Talk:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories/Archive 2

Proposal regarding black liberation theology

proposal has not gained consensus and ongoing discussion is not productive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The editor will not let me post pertinent information here for others to review. I need to file some kind of formal complaint about this article with Wikipedia. Even, if he does not think the info is true, it would be a significant new conspiracy theory that should be included in his article. (RogerO SD (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)) This talk page is where you normally would start a discussion on improving the article, or to gain consensus for a proposed change that others dispute. However, you must know that the changes you're proposing would require the article to endorse a conspiracy theory that nearly all of the mainstream sources refute, the way in which they're written violates nearly every policy and guideline on how to source content, and the way you're going about accusing Wikipedia and it's editors to be part of the cover-up will alienate most editors from wanting to deal with the subject. Quotes accusing Obama and his former religious mentors with hating white people and equating them with Nazis are not going to stand in the article or here on the talk page for WP:BLP policy reasons, and it doesn't matter that Sean Hannity may have said it. If there are neutral, mainstream, reliable sources that mention that Hannity and others accuse Obama of not being Christian because he's supposedly a black liberation theologist, we could include mention that those accusations have been made. As you mentioned before in some now-deleted comments, you have other outlets to advance that these accusations are true. You're right that they probably are a lot more effective than what you can do here. It's not Wikipedia's function to uncover hidden truths that most people don't believe, we just report on the body of accepted wisdom represented in written sources. So if you feel you know something that most other people are covering up, you have to convince the rest of the world first before Wikipedia will follow. Let's take the politics and religion out of it, for an example. If you knew for sure that the theory of gravity is wrong and accepted science is incorrect, you still have to convince the scientists first. Wikipedia comes later. It's not at the forefront of knowledge, it's bringing up the rear. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC) How do you know? The editor will not let me post the info and sources for public review? Not too surprising that I think you are part of the coverup, if you won't allow discussion of it. A Wiki is supposed to be collaborative, but you won't allow dissenting views. What are you afraid of? I did not accuse Obama of hating white people, I wrote that that the doctrine of his church is based on racial hatred and sedition. It may be reasonable to assume that Obama, a Harvard Grad, knows exactly what the doctrine of his church of 20 years is, but I did not write that. The racism and sedition is documented in their own literature. It's not actually a conspiracy theory. Even the founder of Black Liberation Theology wrote in his own books that many people find it racist and some Nazi-like. Cone said that is is not racist for the same reason that Malcolm X gave, who said that whites collectively really are evil and the devil. It's not hidden truth or new material. It's in their own literature. I can quote published books and page numbers. It's just not fully reported in the American media, though some have scratched the surface. It has been mentioned in the Chinese media, ironically enough. I propose that you allow me to start a discussion topic and have it reviewed here, if this is not just an article with a blatantly unethical political purpose of bashing Obama's critics. Will you allow that or not? Are you afraid a so-called "conspiracy theorist" might get the better of you and introduce some info that you can't very easily refute that goes against your prejudices? (RogerO SD (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)) See your talk page. The phrase "but a kind of black identity religion, based on the collective guilt of the white race and the destruction of America as the tool of the white oppressor, which according to the doctrine will bring on the millennial Utopia." is not acceptable.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC) So, what's your point? That is just an accurate summary of what Black Liberation Theology is all about. The truth documented in their own literature is "not acceptable." Have you read Cone's foundation books? If you don't believe me, read the source books. They only cost $10-15 each and are available on Amazon. This is not Christianity, but it is what J. Wright, himself, said he taught and Obama has said that Wright led him to Christ. If so, it was a racist and seditious version of Christ as described in those books, "Black Theology and Black Power" and "A Theology of Black Liberation." I would like to see you follow your own procedures and your own standards and post the documented truth and not some politically-motivated fabrication. I can provide many racist and seditious quotes with page numbers from these books. This clip has many quotes at the end from the foundation books on Black Liberation Theology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8IEqD0GAKY This is a PDF file with several dozen excerpts with page numbers from the first two foundation books by Cone on Black Liberation Theology. You can check the accuracy of the quotes by comparing with the original books. This is not Christianity as most Christians know it, sorry. http://www.box.net/shared/static/k33cip03y0.pdf This is the website of a Chinese publication (Asia Times) that points out the similarity of BLT and the perverted Nazi Christian doctrine, called Positives Christentum or today's version in the US is called "Christian Identity." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html Qoute -- "Theologically, Cone's argument is as silly as the 'Aryan Christianity' popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the 'chosen people'." <RogerO SD (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)>— Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerO SD (talk • contribs) 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC) You need reliable sources saying this is a conspiracy theory regarding Barack Obama's religion. What you have is documents that you feel support your theory. That is not the same thing. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) There is no need to describe a conspiracy theory. I want the characterization of Obama's religion in this article to be corrected and I provided you reliable, unquestionable references to their own literature. If you are going to say he is a "practicing Christian," then -- if you want to be intellectually honest -- you need to put an asterisk by that statement and give some explanation of what Black Liberation Theology really is, a seditious, Nazi-like Black Nationalist doctrine and perversion of Christianity, based on the destruction of white society and America's democratic institutions. I am under no great illusions, though, that people want to be intellectually honiest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerO SD (talk • contribs) 22:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC) You are absolutely right that there is no need to describe this as a conspiracy theory, unless you want to include it in an article called "Barack Obama religion conspiracy theory". In that case you would. Otherwise, you are off-topic. As for adding this to any other article, your "seditious, Nazi-like Black Nationalist doctrine and perversion of... whatever" theory is original research. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Seriously, (@RogerO SD), you really need to read WP:BLP.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC) If his own religion is off-topic, he should not be characterized as a "practicing Christian." He is not a active member of a church, by the way, so he is not practicing, in any case. If you do describe him that way, you should explain that the doctrine of his church, where the infamous hatemonger, Jeremiah Wright "led him to Christ," would be considered by most Christians to be an obnoxious racist perversion of Christianity, which equates white society to the Antichrist! It's important as background information. It is extremely misleading to let people think that he is a garden-variety Christin. Otherwise, the article is false, by conscious design, since you now should know better. It's a shame that this information is generally suppressed in the US, but you can read it in a CHINESE publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerO SD (talk • contribs) 23:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC) WP:NPOV please.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I read it already and don't think it is especially important. Why do you think that it is important. I am going to publicize this travesty to my thousands of friends on FaceBook. This article is just political propaganda and the editors have no regard for the truth. Wikipedia won't ever get a donation from me. (RogerO SD (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)) It is much more important than you think. In fact, it is one of our very few absolute rules. If you are going to recruit others to come push your POV, it constitutes meatpuppetry, which is strictly prohibited.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC) It seems the rules only apply to me and no one else. In any case, I am not recruiting anyone. I am just publicizing how screwed up and dishonest Wikipedia is. From what I am hearing, I am not expecting fair and impartial treatment here. I'll send it to another 4,000 friends on another page, since you threaten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerO SD (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Propose to close & archive - content proposal has not gained consensus and is unlikely to do so. Further discussion of basic Wikipedia policy, threats, and accusations is not helpful on this page. Barring any objections, we should close reasonably promptly. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Support Closure. Much more heat than light and little chance of its getting better. 00:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Support Closure-- I was preparing an explanation as to why everything the new editor believed is incorrect, or at least not in context, and has nothing to do with what reliable sources state Obama's religion is. But I can see that any attempts to reason will be futile. Close and archive. Dave Dial (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC) You people never addressed my issues. Fist, called me a "racist." Then immediately deleted my discussion. After complaints allowed my posts in the discussion, but never addressed the merits, just said it was off-topic, which it is not. There are no better references than Cone's source books on Black Liberation Theology as Wright cited himself. There are other groups with tens of thousands of members who I can inform of this. We are getting sick and tired of your political propaganda. To call me a racist for exposing the racism of Obama's black nationalist sect in Chicago, just exposes your own prejudices and shows that you have your own issues with race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.81.222 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC) As you have not presented reliable sources calling this a religion conspiracy theory re Barack Obama, you are quite clearly off topic. We'll gladly tell your tens of thousands of members the same. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Support Closure - I can't tell if he simply doesn't understand or if he doesn't want to understand. Either way, we're getting nowhere fast. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I understand that this article is just a cheap political propaganda piece, controlled by a clique of Obama supporters and no one here is interested in producing a fair article. The background on Obama's religion is inaccurate. There are no better references that the Cone's books on what his racist religion is really about. Now, who do I complain to at a higher level. This article is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.81.222 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Sockpuppetry with anonymous IPs is not allowed. You still don't understand our policies.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"My muslim faith" gaffe

I can't believe this article doesn't mention the slip he made in an interview - I'm sure it was a genuine mis-speak, but he said "my Muslim faith", and then quickly realises what he's said and corrects it to "my Christian faith". He'd been talking about "Muslim faith" and "Christian faith" a lot so I personally believe that he just said the wrong word at the wrong time, but surely it should be mentioned here. — PhilHibbs | talk 14:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? Per Snopes.com it's a false rumor based on George Stephanopoulis misunderstanding Obama during an interview, not a gaffe by Obama.[1] Snopes isn't necessarily a reliable source nor does it talk about the significance of this among the many false rumors that make up this particular conspiracy theory. Snopes mentions that the Washington Times (itself not necessarily a reliable source) reported on the prevalence and falsity of the rumor. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I was about to start a new section on this very topic and I see that it's already being discussed. I'm surprised that the article omits this. It should be in there. Also, I would argue that Snopes is reliable because it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. In fact, it's probably one of the most famous and widely cited fact-checking sources around. In any case, if you don't like Snopes, here's FactCheck.org.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Youtube video of President Obama's "My Muslim Faith" gaffe. Should this be included? Does anyone think it is a fake? Is there a reason not to include it? (Eworrall 02 July 2017) —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The video is not a fake, but as WikiDemon notes above, it's the subject of false rumors based on misinterpretation of what Obama was saying.

Rather than including the video itself, it would be more appropriate to include a reference from a reliable source discussing the incident.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

There should certainly be reference to the various incidents/reports that are considered support for the theories, perhaps with explanations of why they are not valid support. Failing to do so suggests, rightly or wrongly, that there's something to hide. If there is nothing to hide, the reader should be left to decide the truth for himself. John2510 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

-You still didn't add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.2.203 (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor statement

This paragraph:

Talk radio host Mark Williams, a leader in the populist Tea Party protest movement, described Obama as an "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug" in remarks on his blog. When Williams appeared on the CNN show Anderson Cooper 360 in September 2009, he was asked if he really believed these statements, and he responded: “He's certainly acting like it. Until he embraces the whole country, what else can I conclude?”[7]

It is sourced to a blog and seems like just a report of a statement by a fairly minor person (the Tea Party has lots of "leaders"). There is no evidence that it led to any conspiracy theories. Wolfview (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I will take it out. I don't think the article needs to mention every controversial, or offensive, comment made about President Obama. That's not the topic. BigJim707 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here´s a good one!

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-ring-there-is-no-god-but-allah/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Another source: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/weddingring.aspGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Freemason

http://www.henrymakow.com/obama_a_president_for_freemaso.html

http://americathebeautifulconspiracy.com/images/obama-masonic-inargural-ball.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.86.163 (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

To add this, we would need reliable sources discussing the theory. Neither of these is a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Quoting untrue claim from Chicago Tribune

The Chicago Tribune article cited claims the public school in Indonesia that Obama went to was "so progressive" that the teachers wore miniskirts. I went to the official website of the school (also linked to in this article) and saw the pictures. All the female teachers are very conservatively dressed with their bodies covered in loose clothes and most wearing head scarves. I feel there is no basis for the claim made in the Tribune article, and they did not cite their source for the claim. Since the accuracy of the statement is tenuous at best, I think it should be removed from the Wikipedia article. Leastdream (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Were you by chance looking at the mid 1960s website from when he was actually there? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we be calling them "false claims"

Specifically labelling claims as "false" is very unusual for a wikipedia article and it seems very pointy. It also undermines the claimed neutrality of the article and is likely to turn readers away, making them dismiss the content of this article as one-sided and unreliable. Govgovgov (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

They are false. They are claims. They are false claims. Calling them anything else would be unencylopedic. Anyone who would turn away from the encyclopedia because it does not give credence to conspiracy theories is not someone who does not believe sources anyway. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The article Young Earth Creationism doesn't label YEC as false, yet it's as false as the conspiracy theories about Obama. It's fair to say that both have been pretty much proven to be as false as each other, yet only this article states the words "false claims" several times. I don't think calling them anything else would be un-encyclopaedic. Simply labelling them as claims seems to obey the multitude of Wikipedia policies. Govgovgov (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The situation is rather obvious: while one or two genuine nutters would believe the false claims about a living person, there are many people who repeat them for various reasons such as that they think the gossip is funny, or that they hope the mud will stick to their political opponent. Then there are a lot of people who rather naively have no opinion, and come to an article like this with a relatively open mind. Particularly since the subject is a living person, it is important for encyclopedic accuracy to state the facts simply—the subject of this article concerns false claims, and the article is not available as a place for "both sides to be aired" as if they were of equal strength. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. However, I think that stating the claims and showing them to be false works better than stating that they are false and showing that they are false. I'm concerned that the second option brings into question the article's neutrality - not the actual neutrality but the impression of it that readers will have. I'll leave it for now and see if others agree. Govgovgov (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I would favour removing the word "false". I think the article makes it more than adequately clear that these are crackpot fringe theories with no mainstream credibility, without any need to overdo the point by explicitly labelling them as "false". — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well (however belatedly). I'll also add more generally that articles on conspiracy theories should endeavor to present the arguments of the theorists, in the best possible light. That way the reader can understand the issue more fully, and more fairly. As you say, the falsity of the theory should carry its own weight. There seems to be a rabid paranoia about disallowing that in this article. Anything that calls into question Obama's Christianity (e.g., that his mother was certainly not a Christian - as falsely stated in the article), or that notes any actual connection between Obama and Islam (e.g., that neighbors reported that he occasionally attended mosque with his adopted father in Indonesia) are disallowed. The argument is that it's a false conspiracy theory - so pandering to it is wrong. I disagree (though I certainly don't believe that the underlying theory is true). John2510 (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This encyclopedia has articles about false beliefs of the craziest cults and they should be described neutrally and sympathetically. Of course criticism should be added but it should not overwhelm the article or make the opinions and arguments of believers difficult to understand or to derive. This article should be no exception, but at the moment it is: every other sentence is a refutation or criticism. Andries (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems to me like a false equivalence. Although you don't give specific examples, I would assume that these beliefs are either about things that cannot actually be proven or disproven ("God looks like Alanis Morrisette and has been known to boop peoples' noses"), or are obviously false ("crazy cult believes that through prayer they can make certain model cars levitate for minutes at a time").

In this article, rumors are listed that to some are completely believable but are in fact completely false. Stating the rumor without noting that it is false would be WP:WEIGHT.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NapoliRoma about the false equivalencies, and it should also be noted that this conspiracy theory concerns(and is devoted to) a living person, so we must take great care in that aspect. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(In addition)Let me also add that the editor who started this thread(Govgovgov) has been indeff blocked for sock puppetry. Dave Dial (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Claims by cults can sometimes be proven to be false, but still they are described neutrally and sympathetically without being overwhelmed by criticism. Andries (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For example the belief of the Brahma Kumaris that the earth was destroyed 6000 years ago has been proven to be untrue, but is described sympathetically without being interspersed with refutations. Andries (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, as I have argued before here, the faith of Obama may be a one man secret and hence cannot be proven to be false. Very unlikely for a prolonged period of time? Yes, but not proven to be false. Andries (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And how about this utterly false claim by followers about the death of a living God. (This is my former religion.). It is all described neutrally. Andries (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

But now you're arguing from two different directions.

The bulk of the refutations in this article, which you've characterized as excessive, are about items which can be proven to be false (took oath on Qu'ran, went to a radical Islamist school, middle name is "Mohammed", and of course the Antichrist nonsense). These are the elements that distinguish this article from a debate about of his faith to a description of conspiracy theories.

Obama's faith, at the end of the day, should be his concern only. He says he is a Christian, and there is no reason to doubt his word any more than one would doubt, say, George Bush's word that he is a Christian. This article is about the theories that have sprung up despite this.

If I were to argue his faith as Christian-not-Mulsim, I would point out that he has had his daughters baptized, he drinks beer, eats pork, attends Christian church, and does not observe any rituals of the Islamic faith. But that's not the point of the article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is dedicated to a form of criticism of Obama, so here we should write for the enemy. Andries (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly true, but the consensus has been otherwise. The logic is that, since we have determined that the conclusion of the theory is false, nothing should be allowed in the article that might suggest that there is any basis whatsoever for the belief. It's the same thinking upon which the dark ages were based. John2510 (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

But isn't one of the tenets of Wikipedia... assume good faith?--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you state, "Obama's faith, at the end of the day, should be his concern only." That's a POV. It's apparently shared by others, and seems to be driving a lot of the discussion here. Other readers may feel his religious history is signficant. Let them have the facts for consideration. For someone who cares about Obama's faith, both past and present, and how it may impact upon his present values, things like his attendance at mosque as a child (rare as it may have been), his mother's atheism, and the identification of "Islam" as faith on his school registration, would be quite significant. Instead, only the more easily-disproved and far-fetched theories (e.g., that "he secretly practices Islam") are discussed in the article - straw man arguments that distract from what a reader who cares may want to know. If we're going to approach this in good faith, lets look at everything that relates his religion and what may contribute to beliefs about his religion. John2510 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Self Contradictory and Over Stated

There is a section which attempts to refute what it calls a rumor that Obama attended four year in a madrassa in Indonesia. This is literally true. The Wikipedia article of Madrassa points out that that term only means school in Arabic. Obama did indeed attend school for four years in Indonesia and he received Muslim instruction for each of these years.

It is not true that madrassa means an Islamic seminary. That is a partisan exaggeration. Obama as far as we know attended an regular Catholic school where he was given religious instruction in Islam not Catholicism and a regular public school where he also received religious instruction.

It is wrong to imply, as some have, that Obama went to some kind of Islamic indoctrination camp but it surely is equally wrong to imply as this article does that he never attended regular Islamic instruction. The article as it stands reads like a political defense of Obama rather than an object statement of the known facts. The article is so obviously biased that it only contributes to irrational suspicions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.115.132 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The rumor was not an issue over what the word "madrassa" means. The rumor was specifically that he attended a radical Islamist school.

If you have a source that says he was instructed in Islam at St. Francis, you should provide that, as the existing sources say that any religious instruction he received there was Catholic.

I was going to add to the article that he along with the rest of the students would have received two hours a week of religious education at the public school he attended for a year and half, but found it was already there.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Title

How is this a conspiracy theory? Who's conspiring? When you have all these sources covering the topic, one news story (footnote) is not sufficient for declaring it a conspiracy theory. When you're a major public figure, and your opponents widely believe something false about you, it's more of an urban legend (if good-faith) or an attack piece (if bad-faith), unless they say that you're conspiring to do something or they're conspiring to do something about you, and I don't see anything of either type in this article. The article text doesn't even mention the word "conspiracy", except in a reference to another situation and a reference to conspiracy theorists, and not all wacko ideas that they believe are necessarily conspiracies. Much better to have the same contents at something like "Barack Obama's religion", since it avoids the issue of deciding whether to call it an attack theme, an urban legend, or something else. Footnote: I can't read the Newsweek article; it says that I've already hit my maximum number of free-read articles for the month, even though I don't remember the last time I visited Newsweek's website. If it's not a news story, please understand my error. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

PS, see Abraham Lincoln and religion. Why don't we entitle this article "Barack Obama and religion"? We're already refuting the false claims of Islam by bringing in stuff about his actual religious affiliations and beliefs. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be a broader, more fact-filled, and more interesting article, of which the current materials would be a part. The history of his religious development, and claims of various kinds (including his own) about it, would make for a much better article. John2510 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"false" in the first paragraph.

"false claims" seems redundant or biased. Maybe it should just say claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.94.46 (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Claims may be true or false. These are false. That is not redundant.

Reliable sources unequivocally say they are false. That is not biased.

Perhaps we should emphasize that the sources claiming otherwise are political opponents to clarify? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a common misconception about Wikipedia that, in the name of neutrality that Wikipedia can only affirm: that stating that something that is false is in fact false is not neutral. This, of course, is nonsensical when reviewed closely. Wikipedia is required by policy to clearly state that something known to be a falsehood is indeed false Watering it down to imply doubt or to grant some form of false balance is not neutral. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's well-documented (by Obama-friendly sources), and undisputed, that Obama attended muslim services with his muslim stepfather while in Indonesia (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-03-25/news/0703250340_1_lolo-soetoro-sen-barack-obama-madrassa). The problem is the article limits itself to the present moment and what Obama claims he believes. Good faith requires that the foundations of the arguments that Obama is other than Christian be articulated. Alas... John2510 (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, alas: rather than taking what he did as a child and interpreting it as a reflection of his religious belief, we are stuck with what reliable sources actually say. Unfortunately, reliable sources have not chosen to explore the OMG-as-a-child-he was-in-a-building-that-doesn't-reflect-his-current-beliefs. Similarly, we don't spill much virtual ink discussing a decidedly hawkish Nixon's Quaker beliefs. If you have reliable sources discussing Obamaasachildgate, feel free to bring it here. Otherwise, we're done. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, alack: Perhaps a reader might want to consider reliable source reports of observations of his actions (one of which I included), as opposed to only his description of his recently-developed belief system. If there were a WP article alleging a "conspiracy theory" about Nixon being a Quaker, then I'm sure it would discuss evidence of such beliefs. What we've done here is assert that a belief is absurd, and then refuse to allow evidence to the contrary... solely because of our a priori conclusion that it's absurd. The most flat-earth kind of thinking I've ever seen. Part of the defense seems to be based on the notion that people have only one life-long religious belief, which certainly isn't the case. What his attendance at mosque as a child may mean for his current beliefs should be for the reader to decide. It certainly debunks the notion that Muslim beliefs are a "conspiracy theory." John2510 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, alack: We report what independent reliable sources say. In this case, independent reliable sources say Obama is a Christian and do not support the claim that John McCain is a citizen of his native Panama I mean Nixon's trip to the Vatican made him Catholic or whatever. If you would like to cut and paste bits and pieces together to demonstrate that Obama is a Lizardman from the Draco star system, Vietnam was a good Quaker war and the Denver airport is secretly the control center of the world, feel free to start a blog. If you have independent reliable sources saying these things, feel free to bring them here. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobia

This page should not be used as a laundry list for every single religious-based criticism from every two-bit crank on the planet. One UK Islamic charity and one unknown author do not justify a "has been accused of Islamophobia" section. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"Obama" and "islamophobe" creates 1,180,000 returns. In contrast "obama" and "practises islam" gets only 212,000 returns. Further on google books "obama" and "practises islam" gets 645 returns, while "obama" and "islamophobia" gets 1970 returns. Therefore, if a section is going to be removed it should be the "practises islam" section. Furthermore, the section on Islamophobia is actually objective; giving policy examples and language derivatives as a source. The "secretly muslim" section seems to come from forum-like banter with writers mistaking Obama with Keith Ellison and other ridiculous claims. One goes into the realm of debateable hypothesis while the other is akin to publicizing someones scanno or glitch. I dont even roll (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This is why "it has lots of google hits!" is generally regarded as an unintelligent argument. If you actually look as what those results find, you see breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/20/obama-islam-woven-into-the-fabric-of-our-country-since-founding/ Brietbart, which contains the word "Islamophobe" in the sidebar pointing to another article, another is the Dailycaller, which contains the quote “There is no place for Islamophobia, anti-Semitism or any form of xenophobia or racism,” said Angela Merkel’s spokeswoman Christiane Wirtz, and so on. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kitty!

Resolved

Is there a way we can quickly report trolls with a push of a button or something, without going through detailed procedure? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. In the future, please address questions as explained at WP:RQ. For how to deal with disruptive editors, please see WP:DDE. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is that a no? :( - Wikidemon (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

POV

"Despite the fact that these assertions are false"? You can't put "these assertions are false" in an encyclopaedia article that discussing someone's private metaphysical beliefs. That is ridiculous and not remotely neutral. Maybe "he has denied..." etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.158.152 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you'd also need to add that of his parents and people who raised him (mother, father, stepfather, grandparents), only one could be said to be Muslim -- and that was the one who enrolled him in a Catholic school.

Then you'd have to point out that he's never been part of a Muslim religious organization, nor has he ever adhered to Muslim practices (the beer, pork, lack of praying to Mecca and all) and is a practicing Christian who has regularly attended Christian church and has been baptized, as have his children. That starts to look like WP:UNDUE or even WP:BLUE. I think it's shorter to say the assertions are false, in the sense of their being zero reason to say they're true. It'd be like saying "he has denied" he's teleported to Mars.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9Fu0WbCqTWm6kF5FRgE1KTl3fWQ?
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101023072835/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/yblog_upshot/20101020/pl_yblog_upshot/white-house-cancels-obama-trip-to-sikh-temple-over-muslim-rumor-concerns to http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101020/pl_yblog_upshot/white-house-cancels-obama-trip-to-sikh-temple-over-muslim-rumor-concerns
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110222003247/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-518585/Obama-turban-Barack-accuses-Hillary-smear-campaign-circulating-photos-dressed-Muslim.html to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-518585/Obama-turban-Barack-accuses-Hillary-smear-campaign-circulating-photos-dressed-Muslim.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080905065304/http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/muslim_rumors_about_obama_spre.html to http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/muslim_rumors_about_obama_spre.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Judgement of theological claims

This article devotes a section to summarizing the various theories that Barack Obama is the Christian antichrist and makes mention of the same in the lede paragraph subsequent to describing the propositions detailed by the article as "conspiracy theories" and "false." While the description of many of these claims is a settled matter for the purposes of Wikipedia, it is quite an unprecedented move to mark theological claims as encyclopedically false. It should either be carefully clarified that the "falsity" refers solely to non-theological claims (of course, only those that are otherwise so proven) or excise and place elsewhere the claims pertaining to Obama and the eschatology. Certainly, something so central to WP:NPOV and contentious as theology should not be construed in an opinionated matter on Wikipedia. Ergo Sum 01:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support Reaper7 (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It seems this article concerns two distinct topics: Barack Obama's religion and religious theories about Barack Obama. The two are hardly related and the lede is not appropriate at all for the latter. The only solutions I see are moving the substance of the latter to a new article, excising it completely, or changing this article to focus on it. The last option seems unwise, since that would only mean that the former topic would be out of place. I recommend the first option. Ergo Sum 14:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Would you care to weigh in, since you've reverted the edits that I made in accordance with the above discussion. It seems quite reasonable and also mandatory per WP:NPOV policy for claims that are decisively skewed toward an opinion, no matter how backed by citations, are not construed as fact. In this instance, it seems utterly nonsensical to portray as a statement of fact that a religious claim is false. I do not see how that can be anything other than non-neutral opinion. As such, either the lede must be changed (as I have attempted) to exclude the religious claims from its assertion of falsity or to remove the religious claims. Ergo Sum 02:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion, but I would note that as a matter of BLP policy we must describe false claims about someone as false right up front and not wait until later in the article to make that plain. This isn't a novel idea. Given the limited participation on this talkpage so far I don't see something that can really be described as a consensus. We typically don't beat around the bush about patently false conspiracy theories in general, and we certainly don't finesse them in a biographical subject. There might be more elegant ways of stating falsity, you're welcome to suggest them, but the discussion above appears to present a false balance. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion:The issue at hand is not with describing the claims of Section 1 that regard his religion. Those are falsifiable claims and might rightly be described as false. The issue lies in section 2 in which there are epistemically unverifiable (and, therefore, unfalsifiable) claims that the blanket statement of falsehood in the lede includes. One cannot neutrally describe a theological claim as false. Ergo Sum 02:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Epistemiology? This is an article concerning conspiratorial accusations about an individual, not about philosophy. See the bazillion discussions up the page. Acroterion (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion is corrrect. It's normally the POV pushers who want to tell the world about Obama's sins that object to a correctly written article, but I guess Obama is old news now, so we have a semantic discussion about what false means and whether anything non-trivial can be known to be false. The article is fine as is, and is standard procedure for dealing with BLP issues. Due to the notability of the topic, the false claims need to be aired, but BLP and a desire to not mislead readers require that the truthiness of the claims be specified. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion and Johnuniq: I apologize if this sounds rude, but I cannot help but wonder if you are being deliberately obstinate. In no way have I suggested rewritting this article as a philosophical one, nor have I engaged in some semantic slight of hand. What I am saying is that the theological claims and only the theological claims cannot be called false in a Wikipedia article while still complying with WP's neutrality policy. If that were the case, every single article on religious topics would be overrun with edits asserting that claims of opposing religions are false. I really do not understand why that is an elusive concept. All I am asking is that you address in this discussion that issue, rather than jump to ad hominems or tangents. Ergo Sum 17:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the topic at hand is Barack Obama, not epistemiology or theology. The article describes Obama's statements and practices concerning his personal beliefs, and at no point does he describe himself as the Antichrist or a Muslim, secretly or otherwise. I guess the idea is that the conspiracies posit that those are all lies and you appear to be arguing that we can't really know they're not lies. That's far outside Wikipedia's remit and BLP is quite plain on this subject: we accept biographical subjects at their word on their beliefs unless their is concrete evidence to the contrary in a broad spectrum of reliable sources and do not give credence to what are plainly fringe theories: WP:FRINGE is part of WP:NPOV too/. Acroterion (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I find two issues with that. 1) WP is not an autobiography. So, no we do not write biographies from the perspective of their subjects nor should what they say have any greater weight than what others say and is counted as fact by neutral and notable sources. 2) What you're saying is exactly my point. This article addresses two very different topics. One is Obama's religion the other is religious beliefs about Obama. I am only concerned with the latter. Whether or not he claims or denies being the antichrist (I personally don't care which) is irrelevant. What matters is that the claims have been made, they are epistemically unverifiable (I don't know why you are averse to the word), and, therefore, cannot be called false. To be clear, I am certainly not suggesting that the article call Obama the antichrist. I am saying that NPOV requires that the claim that he is the antichrist not be called false. Ergo Sum 01:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have listed this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories#Judgement of theological claims. Ergo Sum 02:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The article addresses a single topic and is subject to BLP policy, few more so. We certainly do take subjects' statements about themselves as fact absent an obvious reason to disbelieve them. I understand you're not attempting to argue that Obama is the Antichrist, but I think you're attempting to use philosophical principals to write about a biographical subject, which leads the article into an absurd implication-by-omission that it could be true based on epistemological analysis. While that's fun to work through, it's not how we approach fringe topics and biographies. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

DRN is pretty useless for discussions like this. The people there are very well intentioned but they often have no in-the-field experience of how things like WP:FRINGE topics are handled, and people end up earnestly debating what reliable sources say about how many angels can fit on the end of a pin, and so on. I have said everything needed above: an article should not mislead readers, and "false claims" is accurate and has persisted despite misguided attempts to enforce "balance"—see #Should we be calling them "false claims" above, for example. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. It is implication by admission. If any given religion were to claim that Obama is actually Zeus based on some obscure theroy, it would be no less incorrect to call that false. In that sense, it is not a conspiracy theory, but merely a theory. It would not be at all wrong to include sources that call that theory false, but for the encyclopedia to call it false is. No matter that it may be a fringe theory, it is subject to the same rules of reason. It may be a subtle distinction but a very important one. Ergo Sum 02:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I a simply not prepared to deem a claim false that I and anyone else lacks the capacity to test its truthfulness, not matter how many people operate on the assumption that it is. The purpose of an encyclopedia is quite literally to neglect popular heuristics in favor of the truth. Ergo Sum 02:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You and I don't get to deem anything true or false, we can only state what is plain: that the religious conspiracy theories about Obama are regarded in reliable sources as bunk. That is the context of the word "false." You're tiptoeing on the edgeof BLP to make an obscure philosophical distinction.Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we clearly disagree on the importance of the matter. I think it is hardly obscure. To offer an example if this precedent were universalized across Wikipedia: Valentinus the gnostic claims to have received divine information. Nobody (to my knowledge) believes that to be true today and there are many reliable sources that would also say Valentinus' claims were false. However, if this logic were followed, Wikipedia must claim in his article that it is false that he received divine information. Is that what we are prepared to do? Ergo Sum 15:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Valentinus (Gnostic) died 1900 years ago, while the subject of this article is alive. Readers really do come to this article to read encyclopedic information about the claims made regarding Obama, and the most important encyclopedic piece of information is that the claims are false. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I do object to the idea that the standards of proof for claims on Wikipedia are higher on contemporary articles. Ergo Sum 01:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Link to archived dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 141#Talk:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories#Judgement of theological claims

RfC added below. Ergo Sum 03:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Artificial break

The dispute can be found at Talk:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories#Judgement of theological claims. The language of the lede section describes the subsequent information of the article body as "false." However, the article contains two distinct types of information: claims that are verifiable (i.e. those pertaining to Obama's religious beliefs) and those that are theological and unverifiable (i.e. what Obama represents to various religions or persons, e.g. "the antichrist). The dispute is whether both of those can be called false while complying with WP:NPOV or just the former. Ergo Sum 03:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

For purposes of Wikipedia articles, reality is what the experts say it is. While they may be tolerant of the claims of mainstream religions, they are quick to classify the claims of tiny sects as false. The guide is what sources say. Incidentally, no theories are verifiable, they are only falsifiable. So the belief that the world would end in AD 1000 turned out to be false, but we cannot say it will not end in 3000. TFD (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Please don't open an RfC when a reasonable discussion (just above) has dealt with the matter. Try WP:NPOVN if wanting other views, but a month-long discussion after the above is pointless. How about a substantive response to my above comment that WP:BLP applies, and that readers want encyclopedic information about the claims made regarding Obama, and the most important encyclopedic piece of information is that the claims are false. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Why is this coming up again? We go by external sources, not by existential theories on the knowability of internal belief, or the knowability of whether a given person may be a lizard person, for that matter. Acroterion (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Regarding the question: Yes, we can call them false. Unless compelling evidence is presented that they are true, which is then written about by reliable secondary sources, we can call them false.

Now for a bit of advice: Ergo Sum I think you should read WP:1AM. While I haven't dived into this, it seems pretty clear that there are a number of editors disagreeing with you, and no editors agreeing with you except in passing. Note that while link is not just "how to handle knowing that you're not going to win this one", but also contains practical advice about how to win this one, in this case, you seem to be rapidly approaching the point where you need to accept that consensus is against you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq Surely if you're begging the question, I can't dispute your argument. If you've determined that they are false claims (or "experts" have, it really doesn't matter which), then they are logically encyclopedic. I still maintain that no one, no matter their expertise, can falsify or verify claims that are in principle unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

@Acroterion: Likewise, the overwhelming majority of claims made on WP are not said to be true or false. They are stated in the form of "x says y."

@MjolnirPants: Before this RfC, there were two editors opposed to my change and 1 supporting it. I hardly think that is a case of WP:1AM. Ergo Sum 18:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC),

Be that as it may (I skimmed more discussions than just the one you participated in, so my point stands), right now, there seems to be 4 against you, unless you count Wikidemon's apparently grammatical concerns as support (I don't think it is, but I can't speak for them). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• 'It's beyond question that the conspiracy theories are false. However, false may not be the right word for bizarre religious beliefs, so perhaps a different word better summarizes what the sources say on this. For what it's worth, the word 'false' currently appears twice in the lede, seven times in the body of the article, and in three footnotes. I think that's overuse of the word. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

We could say they're "unrealistic," but that would probably fire up a fresh debate about what standard of reality we're using, with one side saying "objective reality" and the other side saying "there's no such thing". "Untrue" is synonymous with "false" in this sense, it might be used to replace a few if your concerns are grammatical. Honestly, there are few ways of describing a lack of truth that aren't derogatory. I mean, I usually describe such theories in my daily life as "laughable," "ridiculous," "bizarre," "hysterical" or some such adjective with more emotional weight. Mostly because they are those things. I'm okay with changing the wording around, but honestly, it's hard to do so in a way that's both accurate and appeasing to someone who takes issue with this. "Hysterical" is actually a really good adjective from a purely semantic point of view, but most people would find it way too emotionally charged. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: It's perfectly fine if you describe any claim in any way you please, so long as that remains out of the encyclopedia. WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH (and, of course, WP:NPOV) allow for the phrasing of e.g. "according to the overwhelming preponderance of authorities, the theory that Obama is the antichrist is false." They do not allow "the theory that Obama is the antichrist is false." Those are two very different phrases. One involves you or any editor interpreting a source and presenting it as truth. I have not yet heard anyone state that these are verifiable or falsifiable claims, as scientific ones would be. Therefore, you can only report what others say. Ergo Sum 02:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not rule-bound, and semantic arguments about "false" are not relevant for this question. To turn it around, how would you recommend that Wikipedia, where anyone can edit, should handle bogus claims against BLP subjects? On an equal-time basis like "source A says Obama is a muslim who supports terrorism, while source B says there is no evidence to support those assertions"? Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Certainly not. I think equal time would be a slippery slope. However, stating that the vast majority of sources say x instead of just stating x seems to be a very reasonable inconvenience. Ergo Sum 05:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The number of "false"s could be scaled back. However @ErgoSum, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are about undisputed factual topics, or at least are about subjects that are not themselves based on a whispering campaign or fake news. This is a topic that concerns a false scurrilous set of rumors about a living individual: we are bound by BLP to so state. Acroterion (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I agree. Seeing as the consensus here is to opt for practicality over (at least what I regard to be) a more accurate phrasing, I would agree with a compromise to reduce the number of "falses" without removing them entirely. I know you stated above that WP is not a forum for resolving pressing epistemic disputes. I agree and I do sympathize with the need for practical solutions. Ergo Sum 05:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(In response to this comment by Ergo Sum.)  Are you kidding me? Don't throw a link to a policy page at me unless you've damn well read it:

Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

I mean, you have a policy page that explicitly addresses this very situation and you're trying to throw it up as a reason to do the opposite of what it says? You have got to be kidding me... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: One could hardly characterize my mention of WP policies as throwing links at you. On the contrary, I think it was a quite civil direction of your attention towards them, absent any needlessly green text or righteous indignation (the same for which, unfortunately, cannot be said of your response). Though it might further irk you, I would advise you re-read WP:CIVIL. I would be perfectly happy to continue discussing the issue at hand in a civil manner. To the policy you quoted, all that would be true and applicable if the content in question were settled fact. To ensure you are not confused about what we have been discussing, I will restate that we are trying to figure out how to go about phrasing something that is fundamentally unverifiable (and, therefore, outside the purview of that policy as you construed it). Ergo Sum 06:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm ignoring the rest of your response because it's pretentious and (ironically) uncivil, beyond saying that an expression of incredulity is not generally considered uncivil by anyone except the person whose position engendered the reaction. However, I do want to respond to this: To the policy you quoted, all that would be true and applicable if the content in question were settled fact.

I see the problem here. You think there's actually some question as to whether Obama is the antichrist. Please read WP:FRINGE, then. We do not represent such fringe claims (and they are fringe claims) as facts, or even as possibilities absent any support from reliable sources. So unless you have some reliable sources which claim quite clearly that Obama is the antichrist, you've got no leg to stand on. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Would it be true, then, to say that the antichrist is somebody other than Obama? Would we characterize the assertion that Santa knows whether you have been good or bad as false? The issue here is not that we have a false assertion of fact, but that we are not in the realm of facts. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

If "the antichrist" is a real phenomenon (which is to say that there really is such a thing as the antichrist), then absent any evidence that Obama is the antichrist, and in the presence of evidence that he is not the antichrist (the sources used in the article), then it falls on us to say that he is not the antichrist in wiki voice. If "the antichrist" is not a real phenomenon, then in the absence of evidence that the antichrist exists or will exist, and in the presence of evidence that the antichrist does not exist or will not exist (the same sources), then it falls on us to say that he is not the antichrist in wiki voice. I get what you're saying: you're taking the question "is Obama the antichrist?" to be a theological question, which wikipedia does not state a position on. But it's not a purely theological question, as it references aspects of reality. As such, it is, for all intents and purposes, a scientific (or naturalistic) question, which our policy states we should take a position on. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• comment I severely trimmed the "antichrist" section per WP:SYNTH / WP:TRIVIA. Wikipedia does not have to list each and every idiot who uttered "obama is antichrist. Per WP:UNDUE/WP:TRIVIA sch factoids are encyclopedic only if they are considered in serious independent sources. Therefore I removed everything sources exclusively on primary sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• • After this trimming, it is clearly seen that the article demonstrates that every mentioned claim is false, therefore the lede correctly summarizes the article content, including the "false" issue. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Those edits look good to me for the most part. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Those edits are a much more reasonable expression of the claims made. Thank you, Staszek Lem. @MjolnirPants: your comment here was, as I understand it, a response to my initial question. For future reference, such a response would suffice in place of "incredulity," which I have no doubt you agree would be interpreted by a reasonable recipient as uncivil. (I mean this sincerely and in good faith, not as a veiled insult). As for the matter at hand, I think the current version is an adequate compromise with which I am satisfied (and it appears you are as well, but confirmation would be appreciated). Ergo Sum 19:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• User:Ergo Sum - I think you are right, the Antichrist doesn't fit in there. Looks like a clumsy edit jammed it into the middle of the line and so not quite a fit. Suggest snipping it out and making it a separate line.(See the earlier phrasing) While I think "false claims" is laying it on a bit thickly, and it could be more clear if stated in two separate sentences than one combined, I think it's more that the 'false claims' and 'promoted by' is ONLY talking about the Islamic bit. And I see the larger problem as the article currently stands as more a failure of WP:V with WP:NPOV a distant second. The article states "promoted by various fringe theorists and political opponents" and then has a Newsweek cite which has only Islam mentioned and is not saying what the article says, and then the second cite Factcheck (& re Snopes) on a 'racist christian' email (a religion myth oddly not included in article) and a separate 'radical muslim' email that again does not seem a match for the text shown. It's in the same neighborhood, but not the same as what the article says. I do see 'promoted' lower in the article, but obviously that is not said about the Antichrist email. So again, I'd suggest moving the antichrist down from "Allegations that Barack Obama secretly practices Islam,[1] or that he is the antichrist of Christian eschatology, have been suggested since he campaigned" and more appropriate to start a second para that "Other claims include that he is the antichrist..." There still seems some NPOV issues in the article talking so vaguely about who says what (is that WP:WEASEL?), but I think that would all be easier to deal with as two lines than one mash-up. Markbassett (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

First off, regarding confirmation of my satisfaction: My comment above is unambiguous. I believe your request is nothing but a pretense to continue to berate me for the offense you took at the last comment I directed at you. I ignored your pretentious lecture the last time, but since you apparently won't drop it, I'll humor you with a response just this once: If you take issue with the way I responded to you, then you should start by examining what I was responding to. My incredulous reaction to your argument was a nigh inevitable result of me assuming that you were not an ignorant person, from whom I would have fully expected arguments that rely on ignorance of the very policies cited to support it.

Perhaps you should stop taking it upon yourself to lecture your fellow editors about civility when you can't even follow the simplest, most straightforward word of advice on dealing with incivility yourself. In the future, I'd advise you to stop reading bad attitudes into the most trivial emotional expressions from other editors and limit yourself to commenting on content, not on the contributor. In case you didn't pick up on the implications of that last sentence, allow me to spell it out; accusing others of violations of WP:CIVIL can, itself be a personal attack when it is not done for the purpose of avoiding escalating tensions. Since you are, by your own admission, responding to "a much more reasonable expression" by myself with continued accusations, your comment constitutes just that. Have no fear, however, as I'm not going to continue to berate you for it.

At this point, we are done. I have no intention of responding to anything further you may say, because I see no point in trying to convince you that something you give the appearance of having an emotional investment in is wrong. So do not ping me or respond on my talk page. You can (of course) respond to your heart's content, here or wherever else you can get away with it. Go ahead, vent your spleen about what a horribly rude person I am. You have my blessings. I'm unwatching this page, so I will not respond further. For now, I am assuming that this thin-skinned reaction was the result of frustrations engendered by the extensive arguing you've done (to no avail) with other editors on this subject over the past several months, and that you will behave much more reasonably now that it finally seems to be over. But I don't care to be proven wrong on this, so kindly leave me out of it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508221219/http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1277 to http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1277

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"My mother was a m... " video

This article needs to address 0'41" on this video. If Wikipedia wants to continue being relevant among young people, it can't ignore videos and other information that young people send to each other much more than links to Snopes.com or Wikipedia. --Espoo (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? You've been here long enough to know that a non-statement in a YouTube video can't be used as a source for anything anywhere, much less used here. This demonstrates that your competence to edit here appears to be very low. (Contrary to the heading of the video, he does not claim his mother was a Muslim.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request and ...Theory?

Is the term "theory" not a bit much? A definition of the word, taken from the Wikpedia page on it, suggests that it is "a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking."

I fail to see anything rational about this idea, and others, especially when the motive behind such ideas is obvious (and distasteful).

Frankly I believe this article should only exist because a relatively large number of people wanted to believe it was true, and that it had created a stir. The content, however, is far too long. We need only say that some.. people.. have incorrectly jumped to the wrong conclusion, driven by motivations of fear and hatred. Then go on to say that Obama attends Christian churches and that he has declared himself a Christian. The other article on his citizenship is even worse in terms of length.

Please remove the citation request at the beginning of the article, dated September 2016. The article has roughly 25 paragraphs and 43 sources cited. It seems to be pretty well documented. If anyone has any problem with any content in the article, they should probably highlight it by marking the issue(s) specifically and starting a discussion here.

Also, in the lede paragraph, please change "the claims are promoted by various fringe theorists and political opponents" to "the claims have been promoted by various political extremists and opponents". The tense in the article should be consistent.

--75.177.79.101 (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Already done By BullRangifer The tense change was not done because it is appropriate. While the origin is past tense, the continuing promotion is present tense and changing to perfect tense suggests that such promotion may have stopped, which is incorrect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Obvious connection

This article doesn't mention the fact that "Barack Hussein Obama" would sound like a Muslim name to many people. It touches on the fact that his middle name is Hussein not Mohammed, but Hussein is a particularly Muslim sounding name, Obama has an unfortunate resemblence to Osama and Barack also sounds Middle Eastern (although found among Jews too).

Not a big jump for many sillier folk to make assumptions based on that.--31.84.101.248 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

John McCain

I can't remember the time and place, but John McCain was told Obama was Muslim during a Republican campaign rally by an audience member and shot it down immediately saying "That's not true." If anyone can find this ref please.

Islam and the Book of Revelation

" The Book of Revelation never mentions the Beast's age, nor does it include any references to "Muslim descent", as the religion of Islam was not founded until hundreds of years after the book was written"

The claim that the Book och Revelation does not include any metaphorical reference to Islam seems to be a rather sweeping theological judegment. The fact that Islam wasn't founded until hundreds of years later is hardly relevant, since – if you're a Christian – you'd presumably believe that the BoR was inspired by omniscient God, and that it could thus possibly include references to future events.1700-talet (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it. That is a debunking of false claims. PolitiFact picks apart each element and shows how it's just made up charges that make no sense. The Book of Revelation simply doesn't say those things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)