View Full Version : Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility, Ayers, and Weight for Obama Bio
red states rule
03-09-2009, 06:38 AM
Looks like the Fairness Doctrine is coming to the internet
Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.
A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. 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.
Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114
5stringJeff
03-09-2009, 05:42 PM
Hooray for free speech!!! [/sarcasm]
red states rule
03-10-2009, 07:13 AM
Hooray for free speech!!! [/sarcasm]
Revisionist history was always been a trademark of liberalism
Psychoblues
03-10-2009, 07:16 AM
Just how long are you and your revisionist republican coharts going to whine about this silly shit, srs?!?!?!?!??!?!
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
red states rule
03-10-2009, 07:19 AM
Just how long are you and your revisionist republican coharts going to whine about this silly shit, srs?!?!?!?!??!?!
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
So scrubing the facts about Obama, and banning anyone who posts those facts, is silly shit?
Psychoblues
03-10-2009, 07:28 AM
No facts have been scrubed, dumbo.
So scrubing the facts about Obama, and banning anyone who posts those facts, is silly shit?
And how long are you going to whine about your delusions?!??!?!?!?!?!? There is help for you, srs, but you need to talk to your doctor about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
red states rule
03-10-2009, 07:31 AM
No facts have been scrubed, dumbo.
And how long are you going to whine about your delusions?!??!?!?!?!?!? There is help for you, srs, but you need to talk to your doctor about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
from the OP
Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.
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.
Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
Psychoblues
03-10-2009, 07:35 AM
I've had to clean out my desk a few times, srs. It's surprising what I find in there that was so significant at the time but so wrong in the aftermath!!!!!!!!!!
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
red states rule
03-10-2009, 07:37 AM
I've had to clean out my desk a few times, srs. It's surprising what I find in there that was so significant at the time but so wrong in the aftermath!!!!!!!!!!
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
This is testament to what I say about liberals. They always fight against the obvious.
Psychoblues
03-10-2009, 07:41 AM
Are you focusing on the bullshit or the facts, srs?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!
This is testament to what I say about liberals. They always fight against the obvious.
If history is any indication I would presume that your attention is more closely attributed to the bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Smell this: :pee: srs
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
red states rule
03-10-2009, 07:46 AM
Are you focusing on the bullshit or the facts, srs?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!
If history is any indication I would presume that your attention is more closely attributed to the bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Smell this: :pee: srs
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama
There will be nothing posted about Obama's friends and failures PB. The Fairness Doctrine is being used to silence any dissenting voices, or Obama's freindships with Ayers and Wright
At the top of the Obama page:
This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.
This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.
Psychoblues
03-10-2009, 07:51 AM
Just what Fairness Doctrine are you referencing, srs?!?!?!!?!??!?! I know of no such doctrine!!!!!!!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama
There will be nothing posted about Obama's friends and failures PB. The Fairness Doctrine is being used to silence any dissenting voices, or Obama's freindships with Ayers and Wright
At the top of the Obama page:
This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.
This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.
Have you tried a laxative?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! It might help you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
Wikipedia can edit themselves at will, I don't agree with it, but they have the right to, so what's the problem?
red states rule
03-10-2009, 07:57 AM
Wikipedia can edit themselves at will, I don't agree with it, but they have the right to, so what's the problem?
They are ignoring facts about Obama, and his friends. They are puttting a happy face on Obama
They are ignoring facts about Obama, and his friends. They are puttting a happy face on Obama
Whether they are of are not is of no matter, they can say whatever they want about whoever they want and not say what they want also. It is their right too, while I may not agree with it, that makes no difference.
Psychoblues
03-10-2009, 08:04 AM
Wikipedia is constantly being updated and edited by anyone registered there and with an ability to type and otherwise communicate in a credible manner.
Wikipedia can edit themselves at will, I don't agree with it, but they have the right to, so what's the problem?
The whining about corrections is pretty much useless and, well ,whining. If additional information from the whiner, in this case, would be posted and not immediately debunked by the population there I would suggest the foundation is secure.
Considering the history of the whiner in this case I would suggest only a casual overview and a quick if not immediate discounting of the opinions presented.
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
red states rule
03-10-2009, 08:04 AM
Whether they are of are not is of no matter, they can say whatever they want about whoever they want and not say what they want also. It is their right too, while I may not agree with it, that makes no difference.
Yep, as long as they do that with a liberal
Question. Why should "Obama controversy" be a separate page from Obama?
You think because maybe they are trying to keep those looking up Obama from reading it, but they have a separate page elsewhere to cover their ass?
Psychoblues
03-10-2009, 08:12 AM
:lol:
:laugh2::lame2::laugh2:
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
red states rule
03-10-2009, 08:15 AM
The article is indeed worthless, but it does reflect how Obama was packaged by the media.
The average person has no idea who Obama really is, and this censored entry reflects that well.
Yep, as long as they do that with a liberal
Question. Why should "Obama controversy" be a separate page from Obama?
You think because maybe they are trying to keep those looking up Obama from reading it, but they have a separate page elsewhere to cover their ass?
They can do it with whoever they want, for example GW Bushs page is locked from all editing.
It should be on a seperate page because an admin has decided it should go on a seperate page, which is their prerogative.
Why do they have 2 seperate pages for bill clintons preisential inaugurations in 93 and 97? And more to the point, who cares? The owners and mods of the site can do as they please, if they really wanted they could proclaim McCain the winner and 44th president,
Psychoblues
03-10-2009, 08:20 AM
your neg rep received, srs. I will not return the ignorance.
The article is indeed worthless, but it does reflect how Obama was packaged by the media.
The average person has no idea who Obama really is, and this censored entry reflects that well.
If debate is your interest I suggest you adhere to common sense and respect. You indicate a satisfaction with shitheadedness and stupidity. Good luck with that, cowgirl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
red states rule
03-10-2009, 08:26 AM
They can do it with whoever they want, for example GW Bushs page is locked from all editing.
It should be on a seperate page because an admin has decided it should go on a seperate page, which is their prerogative.
Why do they have 2 seperate pages for bill clintons preisential inaugurations in 93 and 97? And more to the point, who cares? The owners and mods of the site can do as they please, if they really wanted they could proclaim McCain the winner and 44th president,
Bush's criticism started off as part of his main page, and was moved to a separate page when it got too large.
Obama's page doesn't have ANY criticism.
And if you attempt to add any, you'll get banned.
Are you saying you cant grasp that simple concept?
Psychoblues
03-10-2009, 08:28 AM
You are a liar, srs.
Bush's criticism started off as part of his main page, and was moved to a separate page when it got too large.
Obama's page doesn't have ANY criticism.
And if you attempt to add any, you'll get banned.
Are you saying you cant grasp that simple concept?
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues
Bush's criticism started off as part of his main page, and was moved to a separate page when it got too large.
Obama's page doesn't have ANY criticism.
And if you attempt to add any, you'll get banned.
Are you saying you cant grasp that simple concept?
Yes I can grasp the concept
And to a degree I concur, however,
It is there site and they can do whatever they want with it, edit articals, ban users, lock pages ect. It is their right and they can use it as they please.
red states rule
03-10-2009, 08:49 AM
Yes I can grasp the concept
And to a degree I concur, however,
It is there site and they can do whatever they want with it, edit articals, ban users, lock pages ect. It is their right and they can use it as they please.
Yeah, no liberal bias there.
It's all in our minds
Yeah, no liberal bias there.
It's all in our minds
What I am saying very simply is that it does not matter of there is bias or if it reports complete lies ect ect, the admins have the power and the right to add or remove basicly anything.
If you do t like it don't go onto the site, but there is no point in yapping about it.
red states rule
03-10-2009, 09:21 AM
What I am saying very simply is that it does not matter of there is bias or if it reports complete lies ect ect, the admins have the power and the right to add or remove basicly anything.
If you do t like it don't go onto the site, but there is no point in yapping about it.
Oh yes Noir, as long as they are giving glowing coverage to the messiah - all is right in the world
wow just look at all this censorship... wki has been scrubbed clean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Ayers_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy
Nukeman
03-10-2009, 09:32 AM
What I am saying very simply is that it does not matter of there is bias or if it reports complete lies ect ect, the admins have the power and the right to add or remove basicly anything.
If you do t like it don't go onto the site, but there is no point in yapping about it.This is all true "providing" it is not being directed by an external force.....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.