Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant.
For example, the current paragraph on Obama's religion contains no mention of Wright, even though Obama's association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign.
That paragraph states: "Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand 'the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.' He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades."
Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant.
WND monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers' name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:
"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge."
Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding "Point of View junk edits," even though the addition was well-established fact.
The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, "Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. ... After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession."
The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was "favorably treated due to his father's political standing" during his National Guard service." It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.
Those issues are on wiki, given their own pages. If you go into history and talk you'll see that separate pages were necessary because of the length of the article, and that the person banned had received many warnings for abusive behaviour toward other members and administration, trolling, setting up sock-puppet accounts, etc. And the links to the pages about controversies are at the bottom of the main bio page.
Those issues are on wiki, given their own pages. If you go into history and talk you'll see that separate pages were necessary because of the length of the article, and that the person banned had received many warnings for abusive behaviour toward other members and administration, trolling, setting up sock-puppet accounts, etc. And the links to the pages about controversies are at the bottom of the main bio page.
Don't bother them with the facts.
They believe in the Great Wikipedia Conspiracy.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114WorldNetDaily said:Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.
He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.[198][199] Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.[200]
WorldNetDaily said:The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, "Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. ... After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession."
The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was "favorably treated due to his father's political standing" during his National Guard service." It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W_BushCritics allege that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot and his irregular attendance
Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple episodes of alcohol abuse.[29] In one instance, on September 4, 1976, he was arrested near his family's summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine for driving under the influence of alcohol. He pleaded guilty, was fined $150 and had his Maine driver's license suspended until 1978.[30]
Those issues are on wiki, given their own pages. If you go into history and talk you'll see that separate pages were necessary because of the length of the article, and that the person banned had received many warnings for abusive behaviour toward other members and administration, trolling, setting up sock-puppet accounts, etc. And the links to the pages about controversies are at the bottom of the main bio page.
Don't bother them with the facts.
They believe in the Great Wikipedia Conspiracy.
Facts? You mean the FACTS that Bush's entry is FULL of unsupported, unproven comments and claims while a FACTUAL and truthful STATEMENT was deleted from Obama's? Those facts?
Don't bother them with the facts.
They believe in the Great Wikipedia Conspiracy.
Facts? You mean the FACTS that Bush's entry is FULL of unsupported, unproven comments and claims while a FACTUAL and truthful STATEMENT was deleted from Obama's? Those facts?
Example please. I didn't see many uncited assertions.