Wikipedia’s article “Presidency of Barack Obama” is a puff piece which ignores many critical issues.

Wikipedia’s article “Presidency of Barack Obama” is a puff piece which ignores many critical issues. These issues have been added to the article multiple times, but they always get erased. Editors who continue to add these things to the article get accused of “edit warring,” and if they continue to put the information into the article, they get blocked from editing for 24 hours. If they continue adding the information after their 24 hour block expires, they get blocked for a week, then they get topic banned from editing any Obama related articles for three months, and then they get banned, permanently, from editing any of wikipedia. If they then create a new account, they get accused of “sock puppeting,” and the new account gets permanently banned.

Because of this repeated and persistent censorship, the article is a puff piece which ignores many critical issues.

For example, the article has a section called “Transparency” which states:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires all recipients of the funds provided by the act to publish a plan for using the funds, along with purpose, cost, rationale, net job creation, and contact information about the plan to a website Recovery.gov

I’m not complainingg about the inclusion of that information. That info deserves to be in the article, and I’m glad it’s there.

What I am complaining about, however, is the deletion of the following from the article:

Although Obama had promised that the website recovery.gov would list all stimulus spending in detail, a 400 page report issued by the Government Accountability Office stated that only 25% of the projects listed on the website provided clear and complete information regarding their cost, schedule, purpose, location and status.

By including that first past, while erasing that second part, wikipedia gives readers the false impression that the recovery.gov website contains the information that it is required by law to contain.

Here are twelve other things that have been erased from the “Transparency” section:

In April 2009, antiwar activists who helped elect Obama accused him of using the same “off the books” funding as his predecessor George W. Bush when Obama requested an additional $83.4 billion from Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – a provision which Obama had voted against when he was a Senator.

In May 2010, it was reported that the Obama administration had selected KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, just hours after the Justice Department had said it would pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work.

In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was “confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.” A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here.

In December 2010, Transparency International reported that corruption was increasing faster in the U.S. than anywhere else except Cuba, Dominica, and Burkina Faso.

In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas criticized the Obama administration for its lack of transparency.

In January 2012, Obama violated the Constitution by making four recess appointments when Congress was not in recess. Recess appointments themselves are constitutional, but only if they are made when Congress is actually in recess.

In March 2012, when Obama was talking to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and did not know that the microphone was turned on, Obama stated, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space… This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

The Obama administration demanded that the Goldwater Institute pay $78,935.80 before it would share public records which it had requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Attorney Generals from nine states issued a report, titled “A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law,” which cited 21 illegal acts which had been committed by the Obama administration.

Although Obama stated that all of the green energy companies that received taxpayer money were chosen “based solely on their merits,” the truth is that 71% of these grants and loans went to Obama donors and fundraisers, who raised $457,834 for his campaign, and were later approved for grants and loans totaling more than $11 billion.

By November 2011, the Energy Department’s inspector general had begun more than 100 criminal investigations related to Obama’s stimulus.

In April 2012, Obama nominated Timothy Broas, who had “bundled” more than $500,000 for Obama’s 2012 campaign, to be U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands.

By erasing those things, the article gives readers the false impression that Obama’s administration is transparent.

The article also contains a section called “Wall Street reform” which states:

Obama signed Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, considered to be the largest financial system overhaul since the New Deal.

However, the following three paragraphs have been erased from that section:

Although Obama claims to support the Occupy Wall St. movement, the truth is that he has raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the last 20 years. In addition, while Senator, Obama voted for the $700 billion TARP Wall St. bailout bill. In October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry.

Although Obama had promised to prosecute Wall St. criminals, as of May 2012, the Obama administration had not filed any criminal charges against any of the top financial executives.

In early 2012, Obama held a fundraiser where Wall St. investment bankers and hedge fund managers each paid $35,800 to attend.

By erasing that information, the article gives readers the false impression that Obama is against the cozy relationship between Wall St. and government.

The same section of the article states:

On July 21, 2010, Obama proclaimed, “There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts. Period.”

However, the following was erased from the article:

In March 2012, Obama announced a new set of bailouts for speculators who had caused the housing bubble.

By including that first part while erasing the second part, the article falsely implies that Obama kept his promise of “no more bailouts.”

The article has a section called “Notable non-Cabinet positions.”

But the following three paragraphs have been erased from that section:

In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama’s dozens of czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) expressed a similar concern in September 2009.

In September 2009, Obama’s green czar Van Jones resigned after it was reported that he was a self described “communist” and had blamed George W. Bush for the September 11 attacks.

In September 2009, it was reported that Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, had written about  Jenning’s own past frequent illegal drug use in his 2007 autobiography.

Since those things might make Obama look bad, they have been removed from the article.

The article also has a section called “Lobbying reform.”

But the following two paragraphs have been erased from that section:

In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings “reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ ‘battalions’ of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.”

In April 2012, the New York Times reported, “Although Mr. Obama has made a point of not accepting contributions from registered lobbyists, a review of campaign donations and White House visitor logs shows that special interests have had little trouble making themselves heard. Many of the president’s biggest donors, while not lobbyists, took lobbyists with them to the White House…”

By erasing that information, the article falsely implies that Obama is serious about his so-called “lobbying reform.”

The article has a section called “Social policy” which states:

On October 19, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a directive to federal prosecutors in states with medical marijuana laws not to investigate or prosecute cases of marijuana use or production done in compliance with those laws.

However, the following has been erased from that section:

In February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a state where medical marijuana is legal. Also in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal. Furthermore, in July 2010, the DEA raided at least four medical marijuana growers in San Diego, California. Also in July 2010, the DEA raided a medical marijuana facility in Covelo, California. Then in September 2010, the DEA conducted raids on at least five medical marijuana dispensaries in Las Vegas, Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal. In 2011, the DEA conducted raids on medical marijuana in Seattle, Washington, West Hollywood, California, and Helena, Montana, all places where it is legal. In April 2012, the DEA carried out several raids on medical marijuana in Oakland, California. In February 2012, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Obama’s war against medical marijuana went “far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush.” In May 2012, U.S. Congressperson Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said she had “strong concerns” about Obama’s forced closure of five medical marijuana facilities in Pelosi’s congressional district. Commenting on Obama’s crackdown on medical marijuana, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said, “I’m very disappointed… They look more like the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.”

By keeping that first part, while erasing that second part, the article falsely implies that Obama has stopped waging war against medical marijuana.

The article has a section called “Foreign policy” which states:

Obama authorized U.S. forces to participate in international air attacks on Libyan air defenses using Tomahawk cruise missiles.

However, the following has been removed from that section:

In June 2011, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said that Obama had violated the Constitution when he launched military operations in Libya without Congressional approval.

By erasing that, the article ignores that fact that Obama has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution.

In addition, the following two paragraphs have been erased from that section:

Obama sent U.S. troops to Uganda, Congo, South Sudan and the Central African Republic.

In 2010, Obama  supported releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (who had been convicted of murdering 270 people) from prison.

Obama’s supporters don’t want people to know about those things.

The article has a section called “Guantánamo Bay detention camp.” But the following has been erased from that section:

Under President Obama, abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay became even worse than it had been under President Bush.

Obama’s supporters erased that because they don’t want people to know about it.

The article has a section called “Policies” which includes a subsection called “Economy.” The following 21 paragraphs have been erased from that subsection:

In 2011, after Boeing had hired 1,000 new employees to work at its new factory in South Carolina, the Obama administration ordered Boeing to shut down the factory, because the factory was non-union.

Obama fired the CEO of General Motors, and had the government take 60.8% ownership of the company.

During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Obama violated the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by illegally treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors.

The Obama administration pressured Ford Motor Company to stop airing a TV ad that criticized Obama’s bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler.

The Obama administration gave $535 million to Solyndra, claiming that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company’s shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama’s campaign, and that the company had also spent a large sum of money on lobbying.

On September 12, 2008, Obama promised, “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” However, less than three months into his Presidency, he broke that promise when he raised the cigarette tax. Studies show that poor people are more likely to smoke than rich people.

Obama signed a stimulus bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives. Prior to signing this bill, Obama had said, “when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” However, after reading “line by line” and signing the stimulus bill that protected the AIG bonuses, Obama pretended to be shocked and outraged at the bonuses, and said, “Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay… How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” and also said that he would “pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses.”

Obama had armed federal agents raid the Gibson guitar factory, order the employees to leave, and seize guitars and other property from the factory – and all of this happened without any charges being filed.

The national debt increased more during Obama’s first three years and two months than it did during all eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

In February 2012, Obama shut down an Amish farm for selling unpasteurized milk across state lines, even though the customers were happy with what they were buying.

In 2010, Obama gave $16.3 million to First Solar, a company that manufactures solar panels, so the company could sell solar panels to itself.

As part of his economic stimulus, Obama spent $205,075 of taxpayer money to relocate and care for a single specimen of Arctostaphylos franciscana, a shrubbery which nurseries sell for $16.

Obama’s administration funded a study to see whether or not rats’ enjoyment of the music of Miles Davis was increased when the rats were high on cocaine.

The Obama administration spent $1.6 million to restore graffiti that glorified communist murderers Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.

After Obama gave Raser Technologies $33 million to build a power plant, the company declared bankruptcy, and owed $1.5 million in back taxes.

After Obama gave Abound Solar, Inc. a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories, the company halted production and laid off 180 employees.

After Obama gave Beacon Power a $43 million loan guarantee to build green energy storage, the company filed for bankruptcy.

After Obama approved $2.1 billion in loan guarantees for Solar Trust of America so it could build solar power plants, the company filed for bankruptcy.

Although Obama gave taxpayer money to numerous American solar power companies, he placed a 30% tariff on solar panels imported from China, because he was against the Chinese government giving subsidies to its own companies.

In April 2012, the Obama administration proposed new regulations which would prohibit farm children under 18 from working at grain elevators, silos, feed lots, stockyards, and livestock auctions, as well as from storing, marketing and transporting farm product raw materials. Critics claimed that this would prevent children from the common practice of working on their friends’ and relatives’ farms, and that farm children did not need “help” from a community organizer in Washington.

The Obama administration fined a high school $15,000 for selling soda to students during lunch.

Obama’s supporters don’t want readers to know about any of those things.

The article has a section called “Gun control,” but the following has been erased from it:

In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals.

That’s a huge scandal, but it’s not even mentioned in the article.

The article has a section called “Health care reform,” but the following seven paragraphs have been erased from it:

Obama said of his health care plan, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process…”

In September 2010, some insurance companies announced that in response to Obama’s health care plan, they would end the issuance of new child-only policies. In March 2011, the New York Times reported that many health insurers had stopped issuing child-only policies in response to Obama’s health care reform.

In October 2010, Obama gave McDonald’s and 29 other organizations an exemption from some of the requirements of his health care plan.  Over time, more than 1,300 organizations were granted waivers.

In November 2010, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced that it would drop health insurance for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants. Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU stated, “… new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26… meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that being forced to read Obama’s 2,700 page health care reform law would would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

In March 2012, the Congressional Budget Office said that over the next decade, Obama’s health care reform would cost twice as much as what Obama had promised.

In May 2012, 43 Catholic organizations, including the University of Notre Dame, and the Archdiocese of  New York and Washington, filed 12 coordinated lawsuits in federal courts across the country, claiming that the contraceptive mandate would unconstitutionally force religiously affiliated institutions, such as Catholic schools and hospitals, to indirectly subsidize contraception in violation of their religious beliefs. Fr. John Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame, stated, “Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about: it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services… Many of our faculty, staff and students — both Catholic and non-Catholic — have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs. And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents… We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings.”

Obama’s supporters don’t want people to know about the harm that his health care reform is causing.

This was also deleted from that section:

Despite having taught constitutional law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, in April 2012 Obama falsely claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court had never overturned any laws that had been passed by Congress.

That may be the dumbest thing that Obama has ever said.

The article has a section called “Ethics,” but the following paragraph has been erased from it:

Although Obama had promised to have “the most sweeping ethics reform in history,” and had often criticized the role of money in politics, the truth is that after he was elected, he gave administration jobs to more than half of his 47 biggest fundraisers.

Obama’s supporters don’t want people to know about that.

The article used to have a section called “Other suspected terrorists,” but the entire section was erased. It had contained these five paragraphs:

The Obama administration gave a very invasive patdown to a three-year-old boy in a wheelchair, which caused the boy to tremble in fear.

The Obama administration gave an aggressive patdown to a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy.

The Obama administration said that a four-year-old girl was a “high security threat.”

The Obama administration placed an 18-month-old girl on its no fly list.

The Obama administration gave a patdown to Henry Kissinger.

Those things make Obama look silly, so of course they were erased.

The article used to have a section called “Civil Liberties,” but the entire section has been erased. Before it was erased, it contained these five paragraphs:

In May 2011, Obama signed a renewal of the Patriot Act.

Obama expanded the federal government’s faith based programs which had been started by President George W. Bush.

In December 2011, ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero criticized Obama for signing a bill that gave the U.S. government the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without any charges being filed or any trial taking place.

In January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Obama administration for having put a GPS tracking device on someone’s car without having a warrant.

Obama came out in favor of the FCC’s fining of the CBS TV network $550,000 for showing Janet Jackson’s breast during the 2004 Super Bowl.

Obama’s supporters don’t want people to know that Obama is doing the same kinds of things that they hated Bush for doing.

The same section also had these two things, which were erased:

In 2012, the Obama administration accused Pepsico of “race discrimination” because it used criminal background checks to screen out job applicants.

The Obama administration accused fire and police departments in Jacksonville, Florida, New York City, and Dayton, Ohio of “racial discrimination” because they required potential firefighters and police officers to take a written test. Ten real examples of these “racist” questions from the New York test can be read here.

Those two things show how irrationally Obama is behaving as President, so of course his supporters don’t want people to know about them.

The article has a section called “Overseas Contingency Operation” which states:

In April 2010, the Obama administration authorized the targeted killing of the radical Muslim cleric and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who was believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them.

However, the following information has been erased from that section:

However, because Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, and he was killed without judicial process, The ACLU accused Obama of violating the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Congessman Ron Paul (R-TX)  said that Obama’s actions might be an impeachable offense. Prior to the killing, Dennis Blair, the country’s director of national intelligence, had stated to the House Intelligence Committee that “Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives.”

Of all the things that have been erased from the article, that is the one that scares me the most.

May 30, 2012. Tags: , , . Barack Obama, Politics, Wikipedia.

78 Comments

  1. mittens replied:

    The problem isn’t Obama. It isn’t Wikipedia. It isn’t puff pieces. It’s your hate. Please get help. :-(

    • Saffron D replied:

      Liberals are often confused by facts and rational thinking. Instead of participating in the discussion by offering logical well thought out responses, they will often shoot off snarky random personal attacks. (e.g. mittens)

      • BoogerFree replied:

        “The Obama administration gave a very invasive patdown to a three-year-old boy in a wheelchair, which caused the boy to tremble in fear.

        The Obama administration gave an aggressive patdown to a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy.

        The Obama administration said that a four-year-old girl was a “high security threat.”

        The Obama administration placed an 18-month-old girl on its no fly list.

        The Obama administration gave a patdown to Henry Kissinger.”

      • Right replied:

        “snarky random personal attacks” like all liberals are irrational and often confused by facts and don’t have well thought out repsonses? Try looking in the mirror sometime, Mr. Glass House Owner. There are ways to edit wiki that have been in place for years. Just because Chumley here doesn’t want to abide by them doesn’t mean he’s being censored. Salud!

      • e'rox replied:

        Such as saying that the opposition is “often confused by facts and rational thinking”?

      • Tim replied:

        LOL… saffron implies that most conservatives would be capable of discerning truth and logic from nonsense and a lot of bolstered rhetoric! which is about as far from reality as the right lives its small minded lives.

        I’m not a fan of censoring by any means.. but, there is a BIG difference between accusation and fact, opinion and reality.. yes, some of the things up above are true and could be included.. but, a lot of them have nothing to do with Obama whatsoever! How is half of that dribble Obama’s doing? and if you are going to cry out that a captain is responsible for his ship, and that all faults of the nation and its government fall on the leader.. then how is George W not in prison? And why is it that half of the crap he started (and Obama had to clean up) gets shifted to the current guy? And where was all this patriotic ‘what’s best for America’ bolstering when W was in office? Oh, right, you were all screaming about how if anyone complained or had a mean thing to say about the President then we were un-patriotic and supporting terrorism.

        Truthfully, I don’t have much love for Obama, I would like to have another choice in November.. but, that’s not how our outdated 2 party system works.

        Another point saffron tries to make is ‘liberals joining in the conversation’ .. I’m sorry, but there is absolutely NO talking to someone who believes in Bronze Age fairy tales, someone who would blame women’s rights and a progressive social structure of concern and altruism for the failing of the American Dream, who would seriously vote for an exposed liar who wears magic underwear.. you wouldn’t feel obligated to have a serious discussion with 4yr old would you? Well, that’s the mentality you put forth when you claim that abortions and universal healthcare are destroying this country.

        Your method of spreading lies and opinions from the pulpit is a dying idea.. literate people have the internet now and can do the math for themselves.. tax cuts for the rich didn’t work when that crackpot Reagan was in office and it certainly isn’t working now.

        I will, however, give saffron the credit due for formulating a complete and coherent sentence with no blaring typos or misspellings.. that’s nice to see

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        I’m a libertarian, not a conservative. I wrote in Ron Paul for President four years ago. I will be voting for Gary Johnson this time.

        I am pro-choice.

        My complaints were not about universal health care per se. My complaints were specific to Obama’s plan, and I cited examples where people had actually lost their health insurance because of Obama.

        I think birth control is a great idea. But I don’t see why the government should be using Catholic organizations as a middleman to provide it.

        Many of the issues that I cited are cases where Obama did the same things as Bush, such as military interventionism without Congressional approval, the Patriot Act, no-bid contracts for Halliburton, and corporate welfare and bailouts. Senator Obama voted for the same TARP bailout bill that President Bush signed. I cited liberals such as Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, the ACLU, and Rolling Stone magazine who are critical of Obama.

      • Chris replied:

        @Saffron D – Don’t be silly. It’s the internet. Both Liberal and Conservative posters “shoot off snarky random personal attacks”.

        Anyway, to the blogger, there’s a reason your edits were deleted

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BRD
        for more information about Bold, Revert, Discuss

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP
        for the specific biography policies.

        Use it properly and have fun.

        Although you may have trouble having a neutral viewpoint considering you have a blog with many anti-Obama posts…

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        Thank you. I am well aware of those policies.

        I am also aware of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which states:

        Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.

        That means that articles must include both the good and the bad. My complaint is the bad things have been deleted. NPOV means that it should include both.

        Of course I am biased. All humans are biased. But I have never erased any of the good things about Obama from any of his articles. But his supporters erased most of the bad things. It is his supporters, not me, who are editing in a biased manner.

      • Eric Jacobson replied:

        Conservatives often confuse rhetoric and faith with facts and rational thinking. Instead of participating in the discussion by offering anything that resembles sanity, they herp-derp in order to cover for their own insecurities. They’ll latch on to any half-baked conspiracy theory that allows them to hide the fact that they’re just scared of reality – that someone who isn’t a WASP like them is in the White House. The more they try to defend their nonsense as “not racist,” the more they expose themselves for the hate mongers they are.

        Yes, we’re good at this too. Only most times, our comebacks are more rational and wrought with facts than yours are.

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        Many of the criticisms that I cited are from liberals such as Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Fannk, the ACLU, Rolling Stone magazine, etc. Are you saying that those liberals are racist?

        Also, many of those criticisms are for Obama doing the exact same things as Bush, such as the Patriot Act, military intervention without Congressional approval, no-bid contracts for Halliburton, corporate welfare and bailouts, etc.

        Just because a President happens to be black does not mean that he should be immune from criticism.

        I’m a libertarian, not a conservative.

        And I’m Jewish, not Protestant.

      • TheTruth replied:

        I find it funny that you immediately called mittens a ‘Liberal’. Do you feel that calling someone a ‘Liberal’ is some sort of insult? That it somehow invalidates their arguments or opinions?

        As for the edits, Wikipedia isn’t your own personal soapbox for your political views on Obama. That’s what blogs such as this are for.

      • Glosmere replied:

        Preferring to have sources that are as unbiased as possible doesn’t make one a liberal. It makes one a person desiring facts, not opinions and conjectures. That could be said of any reasonable person, regardless of their political leanings. Someone who disagrees with you doesn’t have to be a liberal. They simply don’t agree with you.

        Refer, as I know you have been told to do, to Wiki’s posting rules, follow those, and provide verifiable facts. Wiki is for basic information, a place to start looking for information, it certainly isn’t for opinions and bias.

        I am a conservative, by the way.

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        I cited the New York Times, the Washington Post, Associated Press, and many other reliable sources.

      • Rational Thought replied:

        Invalidating mittens does not change the fact that this blog is hate mongering. I wonder how long until the blog owner removes my comment and mittens as well. Judging by the lack of comments either no one feels it is worth commenting on or the blog owner exercises his own form of censorship.

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        Please cite some specific examples of this “hate mongering” that you claim I wrote.

      • Blade replied:

        Some people are apparently confused by truth. None of the proposed edits to Wikipedia are actually true.

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        They are all true, and I included links to sources for all of them.

    • wilder125 replied:

      It isn’t hate if wikipedia is deleting facts. Granted Wikipedia should only be used as an accurate history account for anything not just Obama when a person is drunk, stoned, or suffering from insomnia and needing some laughter.

    • Penny Robinson Fan Club replied:

      We only hate hypocrisy, deceit, over-taxation, intrusive and overweening government, and narcissistic egomaniacs out to run our lives, who want to tell us what food we must eat and what vehicles we may or may not drive.

      It’s YOUR hate, not ours.

  2. Taylor Smith replied:

    If you want to make a substantial edit or content inclusion to a contentious article, particularly a biography article (for which there are very stringent policies to prevent libel, which could have LEGAL ramifications for the Wikimedia foundation), use the article’s Talk page to reach consensus on the inclusion. Wikipedia functions primarily on the concept of Bold, Revert, Discuss- a user makes a bold edit, it is reverted (reason on History page), the article’s editors hash out the edit on the talk page until an agreement is made.

    If you make it clear you’re not interested in playing by these years-old rules, the point you’re trying to make is forfeit, and you deserve your multiple blocks.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BRD for more information about Bold, Revert, Discuss
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP for the specific biography policies.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      I am very much aware of those policies.

      I have made many comments on the talk page of that article.

      I cited reliable sources for each and every thing that I ever added to the article.

  3. Taylor Smith replied:

    By the way, here’s specific text from WP:BLP.

    “Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.”

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Yes, I am very much aware of that, which is why I cited reliable sources for every single thing. All of it – every single thing – is true and reliably sourced.

      If you disagree, then please tell me what you think is false.

  4. Farr Kerr replied:

    Your blog sucks.

  5. Jeremy Brown replied:

    You have been noticed at Fark. Be prepared…

  6. wilder125 replied:

    By the way, didn’t know about some of that. Whee.

    On another note, I wonder what wikipedia deleted about other presidents. They seem to be equal to all sides of politics.

  7. Albert911emt replied:

    Maybe you should get a hobby. Obsessing over things (as you obviously are) is not healthy. Get a girlfriend (or boyfriend, if that’s what you’re into), memorize baseball stats, rock climbing, game programming, whatever……just find something to occupy your time, something fun. This obsession you have with proving conspiracy theories, with getting back at Wikipedia, with bringing down Obama, just makes you look like a mental case.

    • cwolf20 replied:

      So we should repeat that but put in (insert whatever president exists next) to any future posts saying the same thing or similar on the internet by Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans, or Tea Partiers/the republicans no republican wants around

      Sounds good. Let’s all remember to copy this in the future so we can paste it.

  8. thanos replied:

    someone needs his blankie

  9. Rick Kettenstock replied:

    Saffron – The exact same can be said for conservatives.

  10. sim namore replied:

    Saffron has cut and pasted that comment from other web sources–I guess plagiarism is “participation” in some fashion. By the way, “Mittens” is his nick name–libs didn’t make it up.

  11. Matt replied:

    Wow. That’s a lot of wasted time and effort. You sir, need a constructive hobby.

  12. Phil Durt replied:

    A lot of those entries would have been inappropriately placed in that article as they do not not deal with transparency, and some do not even specifically relate to the Obama presidency. Some of it could certainly go in there, but I would agree that much of it is inappropriate.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Then how about citing some specific examples, explaining why they have nothing to do with transparency, and why they should not be in the article?

  13. Mad Man replied:

    U mad bro?

  14. ct replied:

    Dude. Get a life.

  15. cousinavi replied:

    There is a difference, which clearly escapes you, between the sort of referenced facts that belong in a Wikipedia entry and the biased implications and conclusions you weave into your poorly written edits.
    Of course, an inability to distinguish reality from what you need to believe is a requisite symptom of your pathology.

  16. cwolf20 replied:

    Too late. I just now posted in the fark topic about the guy you deleted.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      I guess you’re referring to the article on Gerald Walpin. But it wasn’t me who deleted it. I was always against its deletion.

      • cwolf20 replied:

        Nah.. actually the one about the person wondering what other presidents had info deleted from wikipedia in addition to Obama

      • cwolf20 replied:

        And he’s back. heh

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        Oh. OK. Thanks for clarifying that.

  17. cwolf20 replied:

    *tapdances through a field of lillies while cackling about what other responses in regards to the question about other presidents having info deleted is discussed at some point on fark*

  18. sagane replied:

    Your problem is that most of your claims are either illogical – blaming Obama for anything any gov’t agency does anywhere,e.g. “putting baby on no-fly list”,or are opinions rather than fact,e.g. “Kucinich says Obama violated Constitution…action in Libya” or are simply not true,e.g.”Obama has gotten more contributions from Wall St…” (Romney has gotten more than twice as much – Politifact and FactCheck).

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      I cited specific URLs for all of my claims.

      The U.S. Constitution requires Congressional approval for what Obama did in Libya.

      Putting a baby on a no-fly list tells us a lot about Obama’s administration. Israel’s airport security is very different – it operates on logic and common sense.

  19. wtfamireading replied:

    1) Your argument is utterly invalid. You are in clear violation of the terms of use for your account:

    “Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced-whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable-should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.” -WP:BLP

    2) Attributing exceedingly granular events directly to Obama’s personal intentions is bizarre at best. Moreover, many seem to be simple enforcement of existing law…

    “The Obama administration fined a high school $15,000 for selling soda to students during lunch.”

    Does the article on Adolf Hitler have hundreds of thousands of entries like the following? “The Hitler regime seized an expensive punch press from a high school because Judaism.”

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Each and every thing is reliably sourced.

      The article is about Obama’s presidency, so the fine for selling soda is relevant. It tells us that Obama wants the government to stick its nose into anything and everything.

      • Blade replied:

        Really? You use “The Obama Administration” to describe virtually everything in your article, however, here’s what “The Obama Adminstration” actually means: The President, and the direct cabinet members. That’s it.

        I highly doubt that Eric Holder specifically levied a $15,000 fine on a high school. Additionally, the vast majority of everything you’ve said in this article is untrue, no matter what you’re “reliable sources” tell you.

  20. Wrathe replied:

    They erased them because a great deal of the points are just stupid to have on Obama’s wiki. When people look at the wiki for Obama, that’s not the place for things like ‘The Obama administration gave a patdown to Henry Kissinger.’ If Wikipedia allowed such inane information to clog every wiki page, you would constantly be reading through tons of useless information.

    Are you really fighting this issue on Bush’s page. I’m sure there’s all sorts of things liberals would want to see on that page but they’re thwarted just the same. If you really feel they are censoring you, make a wiki page called ‘Failings of the Obama administration’.

    Also, quit whining and grow up. Just because the information on wiki isn’t ridiculously right leaning as you are, doesn’t mean it’s on the far left. It’s somewhere in the middle. Though, I suppose the middle, from your perspective, is the far left.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Many of the criticisms of Obama are for the same things that Bush did, but they are only mentioned in the Bush article, and not in the Obama article.

      • Wrathe replied:

        So if that’s what you’re really in a twist about, go on Bush’s page and do what the ‘Obama supporters’ do on Obama’s page. If you feel bush is being unfairly represented by comparison, try and address that on his page, don’t smear Obama’s page.

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        I want both articles to include that information.

      • wilder125 replied:

        My question is, what’s the problem with having the whole story in full detail instead of the sanitized, can’t get the full picture of the guy ever, version. I’d hate to think that any political party voters want to rely on people who only read the sanitized. Then when they get hit with the un-edited truth from another party, they’ll go for it.

        Because of the very simple fact that people would rather have all the truth.

        So which is it. Do you want party voters who will drop the party at the drop of a hat because they found someone that has more shown truth than the representative they usually vote for? Or do you want informed voters.

        My aunt, I love her. But she’s only just recently decided that the next election she’s voting Libertarian. She voted for Obama because Hillary dropped out.

        Her words “I was going to vote for Hillary because Obama scares the hell out of me. But then she dropped out. I’m a democrat. I can’t vote for anyone else”

      • wilder125 replied:

        With that said. Anyone who thinks wikiepedia is the first priority source of knowledge needs to yank their heads out of whatever animal they’re sniffing.

      • wilder125 replied:

        *sigh* feel free to poke me for misspelling wikipedia.

      • Wrathe replied:

        Well, then all I can really say is, do you really think that being a mega troll and spending all this effort trying to hate on Obama’s wiki page is really the best use of your time?

        Plus, don’t you consider how this could negatively affect your cause? People are now going to link Libertarians with hateful, anti Obama rhetoric. Though I suppose Libertarians might want to attract haters…

  21. Anna replied:

    You’re an idiot, and your blog sucks.

  22. Farklovesguyslikeyou replied:

    The sad thing here is that you actually think that Wikipedia ever tells the whole story. I just took a quick look at George Bush’s page and it’s just as much of a puff piece as Obama’s. Why aren’t you editing that page with disparaging facts?

    I’m not suggesting that anything you say in the above article isn’t totally true but putting it on your blog isn’t good enough for you because no will ever read it. You want “the world” to hear the whole story (as you see it) and Wikipedia is your only forum?

    Well I have some good news for you…

    It might be good for you to know that I found your site through Fark, a much bigger venue that you could have ever hoped for in reaching on WIkipedia’s Obama page.

    It was listed under the “Dumbass” tagline. Now you have really made your mark… Good Job dude…

  23. Jack Mama replied:

    We get it. He’s black.

  24. Nunya replied:

    Yawn, another trailer dweller spewing forth his thinly veilled racsism….Next Up, Darth Cheney Pleasures Satan…….

  25. TomFever replied:

    Dan, just give up. You should know by now that you can not write or say anything negative about Obama. Take the blog down and save yourself further ridicule.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      I enjoy writing about this.

    • wilder125 replied:

      Don’t worry. Even if he wins a second term which is what it’s looking like. The rules haven’t changed. So when the next president is up, another one will be talked about.

  26. This blog can't be real.... replied:

    We get it, you hate black people in power.

    And I could barely get through two paragraphs of your trashy blog. If you want to prove points then maybe you need to approach it in a less “bat-shit-crazy” sort of way. And no, I’m not liberal because i think you’re crazy, but you’re free to form any retarded opinion you like.

    TAKE YOUR MEDS!

    He’s going to be black the next 4 years too, so you’re going to have more to write about and obsess over.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Please cite specific examples which show that my criticism of Obama is based on his race, and not on his policies.

  27. Will replied:

    I think the author has missed the BIG picture – he didn’t cite any references or link any documents to prove what he says. Statements like this (without facts) are not journalistic – they’re gossip. Hearsay. Rants. I bet if there had been any PROOF of the authors charges in the article, then the edits would not have happened.

  28. danfromsquirrelhill replied:

    I don’t know why so many people claim that I didn’t cite any sources. Each and every point that I made has blue text with a link to a source.

    I also don’t know why the people who claim that my comments are racist have refused to cite any specific examples of a comment by me which is racist.

  29. Joe Bloggs replied:

    The problem is that your “sources” mostly don’t say what you claim they say. Rather, most of them fall into two categories: news articles that report on third parties’ claims or opinions about the Obama administration, and articles reporting on various activities of the federal government, with no evidence that those activities reflect the policies or priorities of the White House.

    In some cases, your sources say the exact opposite of what you claim they say, such as the one about the Lockerbie bomber.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      You are mistaken. This is what I said:

      In 2010, Obama supported releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (who had been convicted of murdering 270 people) from prison.

      And this is what the source said:

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041

      White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi

      THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be “far preferable” to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

      Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

      The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

  30. Joe Bloggs replied:

    What you have quoted there cannot accurately be paraphrased as “Obama supported releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi”, because it leaves out he crucial detail that Scotland was only offering two choices, compassionate release or prisoner transfer. The Obama Administration supported neither option, but rather stated its preference for the former over the latter, in the context of only having two choices. Your list of deleted contributions is riddled with inaccurate paraphrases such as this, which is no doubt a primary reason for their deletion.

    Also, I forgot to mention that many of your sources are opinion pieces from blogs, not news reportage from reputable news sites. Case in point: your item that begins with “In January 2012, Obama violated the Constitution by making four recess appointments …”

  31. Gunny G replied:

    Reblogged this on NOW BLOG THIS! ~ GUNNY.G: AMERICAN ! and commented:
    GyG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Semper Blogging/ReBlogging !!!!!
    Dick G
    *****

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback URI

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 379 other followers

%d bloggers like this: