not encouraged on Wikipedia, but sometimes tolerated. I don't think they're a good idea in this case, and edit warring to add them seems silly. If anyone cares to create sub-articles about these two schools they may. But two local schools in non-English speaking countries are unlikely to get their own articles anytime soon, but for the connection with Obama... and Obama has been in the news for years, and this article around for almost six months, without anyone doing so.
• Change Koran to Qur'an - noted, avoids linking to a redirect
• Add: Although Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country, students at Besuki wore Western clothing, - has nothing to do with this secular school's not being a madrassa. This sounds apologetic and argumentative, as if we're trying to show the reader how non-Muslim Obama in fact is. He wore western clothes, therefore he must not be Muslim? This really sounds off, and will backfire in terms of convincing skeptical readers that we're just reporting the facts as they are.
• Add: and the Chicago Tribune described the school as "so progressive that teachers wore miniskirts and all students were encouraged to celebrate Christmas." More of the same. Obama's teachers wore miniskirts, therefore he isn't Muslim? It doesn't follow.
  

In summary, the removal of the list of publications, and changing to the preferred spelling of Qur'an, are improvements. The rest, though sourced, degrade the article's style, presentation, and credibility. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The problem here(I think), Victor Victoria, has more to do with interaction with fellow editors and style, than most of the content being added. When making edits to controversial articles, if you are challenged you do not just keep reverting. Even if you think you're right. You take it to the talk page. A few recent edits you have made that outline this problem are the image caption, the moving of that image and the recent barrage of edits over the past couple days. Please follow the BRD scenario when dealing with controversial articles. If another editor challenges your addition/subtraction, take it to the talk page. Assume the page, as is, is already established consensus and seek consensus to change the article. Dave Dial (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Dave, I'm not going to comment on any dispute other than the one(s) here. The problem here was that the challenging editor reverted 5 edits explaining only one of them (the red links). Because reverting without explanation is reserved only for vandalism, his approach was wrong. I may be wrong, but it seems that everything is now settled. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • In my first of three reverts (I don't know how Victor Victoria is adding 1 + 1 + 1 to get 5) I said "condense, improve wording, remove apologetic-sounding irrelevant points".[8] And then: "delink redlink".[9] It is obvious in context that my removal of the redlinks indicates that I did not approve of the addition of those redlinks. In my second revert[10] I explained I was removing redlinks and "TMI", which as you know means "too much information" - basically the same comment about irrelevant points. My third and final revert[11] is a process revert to matches my edit war warning[12] on Victor Victoria's talk page that you don't get to force changes into the article by edit warring, more or less what DD2K says. This is the third time in recent weeks. If Victor Victoria won't respect the BRD process, there's a case to be made that they should be restricted to a 1RR standard as I mentioned on the talk page. I don't know about thing being settled. Unless there is consensus to keep them, the disputed edits have to go. I'm also concerned about the wikilawyering and aggressive advocacy over seemingly minor editing disputes. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is open for you to express your concerns. So far you have not respond to the points I made, but you are free to do that any time you wish. I think your time would be better spent discussing the issues than to falsely accuse me of wikilawyering or not respecting the BRD process. Here I am open and eager to discuss any concerns you may have. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote that you reverted 5 of my edits, not that you reverted me 5 times. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I comment here about your process issues because the discussion has moved here. I have responded in full, rejecting the three highlighted parts of your proposed edits: the redlinks, the discussion of clothing at the school, and the statement about the editor refusing to name sources. We have both stated our reasoning more than once, and I see nothing new in your counterarguments that is worth further elaboration. My standing position is "no", so if you want that to become a "yes" you would need some input from third parties here. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"My standing position is "no", so if you want that to become a "yes" you would need some input from third parties here." Let me see if I got this right -- are you saying that no matter what I write, you won't take it seriously? If that's the case, you're not being collaborative. You need to pay attention to the arguments being made, and not to who makes what arguments. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not get that right, and your tendentious wikilawyering is unwelcome to say the least. You have stated your position, I have stated mine, and you have failed to convince me that your proposed edits are an improvement to the article. Given your tone and tactics I am wary of further engagement with you. Nevertheless, should you convince other editors to the point where your position appears to have consensus I would respect that. If not, we go back to the status quo version. It's pretty simple and I don't see why you are having such a problem with that. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There you go again, personally attacking me, rather than discussing the issues. Frankly, I'm getting tired of that, so unless you agree to mediation, I won't engage you any more. Let me just remind you that the "status quo version" is the version that existed before all the edit warring started, and that version did contain the sentences about Jeff Kuhner and about the western clothing. Victor Victoria (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that in a Ronald Reagan sense? Sheesh. I have discussed the issues in full. That's what I mean by wikilawyering. There's no attack here, just a request that you follow normal editing process, instead of responding to me tit-for-tat by making bogus accusations of your own. Anyway, thanks for looking up the status quo version. My position, as I've stated, is that these are extraneous facts that serve to advance an argument rather than lay out the situation and, as such, make it look like our article is defensively advocating something rather than pointing out the simple fact that Obama is not Muslim, did not attend a madrassa, etc. Nobody else has weighed in, so there it shall remain unless there's consensus to change. The redlinks are not a significant enough issue to carry on a debate over, so if nobody has anything else to say in another few days I suggest we archive this discussion rather than leaving a mess like this on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Obama's response

I have separated Obama's responses in person from the campaign responses. It is quite notable that he had to respond to the false rumors in person. The fact that false rumors circulated and his campaign responded is not (in my mind) very noteworthy. Sadly, many candidates have to have their campaigns issue statements denying false stories. What makes this noteworthy is that despite his responses (again usually the candidate would not have to dignify the rumors with a reponse) the rumors persist. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion it is notable that the campaign set up a website specifically dedicated to countering the false claims - I can't think of any other case even remotely like this. It was way more than issuing statements. I think it's more logical to do this chronologically, as I don't see a big difference between the candidate/president and the candidate/president's representatives on this - usually they all would refuse to dignify rumors with response - both the person and his or her representatives. The rumors persist because the purveyors of the lies ignore all denials and contradicting evidence, and just keep pushing the lies. Seems to me, back to the point, that there's not really enough here to justify separating into such short subsections (usually you go for sub sections when you have multiple paragraphs that are too long to be comfortably read as one section) - and the headings aren't particularly illuminating. I'd like to hear what anyone else thinks - it's not a big deal either way, but I don't find the edit creating 2 subsections particularly helpful. Tvoz/talk 02:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So your response to my objection is to just revert to your preference? Seems to me that article probation means discuss, not edit war. Never mind. Tvoz/talk 04:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The campaign/administration has tragically confused the situation by issuing various ambiguous statements, most noteworthy one that Obama is not a "practicing muslim". If he's not a "practicing" muslim... what kind of muslim is he? Okay, he's a Christian NOW, in that we can't question anyone's belief in the moment, but what was he yesterday? What's his real belief system (if any)? It seems clear from a reading of his religious history that he has never had any real religious convictions, and adopted Christianity out of political expediency. It's important to him to distance himself from his coincidental family involvement with Islam. Not a conspiracy... just a fact. Any chance that will make it into the article? I doubt it... It's guarded too heavily. John2510 (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of throwing accusations, how about quoting your own source correctly? It says "Obama has never been a practicing Muslim", not "is not a practicing Muslim". Surely you see the difference. This kind of misquoting and twisting of words is part of the problem here. And your opinion of what "seems clear" has no place here. Tvoz/talk 06:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis is your analysis. The article is heavily guarded against original research, synthesis, POV and undue weight. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"The article is heavily guarded against... POV and undue weight." LOL! Seriously? Not only is every word of it heavily POV, a lot of it is demonstrably just plain wrong. One quick example: while it touts Obama's mother as a Christian (to suggest, erroneously, that Obama was raised Christian), Stanley Ann Dunham was a self-avoid atheist. Her daughter said she thought of her as more of an agnostic. Even Obama acknowledged she was secular but spiritual... until recently. Take a look at the personal beliefs section of her BLP. This isn't synthesis, it's undisputed fact... but this article has a well-established POV. It's heavily guarded... that's for sure. I'm not sure what you mean by the wp:undue comment. That's often thrown around as an excuse for editors for excluding things that stand in the way of a desired POV. The article is about allegations regarding Obama's religion. Given that context, none of this could be wp:undue. You can't fairly start an article and then say the topic is wp:undue when people want to say things that don't fit the desired POV. John2510 (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the Dunham religion reference. We'll see whether wp:npov prevails. John2510 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've restored. The entire premise of the article is that these conspiracy theories are false claims, not "allegations" or anything credible. The reason why the MOS discourages words like "claims" or calling things false is that Wikipedia typically covers what people say and do rather than weighing in on the truth behind what they say and do. Here we are weighing in, and pointing out that the subject of the article is claims, i.e. assertions, that are false. These claims are false. That's the point. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

1. What wp:npov says about the use of the term "claims" is Wikipedia policy. Your desire to abandon that and "weigh in" in this one instance doesn't justify abandoning wp:npov The lack of credibility of the allegations should be proved through the contents of the article, not by Wikipedia edict.

2. You've reverted (maybe "converted" would be a better word) Dunham to being a Christian. This seems to be contrary to all sources. Any source that she was a Christian? Why was this edit done? Even if it was true, how is it relevant? John2510 (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, no abandonment of policy. As with the sister article about Obama's citizenship, the subject of the article is false claims, not people's opinions as to their falsity. That's entirely consistent with NPOV, and with the section of the manual of style it endorses regarding the word "claim". Where the word "claim" is used to disparage a statement as possibly untrue ("Ted Kennedy claimed he had no knowledge of...") it is unencyclopedic. Where it is used to describe something that is in fact a claim, it is encyclopedic ("The Food and Drug Administration rejected the manufacturer's claim that..."). We should dscribe Dunham as Christian if the majority of sources do. Where are they on that? Parenthetically mentioning that she's also atheist or non-practicing is problematic. A very large proportion of people are only nominally religious, and identify with one religion or another for reasons other than inner faith. I don't see any reason to go through the encyclopedia distinguishing between people who are true Christians and those who only claim to be Christians. The only reason that's relevant here is that people are impugning Obama's sincerity in describing himself as Christian. Pointing out that his mother only claimed to be Christian seems a little fishy, unless the sources seem to think it's an important part of the matter. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

These aren't "claims" in the context of a product or legal "claim." These are allegations in the context of wp:npov. The fact is, no one knows with certainty what someone else believes or may practice in private, so everything is an allegation. I guess it would quite fair to say that Obama "claims" to be a Christian. I see no discussion and certainly no consensus that would justify turning wp:npov on its head. I provided sources clearly establishing that Dunham was not a Christian. She never claimed to be (as far as I've seen) and, in fact, described herself as an atheist. That's where the sources are on that. Since Obama's early religious exposure and influences are apparently relevant, it should be included. John2510 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Wikidemon - these claims have been thoroughly examined and rejected by reliable sources. So much so that NPOV demands that we call them false - leaving that out gives the impression that they are considered seriously by a significant portion of available sources, which they clearly are not. Partisan and attack sites are about the only places that these are brought up anymore. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course you(and the others here) are correct. NPOV does not mean that Wiki editors have to give equal weight to all sides, no matter how absurd the false claims are. That is a clear violation of BLP. Circular reasoning is not going to accomplish much here, and no matter the subject, this particular editor seems to have the same response. Dave Dial (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No one has suggested that the positions be given equal weight. That's an argument people make to support a wp:npov violation. Certainly, the evidence against the unsupported allegations should be discussed at length and with the greater authority they deserve. We're not talking about weight here. Never have been. Your IDIDNTHEARTHAT is on the wrong foot. That doesn't justify presenting the positions in a POV manner. John2510 (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing missing is why people believe these theories

Obama came out in what amounts to support for the mosque near the site of the World Trade Center, for instance, thus adding fuel to the theory that he is secretly practising Islam. Why is this not mentioned? By not mentioning things like this, it makes it look as if anyone who is even prepared to consider one of these theories is just a crackpot. His speech, by the way, is verifiable so why is it not mentioned. Why, indeed, is it assumed that there is no truth at all to any of these theories? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and this article clearly is written from the point of view that all these theories are false. If they are false, there should be proof, real proof, not just assertions.

What sort of proof would be acceptable? It depends on the case. For instance, in the case of the secret practice of Islam, references to baptism records would be useful, and not just for himself, but for his daughters. Anyone can sit in a church and listen to a sermon, anyone can own a bible, but did he actually show any religious commitment to his professed faith. Swearing on a bible doesn't actually count - many people do it who are not believers because they feel it is socially acceptable; it happens in courts all the time. --Daggersedge (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Daggersedge! As this is your first edit, you may want to take some time familiarizing yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specifically with respect to Original Research (WP:OR) and Reliable Sources (WP:RS). Reviewing these two particular policies may help bring your concerns and questions above into focus. Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why bother? It doesn't look as if anyone writing the article in question has looked at these two policies. I wonder whether you would be asking me to look at those policies if I agreed with the obvious left-wing bias of the article. I raised a good point. Why are the reasons that people might believe these theories not included in the article? These reasons exist and it is verifiable that they exist. The speech I mentioned actually happened; that is verifiable. Answer my question, don't point me in the direction of 'policies'.--Daggersedge (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Because the speech in question isn't relevant at all (except in the mind of those who believe these harebrained conspiracy theories). Obama was following the spirit of the First Amendment. You know, Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran. Does that make him a secret Muslim? No it doesn't, and anybody who says it does would be definitely outside the mainstream. This issue isn't any different. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Because after that speech, as you very well know, the number of people who believe that Obama is secretly a Muslim increased. That's important to the article. This is the why I am talking about. If you just list theories without looking into the reasons why people might believe them, then you are simply out to make those people look like crackpots. That is not neutral behaviour. People believe things for a reason. Sometimes the reason is good, sometimes it isn't, but there is always a reason. It is entirely within the spirit of neutrality to list the reasons why people believe something. It is entirely within the spirit of neutrality to point out that people who believe thse theories are not always crackpots. Sometimes there is fire when there is smoke, you know. I have no idea whether there is in this case, but I do know that the president of the US did not have to intervene in an issue that is local to New York city. He did intervene, though. He did make that speech. Anyone could have predicted that such a speech would be controversial, particularly when it came down on the side of those wanting to build a mosque so close to the site of the World Trade Centre. That speech exists and therefore affects what people think of him, particularly as regards whether or not he is a secret Muslim. You may not like that, but it is the truth. All that has to be written in the article is that he made the speech, that the speech was controversial, and that this speech has led to some people believing that he might indeed be a secret Muslim. That's it. Very neutral. If you aren't willing to do that, then you expose your own left-wing bias. --Daggersedge (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In this particular instance, what you should be focusing on is finding reliable sources that Obama's speech was controversial and "led to people believing that he might indeed be a secret Muslim," then presenting them here. Consult the policy on Original Research if you're confused. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to entertain this topic at all as long as accusations are being thrown around about supposed "left wing" bias - talk pages are to discuss proposed improvements in the article, not to vent about Wikipedia or its editors. There are probably some reliable sources regarding why people would believe false theories about a President might be a secret non-Christian, although most of them would be in the realm of opinion and speculation. They would also tend towards analysis of psychology, sociology, and the politics of manipulating information. A general account of why people believe in conspiracy theories is better put in the main articles about conspiracy theories. The question might be why is Obama's religion in particular the subject of a conspiracy theory, and why has it become so popular? If there are reliable sources I think they would get into fear, xenophobia, racism, and paranoia, more than an analysis of public image. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support edits explaining the basis of those beliefs, but doubt they would last long, at least not without turning into an edit war. The article currently contains a lot of misleading and, in some cases, blatantly incorrect information. For example:

"Though Obama is a practicing Christian [only since 1988, at the earliest], and he was chiefly raised by his mother and her parents who were Christians [his mother was a self-describe atheist and her parents didn't practice] , both his father Barack Obama, Sr. with whom he lived only as a baby, and his stepfather Lolo Soetoro with whom he lived during his early childhood were nominally Muslims [the same way the Pope is nominally a Catholic. By all reports, Soetoro occasionally attended mosque, sometimes with Barrack, and registered him in school as a muslim]. Because of this minimal connection to Islam, a common false claim lodged by conspiracy theorists is that Obama secretly practices Islam."

I don't think Obama practices Islam (or any religion really), but the efforts to bury the things that would lead someone to wonder are disturbing, and clearly violate Wikipedia policy. Fortunately, the bias is so blatant that no one reading the article would conclude for a moment that it's wp:npov. John2510 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in discussing bias, but I've made a minor improvement.[13] First, the article says that there is a "false" claim "because of" this "minimal" connection to Islam. I've eliminated "false" because the article already says the claim is false more than enough times, and this isn't the best place to work in that adjective. I've said that the connections form the basis of a the claim, which is a broader and better sourced statement that the claim is made because of the connections. We don't know why people make the claims. Maybe they didn't get enough protein for breakfast so they feel like complaining. The sources don't purport to explain the motivations or causality. They simply say that these connections are part of the argument, hence "the basis". I also said "among other things" because there are plenty of other things that people use in arguments - he took some Quran lessons in his public school, his public school was mostly Muslim, he is reaching out to the Islamic world, etc. There are a whole bunch of things that people use to make the argument, true or otherwise, so we shouldn't imply it is these few things. And finally, I've eliminated the word "minimal" because that's an opinion. It does look pretty minimal to me, but the facts are the facts. It's up to the reader to decide what to make of them, best not to make the argument for them. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the above edit (there was an extra "is" in there) and added "familial" to clarify what "connection to Islam" we are referring to. I think "minimal" was fine, but won't make an issue of it, however without it I think we are implying that there is an actual connection which is debatable. That there is a (minimal) familial connection is true enough. Tvoz/talk 05:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That edit doesn't help, and now constitutes an unsourced misrepresentation about why people believe something. There are real things that actually have contributed to the misperception that he's a muslim. Let's address (and place in the article) the following undisputed facts: 1) His mother was an atheist; 2) his muslim stepfather enrolled him in school as a muslim (suggesting, if nothing else, that his stepfather considered him a muslim at that time)and took him to mosque with him; 3) he didn't signficantly exposed to and didn't "find" Christianity until he joined an afrocentric church as an adult. Those are the reasons a lot of people think of him as a muslim. If we're going to explain the things that contribute to the perception (and I think we should), these things should be mentioned... rather than lying to the reader to create the perception that Obama was raised as a Christian by Christians and only had a purely coincidental association with Islam. Does the truth make him a muslim? No... but let's not lie to the reader to convince him of a POV. Or do you think you need to?... John2510 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Newest poll result

Poll: 1 In 5 Americans Believe Obama Is A Cactus, according to TheOnion.Com... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

sTupid Question

Why is are there no example of this theory being Satired? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Secret Muslim is not a conspiracy theory

If Obama is a closet Muslim then how is that a conspiracy theory? It takes only one person at minimum so it is by definition not a conspiracy. Ãs an analogy, if somebody says that Obama is a closet gay then this is not a conspiracy, because it takes only him.

I propose to move this allegation out of this title or to rename the article.Andries (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Another analogy, people may continue to go church for social reasons, although they have lost faith and have become atheists, so they are closet atheists. The allegation that someone who outwardly behaves like a Christian is a closet atheist cannot be reasonably called a a conspiracy theory. Andries (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Presumably his imam, family, close advisors, Democratic party faithful, etc., are the co-conspirators. Anyway if it's sourced as a conspiracy theory so it is. The term has a specific meaning, not necessarily that there is a literal conspiracy or that it is a theory as such.- Wikidemon (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but the Imam etc are not clairvoyant. They do not know what Obama really thinks, so it may be a one-man secret and hence by definition not a conspiracy. Andries (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I know the meaning of the term conspiracy theory, but to say that a conspiracy theory does not necessarily involve a conspiracy sounds ludicrous to me. Andries (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The theories themselves are many and varied, generally defying reason and factual basis, so it's hard to come up with a consistent logical basis for them. We should probably just stick with what the sources call them. Do the sources say they are conspiracy theories? Political attacks? Fringe theories? Urban rumors? Misrepresentations? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer fringe theories in the title. Not all rumors in this article are conspiracy theories. Andries (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" is very elastic and is commonly used to cover a lot of concepts that do not meet a precise definition of "conspiracy". There are many incorrect views about Obama, and our opinions on which of those should be described as "conspiracy theories" is not relevant: what counts is that they are so described by reputable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

They are also called fringe theories in reputable sources, so if there is a choice between an accurate term and an inaccurate, elastic (and thus uninforming) term in the title then I prefer the former. Andries (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article's title seems misleading and out of place. We can write an article concerning this for any president or political leader. To me the title seems opinionated and rather defensive. Many people these days believe Obama is a Muslim and I don't see that as a conspiracy theory whether it is write or wrong. This article just seems to be written with a political agenda in mind. At least it should be renamed. Tyros1972 Talk 01:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the problem is that some people attribute everything they don't like about Obama's political views and goals to some hidden "Islamic agenda"; that Obama and his inner circle of closest confidants have supposedly been concealing his true nature from the American people in order to get him elected and put his presumably anti-American, anti-Christian agenda into place; and that by the time people discover "the truth" about Obama, it will be too late to undo the damage they believe he will have caused. IMO, these theories make no sense at all — anyone who really believes someone can simultaneously embrace and work for both Islamic fundamentalism and Communism doesn't understand either of these philosophies — but this is what takes the issue beyond a simple misunderstanding over Obama's religious views and makes it into a dark conspiracy theory. I agree that the article should probably be reworded to make this "secret Muslim takeover agenda" idea more plain. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)