User talk:ServeGodnotgov

Welcome...

Hello, ServeGodnotgov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place on your talk page and ask your question there.

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Natural born citizen of the United States, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia as well. You stated above that everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, which I did. I added information that was true and accurate and gave important information to an entry that was clearly written by someone that was either uninformed on this issue, or (which I hope not) is biased and not writing objectively. Can you explain the reasons behind your censorship of my constructive contribution that only added correct information and added important information to background of this Constitutional issue. It seems more appropriate to say that my important information that was added to Natural born citizen of the United States has been censored. Can you help me understand how to keep my constructive contribution from being censored again? If Wikipedia is going to be a free encyclopedia full of completely truthful and accurate information and not just a one-sided blog, if you will, you must restore my original entry. ServeGodnotgov (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being willing to talk about this. I probably should have added the "official" welcome template in addition to the warning.  The Natural born citizen of the United States and related articles see a reasonable amount of comments that go against several of the core tenants of Wikipedia.  Those editors rarely return or are interested in any discussion, so there is a habit of just warning and nothing else.  My apologies to you for that assumption.


 * For reference, [|here is the diff of my reversion]. (A diff is a link showing the difference between two versions, and is used to help others get some context for the discussion).


 * Two of the core principles of Wikipedia is that statements must be supported by a notable, verifiable source. The links to each policy go into more detail, but the idea is to have some standards for where our information comes from.  Other policies that need to be considered are WP:Undue and WP:Fringe.  Articles should reflect the mainstream view of of topics.  Alternative views need to be covered (there's actually a project about covering alternate views), but we've got to be careful when including them.  We need to avoid undue weight in articles by making sure that the time spent covering alternate views doesn't exceed the primary view without good cause.  In addition, such views need to be clearly labeled.  Alternate views that have few supporters and get minimal, if any, mention in notables sources generally aren't included at all in articles.  Wikipedia is a lot of things, but it's not a vast, unfiltered collection of any and all views by any person.


 * As much as possible, we also try to keep things in one article. That's not always possible, and as articles get larger sub topis are split off into their own article, with just a summary paragraph or link left in the main article.  Sometimes, it's hard to get two similar articles merged, so they remain seperate.  Both have happened here.  There's the Natural both article, then the Birthright citizenship in the United States of America - pretty similar topics.  The Obama article has many sub articles, including the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.


 * Ultimately, I had a couple of problems with the edits you made which caused me to revert them. First, the overwhelming majority of notable sources have weighed in on this and consider Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen of the United States and legally elected President.  Until this changes, most articles in Wikipedia must reflect that belief.  Second, when you're making statements of fact, you need to include a source for that fact.  If you're stating opinion, you can't just use your opinion, you have to use the opinion of another person that's mentioned in a notable, verifiable source (and reference that source).  The article about the various theories around Obama's citizenship does go into the several of the arguements that you raised, so a lot of what you added is already in Wikipedia.


 * I understand where you're coming from, but please understand that Wikipedia isn't about "The Truth". Like a good encyclopedia, it strives to include facts and opinions from notable, verifiable sources that can generally be trusted.  By giving the sources, others can then look at them and decide how they view that source, and thus the information from that source.  Articles are written by many people, and the information in those articles represents a consensus view of the editors.  As sourced information changes, the consensus will change and finally the content of the article.


 * Sorry for being long-winded (never compile a large project on a over-taxed server!), but hope it helps some. Is Wikipedia perfect?  Hardly (but I think you knew that!) To paraphrase, it's a horrible way for the masses to write an encyclopedia, but it's better than the alternatives! Ravensfire (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that update. I strive for the best information. Unfortuntely, Barack Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" requirement according to the founding fathers. You must be born in the United States to citizens who are both parents to be a natural born ctizen, otherwise you are just a citizen. John McCain does not qualify either, because he was born in Panama, and the Naturalization Act that used to allow children born to parents who are both citizens overseas to be a natural born citizen was repealed in the 1790's. It is sad because they served their country with honor, and I think that this should be changed, but that is the current law. Jus soli only conveys citizen status, not natural-born citizen status, which can only be possible if the parents are both citizens at the time of the birth. A non-binding Senate resolution or anything else can not change McCain's status, even though his papers were checked. Obama's credentials were never checked, however. Many people dropped the ball along the way and failed to do their job and kept saying that it was not their job to check for qualifications. Fact - Congress failed in their duty to check out the candidates credentials under the Constitution before certifying the electoral vote. Members of Congress have told people to go to the court to seek justice. The courts are dismissing the cases due to the lack of standing and telling citizens that Congress has to take care of the issue. Fact - His paternal grandmother states that she was present at the birth of Barack Obama in Mombassa, which is now modern day Kenya. Fact - Hawaii allowed late registrations of birth based on the statement of one relative only for foreign born children and would generate a certification of live birth, not to be confused with (a long form birth certificate from a hospital). Fact - Records show that Ann Dunham Obama disappeared months before the president was born, and was in Washington state taking classes two weeks after he was born. I am not going to speculate whether or not he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, because I don't know. Grandma says Mombassa, but Obama states Hawaii. Who knows? One is a grandmother, the other is a politician. :) The release of the long-form birth certificate would have cleared this issue up, but for some reason, Obama will not release this.  Fact - Obama has spent almost an estimated 2 million dollars to prevent the release of a 15 dollar long-form birth certificate to the public.  Now I am against frivolous lawsuits as much as the next person, but if I had any ambiguity in my past and had pledged to have the most open and transparent administration, I would have released the documents during the campaign to remove any doubt of the voters.  I would not be hiding documents about my past.  But, unlike Obama, I am a Christian and keep my word.  I noticed that his religion is also incorrectly listed as Christian in Wikipedia.  Obama believes that all paths lead to Heaven.  This is universalism, not Christianity.  Jesus said I am the way, the truth, the life.  No one comes to the father but by me. Most people know that you can't fully trust a politician normally, especially during election year. Documents sought by citizens such as the long-form birth certificate, school records, papers written, et al. are needed to get a glimpse into the mind of the candidate, and get a better idea of who they really are, not just the image that they want you to see. Fact - Everyone that states with some authority that Obama is born in Kenya or Hawaii is only guessing, because no one has seen his long from birth certificate other than Obama and family. It is believed that a state of Hawaii offical may have dug up his long form birth certificate when she made the statement, but it is also very likely that she was only looking at the certification of live birth when everything was digitized, not the actual birth certificate. Since this ambiguity remains, citizens are entitled to the best possible evidence, which is the long-form birth certificate. If you really look at this issue objectively, and remove all of the biases that people have for or against Obama or McCain, you will see that this is an important Constitutional issue, not a conspiracy theory, fringe, et al. It has been raised by many people all across the political spectrum. Important questions remain unanswered. The Constitution must be respected. One of the few candidates running for the office of President of the United States in November of 2008 who was eligible under the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause was Dr. Alan Keyes. ServeGodnotgov (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)