" 
 :You've concentrated on several things that aren't important.   
 *Your qualifications are not important to the question of whether this paragraph meets Wikipedia's rules or not.  I have qualifications which I wouldn't bother to mention, since they aren't relevant to the question at hand.  And, of course, not everyone who claims to have qualifications actually has them.   
 *The question of the quality of other articles I've worked on is not relevant to the question of whether this paragraph meets Wikipedia's rules or not.  I've done work that I'm very proud of, and also work that came early in my time at Wikipedia and that I've never bothered to go back and improve, but that doesn't relate to this paragraph.   
 *Which specific facts in the WND article I think are incorrect isn't relevant, since the problem is that WND itself is biased, and any important facts will also be reported in neutral sources.  The relevance of Obama is that WND is reporting that he was not born in the United States, which has been widely and thoroughly debunked in unbiased sources, and so it seems that WND does not have accurate fact-checking, and thus cannot be relied upon as a source of accurate information on any subject.   
 *The length of time I've been at Wikipedia, and my status as an administrator, is relevant only in that I know the rules more thoroughly than you do, since I've been working with them longer, and it would be nice if you would believe me about them, or read them for yourself when I offer links- but it isn't relevant to the question of whether this paragraph is written from a neutral point of view or not; if you had been here for a decade and today were my first day, this paragraph would still break that rule. 
 *I cannot think of any way in which the Freedom of Information Act would be relevant to this discussion in any way whatsoever.  If you are requesting information from some government entity, though, it would in general not be added to a Wikipedia article until it has been published in a reliable source like a newspaper or magazine- the information you'd get is doubtless accurate, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a first publisher of new ideas, and doesn't permit original research.   
 :What is relevant is whether this paragraph is phrased in a way that is fully neutral, not biased toward any conclusion: it is not.  Another relevant question is whether the facts in this paragraph are cited by sources that would meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources: they are, for the most part, not, and those that are, I've already added to the article.  You asked which facts I think are accurate and inaccurate, and which sections I think are phrased in a way that is biased toward a conclusion, but I've already answered that above, and it isn't convenient for me to retype my answer- it is still on this talk page if you'd like to see it again.-  ·  "