Posted on 08/16/2010 7:09:21 AM PDT by LorenC
Enough with the lame excuses. I’ve already addressed your faulty assumptions and explained how the story differed markedly from the wikipedia entry. He doesn’t have to provide a direct quote from Maya to have obtained the information from her about Obama being born in Queen’s Hospital. And the excuse that wikipedia simply assumed Obama was born in Queen’s Hospital fails as well. How did Obama and/or his camp not know about this errant Wikipedia entry for several years that it would allegedly get quoted again in Nov. 2008, and STILL not get corrected until July 2009?? You faithers have serious credibility problems. Your assumptions don’t add up and you offer no facts. Again, don’t you feel stupid for having to make excuses for what amounts to everyone who reports on Obama as being stupid, sloppy, incompetent, (insert other faither namecalling excuse here), etc.?? The odds of this much coincidental incompetence is too much to believe. Occam’s razor says this information was provided by a Kenyan-born liar named Obama Soetoro Soebarkah and was corrected ONLY after his lies were found to be inconsistent.
My blog, dude. So if you're going to dismiss the blog at large by claiming I make poor assumptions and unsourced claims, I'd like to see some good examples.
The alleged e-mail seems to assume the Obamas lived together in an apartment across the street from Kapiolani while the birth announcement in the newspaper says they lived several miles away.
I got you a confession from the guy responsible for inserting "Queens" into the Wiki entry, who admits he had no source for it, and you complain about the logic of some other assumption he made.
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the distance to the hospital is hardly decisive. My sister is due to give birth any day now, and although she lives ~25 miles from me, she's planning on having the delivery at the hospital we were born at, some ~5 miles from me in the opposite direction.
Also the comparison with the wikipedia entry is weak. It's not for word for word or even close.
Seriously? To pick what I think is the most blatant example of plagiarism, first I'll quote from Wikipedia:
Former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka had considered running as a Republican to replace Ryan, but opted not to because of family and business considerations. On August 3, Illinois Republican Chairwoman Judy Baar Topinka announced two possible replacements: Alan Keyes and former presidential advisor Andrea Barthwell. After much deliberation, Keyes, at the time living in Maryland, was nominated...Obama received nearly 70% of the popular vote.and now the Rainbow Newsletter:
Mike Ditka, former NFL Coach, was going to be the new Republican candidate but he decided not to join because of family and business reasons. Alan Keyes, from Maryland, was nominated by Illinois Republican Chairwoman, Judy Baar Topinka. It looked like Obama was guaranteed a win because of his growing popularity around the state of Chicago. In the end, Obama won almost seventy percent of the vote.If you can't see that one was directly paraphrased from the other, you're blind. This isn't some journalist doing extensive research; it's a high school junior being lazy. He took the effort to interview Maya, and then interspersed stuff he learned from her with rephrased content from Wikipedia.
The other part that undermines the claim that the information is based on the Wikipedia article is that the first paragraph of the newsletter story says Obama lived in Honolulu with his Grandmother and half-sister Maya and that they went to school together at Punahuou.
It doesn't phase you at all that the first paragraph also noticeably has a big factual gap where the author cut a part of the Wikipedia entry? It says "Obama moved back to Hawaii," even though it never says he left?
The wikipedia article says Maya lives in Nairobi
Oh, I see the problem now: you can't read. Here, maybe if the sentence is bolded and isn't surrounded by so many other words you won't be confused:
"The family then moved to Jakarta, where Obama's half-sister Maya was born (another half-sister, the daughter of Obama's father by a later marriage, lives in Nairobi)."
See now? "ANOTHER HALF-SISTER." Not Maya. Learn to read.
And for the same reason, it seems imminently more likely that Maya INDEED provided the information that Obama was born in Queen's Hospital and wikipedia snagged it from her or directly from the Obama camp.
Except that the Wikipedia mention of "Queens" predates the high school newspaper article by FOUR MONTHS.
Plus, I already told you where Wikipedia got it from, and it's not from Maya or the Obama camp. You're free to check if you don't believe me.
Two quotes to note:
“...such other data as the director may authorize ...”
followed by
“The director, in accordance with HRS §338-18(d), has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.”
That’s not in accordance, but more like in defiance. Note this opinion letter from the HI Office of Information Practices.
“(d) Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and FILE NUMBER of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public.”
http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2090-23.pdf
Note, a certificate number has been made public, allegedly with consent of the Obama camp at factlack dot org.
And once more according to the HI OIP:
“... a matter no longer affects the privacy of the individual where it has been made public or has been published.”
http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2006-07.pdf
Thus, if Obama’s legitimate number was published by factlack, then the DOH has no statutory reason to withhold a confirmation of that number. The only quasi-legitimate reason to withhold it is if releasing the number would violate someone else’s privacy ... which would mean the number belongs to another person born in 1961, not Obama. Other states, such as Washington, still include the certificate number as part of the index data. It’s very odd that Hawaii feels like they need to protect this number when it has already been made public, unless it exposes Obama and them as liars and frauds.
I’m left to wonder what the motivation is for a Republican administration in Hawaii to go to such great lengths to cover for a Democrat president.
I would think that someone who felt that they had a right to what the Department of Health is determining to be confidential vital records would have filed suit to get a judicial ruling on that matter.
No you haven't. All you've done is shown that there is material in the article that was not in Wikipedia. Which is blatantly obvious: the high school kid *did* speak with Maya, and quoted her several times. One of the Obama quotes is also not from Wikipedia. But you've done nothing to show that the heavy similarities between the article and Wiki are not simply the result of a high schooler cribbing from Wikipedia.
And since the Wikipedia article mentioned Queens, and Guira mentioned Queens, and Guira clearly copied from Wikipedia throughout his article, it stands to reason he got Queens from Wikipedia.
And the excuse that wikipedia simply assumed Obama was born in Queen’s Hospital fails as well.
How can it fail? I've e-mailed the guy directly. He confessed to it. He's a little ashamed of it. And he admitted he had no source. Are you saying that he's lying, or that I am?
How did Obama and/or his camp not know about this errant Wikipedia entry for several years that it would allegedly get quoted again in Nov. 2008, and STILL not get corrected until July 2009??
There was no "several years." It was added to Wikipedia in 2004, and removed in 2006. During that time, however, a few other folks relied on it (such as the about.com genealogist), and so it survived online.
Your assumptions don’t add up and you offer no facts.
I offered a personal confession from the guy responsible. What more do you expect?
You're the one making excuses, not us.
He doesn’t have to provide a direct quote from Maya to have obtained the information from her about Obama being born in Queen’s Hospital.
Look, Sparky, you're the one claiming she said it. Therefore, the burden is on YOU to prove it. The fact is, you can't. It doesn't matter where he got the information from. The fact is there's nothing in the article to indicate he got it from her. Period.
And the excuse that wikipedia simply assumed Obama was born in Queen’s Hospital fails as well.
It's not an excuse, it's a fact. The college student who made the entry admitted it.
How did Obama and/or his camp not know about this errant Wikipedia entry for several years that it would allegedly get quoted again in Nov. 2008, and STILL not get corrected until July 2009??
Probably because he has better things to do with his time than factcheck Wikipedia. Lord knows just catching half their errors is a full time job.
You faithers have serious credibility problems. Your assumptions don’t add up and you offer no facts.
You're projecting. That is your problem.
Again, don’t you feel stupid for having to make excuses for what amounts to everyone who reports on Obama as being stupid, sloppy, incompetent, (insert other faither namecalling excuse here), etc.??
Everyone who reports on Obama is sloppy? Nope. We're just saying two people are sloppy: a high school student amateur journalist and a reporter working for a second-rate newswire who later admitted his error.
And frankly, pointing out the sloppiness of these two people is quite intellegient as there is ample evidence of their sloppiness. As LorenC points out. The high school student's article is littered with spelling and gramatical errors, while the UPI reporter's story is littered with factual errors.
The odds of this much coincidental incompetence is too much to believe.
Only to a birther.
It’s not laziness, and it’s not ignorance.
It’s lies verging into treason.
Great work you and the others are doing.
We've already discussed some. Obviously you're very biased and defensive about your sloppy work.
I got you a confession from the guy responsible for inserting "Queens" into the Wiki entry, who admits he had no source for it, and you complain about the logic of some other assumption he made.
I don't have any proof this is the person who inserted Queen's into the entry. Did he start the original entry as it seems to go back to when it first showed up?? Second, I don't know who he is and how honest he is or if he is vested in trying to protect the Obama myth as you seem to be. The logic behind the explanation does't make this person very credible.
Seriously? To pick what I think is the most blatant example of plagiarism, first I'll quote from Wikipedia:
Yet there are plenty of examples of original reporting elsewhere within the same story. Even if this part did happen to come from wikipedia (or from the same concurrent news source that wikipedia used), it doesn't validate that the Queen's Hospital mention came from the same source as that particular paragraph.
It doesn't phase you at all that the first paragraph also noticeably has a big factual gap where the author cut a part of the Wikipedia entry? It says "Obama moved back to Hawaii," even though it never says he left?
You assume that it comes from the wikipedia entry and still haven't proven it. The so-called 'gap' weakens your argument. If this person was just copying straight out of wikipedia, there shouldn't be a gap.
Oh, I see the problem now: you can't read. Here, maybe if the sentence is bolded and isn't surrounded by so many other words you won't be confused:
I have no problem admitting I misread this original, however the construction of the sentence as a whole is extremely poor. A parenthetical phrase that follows a noun is typically written to add information about the noun it follows. Second, the sentence starts out talking about 'the family' -- and notice that Lolo Soetoro is never identified -- nor is there a logical reason in the parentheses to talk about a nameless half-sister through Barak Sr. when there were SEVERAL half-siblings. Regardless, the wikipedia still says nothing about Maya living with Obama and Granny Dunham and going to school together with Obama as the newsletter story does.
Except that the Wikipedia mention of "Queens" predates the high school newspaper article by FOUR MONTHS.
This doesn't disprove that the author of the newsletter could have received the info from Maya. Further, there's a good chance Maya saw the story before it published or immediately afterward and could have asked for a correction. Since the newsletter was posted as a PDF, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to correct it and repost it. Second, if Maya saw the article and knew that part was wrong, she could have asked where the author got the information, found it on wikipedia and requested an edit there. Instead,the allegedly incorrect information stayed at wikipedia for what, five years?? The Queen's Hospital was also published in another online encyclopedia. Neither Barack nor his people looked at these things for five years??
Which proves nothing about where he was born.
edge919, this sounds like the perfect mission for you! Cough up that duplicating costs money.
I shouldn't need to do. Did you not read what I just posted??
I’m left to wonder what the motivation is for a Republican administration in Hawaii to go to such great lengths to cover for a Democrat president.
Her state got caught in the middle of something they never intended to be part of. This is a black eye for her state and she's done nothing but parroted a few talking points hoping the truth never comes out.
I would think that someone who felt that they had a right to what the Department of Health is determining to be confidential vital records would have filed suit to get a judicial ruling on that matter.
IIUC, internet powerhouse Andy Martin has tried. butterdezillion has tried working with the OIP and AG's office. None of these departments have been, ummmm, particularly cooperative.
The story is proof. It stands until there is compelling evidence of the contrary and so far, we have nothing but hearsay from Obama apologists.
Probably because he has better things to do with his time than factcheck Wikipedia. Lord knows just catching half their errors is a full time job.
More excuses ... sparky. How much time does it take to pull up this ONE entry on Factcheck about himself to see that it's wrong and fix it?? No one is asking for him to proofread everything posted at wikipedia.
Everyone who reports on Obama is sloppy? Nope. We're just saying two people are sloppy: a high school student amateur journalist and a reporter working for a second-rate newswire who later admitted his error.
Right, because it's easier to throw these people under the bus than to admit that Obama doesn't have a solid backstory to provide. And, these aren't the only two examples of alleged sloppy reporting. We also have the Honolulu newspaper reporter who wrote that Obama was born in Indonesia. We have multiple reporters who have written that Obama's mama married Lolo Soetoro in three different years. We have mulitple reporters who wrote that Barak Sr. and Obama's mama lived together in Honolulu as husband and wife AFTER Obama was born. We have Chris Matthews who evidently said Obama was born in Indonesia. There are the different stories that have reported Obama as Kenyan born. Now we have wikipedia college students who assume what the facts are and post them. Honestly, how long is this list?? Why do all these people have such a hard time getting the story straight?? And then there are the things his own wife has said ... his mother was single when she had him, he returned home to Kenya (when it was his first trip there) and that Kenya is his home country, not the country where he was supposedly born. What a fool she is.
“Which proves nothing about where he was born.”
Exactly! I don’t believe it either. The security risk of actually telling the entire world where all the senate & diplomatic passports are kept, then they show the lock, etc. The more I think about it, this whole video is BS.
stop the video at 1:06. Look to the page on the left and you will see that the pages do not transition. The passport pages transition as one theme from left to right. It appears that someone’s photo may be on the left, hard to tell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvqgyV_2pHg
Plus, I refuse to believe that all these people keep their passports there. Really, show me where this was posted on Whitehouse.gov, give me the whitehouse.gov link and we’ll go from there.
Why don't you spring for a long distance call or hop on a plane and interview her in person and report back your findings, instead of making such inane presumptions.
He's identified in Wikipedia's "History" records as being the person who added it. Are you saying Wikipedia's in on the conspiracy too?
Did he start the original entry as it seems to go back to when it first showed up??
No it doesn't; you just made that up. Obama's Wikipedia page was created months before "Queens" was added.
Second, I don't know who he is and how honest he is or if he is vested in trying to protect the Obama myth as you seem to be. The logic behind the explanation does't make this person very credible.
The explanation was: he enjoyed editing Wikipedia pages, he took an educated guess while editing Obama's page, and he was wrong. What's not credible about that? One of the major criticisms of Wikipedia is that it's susceptible to people making unsourced guesses, which is why they've raised their standards since 2004.
Yet there are plenty of examples of original reporting elsewhere within the same story.
It's obvious Guira copied from Wikipedia, and it's proven that Wikipedia said "Queens," so it's a pretty fair assumption that he copied "Queens" from Wikipedia. Just like he copied "Mike Ditka" and "Judy Baar Topinka." On the other hand, you want to make the additional, unsupported assumption that a SECOND, UNSPECIFIED source ALSO said "Queens," despite having no evidence for that assumption and a perfectly good explanation in Wikipedia. Why, exactly, do you want to make this extra, unnecessary assumption?
Even if this part did happen to come from wikipedia (or from the same concurrent news source that wikipedia used)
AGAIN: THERE IS NO CONCURRENT NEWS SOURCE THAT WIKIPEDIA USED. A college kid added it, and he, by his own admission, had NO source. Do you just forget stuff between paragraphs you write?
You assume that it comes from the wikipedia entry and still haven't proven it. The so-called 'gap' weakens your argument. If this person was just copying straight out of wikipedia, there shouldn't be a gap.
He's paraphrasing from Wikipedia, which is what high school kids do so they don't get caught by Google. Maybe he wrote it and then cut the sentence about moving to Indonesia for space, or because he thought it was superfluous; it doesn't matter. But he still writes "Obama moved back" in the article for NO REASON unless he was rephrasing sentences without paying sufficient attention to context.
Further, there's a good chance Maya saw the story before it published or immediately afterward and could have asked for a correction.
That's a big unwarranted assumption; it's a high school newspaper. Why do you assume she saw a copy? And if she did, why do you think she'd take the trouble to write the high school newspaper editor to say "The high school kid who interviewed me named the wrong hospital where my brother was born at; please run a correction." Have you ever even SEEN a high school newspaper run a correction on a minor factual point?
Instead,the allegedly incorrect information stayed at wikipedia for what, five years??
I just said, in the post that you're responding to, that it was from 2004 to 2006. So apparently, in addition to being unable to read, you also can't count. Geez...
“Really, show me where this was posted on Whitehouse.gov, give me the whitehouse.gov link and we’ll go from there.”
Maybe it’s jammed with other people playing it, but I can’t seem to access the video. I get the screen, but no video.
Second, I have a really hard time believing all these passports are kept there and they just told the whole world.
Third, there is irregularities from page 106 (immigration stamps on right page). THe left page does not transition, it is completely different.
I can find irregularities, and think the whole thing is silly.
It proves nothing to me, but the thing is I really don’t care. This neither changes or proves to me any of my earlier ideas of his agenda.
Sorry, I typed that wrong:
There are irregularites at the time of 1:06. Look at the left page compared to the right page. They do not transition at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtUkeVHfj5w
If you go to time 1:53 on this video - stop it. Then look at the stamp page on the right, then look at the page on the left. They is not correct. The page to the left shows his photo, the following page should be a signature page, not a ‘stamp’ page’. For whatever reason, this is not correct in any way, shape, or form.
No it's not. It doesn't quote her, and nothing in the story indicates the information came from her.
How much time does it take to pull up this ONE entry on Factcheck about himself to see that it's wrong and fix it??
How do you know he ever looked at the entry on Wikipedia? Why should he have?
Right, because it's easier to throw these people under the bus
Pointing out reporter errors is hardly tanemount to throwing them under the bus.
Reporters make mistakes. It is a fact of life. Deal with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.