Talk:Dreams from My Real Father

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WP:SPA edits, then page blanked[edit]

See recent article history. I've requested protection. Yakushima (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting all of GoBeSocial's recent contributions, upon discovering that a sentence in one of that editor's contributions [1] is a WP:PLAGIARISM of the website for the film[2], as well as an egregious WP:NPOV violation (specifically, the sentence "Dreams from My Real Father is a film that weaves together the proven facts with reasoned logic in an attempt to fill-in the obvious gaps in Obama's history"). Yakushima (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE attempt[edit]

The following section from GoBeSocial's edits seems to have salvageable material. I'm preserving it here as I revert GoBeSocial's WP:NPOV+WP:PLAG vios. I haven't checked whether this material also has WP:PLAG vios.

Public Reaction
Bill Armistead, Alabama Republican Party chairman, has declared that he supports the film, stating, "That is absolutely frightening. I've seen it. I verified that it is factual, all of it. People can determine."[1][2][3]
Some believers in the Birther theory, such as Orly Taitz, disliked the film, since it claims Obama's father was an American, albeit a Communist.[4]
No plagiarism here. These are quotes and summaries. I wrote these, not GoBeSocial. Check the edit history.--Auric (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I see. Thanks, mystery solved. If there's plagiarism, it's actually GoBeSocial not crediting you for your contribution. Tsk. Yakushima (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ Talbot, George (20 September 2012). "Alabama GOP chairman recommends anti-Obama movie 'Dreams From My Real Father'". Retrieved 30 September 2012. 
  2. ^ "Now it's getting REALLY dirty: Outrageous film claiming Obama's mother once posed for pornographic pictures is sent to a MILLION swing voters". Daily Mail. 28 September 2012. Retrieved 29 September 2012. 
  3. ^ Wilkins, Brett (28 September 2012). "Obama's mom was porn star, claims DVD sent to swing-state voters". Digital Journal. Retrieved 30 September 2012. 
  4. ^ Reilly, Ryan J. (May 16, 2012). "Batty ‘Birther’ Movie Divides Conspiracy Diehards". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved 1 October 2012. 

Debunking film while avoiding Original Research[edit]

The last paragraph of the article as it appears now describes research by Loren Collins that demonstrates that the photos, claimed by Gilbert to be of Ann Dunham in 1960 actually appeared in a magazine in 1958 before Dunham moved to Hawaii where Davis lived. Collins did excellent research and documentation, but as of now it is reported only on his blog (and in his YouTube video[1]). If WP:No original research prohibits original research in a Wikipedia article, then it should prevent someone from doing original research on their blog, and that being linked by the Wikipedia as a source. That said, this information is important as a Response to the film and should be included if possible.

I think we can rely on a primary source in this instance. The guidelines for primary sources say "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Any educated person can look at a photo from the film and a photo from available reprints of Exotique magazine and see that they are identical, and any educated person could look at the magazine copyright page of 1958 and say "Photos that the film claims are of Ann Dunham taken in December of 1960 actually appeared in the magazine Exotique issue # 23 in 1958, years before the Dunham family moved to Hawaii where Frank Marshall Davis lived." And then footnote that to the Magazine, reprints of which are readily available. Kevin (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Fever Dreams From My Real Father: Joel Gilbert's Lies and Exotique's Photos of "Ann Dunham". YouTUbe. 15 October 2012.  Unknown parameter |developer= ignored (help)

Why was the addition about the "Anne" of Sex Rebel Black deemed original research and deleted? It quoted the film's claim about "Anne" and the book, and then summarized what is actually said in Sex Rebel Black, with a citation to Sex Rebel Black. All of that is verifiable. Would this problem be solved by using direct quotes and/or page references from Davis' book, or perhaps a link to the Wikileaks page that has a digital copy of the book? Lorencollins (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a problem of WP:SYN, that a position (one of rebuttal) is being advanced where it did not exist before. It would help to keep rebuttals to those that come from reliable sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
But I don't think this is WP:SYN. It's not a case of Gilbert citing Source A and the rebuttal citing a conflicting Source B. It's Gilbert's movie citing and quoting from Source A (Sex Rebel Black) with the observation of what that same Source A (Sex Rebel Black) actually says on that very subject.
For instance, what if the movie claimed that the "Ray" in Obama's memoir Dreams From My Father is actually a reference to James Earl Ray. It couldn't be pointed out that the book describes "Ray" as being a black high school classmate in Hawaii, not an infamous criminal 33 years older than Obama? It's the movie's own given source, not a competing source. Would WP:SYN require a third-party to specifically report that, no, the "Ray" described in Obama's memoir is not consistent with the assassin of Martin Luther King? Lorencollins (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but it boils down to the editor drawing a conclusion where one did not exist before. WP:SYN says, "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." To use a similar example, theoretically an editor could sit and read a history book and play armchair historian and write a section that says so-and-so epic film is historically inaccurate. We can't do that on Wikipedia. We report what is reported elsewhere. Some films will be factually disputed, but if there is lacking coverage, we cannot fill the gap with our own conclusions, however "safely" side-by-side they may be. In short, we should be referring to reliable sources that probe this film's accuracy or lack thereof. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I still maintain there is no 'B' source. There's only "Sex Rebel: Black." But if the problem is drawing conclusions or declaring something to be inaccurate, how about this instead. It draws no conclusions for the reader, and makes no direct allegations about Gilbert's claim, but simply uses direct quotes from "Sex Rebel: Black"
The film also suggests that in his memoir Sex Rebel: Black, Davis “memorialized the [sexual] encounters with [Ann Dunham].” In support of this claim, Gilbert cites excerpts from Chapter Seven of the book where Davis refers to a girl named “Anne.” In Sex Rebel: Black, Davis describes “Anne” as being "thirteen," "from Jamaica," "a niece of Dad's former landlady," and as having a racial background of "Chinese, English, Jew and West Indian Negro." (cite to SRB book, p. 72) The Chapter is also set in Chicago prior to the start of World War II. Davis further states that as World War II approached “Anne's aunt had already announced she would be returned to her family in Jamaica," and that "soon after reaching home she was knocked up by a Chinese merchant who paid her several thousand dollars to keep quiet." (cite to SRB book, p. 78) He finishes the chapter by writing "I saw [Anne] once on a crowded elevated train in 1947, but had no opportunity for more than a hurried hello... I have never seen her since." (cite to SRB book, p. 78) Ann Dunham was born in 1942. (cite to Maraniss) Lorencollins (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that we have two sources. We have the film as a source with its assertion about Sex Rebel, and we have Sex Rebel standing on its own as a source. The problem with any setup, regardless of how "'safely' side-by-side" it may be, it serves as a counter-assertion, however correct it may be. I'm not disagreeing with you that the facts don't line up. I just mean to say that in taking this approach, the editor has assumed the direct role of the refuter, rather than reporting from a source that refutes this documentary's claims. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here is a reliable source debunking Gilbert's film. Lorencollins is quoted in the article, so he has a conflict of interest adding this article. Hopefully someone here can review the article and make the appropriate edits. --Weazie (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Another article (from a reliable source) discussing Lorencollins's debunking. --Weazie (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverting GoBeSocial's edits[edit]

GoBeSocialMedia is a single-purpose account (all edits but one are to this article); the name would strongly imply that they're associated with the company "Go Be Social Media", an online marketing company which I note is located about 3 miles from Gilbert's company. Material seems to be taken directly from the marketing site from the film, so there would seem to be significant WP:COPYVIO, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:COI issues here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Be careful here. I've had to police GoBe myself (see above), but I'm not sure that all these edits should be reverted. WND is, of course, the fleabag hotel where sad-sack wingnut reporting goes to drink itself to death. And the subject of this article is manifestly a steaming pile of doo -- anybody who praises the film in any publication is either on the take or a few jokers shy of a full deck. But there's nevertheless a place in this article for positive right-wing reactions if they are quoted and contextualized properly, even where the publication itself falls woefully short of WP:RS requirements. While I'm here: proximity to Joel Gilbert's operation is hardly evidence (much less smoking-gun proof) of any WP:COI vio. Nor does the name coincidence get you very far. Yes, SoCal is full of hard-right lunatics. It's also full of liberals. Be careful what you insinuate. For all you know, Jennifer Hurless is an Obama partisan, and somebody's just using that Wikipedia handle to mess with her. Probably not. But be sure, first. Yakushima (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say, and certainly think GBSM has every right to take another crack at adding responses back. I especially agree that two people living in the same city, or on the same island, or what have you, should not be made too much of; consider it a note in passing rather than, say, fodder for a documentary. It was not the reason I reverted.
However, I started going through their last round of edits case by case and quickly came to the conclusion that it was enough off base that it was more efficient for everyone involved to hit the reset button and let them give it another try.--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, there's now quite a ding in my never-very-likely hypothesis that Jennifer Hurless is an Obama partisan who might actually be hostile to this film. The Facebook version of JH has recently liked the Facebook page for this film.[3] The self-illustration on Go Be Social Media's website strongly resembles the FB profile photo. Tsk. Now, to be fair, that same Hurless also likes this: [4]. Then again, our beloved Ann Coulter is forever flying off to LA to hang with her gay male buds -- wingnut rhetoric doesn't exclude gay-friendliness of a sort. Of course, it's possible that DfMRF is calculated to boost Obama's chances, since Republican focus group testing indicates most people find it repulsive. And FB Hurless's "likes"[5] include Obama's Dreams from My Father. However, her "likes" also include one for this film, and a "like" of Mitt Romney but not of Obama himself. Of course, Hurless as GoBeSocialMedia here has a perfect right to be editing Wikipedia. And to make newbie mistakes, as we all have. But if your job is basically "web publicist" and you're "liking" a film while editing the Wikipedia article for the film to include positive comments about it (including some plagiarized from the producers' website as I remarked in my first Talk page entry above), well, it's really adding up, isn't it? Yakushima (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
For future reference, user Sweethominy is almost certainly Joel Gilbert himself. All of his past edits involve referencing Gilbert's work across multiple pages, and he was responsible for creating and adding most of the content in the now-deleted Wiki page for Joel Gilbert. Sweethominy has also edited this page on two occasions in the past, both times removing information that was damaging to the film's credibility. Lorencollins (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, well, you can't really expect ethical behavior from people like this, right? I once complained to the editor in chief of a professional journal when I found plagiarism (of Wikipedia and another source) in an obituary he ran. He gave me a non-apology apology. When I pressed him again, he said he would take no corrective action on the grounds that "nobody cares." (Being a relative of the deceased, I was rather offended to be characterized as a "nobody".) A few years later, while editing a Wikipedia article within scope of his interests, I noticed edits by an editor of the same name. Looking onward from that editor's contributions, I found WP:PLAGIARISM. And borderline WP:SPA editing patterns. Then I found he'd constructed a whole Wikipedia biography for ... that same journal editor. (Which I PRODded into extinction, since it didn't really reach WP notability in the relevant categories.) In cases like those, where the evidence really piles up, I think one can safely argue that it's either the person himself or someone being put up to the job by that person. Pretty sad, but, short of such slam-dunk evidence, what can you do except try to WP:AGF? Yakushima (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
To add to the "amazing coincidences" file: IP editor, whose only edits (all reverted) are to this article, is located in Thousand Oaks, CA (home of Gilbert's and Hurless' companies).--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, according to, the ISP for is a provider named Road Runner. And Joel Gilbert's email address, as it happens, has a extension. Lorencollins (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
GoBeSocialMedia and both dropped by, within an hour of each other, to make favorable edits to the site. I undid's attempt to add false information about the Exotique magazine (not only was it unsourced, but the false information originated on Gilbert's own website), and clarified the specific nature of the photos in the magazine. GoBeSocialMedia has added several quotations, but I'm not sure whether they meet Wikipedia standards. JT Hatter is an pseudonymous blogger, Morgenstern has been taken out of context, and Tapson's quote doesn't even mention the film. I'm also not sure how reviews from conspiracy theorists like Cashill and Corsi should be treated. Lorencollins (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
All real problems, I agree. There's no question that this film excited some positive commentary among precisely the voices you'd expect -- including two-bit conspiracy-theory hawkers like Cashill -- but this doesn't go without saying. Whatever my problems with GoBS's editorial style, some mention of this commentary belongs in the article. The question is how. I've put it at the head of the section about responses (a debatable placement, I'll admit), but I've also trimmed the quotes and inline attribution per WP:UNDUE as I understand it. GoBS's edits were also a bit WP:QUOTEFARMish and I also addressed that problem -- though that criticism could be leveled at the rest of the section as well. The question of whether the sources were reliable (as GoBS claims in an edit summary) isn't really relevant, since quoting some wingnut gushing about how "fascinating" he found the film isn't the same as the article actually asserting that it's fascinating. I hope I haven't been too WP:SYNTH in how I glued this mess together. Yakushima (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Added "Plot Summary" a huge, padded NPOV vio[edit]

I have reproduced it here, just in case there are any verifiable facts worth including in an actual summary, not a blow-by-blow anatomization enlarded with commentary.

The film is comprised of 10 chapters. Chapter 1 begins with an Obama impersonator narrating. He starts off by saying that when one looks into his background, they'll find people who despise America and want to transform it radically. But they wonder why is this the case. Obama says that it's because his real father was Communist Frank Marshall Davis. After a brief explanation, the actual story begins. The story begins in Chicago in 1920, shortly after the October Revolution of 1917, when The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) was founded by Journalist John Reed. In 1930's Chicago, CPUSA targeted journalists for recruitment, because of their ability to spread Soviet influence and American public opinion. One of them was Obama's real father, Frank Marshall Davis, who began writing for the Chicago Star. He also wrote for all the Chicago communist publications, during his 20 years there. Because of him, he could recruit blacks into the CPUSA movement. Many of his poems were political, racist, and anti-religous. He was also the head of the Lens Camera Club, where he specialized in nude photography. He also loved Jazz, and served as a DJ for a Jazz radio station. He also had a girlfriend named Helen Canfield (card no. 62109), who was 18 years his junior. In 1944, the F.B.I. began tracking Davis, where he was placed on Security Index A, meaning he would be immediately arrested in the event of war with the Soviet Union. Davis remained under the F.B.I.'s surveillance for the next 19 years, compiling a 600-page F.B.I. file. CPUSA would later assign Davis to Honolulu, Hawaii (before it became the 50th state of America), where he began writing for the Communist newspaper, The Honolulu Record, and had a column there called "Frank-ly Speaking". Among other anti-American things, he blamed American capitalism for starting World War II. Davis helped organize the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. In 1949, they tried to take over Hawaii, but it failed after 177 days. In 1956, Davis was subpoenaed by The Senate Subcommittee on his Un-American activities. When asked about his Communist Party membership, he pleaded the fifth.
Chapter 2 talks about the early lives of Stanley Armour Dunham, and his daughter, Stanley Ann Dunham, from 1942 to 1960. Stanley, whom Obama nicknamed "Gramps", was in the U.S. army during World War II, and his daughter was named after him in case he didn't survive it (which he, in fact, did). Stanley loved European culture, and wanted to work abroad. Stanley attended Berkley University in 1945, where he needed one year of Foreign Language to qualify for a Government job overseas. The film alleges that despite what Obama said about his grandfather being a furniture salesman, he was really a spook for the C.I.A. After Berkley, Stanley signed on to Air Force Intelligence. In 1953, Stanley became a C.I.A. case officer in Lebanon, where Ann got her first taste of living in third-world countries, where she enrolled in Catholic School (College Notre Dame de Jamhour). In the fall of 1956, Stanley was assigned to Seattle to monitor CPUSA. The family joined the Unitarian Church, and Ann entered Mercer High School. In 1959, as Hawaii was about to become the 50th and final state of America, Stanley began commuting from Seattle to Hawaii every two weeks for the C.I.A. His job was to oversee African students, and recruit them as future C.I.A. contacts. One of them was a man from Kenya named Barack Hussein Obama (he pronounced his name BEER-ick). His arrival was covered in a local newspaper, where he complained about the unexpected high cost of living. For the next 9 months, until early 1960, Stanley struck up conversations with local communists, including Obama's real father, Frank Marshall Davis.
Chapter 3 talks about Ann Dunham's alleged encounter and relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, from 1960 to 1961. After Ann graduated from High School in June 1960, Ann was planning on attending the University of Washington in Seattle, along with her large group of teenage friends. She became furious when her father announced he was moving the family to Hawaii. In protest, she took only two classes at the University of Hawaii. Whites were just one quarter of the population. One day, Frank Marshall Davis visited the Dunhams at their apartment. Soon, Ann began skipping class, sneaking over to Davis' house at 2994 Kalihi Street. He read her poetry, played jazz records for her, and showed her her nude photo collection. Soon, she agreed to pose nude. Some of Ann's nude photos were allegedly taken a few weeks before Christmas 1960, when she was about five weeks pregnant with the future President Obama. The photos were sold to Men's Mail Order Catalogs. Davis also had Ann pose with other women, and was also a womanizer. The film goes on to allege that in the book Sex Rebel: Black, which Davis wrote under the pseudonym "Bob Greene", he memorialized the encounter with Ann. When the year 1961 began, Ann realized she was pregnant. When she told her father, Stanley, he yelled, until she revealed who the father was, which made him yell louder. Stanley knew it was because of his job, and that Davis had entered their home. He felt guilty as he assessed the situation. The age of consent in Hawaii back then was just 14, so no crime had occurred. But abortion was illegal and dangerous. Then Stanley realized that the F.B.I. had Davis under surveillance. If they found out the no. 1 communist on the island was his new son in law, he would lose his security clearance, and his job at the C.I.A. Stanley would later meet Davis at a bar in Waikiki. Davis told Stanley that he was married with five kids, and didn't want his wife to know. He suggested they find a substitute father to marry Ann, that would legitimize the birth. Stanley selected Barack Hussein Obama, who was under his supervision at the time. The next day, Stanley invited him to the same bar, and brought up the sham marriage. He said no, because he was already married with children in Kenya. Then he explained to him that if he marries an American citizen, he can get a work permit, and extend his visa to study for a Ph.D. He agreed under the conditions that the marriage took place away from Honolulu to hide it from his classmates, and that he bared no responsibility for the child. It was agreed that the birth certificate would state "Father Unknown". Next, Stanley had to get his daughter on board, who agreed under the condition that she enrolled at the University of Washington in Seattle. Stanley had no choice, and Ann had now won her rebellion.
Chapter 4 talks about the future President Obama's alleged childhood and teenage years from 1961 to 1979. After the semester ended in January 1961, Ann and the Kenyan Obama flew to Maui for a civil wedding. On August 4, 1961, Ann gave birth to her child. Stanley then phoned in the new baby's birth to The Hawaii Department of Health. He told them the new baby's name was "Barack Hussein Obama", and added "the second" (II) instead of "Jr.", which would have meant "son of". Again, he declared the father "unknown". In the Spring of 1963, after two years in Seattle, Ann returned to Hawaii, to be granted an uncontested divorce. She then re-enrolled at the University of Hawaii, at the C.I.A.-funded "East-West Center". It was there that she met an Indonesian man named Lolo Soetoro. In 1967, after she married him, the family moved to Indonesia. Obama went to school there for two years, under the name "Barry Soetoro", and the religion, Islam. Obama said the Muslim Call to Prayer every day. In 1971, after Ann divorced Lolo, the family returned to Hawaii, where Obama began his American education at Punahou School. The school required the appearance of the Kenyan Obama to secure the scholarship. Frank Marshall Davis, who had just been recently divorced, moved to Waikiki around this time. Stanley took Obama to spend some time with him, and Obama referred to him as "Uncle Frank". He read him poetry, and they bonded with each other. Obama felt he was witnessing some complicated, unspoken transactions between the two men. So one day, when Obama was 12-years-old, he was going through some boxes at his grandfather's place, when he found his birth certificate. When his grandfather slowly came clean about it, Obama cried and cried. He then dropped him off at Davis' place, where he tried to make light of the situation. Obama was happy to have his real father near him. He taught him the politics of Karl Marx, and the Communist manifesto. He also told him that America's corporate system was designed to benefit the rich, and keep the poor down, and that the capitalist system must be replaced with socialism. The film alleges that Davis had Obama read the master of black rage, Malcolm X. Obama soon began feeling that he was robbed of his birthright. He told Davis he wanted to change his name to Frank Marshall Davis Jr. But Davis told him that white people are more accepting of black Africans than of American blacks.
Chapter 5 talks about Obama's early political career, and his alleged association with Weather Underground, from 1979 to 1985. After Obama graduated from Punahou School in 1979, Obama moved to Los Angeles to enroll at Occidental College, which was known at the time as "The Moscow of Southern California". The film alleges that Obama arrived there as a committed revolutionary Marxist, who chose his friends carefully: Maoists, Leninists, Trotskites, and the Marxist professors. Obama spoke of a coming revolution, where the working class would overthrow the ruling class. Obama also became involved with Students for Economic Discovery, where he contacted former black panthers to speak on campus. But it was all mild-mannered to him. After two years, and despite poor grades, Obama moved to New York City, where he transferred to Columbia University. He lived at East 94 St. 339E, apt. 6A. It was there that he allegedly pursued an interest in joining The Weather Underground, and attending May 19th meetings, barely attending class in Columbia. It was during one of those meetings that Obama allegedly met weatherman Bill Ayers, and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers was the son of Commonwealth Edison Thomas Ayers. When Obama told Bill that he was a Red Diaper Baby, and who his father was, Ayers told him that father must have known of Obama's father from back in Chicago. This allegedly began Obama's 30-year-relationship with Bill Ayers and his family. Obama soon dedicated himself at courses with radical professors in Columbia. He studied political Islam with Edward Said. Another Marxist Professor was Richard Cloward, who authored The Crisis Strategy. It advocated overwhelming the welfare roles with minorities, to collapse capitalism. In the Spring of 1983, Obama and Ayers attended the Socialist Scholars Conference in Manhattan. They emphasized Community Organizing. To them, the Democratic Party could be turned sharply leftward, and forcing them to embrace socialism.
Chapter 6 talks about Obama's early years in Chicago, from 1985 to 1987. When Obama arrived in Chicago in 1985, Thomas Ayers arranged for him a community organizing job there, with a $25,000 grant from the Woods Fund. Most blacks weren't interested in Communism, because they were religious people, and rejected it, because it was atheist. He attended The Midwest Academy Training Retreats for organizers, which was founded by 60's radicals. It was really a "Community Agitator" job for Obama. They felt they should use blacks as the #1 weapon to overthrow capitalism. The Academy also preached Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. "Change" was Alinsky's codeword for Socialism. In July 1987, Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's alleged real father, died at 81. Obama allegedly attended his funeral in Hawaii. Shortly thereafter, he was quickly attracted to a substitute father figure in Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Obama joined his black church and attended his sermons every Sunday.
Chapter 7 talks about Obama's Harvard years from 1987 to 1991. After Harold Washington, the first black African-American Mayor of Chicago died, Obama was interested in became mayor of the city one day. But elected officials had something he didn't: A Law Degree. Harvard acceptance seemed impossible at first, because when Obama graduated from Columbia, he majored in Political Science, a relatively easy major without honors. Bill Ayers suggested the help of former Black Panther Don Warden. Warden, now Khalid al-Mansour, was a radical Islamist, and advisor to Saudi billionaire, Prince Al-Waleed bin-Talal, a Harvard donor, who knew Malcolm X's attorney, Percy Sutton. When Obama told Rev. Wright he was applying for Harvard to one day become Chicago Mayor, Wright said south-side blacks would still consider him an outsider, because of his white mother and Hawaiian background. He then suggested he take a "Roots Trip" to Kenya. Obama's relatives didn't even notice that he looked absolutely nothing like them. Eventually, Obama was accepted into Harvard in 1988. Editors of the Harvard Law Review were chosen based on their grades. But the position was now subject to raise considerations. Obama felt that if he could become the first black president of the Law Review, the publicity might be enough to launch a political career, even if he never wrote a word. To get elected, he used his Midwest Academy techniques: Listen to others, never reveal his positions, so they would read into him what they wanted. It worked. During his Harvard years, Obama allegedly met his future wife, Michelle Robinson, who was friends with Bernardine Dohrn, at Com Edison, where Obama allegedly had an intern position. Obama was told that Michelle was politically connected, that her father a Democratic Party Captain, and she was friends with Jesse Jackson's kids. To Obama, a black woman from the south-side would give him instant street credibility. Both Barack and Michelle already had a lot in common. When Obama married her in 1992, he allegedly called her his "bitter half".
Chapter 8 talks about Obama's return to Chicago, and his alleged association with ACORN, from 1991 to 2003. In 1992, Obama became the director of Project Vote. Obama allegedly used black panther posters for Project Vote and a big X for Malcolm X, and the registration of 150,000 blacks. It was supposed to be funded by taxpayers as "nonpartisan", but 95% would vote Democrat. Only 40% of the registrations were legitimate. Even dead voters in Chicago were counted as votes. Obama then became the training director for ACORN's front groups. For 10 years, he taught Alinsky, and class consciousness in Chicago. Then, Obama got a job at Davis Myers Law Firm, which represented the Woods Fund. On behalf of ACORN, Obama allegedly sued the state of Illinois to enforce the motor voter law. It eliminated the requirement for identification, and made it easy to register non-existant voters. 8 of the 19 September 11th hijackers also happened to be registered under motor voter. Obama also allegedly helped ACORN lay the foundations for the subprime mortgage debacle. In 1993, Bill Ayers appointed Obama as the director of the Woods Fund, and in 1995 as the chairman of the Annenberg Challenge. $50 Million was supposed to go to education, but instead, it was funded to their radical allies. Obama then lost his book deal as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, because he couldn't write. In the hopes that it would position him for a job as Mayor of Chicago, Obama had Bill Ayers write his autobiography Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. In 1996, state senator, Alice Palmer, a communist, picked Obama to replace her state senate seat. But then Alice lost in the primary, and ran for her old seat again. Obama eventually took her seat in 1997. Syrian-born Tony Rezko helped him throughout much of his state senate career from 1997 to 2005.
Chapter 9 talks about Obama's career as a U.S. senator, and plans to run for president of the country, from 2003 to 2008. In 2003, Obama was still hoping to become Mayor of Chicago, when one day, he stumbled onto a larger stage, when Thomas Ayers introduced him to David Axelrod, also known as "Ax". He was also a Red Diaper Baby, and his mother was a red journalist. But Obama had another problem: He was looking more and more like Frank Marshall Davis as he got older. If his real father's identity was discovered, his true political foundations will be revealed. Just before the campaign, Obama allegedly had a nose job to reduce its width. Obama made sure he got as much black support as possible by putting on his black preacher voice. He was also a keynote speaker for the 2004 Democratic National Convention. There, he presented his personal story as the multi-cultural ideal. During his short time in the U.S. senate, he sponsored a bill to send federal money to ACORN, and another to name a post office. After only 5 months as senator, Obama planned to run for President. Axelrod called it "The Plan". But Obama had yet another problem, when Axelrod reviewed Obama's resume and noticed a lot of references to Frank Marshall Davis. Axelrod suggested Obama's fabricated personal life story as the campaign theme. To emphasize the campaign theme, another "Roots Trip" to Kenya was arranged. Returning from Kenya, Obama suggested Hope & Change for the campaign (derived from Rev. Wright's "Audacity of Hope" sermons, and Alinsky's codeword for Socialism respectively). Also used was "Yes We Can", translated from 'Si Se Puede", Caesar Chavez' migrant workers strike. Axelrod told Obama that most leftists are attracted to the cult of personality, so his poster was designed in the same fashion as Lenin and Che Guevara. Obama allegedly based his campaign logos on that of the Weather Underground's. As a result of his new book The Audacity of Hope, the "Obama is a genius" myth was created. The genius myth is why Obama refuses to release his school grades. If the public found out, Obama would have been no one special, just another Chicago Politician swimming in corruption. All of his speeches were delivered via the teleprompter. Without it, he was lost. Whilst all this was going on, his wife Michelle was on the trail with him. She used crowd manipulation to win them over.
Chapter 10, the final chapter, talks about Obama's first four years as the 44th President of the United States in America, from 2009 to 2013, following his 2008 victory. First off, he signed the stimulus bill, written by the Apollo Alliance. Next, he centralized power. His cabinet was just a smoke screen to obscure his czars. In 2010, Obama used the BP pipeline break in the gulf, to redistribute wealth. To nationalize energy, he used green jobs, and cap and trade, and vetoed the keystone pipeline. In 2012, Obama began his reelection campaign with an attack on capitalism in Osawatomie, Kansas, home of the Weather Underground newspaper of the same name. The film ends with the Obama impersonator announcing what the film alleges are his real plans for his 2nd term from 2013 to 2017: He hopes to polarize the nation across class lines. He also hopes to turn millions of illegal aliens into U.S. citizens. Since he knows working class whites won't go along again with his plan so easily, he hopes to rely on minority groups to win reelection (i.e. African-Americans, LGBT community, Latino-Americans, Asian Americans, Government workers, Union workers, white liberals, etc.) Thanks to ACORN, he will make sure America finances a war against itself. Obama also hopes to transfer wealth from successful businesses to failing union enterprises, give taxpayer money and middle class healthcare to poor and illegals and irresponsible people, bankrupt middle class retirement, reduce America to just one lower class, where Political elites run the government and control the wealth, and by the end of it all, America will be irreversibly socialist, without ever realizing how it happened.
Obama won his second and final term on November 6, 2012, and will serve it from January 21, 2013 to January 21, 2017.

End of supposed "summary". Yakushima (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep POV out of the lead[edit]

This: "...The film's claims, which have been described as "preposterous", include that...." is blatant POV. Such phrasing does not belong in the second sentence of any article, even if the material in question is Mein Kampf.--Froglich (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • What's a better word than preposterous, then? Like claims that Abraham Lincoln was gay, the premise of the film is wholly without merit.--Milowenthasspoken 04:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." This film's main premise is preposterous, as stated by a reliable source. While the lead must also follow WP:NPOV, fringe violating WP:FRINGE doesn't belong in the lead; WP:WEIGHT promotes not bolstering a known falsehood. The lead for the Myth of the Flat Earth article (to say nothing of the title!) has no problem labeling it a "misconception." --Weazie (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Blah. Go try it with Mein Kampf. I dare you.--Froglich (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. I feel no desire that particular article, but knock yourself out. --Weazie (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm restoring the lead to include "preposterous." It was added last April, and has not caused much controversy. I think WP:FRINGE and WP:DUEWEIGHT adequately address the WP:NPOV concerns raised. --Weazie (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you think Mein Kampf is "preposterous"? Go edit its article to say so in the second sentence right now, and keep at it after several Undos -- and see just how fast the admins spam your user Talk page with red-text warnings. You're getting away with it here because this is a no-traffic article, and because I'm lazy when it comes to reporting people who aren't willing to comprehend when it's explained to them what is encyclopedic and what isn't.--Froglich (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it your obsession with Mein Kampf is, but with respect to this article, no one has agreed with your proposed change. And other editors have either expressed disapproval or reverted. Although I believe you are attempting to edit in good faith, please don't blame others for not "comprehending" your explanations. --Weazie (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
IMO, the cited Orlando Sentinel news story is a sufficiently reliable source for the claim that the film's claims have been described as preposterous. I am less convinced that the article from The Daily Beast is appropriate here as a reliable source. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the fact that stuffing it in the lead constitutes garbage encyclopaedia writing (this is the point Weazie is straining mightily to pretend he's not seeing). There's an entire section devoted to responses; put it there.--Froglich (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Please discuss it as much as necessary, here, on the article's talk page. Or if that doesn't bear fruit, take the matter to a suitable dispute resolution noticeboard page (see WP:SEEKHELP). But don't wage an edit war on the article. Edit warring (even in slow motion) is not acceptable per Wikipedia policy, even if you are convinced you are right and others are being boneheaded or disruptive. If either of you continue this back-and-forth behaviour, you both stand a good chance of being blocked for edit warring. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Everyone please be advised that I have brought up this matter on the Neutral Point of View noticeboard page (WP:NPOVN), in hopes that this dispute can be amicably resolved. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(comment copied from NPOVN) Unaware of this dispute, I just myself removed the "improbable". It is an inappropriate POV to put in wiki's voice. If the film's claims have been described as preposterous, then we should say it has been described as such, but WP:SUBJECTIVE opinions like that should be WP:ATTRIBUTED (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I restored properly attributed, reliably sourced descriptions of the film's reception to the lead. This is really, really basic stuff. The lead needs to cover all relevant aspects of the topic, including the film's reception. And since independent, reliable sources have universally lambasted this film as ridiculous, paranoid nonsense, we are obligated to share that information with the reader. To conceal or downplay it violates WP:NPOV. Gaijin42 is correct that this material should be attributed, and I've done so. MastCell Talk 00:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Im fine with the current lede changes per mastcell. The only issue I could potentially see is that as we move more material into the lede, it makes the response section somewhat redundant, but I don't think thats a problem yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, no; we wouldn't want the lede to get stuffed full of arbitrary pejorative crap, now would we? That would make the article indistinguishable from a YouTube comment thread. <eyeroll>--Froglich (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC) (UTC)

Exotique photo claim[edit]

The current fourth "Background" paragraph alleges that two of the fetish photos are from Exotique, with the following citation reference link: Kim Christy (1998). The Complete Reprint of Exotique: The First 36 Issues, 1951–1957. Taschen. ISBN 3-8228-7436-1. Which photos? (I note that the wording of the paragraph carefully avoids mentioning whether or not these particular fetish photos are of Ann Dunham, as Davis had an extensive collection.)

-- What RS is making this claim? Where did it come from?--Froglich (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag added[edit]

As it becoming obvious that a small group of contentious editors intend to continue to flagrantly violating the Manual of Style, I've affixed a Neutrality tag.--Froglich (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Froglich, the "small group" harming Wikipedia is one person; you. These liberal Alinksy-like tactics you are using to create sympathy for Barrack Obama by trying to legitimatize a vicious smear, offensive to all true conservatives, cannot be allowed. Please take some time to cool off.--Milowenthasspoken 04:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • With a topic like this, it's hard to tell what is intended as parody. The advice at WP:LABEL is good—there is no need to label someone convicted, say, of a sexual abuse crime as a "pervert". However, WP:LABEL is not intended to mislead readers—when you get completely made up nonsense described as a "documentary-style film" it is important to let the reader know that reliable sources have pointed out that the film is preposterous. Wikipedia is not an "equal time" media outlet where 50% of the article is devoted to asserting that Obama is an offspring of the devil, with the other 50% claiming the opposite. Reliable sources are available which provide correct information that is vital for an understanding of this topic, and "preposterous" is entirely suitable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Froglich: I will remind you one more time that edit-warring (including, most recently, your edits here, here, and here) is not acceptable as a way to handle a dispute on Wikipedia, even if you are convinced that your interpretation of policy is correct and everyone else is misguided or malicious. Your comments in the discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard page (see this section) raise serious questions in my mind as to whether you are prepared to take anyone else's opinions seriously on this matter. If (as appears to me to be the case) you are convinced other editors are edit-warring in defiance of policy, then please report them as quickly as possible (and I mean all of them; I count at least six editors in the last two weeks who have reverted your changes to the lead section of this article) at the Edit Warring Noticeboard page (WP:EWN) — and then please sit back and wait for uninvolved admins to deal with the mess. If you continue edit-warring by making even one more revert of this kind without giving established dispute resolution procedures a fair chance to work, then I will report you at WP:EWN (assuming someone else doesn't report or block you before I can get around to it). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I am quite disappointed that your earnest defense of quality controls at Wikipedia consists of threatening the one editor in the disputes who gives a damn about them. Say, I have an idea: let's just flush the whole bloody Manual of Style down the toilet if no administrator can bring himself to care about it, as you obviously do not. It should be trivially easy for you to objectively ascertain which edits are in accordance with MoS and RS, revert the page to a compliant edit and then lock the page pending an investigation using a suite of Twinkle tools considerably more robust than the ones I have at my disposal. But instead you come after me, both here and on my talk page, without admonishing anyone else for objectively determinable substandard behavior. Meanwhile, the article is bollocks; and the only logical conclusion I can come to is that one Richwales prefers it looking like bollocks. (I am discounting the possibility that you're merely lazy, as you have gone out of your way to stick your nose into the mess.)--Froglich (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
No one is dismissing the Manual of Style. It's just that no one agrees with your rather odd interpretation of it. To the extent that people are "coming after" you, it's probably because you're relentlessly combative, you continually restate your claims while refusing to listen to anyone else, you accuse everyone who disagrees with you (i.e. everyone) of malice and conspiracy, and you edit-war to try to force your preferred text into the article despite its universal lack of support. The fact that people are getting a little frustrated with you can't come as a total surprise. MastCell Talk 22:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Use of descriptor "leftist," cited to opinion piece in PJ Media, used to describe film reviewer[edit]

There is a clear consensus against using the word "leftist" to describe Michelle Goldberg in the text. Editors considered the inclusion of the word leftist to be undue weight and determined that the source used to verify the descriptor is an advocacy media outlet that does not meet Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources in this case.

Cunard (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: Should the word "leftist," cited to a 2011 opinion piece by Ron Radosh in PJ Media, be used to describe Michelle Goldberg in the following text?

At The Daily Beast, the "leftist"[1] commentator Michelle Goldberg wrote ...


  1. ^ Radosh, Ron (July 29, 2011). "Michelle Goldberg’s Jewish Problem, and Ours". PJ Media. Retrieved September 2, 2014. 

Neutralitytalk 20:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


  • Exclude. This material is improper for several reasons:
    • First, it's irrelevant to the article subject: the Radosh op-ed piece/blog post predates the film and does not mention it. It is stuck in this article (in WP:COATRACK fashion) to describe Goldberg for no apparent reason.
    • Second, inclusion plainly violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS. No other reviewer quoted in the "reception" section is described along political lines like this. More importantly, we obviously cannot describe Goldberg as "leftist" in our own voice, when in fact that descriptor is the opinion of Radosh. Even if we were to include it, in-text attribution (not merely a citation) would be required. Moreover, note that Goldberg self identifies as a liberal, not a leftist, and indeed has explicitly criticized portions of the left (see here).
    • Third, WP:WEIGHT is implicated here. There is no indication that Radosh's opinions about Goldberg are important enough to include even in the Goldberg article or the Radosh article — let alone in a completely tangential article about this movie. Neutralitytalk 20:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude, mainly for the fact that the source does not touch upon the subject of this article. WP:COATRACK describes quite clearly what is going on here. This discussion should be taking place on the talk page of Goldberg's biography, if anywhere. FNAS (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. It's fascinating that COATRACK is cited to object to the political descriptive applied to the political commentator (Goldberg) -- a practice which is certainly and ubiquitously "time-honored tradition" elsewhere, OTHERSTUFF be dratted and darned, within the encyclopedia (I doubt any of you here would argue that "conservative" and even "right-wing" do not make regular appearances) -- when a good 50% of this article's length is devoted to coatracking. Hypocrisy much? ...I say: what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
WEIGHT: If Goldberg is notable enough for her opinion to have value, then an appraisal of her slant from a notable personage is also of value. Frankly, she's considerably less notable than Radosh is in every possible respect.--Froglich (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude, when I first saw the entry (I've been following this page for a long time), I instinctively thought it was wrong, POV, not encyclopedic, weasel, etc. I'm sure we can dig up more articles debunking The Daily Beast. Readers can check out The Beast's WP entry to see what it is and I'm very open-minded about who Obama's real father is, I read the entire website. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude per Neutrality's statement. Editors should not attach labels to sources—if the article labels Michelle Goldberg, what label should be attached to Ron Radosh (the source for "leftist")? What label would be appropriate for Joel Gilbert? Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Radosh is an ex-communist.--Froglich (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude the label. If this label is pertinent, it belongs in the article about Michelle Goldberg, not here. If she is commonly enough described as leftist for her role in the society to be defined as a "leftist political commentator", shouldn't we find better sources for that than a website we need to ask about on the RS noticeboard? If we cannot do that, then the NPOV thing to include this content is to write something along the lines of "Michelle Goldberg, a political commentator for Daily Beast described as "leftist"[1] by PJ Media..." or "...described as "leftist"[1] by Ron Radosh...", which to me seems WP:UNDUE weight in an article neither about Michelle Goldberg, nor about PJ Media and Ron Radosh. DaßWölf 18:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Just to clarify, I'm not familiar with this subject and have no stance on whether Goldberg's opinion should be included in this article or not. DaßWölf 18:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude for the reasons stated above. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" is deliberately ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFF (improve poorly written articles; don't use them to justify more poorly written articles). --Weazie (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - for reasons already outlined, from unreliability of source to the misuse of WP:OTHERSTUFF to justify worsening Wikipedia; and as an obvious BLP violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Has he been described as a "leftist" in RS other than on opinion piece? If so, we should keep. Meatsgains (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No It's a given that leftists are inclined to attack this subject and rightists are inclined to defend it. If the author is a reliable source her opinion can be cited as is; "contextualizing" said opinion with another writer's opinion of her is definitely inappropriate. We have an article on her, and if the view that she is a "leftist" is notable, it should be included there, not here. I also think that WP:SCAREQUOTES are never appropriate: here, it looks like they are being used because editors are uncomfortable writing the word in Wikipedia's voice, and want to attribute it to some random cherry-picked source that happens to describe her that way. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No. It's a pointless, biased, and American-centric exercise to tag all the people and publications in the world according to whether they are left, right, or center when describing their actions in the context of politics. If anybody wants to know more about them they can follow the link to their own article. Only in a few cases, where their political leanings or affiliations are sourced as being relevant to the issue at hand would we describe people in that way. That holds across the encyclopedia, not just here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Inappropriate to use qualifier of Goldberg by another journalist in her review of this film. Describe her in her own article with cited RS, if desired.Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude Inclusion of "leftist" (preferably substituted with the neutral phrase "left-leaning") to help describe or identify someone is not necessarily problematic, but it would need to be sourced to a RS. PJ Media is an advocacy media outlet and is no more a RS to support that descriptor than ThinkProgress would be to assign the descriptor "right-wing" to someone. LavaBaron (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude For reasons given by others and because the description is wholly unnecessary for context here.Pincrete (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add pics of Obama and Frank Davis to the article[edit]

The main point/evidence for this article are pics of Davis and Obama (as well as scandalous pics allegedly of Obama's mother taken by Davis), can we post pics of Obama and Davis side-by-side? Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Why? To some people, all skinny black guys are going to look the same. Why this Davis, and not Sammy Davis, Jr.? B. Obama, Sr.? M. L. King, Sr.? Jesse Jackson Sr.? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Obama and Frank Marshall Davis side-by-side. Article also needs a DVD cover pic.--Froglich (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I added the pics and made a side-by-side of all three of them (including Obama Senior but the latter pic, which I flipped and cropped to size of the others is not very good so I haven't uploaded it to WP. Copyleft pics of Obama Senior are not available and I haven't been too successful uploading pics under without a solid, clear license. Obama Senior is not mentioned in this article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded the DVD cover. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I fixed a minor error in the Wikimedia summary of the DVD cover pic, so that should be solid. Could you try again (or the first time) with the side-by-side that I linked above? It would seem most relevant to the gist of the article than "standing alone" imagery. (That pic was created by me as a meld/alteration of three side-by-sides by Gilbert, of what I assume are all originally fair-use photos of public personages.)--Froglich (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, just got to this nonsense. Shut it down, please. Self-made images purporting to show a connection between a BLP subject and someone else are not the subject of this encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Review WP:IDLI. -- A notable person (Gilbert) has made a (or more correctly buttressed an existing) allegation notably (the film), covered in notable reliable sources, regarding two PUBLICLY (for which BLP is quite lenient) notable figures (Obama and Davis), and he has on his side of things the notable half-brother (Malik Obama, who was the best man at Obama's wedding) of one of those persons involved. You, on the other hand, are not notable, and your opinion that it's nonsense (or propaganda, as you asserted over on the Davis TP) is not going to get the article "shut down".--Froglich (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
That completely misunderstands Wikidemon's point which is that editors cannot provide original research by picking a couple of pictures in order for readers to "draw their own conclusions", as that form of journalism is known. Also, being notable does not say anything about being reliable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Also: Obama's and Davis' images are already on the DVD cover; no need to display them twice. --Weazie (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
All three of the side-by-sides are Gilbert's; I just stacked them vertically. Nothing was an editor's "original". --Froglich (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Can't use those pics, they have copyrights, especially the ones of Obama Senior. I'm satisfied with the pics on the DVD Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Can the encyclopedia not employ the same fair-use rationale that Gilbert did (whatever it was)?--Froglich (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources removed[edit]

FrontPageMag and AIM are not acceptable reliable sources for the purposes of claims about living people, as neither has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy or editorial controls. We have no need of including further discussion of absurd fringe conspiracy theories here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to support that by pointing to an administration ruling in each of those three cases. Otherwise, bollocks, and j'accuse vandalism. This very article concerns the very "absurd fringe conspiracy theory" in question, rendered notable enough for the article to exist (and hence defense of which is unnecessary, and where the subject is of course appropriately on-topic), and you've removed three RS, including a primary audio interview with the half-brother of the President of the United States, who is most certainly a reliable source for his own thoughts. Refs involved:[1][2][3]--Froglich (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The sources seem reliable enough and if you look at the website for the DVD, you will see (in the upper-right corner) a video of Malik being interviewed by Gilbert. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
There are some other sources that note that Malik Obama has flirted with the FMDavis paternity theory *[4] *[5] These two seem reliable enough, giuven that it's not contentious that Malik Obama actually said this stuff. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The reliability of FPM and AIM aside, also notes that Malik Obama was interviewed for the movie; this fact seems undisputed. The real issue, I think, is WP:WEIGHT (and WP:FRINGE), i.e., why is the opinion of Barack Obama's estranged half-brother relevant? In any event, Malik Obama's opinion does not belong in the "reception" section. --Weazie (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe not in 'reception', but Malik was interviewed in the film, so this should be mentioned.[6]
Sorry, misread, Obama kinda endorsed the theory when he gave an interview to Gilbert afterwards, but not actually in the film itself. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I think a very short summary of the DVD should be posted, see the l-o-n-g summary, above. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE suggests otherwise. --Weazie (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Have you even read that, Weazie? It has nothing to do with this. WP:FRINGE is all about the avoidance of promoting pseudoscience and other scientifically proven-wrong nostrums; it has absolutely nothing to do with political shenanigans and skullduggery -- even ones that are otherwise "conspiracy theories", for example those involving the JFK assassination. Certainly you're not suggesting that dozens of Wikipedia articles be scoured of any references to JFK nuttiness...?--Froglich (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not bother having a rule for every situation. Instead, it is the principle that counts, and WP:FRINGE counts here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
No it doesn't -- and I had just cited an analogous example of why that position is ludicrous. You are essentially arguing that a JFK assassination theory article could not discuss itself. --Froglich (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
"WP:FRINGE is all about the avoidance of promoting pseudoscience and other scientifically proven-wrong nostrums." WP:FRINGE is not only about "science"; it is about facts. This article acknowledges the fact that Gilbert's films exists, just as other articles acknowledge the existence of other conspiracy theories. Wikipedia, however, need not (and cannot) promote this film's falsehoods by giving them weight where none is due. --Weazie (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
What is your evidence they are false. -- You cannot proceed from the assumption they are automatically false because they haven't been proven to some nebulous standard of moving-goalposts always receding into the distance. What is your requirement? Will it all be "false" until there's a DNA test? Or a politically-tainted body "investigates"/whitewashes? -- What Gilbert DOES have is a massive preponderance of circumstantial evidence (and that sort of thing is often well and good enough to send perps up for murder). "Frank" gets 2,500 words in the Barrack's book, while in his personal papers his ostensible Kenyan father doesn't write a thing about, or to, his ostensible son over the course of decades. The right people were together at the right time, and the kid is the spitting image of one man while looking nothing like the other. As for Malik (separate issue, but tied), he has more than abundant notability for his own Wikipedia article.[6][7]--Froglich (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:RS; cheers. --Weazie (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Gilbert, Joel (April 22, 2015). "Malik Obama interviewed by Director Joel Gilbert (Dreams from My Real Father)". YouTube. Retrieved October 27, 2016. 
  2. ^ Kincaid, Cliff (May 4, 2015). "Dreams from Obama’s Different Fathers". Accuracy in Media. Retrieved October 27, 2016. 
  3. ^ Billingsley, Lloyd (October 24, 2016). "Malik Obama is Voting for Trump". FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved October 27, 2016. 
  4. ^ Stockman, Farah (24 July 2015). "With brothers like Malik Obama, who needs enemies? - The Boston Globe". Boston Globe. Retrieved 27 October 2016. 
  5. ^ Lind, Dara. "Why Donald Trump is bringing Barack Obama’s half-brother to the debate". Vox. Retrieved 27 October 2016. 
  6. ^ Mercimer, Stephanie (19 October 2016). "Trump overlooked one small detail when he invited Obama’s half brother to the debate". Mother Jones. Retrieved 27 October 2016. 

Editing to be more accurate[edit]

In the Slate article cited, the chairman of the Alabama Republican Party did not endorse the film, so I deleted that section of the sentence in this article. Neither the cited sources in the Lead, nor the article on Frank Marshall Davis have supporting material for saying he was a member of the USA Communist Party, so I deleted that from the Lead of this article. The cited Stratton article in the Orlando Sentinel said only that Davis was "investigated for ties to the Communist Party" (note: remember that this was a time when there were widescale investigations of activists for such purported ties), not that he was a member. The cited Goldberg article in Daily Beast referred to Davis as a labor activist. Parkwells (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources readily available on Google linking Davis to the CP, to include these few from the page of search-returns:[8][9][10]

"...Frank Marshall Davis was a literal, card-carrying member of Communist Party USA (CPUSA). His card number was 47544. He was pro-Soviet, pro–Red China. He edited and wrote for Party-line publications such as the Chicago Star and the Honolulu Record..."[11]

Davis was also a member of the Dorie Miller Club and Carver Second Ward West, both communist fronts. He was vice-chairman of the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee and director of Civil Rights Congress, both communist fronts. He co-counded the Chicago Star, an openly Stalinist, pro-communist newspaper.[12]
The FBI file contained a purported membership number for Davis, but contains neither proof nor documentary evidence for this claim - it was sourced merely to "a highly confidential source." Other biographers say that, at most, he briefly worked with groups related to the Communist Party, per this Washington Post article. Your links to The American Spectator and Discover the Networks are links to highly-opinionated, partisan right-wing sources which, at best, can support text that those organizations claim Davis was a member of the Communist Party, not a factual statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
More arguing from topic banned user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As if Michelle Goldberg weren't a highly-opinionated, partisan leftist? Give me a break. The double-standards here are appalling.--Froglich (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof on this. Some of those sources certainly don't meet the reliability guidelines. I think it might be an improvement to say something like "was believed by the FBI to be a member of communist organisations" or something of that order, to avoid construing speculation as fact. R. A. Simmons Talk 17:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
So he's a member or creator of over half-a-dozen front groups and a propaganda paper, but you're going to coddle him nonetheless. (This place is just a laughingstock now. Pravdapedia.)--Froglich (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I have no stake in this discussion and, frankly, have no idea who this guy is. However, from my review of the sources on this guy, there doesn't seem to be much reliable evidence supporting what you're saying. Yes, he definitely had ties to communist groups, but he wasn't a communist himself, as far as I can tell. Please, assume good faith and don't assume that everyone disagreeing with you on this has an agenda. If you can provide reliable sources demonstrating that what you say is the case, then that information could be included in Frank Marshall Davis as well as this article. I just want this encyclopedia to convey the facts accurately. R. A. Simmons Talk 17:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: Froglich is topic banned from this page. Normally I'd remove his posts, but since Rasimmons has responded, I'll just hat them. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

Preventing the inclusion of Malik Obama - Is Wikipedia a blatant propaganda ministry now?[edit]

I bluntly inquire -- because I have just been threatened with being blocked for doing[13],[14] what I was previously pilloried and blocked for not doing (responding to a personal-attack-ridden BLP noticeboard report in which the accuser maintained that the Malik material must be removed for WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE reasons -- he never actually made a case, and now I am prevented from doing so).--Froglich (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The BLP noticeboard post was in regards to the article on Frank Marshall Davis, so I'm not sure why you brought it up here. The inclusion of Malik Obama on this article is a separate issue that has to do with the reliability of sources (as mentioned above). clpo13(talk) 18:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The material in question was the same (with the same refs) in both instances. The discussion about it is best resolved here since the other pages are "downstream" topic-wise given that it is this article's subject which confers notability.--Froglich (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Lede Language[edit]

The final sentence of the lede, "Reviews of the film were generally negative, noting that Gilbert had not proved any of his allegations and that what was described as a 'pseudo-documentary' reached a new low in bad taste." seems a bit biased, regardless of your position on the topic. Could it be changed to something more neutral so as to say that the film was "seen as being in bad taste" rather than "reached a new low in bad taste"? It just seems a bit heavy-handed for an encyclopedia speaking in its own voice. R. A. Simmons Talk 21:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I made an edit to reflect that "bad taste" is a quote from a reviewer. I deleted the "reached a new low" because, although an accurate summary of the review, is unduly complicated if in Wikipedia's voice; "bad taste" by itself sufficiently conveys the tone of the reviews. --Weazie (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Weazie. That's probably what I would have done, too. Looks a lot better to me. R. A. Simmons Talk 22:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)