![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period March 2010 – December 2010. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? |
” |
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)
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)
Hello SummerPhD, 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)
← 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)
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)
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)
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)
He's banned indefinitely, shall we archive or just delete this craziness? Dougweller ( talk) 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"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)
"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)
Done. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)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.)
Red links are encouraged for likely articles. Victor Victoria ( talk) 13:56, 3 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)
The correct spelling is Qur'an. Koran redirects to Qur'an. Victor Victoria ( talk) 13:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Regarding the other proposed changes: [7]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Poll: 1 In 5 Americans Believe Obama Is A Cactus, according to TheOnion.Com... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is are there no example of this theory being Satired? The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 21:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period March 2010 – December 2010. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? |
” |
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)
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)
Hello SummerPhD, 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)
← 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)
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)
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)
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)
He's banned indefinitely, shall we archive or just delete this craziness? Dougweller ( talk) 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"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)
"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)
Done. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)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.)
Red links are encouraged for likely articles. Victor Victoria ( talk) 13:56, 3 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)
The correct spelling is Qur'an. Koran redirects to Qur'an. Victor Victoria ( talk) 13:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Regarding the other proposed changes: [7]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Poll: 1 In 5 Americans Believe Obama Is A Cactus, according to TheOnion.Com... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is are there no example of this theory being Satired? The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 21:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)