Changes

In furtherance of the comments immediately above, no self-serving assertion by a politician should be accepted at face value.  When the evidence is overwhelming that he's lying, then it's an important issue for the public, for historians, and for anyone who might consider his credibility.  I suppose it is the latter issue that causes some to protest too much when anyone questions Obama's Religion.  Any conscientious historian would engage in the same inquiry we do here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

In furtherance of the comments immediately above, no self-serving assertion by a politician should be accepted at face value.  When the evidence is overwhelming that he's lying, then it's an important issue for the public, for historians, and for anyone who might consider his credibility.  I suppose it is the latter issue that causes some to protest too much when anyone questions Obama's Religion.  Any conscientious historian would engage in the same inquiry we do here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

:I agree. Obama's life from the earliest we've got to know him is one big long deception. There is nothing special, unique, or shocking to this. Millions live their lives like this daily. He's not even a leader. In a sense, I feel sorry for him. He's been used as little more than pawn by Democratic donors and globalists. He probably only got the job ''because'' his middle name was Hussein, to push the multi-cuktural agenda. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 01:05, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

:I agree. Obama's life from the earliest we've got to know him is one big long deception. There is nothing special, unique, or shocking to this. Millions live their lives like this daily. He's not even a leader. In a sense, I feel sorry for him. He's been used as little more than pawn by Democratic donors and globalists. He probably only got the job ''because'' his middle name was Hussein, to push the multi-cuktural agenda. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 01:05, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

::We have to separate our opinions about Obama in general from our opinions about Conservapedia's goals.  Every website has a finite reservoir of credibility.  It may be that due to hard work and exhaustive research, CP has a better-than-the-pack coverage of Wikipedia bias or CIA surveillance.  We should showcase our best work.  However, Donald Trump (before he became politically active), decided to investigate the birth certificate and religion claims '''that were started by Obama's 2008 primary opponents.'''  He spent more money on the investigation than CP ever had.  Then-candidate Trump announced that his investigation put the birth certificate and Muslim issues to rest.[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/16/trump-clinton-trade-barbs-over-obama-birther-movement.html]  CP's response to that was to leave the [[Obama's religion]] article unchanged.  This article could examine how the rumors got started, how Trump and others investigated and dismissed the claims, how Obama addressed the claims and put them to rest, and how polling data shows that the pubic can be influenced by fake news.  Instead, it is written as if it advocates the proposition followed by a rebuttal of the strawman assertions made in the first half of the article.  Critics then send readers here to show that CP's editor corps are internally conflicted and mislead by fake news. So, we spend our limited credibility on a poorly-written article that has been passed by events.  In Trump's word, "Now we all want to get back to make American strong and great again." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:23, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

 

 

We have to separate our opinions about Obama in general from our opinions about Conservapedia's goals.  Every website has a finite reservoir of credibility.  It may be that due to hard work and exhaustive research, CP has a better-than-the-pack coverage of Wikipedia bias or CIA surveillance.  We should showcase our best work.  However, Donald Trump (before he became politically active), decided to investigate the birth certificate and religion claims '''that were started by Obama's 2008 primary opponents.'''  He spent more money on the investigation than CP ever had.  Then-candidate Trump announced that his investigation put the birth certificate and Muslim issues to rest.[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/16/trump-clinton-trade-barbs-over-obama-birther-movement.html]  CP's response to that was to leave the [[Obama's religion]] article unchanged.  This article could examine how the rumors got started, how Trump and others investigated and dismissed the claims, how Obama addressed the claims and put them to rest, and how polling data shows that the pubic can be influenced by fake news.  Instead, it is written as if it advocates the proposition followed by a rebuttal of the strawman assertions made in the first half of the article.  Critics then send readers here to show that CP's editor corps are internally conflicted and mislead by fake news. So, we spend our limited credibility on a poorly-written article that has been passed by events.  In Trump's word, "Now we all want to get back to make American strong and great again." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:23, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

:::There. I tried to make it more neutral without ripping up the body of the text. I don't know how much more it may need. What do you think? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 09:23, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

:::There. I tried to make it more neutral without ripping up the body of the text. I don't know how much more it may need. What do you think? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]} 09:23, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

::::"Limited credibility" means you don't understand what we are all about. --Jpatt 09:38, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

::::"Limited credibility" means you don't understand what we are all about. --Jpatt 09:38, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

If you want to instantly give the article more credibility, then put my material atop the article which gives the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim. I say this because Obama is extremely unlikely to be a Muslim. The odds of Trump being a liberal "Manchurian candidate" are higher than the pork eating, beer swilling, homosexuality loving, feminism loving Obama being a Muslim.  

If you want to instantly give the article more credibility, then put my material atop the article which gives the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim. I say this because Obama is extremely unlikely to be a Muslim. The odds of Trump being a liberal "Manchurian candidate" are higher than the pork eating, beer swilling, homosexuality loving, feminism loving Obama being a Muslim.  

I can understand people's distrust and antipathy towards Obama. But at some point, you have "let go of your investigation" that Obama could be a Muslim and your claims that Obama is probably a Muslim.  

I can understand people's distrust and antipathy towards Obama. And when people are overly emotional about a topic, it can impair their judgment. But at some point, you have "let go of your investigation" that Obama could be a Muslim and your claims that Obama is probably a Muslim.  

[[Confirmation bias]] often occurs when you set out to prove a position from the start rather than go where the evidence leads. The first portion of this article is a textbook example of the danger of allowing confirmation bias in terms of coming to a proper conclusion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

[[Confirmation bias]] often occurs when you set out to prove a position from the start rather than go where the evidence leads. The first portion of this article is a textbook example of the danger of allowing confirmation bias to negatively affect an articles quality. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:11, 26 May 2017 (EDT)