Talk:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories

References

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Recent changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claims that Obama secretly practices Judaism

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

This section is problematic for several reasons:

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

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

The Easter bunny image

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

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

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

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

RE: restored paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of links

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

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

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

Barack Obama Pandeism charge

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

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

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

”

Claims that Obama is the Antichrist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For memory, I just sent this to your page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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