Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

Biased Deletions

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Terrence L. Lakin. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=228705 WND article] about the deletion; I'm "quoted" in the article. --Weazie (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

COLB and the lede

Growing our of a long discussion elsewhere on this talk page, I've looked here and there in this article. One thing which caught my eye is the second paragraph of the lede, which opens, "The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a 'Certification of Live Birth')" Is the document spoken of truly a certified copy of some other document? I was under the impression that is was an original document in its own right, presenting some of the information which is contained on the Certificate of Live Birth document said to be on file in Hawaii. If the released document is not truly a certified copy of some other document, I suggest that its description in the second para of the lede is inaccurate, and needs rewording. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the third paragraph of the lede and, I concur, it should reflect, from the Politifact cite already referenced, the following...

WorldNetDaily is correct that the Obama campaign didn't post his original birth certificate on the Internet.

The paragraph needs correction.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement in the lede is correct per sources that the campaign posted a certified copy of his birth certificate. Selectively quoting a source that says that WND made a semantically correct statement that the version posted is not the original version recorded, as part of making a false claim that he did not release his birth certificate, would not be helpful here. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it's not a certified copy of a certificate. It is, as they call it in 338-13, "the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof". It is in itself a (birth) certificate, rather than being a copy of some other certificate, so rewording the sentence would be appropriate. JethroElfman (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the statement, citing the politifact article. Feel free to improve my edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked it as that wasn't technically correct. The implication was that they only put a scan online when in fact, journalists were allowed to examine and photograph it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tag in caption of billboard photo

I have reverted this edit, which removed a {{fv}} tag with the explanation, "Consensus in talk page is against this tag". The tag was just recently added (in the immediatly-preceding edit) and has not been specifically discussed on this talk page. The insertion of the tag was mentioned here but I've opened this separate section for discussion to save it becoming lost in that very long other section. Actually, I have no objection to the tag being removed if it can be demonstrated here that the cited source does support the assertions to which the source citation is attached. Those assertions are

1. A billboard questioning the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate
2. and by extension his eligibility to serve as President of the United States

I did look for clear and specific support for the assertions in the cited supporting source [1]. I didn't find it. Perhaps I screwed up and missed it. If I did miss it, could someone please quote the supporting snippet from the cited source here for each of those two assertions? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously there and you are being very tedious. I have to go on a trip this morning to research our family history, but will be back tomorrow evening. Dave Dial (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (except the going on a trip part). --Weazie (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is tedious (long and tiresome). That word, "tedious", is wikilinked above to the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing project page. The lead sentence there reads, "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole." I don't believe my comments here have been partisan, biased or skewed. It seems to me that this article (in particular, the lead image caption which has been the topic of so much recent discussion) flouts WP policy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope that with this edit the discussion will now come to an end, as it has gone into WP:DEADHORSE territory. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that with this edit, Dave Dial removed the {{fv}} tag again, without mentioning its removal here. The edit summary said, "Yes, they are there. Stop inserting this against consensus, its very tedious."

I reread the cited source once again and do see what looks to me like pure innuendo saying, "... 'Birthers' movement, people who doubt that President Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as president." and "The conservative WorldNetDaily.com Web site is the conductor of the Birther train." If that's the quality of support on which this article rests, so be it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Synthetic fluff in Official Response section

I just undid someone else's unexplained undo of my removal of the sentence "Although commentators have suggested that it would not be advantageous to President Obama to address the conspiracy theories, both he and his press secretary have had to respond to reporters' questions about the issue" from the Official Response section. It's facially apparent that that sentence is semantically unacceptable, for several reasons:

1. "Although", which is defined by the wiktionary as "though; even though; in spite of" is being used inappropriately. In this sentence, the clause does not express a concession to the premise.
2. "commentators have suggested" - see WP:WEASEL.
3. The phrase "he and his press secretary have had to" suggests that they were compelled to respond to reporters question. That is not bourne out by the article's sources (nor is it correct).

Moreover, it's hardly noteworthy that there are commentators who don't think that the president and his press secretary are behaving to their own advantage. Leave it out. 24.177.121.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Synthetic fluff?? that's your Point of View. The sentence in question provides a great transition from the paragraph above it which states that commentators have advised against responding to the conspiracy theories, and the fact that Obama and his White House have responded to the conspiracy theories, as given below. It is an essential transition sentence that should be returned to the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yah, except not really. It's an awkward sentence that's lacking in citations or notability, and implies inaccuracies. I'm pretty sure that the article is better off without it. Maybe take a shot at rephrasing it if you think there's a desperate need for a transition sentence there, but the very fact that you've acknowledged that it's just a transition sorta makes my point that the statement is fluff. 24.177.121.39 (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Although it is the responsibility of the editor proposing a change to establish consensus before edit warring, I do kinda agree with 24.177's position here. "Although..." sets a narrative tone that is not encyclopedic. What commentators have suggested is not as important as the nominal subject of the heading, the official response - about Administration actions, not commentator viewpoints. The issue is not what is advantageous to Obama, but how Obama responded. There is an implicit assumption that actions should be measured up to advantage -- in other words political expediency. Why is that? We don't do that in most articles. We do not say "Although it would have been advantageous for Gallileo to praise the Pope, he..." And finally, "have had to" is incorrect. Nobody pointed a gun at anybody to make them do things. Political actors did what they did for their own reasons. To imply that they had no choice misses the point. All in all, the presently-deleted sentence inserts more commentary than clarity in my opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Victor's original undo had no summary - it was as likely a mistake or vandalism as it was a legit edit. There's no WP:EDITWAR here. 24.177.121.39 (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Don't like "have had to"? replace with "could not avoid".
• Don't like "Although"? replace with any other transition of your choosing. Suggestions: "Even though", "In spite".

Some transition is needed in order to bridge the dichotomy between the paragraph saying that commentators have suggested he not respond and the paragraphs saying that he did. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with the new wording. Thank you, Wikidemon. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Texas birther bill

Texas is now another state that has a birther bill on its plate. If anybody is interested in reading and then summarizing to add to the article in the appropriate section, here are a couple of references: one, two. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody took action, I took it upon myself to add this. This law could have some unintended consequences, as I'm not sure Sarah Palin could produce her original 1964 Idaho birth certificate, or will they add language to the bill that the requirement only applies to candidates named Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.? We'll have to wait and see. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

there is no need to be snide, Victor. this is just a talk page, not an episode of Crossfire lol :D User:Smith Jones 16:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I did cross a line from discussing how to improve the article into ranting and raving. I am hereby crossing out my ranting. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

hey, man there's no need to overeact like THAT! I understnad the temptation to make fun of these guys; those whole "birther" nonsense is more irritating than a mayonnaise can full of water-balloons. sometimes we gotta blow of a little steam and i was just making sure that no one else decided to jump in after u to turn this into a political battle. no harm no foul though, right?? User:Smith Jones 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments re a recent edit, and a possible source to satisfy an inserted {{who}} template.

I don't have this article on a personal "hit list". Honest, I don't. However, I do have it on my watchlist and I do look at it when it pops up.

This edit recently popped up. I looked at the cites supporting the first assertion changed in that edit, not expecting to find an issue. Supporting an article assertion which says, "...[previous cite support] Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii 'does not have a short-form or long-form certificate'." This is supported by two cited sources;

• Reyes, B.J. (2008-10-31). "Certified". "Political Radar". Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Retrieved 2010-01-01. That article does not appear to support the Okubo quote.
• "Hawaii: Obama born in U.S." The Seattle Times. Seattle, Washington, U.S.: The Seattle Times Company. Associated Press. 2008-11-01. ISSN an AP article 0745-9696Cites an AP article. Retrieved 2010-01-01. {{cite news}}: Check |issn= value (help) That is an item from AP in the Seattle Times. A headline writer at the Seattle Times apparently retitled the AP item; the AP headline writer had titled it "HONOLULU — State officials said Friday there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii." The body of the article, however, makes no assertion regarding Obama's place of birth. Also, this cited source does not support the Okubo quote.

Note that WP:V requires that a reliable source be cited in support of the direct quote of Okubo.

Re the {{who}} change made in that edit, WND is one entity making such a claim. This is covered in a WND report mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. The report is available from WND via an emailed link (see [http://www.wnd.com/index.php/?pageId=199373]), but I'm not sure that WND would be regarded as a reliable source here regarding whether WND has claimed that foreign-born children could acquire Hawaiian certification of live birth (the report makes such a claim on page 7). Also, I was going to mention a note in the article's Notes section which pointed to a Western Journalism Center article containing a report purporting to detail means by which Hawaii birth certificates could be obtained in 1961 for children born overseas, but I see that the edit which prompted this comment removed the Notes section and links to it from the body of the article. I'm not sure whether or not the Western Journalism Center is considered a reliable source in this article regarding whether or not they have asserted that Hawaii birth certificates could be obtained in 1961 for children born overseas but, if so, see this. Actually, the WND report relies on the Western Journalism Center info for this, though they don't specifically cite the relevant Western Journalism Center link I've just mentioned. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither WND nor the Western Journalism Center are reliable sources for this topic. Sorry. 24.177.121.39 (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I take it, then, that the {{Who}} tag at the end of the following article snippet:

“ Some people claim that the certification of live birth produced by Obama does not prove that he is a natural born citizen because, they claim, foreign-born children could acquire Hawaiian certification of live birth (COLB), so that Obama's possession of such a certificate does not prove that he was born in Hawaii.{{who}} ”

Is within a context where neither WND nor Western Journalism Center are reliable sources to support assertions that such claims have been made by WND or Western Journalism Center (they have). That seems a bit insane and/or Orwellian to me, but is probably not considered so within the context of this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me put this as plainly as I can. WND is an advocacy organization, not a news source. They have flat-out lied in their publication about their statements and actions in support of the birther conspiracy theories. We therefore cannot take them to be a reliable source as to their own beliefs and actions. If they publish something saying that in the past they made a claim, we need to verify that they did in fact make that claim in the past, and cannot take their word for it. However, if they publish a claim that Obama is not a citizen, we can take that as a valid primary source that they have made such a claim. If there is anything Orwellian about this obvious observation, it comes from WND's actions, not the commonsense point that if you're caught lying about something you can't be trusted to tell the truth about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, WND hasn't published a claim that Obama is not a citizen (they have reported on others making such claims). The {{who}} template spoken of above isn't related to the question of whether WND has published such a claim. That template asks that sources be identified which have published claims that "... the certification of live birth produced by Obama does not prove that he is a natural born citizen because, they claim, foreign-born children could acquire Hawaiian certification of live birth (COLB)". Western Journalism Center has published an unedited report by an unaffiliated investigator which made such a claim. Based on that, WND echoed the claim in a report they've published. My understanding is that the gatekeepers of this article consider that neither WND nor Western Journalism Center are reliable sources to support assertions that WND and Western Journalism Center have published this material. Are you saying that these reports by WND and Western Journalism Center are reliable sources in the context of this article for the purpose of supporting assertions that that those sources have published whatever is contained in WND or Western Journalism Center articles cited for the purpose of establishing that they have published that material? (I would think so, but for the "Neither WND nor the Western Journalism Center are reliable sources for this topic." stonewall) If so, is there any disagreement with this from other editors acting as screeners of RS-ness in the context of this article? My earlier attempt to cite the Western Journalism Center article for this purpose was removed by this edit.

In case it becomes an issue, I'll mention that the edit summary of that removing edit quibbled with the words "placed on record" in the note added by the removed material, saying, "... 'placed on record' implies it wasn't always there." To clarify that wording, it came from the statement in the cited article saying, "In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record.".

Just out of curiosity, can you clarify what WND lied about, and point me to where they published those lies? I know that they've published assertions which they've later retracted, but that happens in journalism. I'm curious about the specifics of their lies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you intentionally obfuscated that question, but I'm also pretty sure that the answer to the question of "Are... reports by WND and Western Journalism Center... reliable sources... for the purpose of supporting assertions that [they] have published whatever is contained in [their] articles cited for the purpose of establishing that they have published that material?" is still "no", because they constitute a primary source for assertions as to what they have published. Again, sorry, but I take umbrage at your characterization of this position; it's not a stonewall, it's an accurate interpretation of WP:RS vis-a-vis WP:PRIMARY. (boo-yah). 24.177.121.39 (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Intentional obfuscation? Give me a break (otherwise known as assuming good faith). Guys (you guys posting anonymously as well as those posting with revealed WP userieds), can we please discuss things in a reasonable manner rather than in an atmosphere of making and fending off personal attacks?

Re "umbrage at your characterization of this position", my understanding is that you (the editor posting anonymously from IP address 24.177.121.39) assert that reports by WND and Western Journalism Center that their reports reporting (whatever) are not reliable sources supporting assertions that their reports reported whatever their reports reported. Do I have that right? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that any rational discussion has any been had, once you begin talking about stonewalling and article gatekeepers. You are making a deliberately obtuse point out of a simple question of reliable sourcing, in order to mock the implied irony of not trusting what a publication says about itself. I have already described the circumstances of WND's misrepresentations after it engineered a fake story about Wikipedia, then denied it, and pointed you to a blog that goes over the facts, here. That's easy enough to reconstruct directly if you go through the edit history of the Barack Obama article and talk page from the period, as well as that of the WND sockpuppet account that edited there and on the Aaron Klein article. If there's a proposed edit to come out of this I would like to see the proposal and we can give it a simple up or down discussion. Meanwhile I would ask for alternate sourcing of anything at all that is potentially controversial that relies on WND as a secondary source, including in particular statements made by WND about itself. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's what you meant re assertions about WND having lied. I thought that you might have been speaking of some other incident. I think that you're right in saying that there's nothing to be gained in discussing that here. I did find the extreme bias in the article at the link which you provided entertaining, though. "right wing foamers-at-the-mouth", "pathetic right-wing conspiracy hopes"; priceless.

Re a proposed edit, I'm not sure (in light of this) whether we've come to a consensus about whether WND or the Western Journalism Center are considered reliable sources here for citations of articles they have published for purposes of illustrating the fact that those sources actually have published the articles cited, but what I would like to do is to redo the note which I added in this edit to satisfy the {{who}} tag (that note having subsequently been removed and the {{who}} tag reinserted by this edit -- which is part of what we've been discussing here.)

Another part of what we've been discussing here is support for an Okubo quote. Checking, I see that the particular quote at issue here is now supported. However, another Okubo quote citing this is now unsupported because the cited source says, "This item has been removed by the uploader!" (one wonders about the RS status of that source, but nevermind). That quote needs a different supporting cite. Perhaps this will do. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to "come to a consensus" as to whether WND or Western Journalism Center are reliable sources. They're not. That's a Wikipedia thing, not just this article. If you would like to beat the dead horse over at the RS noticeboard, have at it but there's no need to discuss it here. It's well established that, despite the grandiose titles they've given themselves, they are not reliable journalistic sources. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen an editorial assertion (don't recall the precise wording) to the effect that source RSness is determined for an article topic by consensus of article editors. When I saw that, I wasn't completely accepting of it but didn't challenge it at the time. I thought that was on this talk page, but it must have been elsewhere as I can't find it here. Anyhow, I've just asked the question we've been discussing here at RSN. See here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion at RSN (here) has, I think, run its course with the result, as explained at one point there, "... At times it is going to be necessary to point to one of these unreliable sources and reiterate whatever is being said. Doing so isn't OR, it's making use of a primary source by pointing to the originator rather than some secondary source who does so. Since primary sources are acceptable, WJC and WND can be referenced as examples that 'someone said this...'."

However, while that's been going on, this edit, changed the article assertion we've been talking about, narrowing it so that the WJC article we've been discussing as a potential supporting cite no longer pertains. Accordingly, even though that document would be a reliable primary source for supporting an assertion that WJC had published the material contained therein, I'll not be reinserting the removed cite at this point because, AFAICS, it is no longer needed to support the assertion in its changed form. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly "the result". Seems as if there was a conversation between four editors, with three doing most of the opinons, and there was by no means any consensus. In any case, I think some people have a confusion between self published sourcing for a subjects own article and using that same source as a reliable source for other articles. Based on Wikidemon's posts above, and the long standing unreliability for WND and WJC, they would not be an RS for anything other than for their own articles. But could be used as a secondary source when referred to by a primary, reliable source. Dave Dial (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for policy clarification here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

its not that I dont believe yu, but could I get a link to that policy just for my own personal use if this isue ever comes up again (here or on anyother article?) i have tried to research it via Google and Ic ant find the Wikipage where WND/Western Jouralism Center is specifically banned from mention as a sourcation). User:Smith Jones 00:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at the Reliable Source Noticeboard - there's multiple discussions about WND, including some fairly recently that may not have been archived. In short, WND is not considered a reliable source. Ravensfire (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

For example: "Moreover, it also publishes WND, which absolutely is not a reliable source."Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_81#Religion

"Not this again. I'm not going to rehash this ad infinitum for an editor who refuses to hear a consensus with which he does not agree. We do not evaluate a reliable source on a case-by-case basis for reporting dry facts -- either a source is reliable, or it isn't. The last time Jake tried this multiple editors explained that WND is only reliable for its opinion (not dry facts), and we referenced at least six previous RSN discussions that validated this point; Find the last RSN discussion (that came from Jake's last attempt) here. How many times do we have to go through this?" and "WND is a propaganda outlet. It's not a reliable source for anything (except maybe it's own opinions, when the opinion writer in question is notable and relevant and so on)." and "WND is not a reliable source for anything other than its own opinion, and inclusion of that opinion has to meet WP:DUE and should always be attributed when it does. Case closed." and "I strongly disagree that Certainly WND is reliable for statements as to what the opinions of constituent groups are: they have a long history of misreporting and misrepresenting such opinions." and so on... Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_80#World_Net_Daily_-_RS_citation.3F This discussion was closed with an injunction against an editor who continually tried to have WND accepted as a reliable source, clearly stating "the (unchanged) consensus that WND is reliable only for its own opinions, and does not have a 'reputation for fact checking and accuracy.'" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_80#World_Net_Daily_-_RS_citation.3F

There's a whole lot more. But that should be enough to get the point. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your help i forgot to check the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Anyway im going to bookmarka that page for future reference if this issue ever crops up agian here or another artikle!!! User:Smith Jones 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Legitimacy (Law)

I unlinked a few uses of the word "legitimacy" from the article Legitimacy (law). In this context, "legitimacy" does not refer to "the status of a child who is born to parents who are legally married to one another," which is what that article describes, but rather whether Obama meets the qualifications to be "legitimately" elected president. Just a reminder-- just because there exists an article titled something does not mean that all occurrences of that word need to be links to it. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

why didnt you seek approval on the talk page and get consensus before doing that? need i remind you that this article in on article probation for a reason?!? User:Smith Jones 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't require prior approval for any WP:BOLD edit, but it's a good idea to discuss in advance edits that will be controversial. This one looks like an uncontroversial technical edit, fixing a minor mistake in fact. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

even so, its a matter of courtesy and respect. I agree that the edits are uncontoversial and useful, but I am somewhat uncomfortable of unilateral changes such as therein, especially be a non-registered "editor". User:Smith Jones 18:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:RESPECT, I would ask that you not employ scare quotes when referring to me. I have every right to edit this article as an IP user, as it is not protected or semi-protected. If you're confused about the policy, may I suggest you review WP:IP? 184.59.23.225 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 184. Your edit was helpful, and your explanation here was desirable to point out that "legitimacy" had been linked to an inappropriate article. You are also quite correct that you are an editor with the same standing as any other editor, and there was no need for you to gain consensus prior to that change. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

fair enough, Johuniq and 184; i apologize for overstepping a bit here. i have ebeen involved in a lot of controvesial cases here and i guess im just a little touchy. still, it was unfair of me to take this out on you so i apologize again for what i said and any inferences that i might have made. User:Smith Jones 15:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposals for splitting the article

Since this article is so long, perhaps it should be split. Some ideas of particularly long sections that could stand as their own articles: Litigation based on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Legislation based on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I'm not in favor one way or the other, just offering up a suggestion. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The current litigation section is 49KBytes long, and the current legislation section is 13KBytes long (and will likely grow as the 2012 presidential elections approach and the fact that more state legislatures are controlled by Republicans). Victor Victoria (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Before splitting, the section can be reviewed to see what can be pruned from it first. For example, several of the cases include lengthy descriptions of it going through the court system. I think most of the cases, especially ones that have been resolved, can be pruned to 2 or 3 sentences. For the cases where the plaintiff has a separate article (Phillip J. Berg), move the details there if it really needs to be kept. There's just a lot of extra stuff in there from people excited about this new development or that new decision. It's a good time to reduce the cruft. Ravensfire (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think list articles of vexatious cases and oddball failed legislation are going to be a useful addition to the encyclopedia. Further, one would have to establish a context in each article that it is fringe activity, creating unnecessary redundancy. Better just to trim the fluff. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It doesn't seem to me like many of cases or legislation listed are very notable. Instead of splitting them out, let's pare them back. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think there is a whole lot of "fluff"/"cruft" in the article that can be trimmed without sacrificing completeness and comprehensiveness. Regardless, it seems that there isn't a whole lot of support for splitting the article. We should leave the template in the article for a few more days to invite more editors to give their thoughts. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree this article does not need splitting, as separate catagories wouldn't really stand on their own. I think this article is overinclusive and very bloated; edits would go a long way. For example, there doesn't need to be a blow-by-blow of each failed lawsuit or birther bill. If anything, a representative discussion of one suit/bill would suffice, with a brief sentence mentioning the others. --Weazie (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing the "blow-by-blow" would sacrifice comprehensiveness, especially since it would not be provided anywhere else. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Minutiae are not encyclopedic. And I don't suggest eliminating the references, just not devoting so much real estate to repetitive matters and trivial details. --Weazie (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

For example, Barnett v. Obama is three paragraphs long (and it was longer). Most of its text is useless: the only relevant information is that the case was dismissed, with the court ruling most of the plaintiffs lacked standing, and the few who possibly had standing were barred by the political-question doctrine. --Weazie (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I also think there is no need to split this article and it is way too big. In fact, I would say that it should be cut down by 80%, and only the first few sections should be kept. In my opinion, there is absolutely no need to include every single accusation thrown out there by every single Birther. Perhaps there should be some kind of notability criteria set up for inclusion. Dave Dial (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

With about 60% of Repulicans being birthers, the article certainly does not include "every single accusation thrown out there by every single Birther". The problem is that there are many notable people who are birthers, which would make their belief in the conspiracy theories notable. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a reason that this silliness is even an article, and it's because so many falsely believe it. But that certainly does not mean that every time someone supposedly "notable" becomes a "birther" or files a case it needs to be added to this article. If that person does not already have an article, then someone can suggest it, if the person has an article, it can be added it there. I don't think this article is "List of Birthers and their failed lawsuits". Dave Dial (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that if a "failed lawsuit" is covered by WP:RS then it becomes notable, and should be included in the article if we want the article to be comprehensive. To be honest, I do not know how many "failed lawsuit" exist that do not receive WP:RS coverage, but I'm willing to guess that there are some.

As for the "list of birthers", notability is essentially defined as having a WP article, as there is a lot of scrutiny to articles, and articles that fail WP:Notability get deleted. While each "notable" birther can have his/her bio article mention that he/she is a birther, I think that a comprehensive article about a conspiracy theory should include all community leaders who believe in the conspiracy theory -- especially elected officials.

Then there is the question of all the birther bills. As I wrote above, I expect more states to start debating birther bills as the 2012 elections get closer. A comprehensive article about the conspiracy theory should include all laws (and proposed laws) that are motivated by the conspiracy theory. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. There are millions of lawsuits in America, and nearly all are mentioned in one publication or another. Hundreds of thousands probably get written up, and many extreme and ridiculous ones (as some of these are) get written up as curiosities. There are a lot of topics - teen pregnancy, immigration, flag burning, school prayer, cyber-bullying, what have you, that generate waves of mostly ineffective or unconstitutional local legislation every year. Wikipedia isn't the court reporter. Cataloging every vexatious case or bill that does not become law on a given topic isn't our job. The article is a survey of the topic, not a database. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that there are "millions of lawsuits in America" (over the years, not every year). But I disagree that "nearly all are mentioned in one publication or another". Most attract absolutely no attention. Most lawsuits that do attract attention would not, of course, be notable enough to have their own article (unless they reach the Supreme Court, or are otherwise notable such as the O.J. Simpson murder case). Most conspiracy theory based lawsuits would also be ignored by the media, as the media cannot cover each and every mentally deranged individual who files lawsuit. This is why I think that each birther lawsuit covered by WP:RS should be covered in this article, as they would all be notable. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

instead of paring them back to nothing, which would make ths earitcles confusing, why not just summarize the legislation into a small group instead of dividing them up by state? the lawsuits can be pared back since a lot of them are repetitive, focus on the ones put up by people who are themselves notable for instance like Orly Taitz or John Lennon as examples of people who are notable even if they have no put forth anything legislative regarding this isse. User:Smith Jones 15:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would prefer to see the article pared down. If we don't want to do that, I suggest leaving it together in this one place. I saw a mess created once where a new article was spawned from a list within the main article. There was much less oversight of the spin-off, and it quickly became "List of Crazy Shit that Responsible Editors Wouldn't Allow in the Main Article". JethroElfman (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any need to either pare down or split the article. Considering the subject matter it isn't all that long. We have many articles that are much longer. We just need to cut down on extra wordiness, and where lawsuits have reached a conclusion, then leave out most of the preliminary fluff. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Descriptions of both birth certificate images

I attempted to resolve a POV/NPOV issue I sensed by wording the image descriptions in a similar fashion, but this edit was reverted, with the edit summary "....Restore consensus description - Please do not change this without talk page consensus."

I'm sorry if I stepped into a controversial area. I wasn't aware there had been a conflict over this. I don't see any on this talk page, but maybe the discussion is in the archives. Would someone please point me to it? Would you also please explain briefly what was problematic about my edit? I saw the two descriptions as a subtle, but possibly not intended, POV push to make it appear that the long form was somehow more legitimate than the short form, or that the absence of more detail on the short form could indicate that Obama's Certificate of Live Birth was a forgery. I'm obviously affected by all the conspiracy theories in the media and I suspect that readers coming to the article might also read into the very different wordings such unintended editorial POV pushing that violates NPOV. Please explain. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brangifer, there has been many attempts at pushing the "Birther" POV here, and it's better to just leave the consensus version that has been debated here many times. One such time is here. Personally, I don't like the way the page is set up, and thought that having the image of the birth certificate by itself in the lede was better. Of course there is no real issue here, only in the minds of some fringe conspiracy theorists. If you would like to change the caption, you should make your proposal here and ask for input. I do not believe adding "shot form" makes the birth certificate caption better. It's the official Hawaii birth certificate, and there is no "short form". Dave Dial (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I made the correction to minimize what I saw as a subtle birther POV push, although probably unintentional. By making the captions as identical and neutral as possible, I didn't think anyone would object. As far as the "short-form" and "long-form" terminology, I got that from the article itself. The images show both forms as they existed in 1961. Whether they both exist now is an irrelevant matter. I'm no expert on this subject, so if I'm wrong I hope to be corrected.

I'll go ahead and share my edit here as a proposal and we can tweak it to everyone's satisfaction:

Current captions

• Scanned image of Barack Obama's birth certificate released by his presidential campaign in June 2008.

• An image of a sample Certificate of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii in 1961. The certificate includes detailed information such as hospital and physician names

Proposed captions using as much identical language as possible

• Scanned image of Barack Obama's "short-form" "Certification of Live Birth" issued by the State of Hawaii. This copy was released by his presidential campaign in June 2008.

• Scanned image of a sample "long-form" "Certificate of Live Birth" issued by the State of Hawaii in 1961. The certificate includes detailed information such as hospital and physician names

What think ye? Any objections? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not right. If the article gave you the impression that these are two forms that both date from 1961, then perhaps you can come up with an edit to make it more clear. The 'short form' - 'long form' distinction is something that the birthers came up with. Hawaii only issues one document, which in 1961 was labelled "Certificate of Live Birth" and looked like the File:1961_Certificate_Of_Live_Birth.jpg. In 2007 it was labelled "Certification of Live Birth", and looked like the File:BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirth.jpg. Unfortunately, they don't and AFAIK have never issued anything labelled "Birth Certificate". The difference in appearance is because of the year in which it was issued, not anything to do with short or longness, or legal validity, or authenticity. The article tries to make this distinction plain, but you can offer to make improvements. Perhaps the captions could be updated to indicate something along these lines. JethroElfman (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point about "certificate" and "certification". The text is small and I didn't notice the different spelling. I'll correct that now (above). As far as the difference in saying "birth certificate" and "certificate of live birth", the article and sources use them interchangeably, and they do mean the same thing in actual practice.

The short and long forms are different in that the long form contains more information. They are both perfectly valid. The fact that the article showed an image of the long form was what made me suspicious that birthers were using it in an attempt to make the short form seem less legitimate, but that's not true, which is why I tried to harmonize the language. Another solution would be to simply not show a long form. Just leave out that image.

So is there still a problem with my wording when I've explained that? -- Brangifer (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship Issue a moot point?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Uh...correct me if I'm wrong, but if President Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, wouldn't that make HIM a citizen too, regardless of where he was born?74.192.58.206 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Yes. What's relevant in this connection is the requirement that the US President be a natural born citizen, not one who is a naturalized citizen. Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen since he was born in Hawaii. The birthers claim he wasn't born in the USA, which would mean he wouldn't be eligible for the presidency. For some strange reason neither the FBI, CIA, KGB, etc. seem to have ever known that he wasn't born in the USA.....simply because he wasn't! To believe the birther's argument demands an incredible stretch of the imagination. It would mean that all the friends and enemies of the USA were involved in a vast conspiracy, which is ludicrous. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Not true. The Law of Nations, a book written in 1758 by Emerich de Vattel, was the first document to contain the term "Natural Born Citizen". In § 212 of "The Law," titled "Of the Citizens and Natives," the word "Natural Born Citizen" is defined, and explained, thusly: “ -The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are ----citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of ----what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these ----become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the ----country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.-” As our founding fathers are now deceased, and since we have no accurate way of interpreting the intended meaning of the term "natural born citizen," we utilize logical conclusions based upon documents which would have influenced our founding fathers' thought. Since The Law of Nations was, indeed, the only document available in the time of our founding fathers that includes the term "Natural Born Citizen," such a reasonable conclusion can be reached that the term, as it is used in the Constitution, means that not only must one be born in a country, but must also be born of parents who were both born in that country as well. As Obama clearly fails the latter qualification, a reasonable assumption can be made that he is not a natural born citizen by constitutional standards. 24.208.207.15 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC) That argument only holds up if you conveniently ignore the 14th Amendment and any other Federal citizenship laws passed since its adoption. Henrymrx (t·c) 13:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Also, bummer for former presidents Jefferson, Jackson, Buchanan, Arthur, Wilson, and Hoover, all of whom had at least one foreign-born parent (Jackson had two).--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC) No. I would really like to change the article to put this point at the beginning of the "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii" section, instead of at the end of it where it is now. Also, the business about whether anyone can get a Hawaiian birth certificate should me moved entirely to the section "Claims that the certification of live birth is irrelevant". In the United States Code the relevant section 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) at the time required that the citizen parent be 18 years old. The secondary-source interpretation is referenced to Eugene Volokh here: [2]. Do we have to treat this as controversial? Does anyone have a RS link of a different interpretation? JethroElfman (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I agree. The Volokh cite does adequately discusses the issue. But this article about the beliefs and arguments presented, and not their accuracy: While of course the article should note that a particular belief has been discredited, this article isn't the place to demonstratively debunk every argument, but rather refer to the debunking done by others. --Weazie (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Vattel was writing about jus sanguinis, which holds that one may only become a citizen through descent from a citizen or by naturalization. The U.S. however received English common law, including jus soli, which holds that one may become a citizen through birth within the U.S. or by naturalization. Notice Vattel does not distinguish between natural born citizens and people who become citizens at birth. It is unlikely that the writers of the constitution would be referring to Vattel's book. TFD (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC) "Natural born" vs "naturalized" As far as American citizenship law regarding "natural born" status is concerned, the citizenship or home of the parents is of no consequence, ONLY the place of birth of the child. That determines the difference between "natural born" and "naturalized". If the child is born within the USA, then it is automatically granted full "natural born" citizenship. Right now there are conservative forces in the USA who are trying to change the laws so that children born in the USA will not automatically become citizens if their parents aren't citizens. That's because there are many cases of people traveling to the USA and deliberately having their children born there so that their children become "natural born" citizens. Later, because of that relationship, the parents and siblings are treated favorably when they seek admission to live in the USA. I am an American, born to American citizens on both sides, but because I was born outside the USA I became a "naturalized" citizen, which means I can never run for the Presidency. That's the law. I have lived in Europe for many years and my wife isn't a US citizen. Because I am a US citizen, both of my children are automatically "naturalized" citizens from birth, even though they weren't born in the USA. They can never seek the Presidency. They are also "natural born" citizens in the European country where they were born, also because their mother is a citizen. So each of my children has two passports! Citizenship laws vary quite a bit from country to country. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Do you have any source for that? My understanding is that a person born of U.S. parents is born a citizen, while a non-citizen who becomes an American is naturalized. TFD (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC) A person born to US citizen parents (even if only one is a US citizen) automatically becomes a citizen, but the birthplace them comes into play. They are "natural born" if born on US territory (states, embassies, military bases), otherwise they must be "naturalized". I became "naturalized" when I was 10 years old, which was when my missionary parents returned to the USA after many years in Asia where I was born. I had to stand in Los Angeles with raised right hand and swear an oath and sign a paper. I have the certificate. (I was also fingerprinted.) My children had to go through the same process. Until I became an adult I was always mentioned in my mother's passport, including a little picture of me. When traveling we went through lines together and the people checking her passport were often nice to me (candy or gum ....;-) What I hated as a kid was all the shots I had to get whenever we travelled, which was quite a bit. I've been vaccinated for practically every tropical disease, which partially accounts for why I'm very healthy, having never contracted any of them and my immune system has been spared the devastation it would suffer if it had had to deal with such a disease. Vaccinations prevent that from happening. People who suffer such dangerous diseases and somehow survive are often weakened for the rest of their lives. Anyone else who wishes to become a US citizen must go through this "naturalization" process to become a citizen. It is a legal recognition of citizenship NOT based on birthplace. For more information: Naturalization#United_States Natural born citizen of the United States Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned Brangifer (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Hmmm...I just don't think that's correct. I do believe that if an American is born to two American parents, they are natural born Americans no matter where they were born. I never got the hub-bub about McCain, and I know it's been argued that even if Obama was born in Kenya(of course I know it's an indisputable fact that he was not, and was born in Hawaii) he would still be a natural born American because his mother was American. The only reason he would not, in this false hypothetical scenario, would be because his mother was not living in America for 5 years beyond her 14th(?) birthday. In any case, it's all pretty moot, but this is my understanding of the laws. Dave Dial (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Actually the citizenship of the parents, under current USA law, is irrelevant. That's why there are conservative forces at work to change the law. As I wrote above, there are many cases of people traveling to the USA and deliberately having their children born there so that their children become "natural born" citizens. Later, because of that relationship, the parents and siblings are treated favorably when they seek admission to live in the USA. That wouldn't be a possibility or an issue if the citizenship of the parents made a difference. Right now it doesn't, only the place of birth. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC) My paternal and maternal ancestry is American for many generations, but because I wasn't born on US territory (a state, embassy or military base), I am not a natural born citizen. I had to be "naturalized" to get my own American passport and citizenship status. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, I know that no matter what nationality a parent is on American soil, if they have the child on that soil he/she would be a natural born American. That's not what I was pointing out. There are laws that specifically address children born to American parents on foreign soil. Specific criteria needs to be met, but I believe that child would be considered a natural born American if born to two American parents. Or one, for that matter. As long as the child did not live in the other county into adulthood. Then there are other rules. Dave Dial (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC) I know that the child has to be born on American territory, which also includes American embassies and military bases. I'm not aware of any other rules, but then they must not have applied to me or I would have heard about them. Both of my parents are/were (mother's dead) American citizens. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Also see the Territorial jurisdiction article. Without researching the relevant US law, I doubt that a child born of a noncitizen mother who sneaked into a US Embassy or onto a US military base located outside the US to give birth would be considered a NBC of the US. My understanding is that a child born of a mother who sneaked across the national border into a US state (or, probably, into a US territory such as Puerto Rico or Guam) would most likely be considered a NBC. My understanding is also that the matter has not been adjudicated, and that any firm pronouncements on the subject are expressions of individual. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Hey, guys, wikipedia is not a forum. Closing thread... 24.177.121.39 (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved "Monroe County grand jury" section for work

This section is screwed up, even the references. Also far too much detail and including all caps of fanatic's rant. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Following is the text which was moved here from the article for work:

Monroe County grand jury

Normally, only prosecutors can seek grand jury indictments. Monroe County, Tennessee is unique in that it allows any citizen to seek a grand jury. Walter Fitzpatrick III, a former Navy lieutenant commander, made a presentation to the Monroe County grand jury in August 2009 seeking an indictment of Obama for treason, based on his belief that Obama "is not an American citizen and thus ineligible to serve as president".

The Monroe County grand jury declined to return an indictment, so on April 1, 2010, Fitzpatrick returned to the grand jury and sought the arrest of the foreman. Fitzpatrick got arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. On April 20, 2010, another man, Darren Huff from Georgia, traveled to Monroe County to support Fitzpatrick, but was himself arrested for inciting a riot. On April 30, 2010, Huff was arrested again, this time on federal charges for attempting to disrupt the proceedings against Fitzpatrick. On October 28, 2010, Fitzpatrick was arrested again for failing to appear in court for the incident from April 1. On December 1, 2010, the first day of Fitzpatrick's trial, Huff pleaded no contest to disrupting a meeting, and the remaining state charges were dropped.

BullRangifer, is this the section that u took from the article or have you improved upon it already?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs) 08:49, December 2, 2010

It's the original section. I'm hoping that some of the regular editors here know what was intended, can fix it, and then reinstate it. There is refs code visible and all caps, among other problems. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the above to fix technical problems with the refs and to flesh out the barebones ones. I haven't edited the prose. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks much better! Now about the all caps and unnuanced and blatant quote that Obama "is not an American citizen"..... We need to NPOV that, especially since they are fringe charges. Let me give it a try. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to state the facts without highlighting fringe claims so it's there in an NPOV manner. Is that good enough to go back in the article? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this even belong? The TPM ref is the only case for notability, to be honest. Local media for something like this isn't a whole lot. If it's kept, something along these lines -

Walter Fitzpatrick III, a former Navy lieutenant commander, asked the Monroe County, Tennessee grand jury in August 2009 to indict "DICTATOR, OBAMA-SOETORO" for treason, claiming that Obama "is not an American citizen and thus ineligible to serve as president".

The Monroe County grand jury declined to return an indictment, so on April 1, 2010, Fitzpatrick returned to the grand jury and sought the arrest of the foreman. Fitzpatrick got arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. On April 20, 2010, another man, Darren Huff from Georgia, traveled to Monroe County to support Fitzpatrick, but was himself arrested for inciting a riot. On April 30, 2010, Huff was arrested on federal charges for attempting to disrupt the proceedings against Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick was arrested again on October 28, 2010 for failing to appear in court for the charges from April 1. As Fitzpatrick's trial began on December 1, 2010, Huff pleaded no contest to disrupting a meeting, and the remaining state charges against him were dropped.

Even after some pruning and reorg, it's still ugly. There's nothing really special here - someone tried to get an indictment, failed and someone else thought that was wrong. Add in some stupidity, and you end up with charges. It makes TPM because it's essentially a good laugh. Where's the notability in all of this? Ravensfire (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It doesn't even belong in that section because it's not a bill "to address future questions about eligibility". I say we can it and send it to the archives. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is notable because proponents of these eligibility theories ended up getting themselves arrested when they went from just talk to trying to initiate proceedings against Obama. Agreed that the section was poorly placed. --Weazie (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's "interesting", but hardly notable. Fanatics who get themselves arrested for violence and other illegal acts are numerous. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Under that criteria, about 90% of this article isn't notable. --Weazie (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability considerations apply to the question of whether a topic merits its own article. Due weight considerations apply to the question of whether material should be included in an article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that "notability" is merely the subject of a guideline while "due weight" is an aspect of the "neutral point of view" policy. They're two completely different animals. For instance one may spend years ignoring and even acting in direct opposition to a guideline, but ignoring policy in one's editing doesn't work out in the long run. --TS 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Something like the following: "A challenge involving exploitation of local Grand Jury rules in Monroe County, Tennessee was unsuccessful." The detail involving Fitzpatrick's background is particularly inappropriate, and the detailed discussion of the outcome is not really relevant to the facts pertaining to the Obama question. The Grand Jury refused to return an indictment, and that's all. --TS 22:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I can understand wanting to document these series of birther cases and attempts to "prove" Obama was born..... somewhere other than Hawaii. For historical purposes. But other than that, I think some/many of these cases are not notable enough for inclusion, including this particular event. Dave Dial (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Certification of Live Birth = birth certificate

I just noticed an odd reversion using a fallacious edit summary:

• "Undid revision 400244946 by Naaman Brown (talk) - we've been through this before. It is a birth certificate)"

The text had been changed to match what's in the picture/source, IOW "Certification of Live Birth". The edit summary implies they don't mean the same thing, but they do, and using the wording on the image can't be wrong. We are required to follow the source.

This article and our article Birth certificate make it clear that the terms mean the same thing and are used interchangeably.

The edit summary also says "we've been through this before". Has there been a consensus on this particular caption? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the edit summary doesn't imply they aren't the same thing and it's not in any way "fallacious". The sources all describe the document as Obama's "birth certificate" and that's what we call it. No matter what each State lables it's birth documents, "birth certificate" covers the definition. There is, and has been, broad consensus on this. Dave Dial (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If the sign out front says "mobile estates" but the source says it's a trailer park, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned it's a trailer park. Calling it a certificate of live birth based on the title tends to fuel the birther argument because among their many untrue premises is one that a certificate of live birth is something other than a birth certificate. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if that's the consensus, then I have no problem with it. The description of the image below it should be altered accordingly. (Note that in the context of the reversion, when looking at what was reverted and then reading the edit summary, my conclusion that the edit summary was fallacious still stands. Seen in light of the larger issue and consensus, I can see your point, but without that information I couldn't come to any other conclusion than I did.) Now should we fix that other description? -- Brangifer (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are two commonly discussed documents, one is a "certificate of live birth" and the other is a "certification of live birth". Though the documents differ, each can be, and is in the article, properly referred to as a "birth certificate" or simply as a "certificate". Some confusion does arise from this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Title needs changing; "Conspiracy" to "Fringe" theories?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This has been done and dusted. It may be revisited if ever some new information not previously discussed, relevant to the question of whether these theories qualify as conspiracy theories, is found. --TS 01:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This topic has not been addressed before:This is about 1: why does the label "conspiracy theory"(CT) have to be in the title and 2: if its truly a CT, why isn't it on the CT list? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Title needs changing. I don't see how these theories qualify as conspiracy theorys by any definition. E.g. our own says :"historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. " This is primarily about the existence or not of a piece of paper; who here does not think a typical and universally acceptable "birth certificate" could not have been produced and put into the system long ago if there really were "conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning" involved? The title should be changed to "Barack Obama Citizenship Fringe Theories" because these various theories all fit nicely into almost all definitions of fringe theory. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see the multiple previous discussions on this in the archive. I think if you search the archive for "conspiracy title" you'll get most of the topics. Ravensfire (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't it on the List of conspiracy theories?

Maybe I missed it? If this article portends that this is a conspiracy theory, should it not be on the Wikipedia list? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• comment - its not exactly a fringe theory if its believed by the vast majority of Americans... User:Smith Jones 16:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point, but I just read the "opinion survey" section of this article and looked for other polls and I can not find any polling of the general public with a straightforward question? But it looks like this harris poll is the clearest: "Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (25%)". Which still puts it in the minority but maybe not "significantly" so; thus you may be technically correct, but if so, then I think that the "conspriracy theory" slur is even more inappropriate. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Upon review, our definition of Fringe theory "A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." is so vague and ambiguous, I think this likely fits as well as most. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

it would be difficult to think of the idea that obama is is not a scitizen to be a "fringe theory" by evne that definition. most pools of people interested in or involved in politics do not believe his claims of being born in the US. while i might hav eoverstaed as being vast majority, the fact of the matter is that this is a widespread believe -- if not, then why would we have an article on it?? User:Smith Jones 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed this question countless times, and reached a strong stable consensus regarding the title, and the description of this fringe belief. It is very unlikely that a discussion at this time would lead to changing the article description. The best of the sources describe the birther movement as fringe, the description fits, so we go with it. Lots of people believe lots of things, popularity alone does not make an irrational belief mainstream. Alien abductions, another fringe theory, has widespread popular belief too - at various times in American history double digit percentages of the population believed aliens were among them. If you look the world over, there are lots of instances where people believe fringe things at a national level. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Smith Jones, you're barking up the wrong tree. Even if your assertion about the numbers of birthers were true, it wouldn't make a whit of difference - it would still be wrong. ThatOtherMike (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

YOU is the 1 who is barking up the wrong tree, Mike!!! i have absolutely no doubt that this "theory" is a bunch of nonsense; however, it is not a fringe theory becuase it is widely held. the name should be the same as it is now b/c tha tis the most adequately based title for the multifarious nature of this political snotsotmr. User:Smith Jones 19:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon makes my point quite well, using the term "fringe" 4 times. I think Wikipedia:DUCK applies. It's Frnge, not conspiracy. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Here, I've done the search for you.[3] Here are some other searches that might help.[4][5] - Wikidemon (talk)

ok, thank you and good point. I suppose that an argument can be made that because reliable sources refer to anything at all with a characterization like conspiracy theory, that characterization belongs in the title; but I disagree. How many sources refer to Benedict Arnold as a traitor? Yet our BLP does not say "Benedict Arnold Traitor". I think its better for NPOV validity, now and in future, that we leave characterizations out of titles whenever possible, especially pejorative characterizations. One thing's for sure, if the current editors here think it should be changed, it's an obligation to do so,regardless of what past discussions have resulted in. Thing's change, and imo, the sooner the "conspiracy theory" label and most other labels goes the way of the dodo bird, the better. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

All this label( conspiracy theory) does is encourage 13 year olds to parrot the "tin foil hat" references to show how "mature" they are and, more importantly, it stifles objective article development, I think. What possiblly constructive effect does the label have on article presentation or development? I propose "Barack Obama's Citizenship"; really, what's wrong with that? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

i think this issue is that its the title Barack Obama's Citizenship creates the inrpression that there is a real or substantnive issue about his citizenship. this iwa sjut a political hacksmudge and not something that really exists. you might as well make an article saying Georeg Bush Did 9/11?? or Hillary Clinton's Murder of Vince Foster; by creating an aritcle that implies that the issu emight have validity, it might harm PResident Obamas political image and bring gov't scrutiny on Wikipedia just as been happened to Wikileaks, and its not fair for us to expect Mr. Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation to have to deal with that b/c of what we do in this article. User:Smith Jones 23:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

We use reliable sources which show that the speculation about Obama's birth is known as a "conspiracy theory". For example, here is a very reliable UK source (The Daily Telegraph): Barack Obama: The wildest conspiracy theories launched at the US president. And here is a The New York Times review of a book called "Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History" where the reviewer uses the Obama birth speculation to illustrate the conspiracy theories discussed by the book. One previous discussion is at archive. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Important fact buried in article

I came here after reading the FactCheck.org article about the controversy. I thought the part about the Honolulu Advertiser publishing a birth announcement on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961 sealed the deal. I mean, you can forge a birth certificate, but if two newspapers carried news of the birth, that removes all doubt. Libraries will have microfilm. Some old codder somewhere might have an actual copy.

So why on earth is this buried under Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii? Is anyone opposed to putting it in the third paragraph of the lede? --JaGa^talk 19:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

isnt your claim "that the newspaper publised the birth announcement seals the deal" or "removes all doubt" something tha falls under both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Its fine where it is in the article, i feel; maybe a brief mention in the lede but then the more details should remain as they are. User:Smith Jones 21:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And, sadly, birthers don't think it seals the deal. Most argue that it proves Hawaii thinks President Obama was born in Hawaii, but he (or his family) engaged in document forgery. And some argue, yes!, the microfilm has been altered. All of it; everywhere. --Weazie (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would use different language than that, of course. A brief mention in the lede is all I'm looking for, with the part in "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii" unchanged. --JaGa^talk 01:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, a digression, but... this was my favorite part of Capricorn One: at one point a too-nosy technician disappears -- so thoroughly that his name is removed from all the phone books in Houston. Apparently NASA can do this, yet can't fix the problematic life support system that leads them to fake the Mars mission in the first place.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've mentioned it in the lead. This is too valuable to not mention there. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I was sitting this one out but I'm reverting now. The subject of this article is the conspiracy theories, not Obama's place of birth. Our job here is to describe the conspiracy theories, not to prove where Obama was born. A disconnected fact that tends to show that he was born in Hawaii is besides the point, unless it is sourced to factor into the conspiracy theories somehow. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That argument doesn't make a lot of sense. My request was to make information already in the article more prominent. After that was done, you removed it as a "disconnected fact"? If that's so, why don't you take it out of "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii" as well? People will come here to learn if there's anything to this Birther thing or not. Why bury such an important fact so deep in the article? I'm restoring it. --JaGa^talk 16:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting you. You saved your edit while I was editing, so I didn't notice it. The end result should be uncontestable. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the shorter version is an improvement IMO. --JaGa^talk 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but part of that was what was published "in response to the controversy", so it's very relevant. How can we work this out? Maybe by leaving out the first part. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. Thanks for the explanation. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lakin

Many WP:RSs are reporting that Lt. Col. Lakin has pleaded guilty to some of his pending charges, and is going to trial on the remainder. He will likely be sentenced on Wednesday. --Weazie (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Today's news says he's been found guilty of the second charge for which he pleaded not guilty. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Tangentially related, I've uploaded an image of then-Major Terry Lakin to Commons if anyone is so inclined (File:OEF Mar10 2005 Division Flight surgeons honored in Afghanistan01 (Lakin crop).jpg). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

cool picture! I think it could go into the article as a viivd reminder of the high cost of this controversy on valueaale servicemen like Major / Lt. Col Larkin. User:Smith Jones 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article, judicial review of birth certificate

The third paragraph of the intro states "every judicial forum that has addressed the matter" referring to the authenticity of the posted birth certificate. In reading through the cases, no judicial forum appears to have ruled on the case of the authenticity of the birth certificate. Most didn't rule on anything, dropping the case for standing or jurisdiction. The ones that did rule did so based on Obama's obvious citizenship due to birth in Hawaii and having an American mother, not the birth certificate. Either I'm missing something in one of the rulings, or this bit of text needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuilaBird (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical error in the article

There is a technical difference between Hawaii's "Certification of Live Birth" and its "Certificate of Live Birth." The article should be clear about this. The Certification is computer generated and does not have the name of the hospital, name of the doctor, occupation of the parents and other information. If there was no difference between the two, then the Hawaii Health Director would not have been compelled to publicly announce that she had viewed Obama's actual Certificate of Live Birth. [6]RonCram (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article makes it plain that the certificate published by the Obama campaign in 2008 is the only form published by the State of Hawaii, and that it states the location of birth, Honolulu, the state's capital city. This was checked against the original registration documentation only because of persistent false claims by conspiracy theorists. The name of the hospital of birth and the details of parentage play absolutely no part in determining eligibility for the Presidency. It's just fluff and doesn't belong in the article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just fluff and doesn't belong in the article.

It is hardly "fluff" if this article is to be an NPOV representation of all relevant facts that relate to what fuels the conspiracy theorists and theories. While it may serve to augment (to what degree a prospective reader will decide) the "conspiracy" argument, the fact that Obama has resisted, both rhetorically and even via litigation, release of his original "Certificate of Live Birth" cannot be denied...and that fact appears to have been suppressed in this article treatment.

From PolitiFact.com, cited twice already in this article...

"WorldNetDaily is correct that the Obama campaign didn't post his original birth certificate on the Internet."

and...

"WorldNetDaily may be right that the original birth certificate wasn't posted..."

RonCram is correct in his observation that "the article should be clear about this..." and the quote from PolitiFact should be incorporated in this article as a step in that NPOV direction. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing else that Obama could have posted, so to insert fluff saying that was posted is somehow deficient would violate NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this exact issue before. Politifact, like all legitimate sources that have looked at this, finds that WND got it wrong. To mine the article for the two instances where they say WND actually said something that happened to be true in the course of reaching the wrong conclusion about it would be misleading as to what that source says. If we do need to explain how the different document forms factor into the conspiracy theories, we can do that, but we shouldn't endorse any of the tenuous reasoning. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How absurd. It's absolutely "fluff", and cherry-picking of certain sentences in a piece that refers to the claims as "FALSE" is ridiculous. Dave Dial (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Conversation

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

THIS IS WHY ONE MUST BE AN ARTICLE 2 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES.

A DUAL CITIZEN AT BIRTH IS NOT AN ARTICLE 2 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN HE/SHE IS A DUAL CITIZEN ONE CANNOT BECOME AN ARTICLE 2 " NATURAL BORN CITIZEN " AFTER BIRTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.129.194 (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

TO BE ONLY A 14TH AMENDMENT " CITIZEN " AND BECOME U.S. PRESIDENT YOU WOULD OF HAD TO OF BEEN " ALIVE AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION" (ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION) AND STILL ALIVE TODAY. A 14 AMENDMENT " CITIZEN " IS NOT THE SAME AS AN ARTICLE 2 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. THEY ARE BOTH WRITTEN IN ARTICLE 2 AND HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.129.194 (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're here to argue a political position, you've obviously mistaken Wikipedia for a debate forum. Your comments above are irrelevant to discussions as to how to improve this article. Corvus cornix_talk 05:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

In this article it states, " Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii."

But on the President's official Wikipedia page it states, "Obama was born August 4, 1961, at Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii."

- Which one is it? Someone please look into this and confirm the President's place of birth. TonyO13 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC) TonyO13

The place of birth is confirmed. You are pointing out a minor difference in the name used for that place. It is quite common for things to have minor renames over a fifty year period, and Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children is the current name. See, for example, here for info. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnny, thanks for the clarification. I have updated both articles to make this clear. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This pages name is conflicting. Its not a conspiracy theory, its simply a controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.49.80 (talk)

Hawaii governor

I tried to insert the following into the lead, but it keeps crashing my computer (that's part of the conspiracy I guess): "Hawaii's Democratic governor would like to release more information about Obama's birth, to dispel the rumors.<ref>"[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVvzGsSMmbEAZ6p1vr1hcwPPmnTw?docId=4a74dffeeb6d474cb26411721149ba61 Hawaii's governor wants to reveal Obama birth info]", Associated Press (2010-12-28): "Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie wants to find a way to release more information about President Barack Obama's Hawaii birth and dispel conspiracy theories that he was born elsewhere."</ref>

Would someone please put that in the lead? Thanks.166.137.137.43 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that assertions in the Neil Abacrombie section went well beyond what the cited source[7] supported.

• The cited article didn't mention any "strong feelings" on Abacrombie's part; it did say that he is "... voicing the frustration of many Hawaiians ...". The publisher's article headline writer juiced that up by saying that Abercrombie is "is determined to torpedo the conspiracy theory", but that's not what the article says. I've shored up this article assertion a bit by adding a cite of this source, which quotes Abercrombie as saying, "Now that I'm governor, I'm going to do something about that".
• The article asserted that at the time of Barack Obama Jr.'s birth Abercrombie was Barack Obama Sr's teaching assistant at the University of Hawaii. The previously cited supporting source and the one I've added both support Abercrombie having been a TA at the UofH, but neither mentions his having been BO Sr's TA. The Barack Obama, Sr. article says that BO Sr. graduated in June 1962 and left shortly thereafter. Abercrombie may or may not have been BO Sr's TA, but, as that is not verifiable from the cited sources, I've removed that assertion from the article.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference states that "As a teaching assistant, he met and befriended Obama's father". This means that it was Abercrombie's work as a TA that brought about the friendship with BO Sr. So either they were co-TA's, or Abercrombie was BO Sr.'s TA. Since BO Sr. was an undergrad at Hawaii U, the possibility that they were co-TA's is out. The way the sentence currently reads:

he knew Barack Obama's parents, Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham, at the time of Barack Obama Jr.'s birth as he was a teaching assistant at the University of Hawaii

makes no sense, as being TA does not mean he knew BO Sr. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This section on Abercrombie makes very little sense in view of the facts recited in the rest of the article. The premise of this article is that the proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii is incontestable, birthers are crazy and that there's no need to see the contemporaneous 1961 long form. Yet all Abercrombie says is (and I quote) is that "It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down." Huh? This article has posited (using biased sources like Salon) that there are good reasons not to release the long form (it wouldn't satisfy birthers anyway, timing would look bad), but Abercrombie appears to be conceding that the long form doesn't even exist. There's just some notation about the birth "written down" somewhere. This, despite former Governor Lingle's former claim to have seen that contemporaneous document, Obama's claim in Dreams to have possessed it, and the Hawaii DOH's (inconsistent) statements that they maintained the certificate (or "vital records") in accordance with state procedures. So I would recommend either deleting this section about Abercrombie to avoid these inconsistencies, or changing his quote to affirmatively say that he examined the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth just like Lingle did. It might be inaccurate, but this article is riddled with such inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger request

A month ago I discovered that a person named Orly was being mentioned on cable news... according to the article on Wiki the only reason Orly is notable is the birther movement. Her realty world is not notable. Like Joe Werzilbacker's plumbing activity is not notable. As such her notability has not separate existence outside the birther movement. Thus outside of editorial., linguistic and grammatical aspects, Orly should be merged with Birther articles. 132.216.55.26 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No. According to her entry, "She also promotes a number of other allegations both related and unrelated to Obama, and has initiated a number of lawsuits on behalf of the "birther" movement." One of her issues is to delete her entry. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Weak No. Although I tend to agree with your points, Taitz basically has become the face of the birther movement. Also, she ran in the Republican primary in 2010 to become a candidate for California's Secretary of State (she lost, badly), and she's stated her intention to run in 2012 to become a U.S. Senator(!). --Weazie (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Not suitable for merging with this article for many reasons. Ridiculous woman that she is, her own article should stand. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This article is too long already. --JaGa^talk 20:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Although she is notable because of the birther movement, she is very notable, and meets the WP:N criteria to have her own article. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Support unless someone can show she's also a notable dentist. If this article is too long to merge, it should be cut. 24.177.123.74 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

With no consensus to merge after several weeks, I am removing the tag. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Material regarding liberal commentators

I've got a few issues with the attempts to add statements that several liberal commentators have called on Obama to release his birth certificate. Beyond the obvious (he already has, so to avoid this we have to get into the whole long form / short form thing), there are some reliable secondary sourcing problems, and also undue weight and POV implications of selectively mentioning what a few liberal commentators are saying. The birther conspiracy theory has overwhelmingly been promoted by conservative pundits, commentators, politicians, etc. When the odd liberal urges Obama to produce something, these pundits have jumped on it as evidence that even the liberals have a bone to pick over this. That's the wrong implication - the liberals seem to be urging this in order to put the conspiracy theory to rest, not out of concern that it might be true. Further, without some reliable sourcing on the topic it's not clear that the statements of a few liberal pundits in their arenas of punditry (op ed pieces, political TV shows) represent any significant shift in the position of liberal pundits, or that what the liberal pundits have to say is terribly relevant to the subject of the conspiracy theory. Inside-the-beltway (or inside the chatterbox) minute by minute coverage of the goings on among TV pundits is not all that germane. The ABC piece is the only neutral, third party reliable source proposed on this, and it mentions only a single person, Chris Matthews, as jumping into the fray, and only there in passing as a single point in a much longer piece. I think all of this could arguably be enough to support a statement that there were a few liberals among all of the commentators saying what Obama ought to do, but only in the proper context and, given the sourcing, not as a full subheading in the piece or done in a way that appears to give undue attention to the statements of a few, or their importance to the overall issue. A neutral way to present this, if important enough at all, would be to report what the sources sayd regarding why certain liberals made these statements, what being liberal had to do with it, and its relevance to the overall conspiracy theory.

I hope we can see what other editors here think, and perhaps wait a few days to see if anything more comes of this stuff, before considering further whether this should be included or expanded. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The material is well-sourced to ABC, WaPo, WSJ, and MSNBC. Those are reliable sources by any stretch. If you think there's already a suitable heading somewhere then put it there. I didn't see one.

Some of the conservatives who are presently mentioned (or slimed) in this article have given the exact same rationale as Matthews, Corn, and Page: that the docs should be released to confirm Obama is right. Attributing nefarious motives to those conservatives but not to the liberals would be a severe POV problem, as would be omitting the liberals from this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The WSJ piece is anything but reliable. It's an opinion piece (the column "Fear of a White Planet"), giving a blow by blow account of some lowbrow jocular political banter on Chris Matthews' show. All of my comments above apply: POV slant, undue influence, no reliable sourcing as to the significance, characterization, or the importance of punditry or of these pundits being liberals. Further, the way it was put gave the reader the mistaken impression that liberals were coming around on the issue, when in fact it was just a few people on a single TV show, not coming around but talking about why the theory can't be put to bed. There is no Washington Post source - it's a blog roundup, quoting a self-published blog word for word. The MSNBC source is a primary source - a transcript of the punditry show where these comments were made. Any attempt to derive broader meaning of what was said there is original analysis. And as I said the ABC piece[8] is not a significant mention - it's two paragraphis in the middle of a three (web) page article on a broader topic. Mining that piece for a heading about Chris Matthews gives Matthews' opinion greatly undue weight here. Wikipedia isn't built on what these talking heads say to each other on shows devoted to political sparring. If third party reliable sources say the political sparring on these particular shows is significant, we can cover it as such. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time or interest to get deeply involved in this article. It seems to have been a battleground for those wishing to ridicule "birthers" and the birthers themselves. But I will say this: if you compare the WSJ piece to a lot of the sources in this article, it seems quite neutral. Looking at the lead alone, footnotes 8 (Weigel),11 (Kay), and 14 (Koppelman) look pretty opinionated to me. And note that I used in-text attribution for the WSJ piece (unlike the treatment of footnotes 8, 11, and 14) as is commonly done for other opinion sources later in this article, but you removed the in-text attribution. The WaPo piece is not purely a primary source; it says "Matthews, among others, thinks that Obama could end the controversy by simply requesting the document himself." The MSNBC source is a transcript of Hardball, which is essentially an extended quote of Chris Matthews; even if it's a primary source, it's an appropriate one. And of course the ABC piece is a simple news piece, and the reason I honed in on the Matthews stuff is because the rest is already pretty much covered in this Wikipedia article.

Anyway, rather than become a bigger target for relentless charges of POV, quote-mining, and all the rest, which I think would be more aptly hurled at much of the existing text in this article, I'll not reply further. I'm not betting that Chris Matthews' request for the birth documentation will be mentioned for long in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is absurd. NONE of those "liberal commentators" are urging the release of the 'original document' for any birther reasons, but were making fun of the birthers. The section is absurd and trying to make it seems as if it was something it was not. There is no need to'ridicule birthers', they do that all on their own by the absurd conspiracy theories they subscribe to. Dave Dial (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Birth Certificate"

As I understand it, no "birth certificate" has ever been produced: rather, it was a "certification of live birth," which is not the same thing. Yet this article repeatedly, erroneously, refers to it as a "birth certificate." Has this been discussed before? Can someone point me to the reasoning behind the language use in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.113.43 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ad nauseam. Links to the archives of this talk page, and a search function,can be found at the topof this page. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

'Certification of Live Birth' Not Birth Certificate

I'd like to point out that the graphic 'Certification of Live Birth' has the incorrect descriptor below it. In the description, which I have tried to edit several times, it incorrectly identifies the 'Certification of Live Birth' as a "Birth Certificate", which it is not. Please look at the title of the document.

I'm not a major contributor to the Wikipedia, I'm not anti-Obama or a birther, but I do like the information on the Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandspach (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Asked and answered - see above. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to have something about this in the FAQ?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It might. It probably wouldn't deter the true believers from making the claims, but it would be easier for editors to point to in response. I would say it would be something like pointing to the Factcheck link describing it as Obama's birth certificate, and the law descriptions(which would be in the archive somewhere, at least some of which from discussions I've had here). Dave Dial (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a State of Hawaii web page (http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl) that makes it clear that the term "Birth Certificate" is used to mean "Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth." It may also be of interest to note that although Obama's birth certificate bears the title "Certification of Live Birth," since the time it was issued (2007) Hawaii has introduced some minor changes to the form, and now the only birth certificate available in Hawaii looks much like Obama's but calls itself a "Certificate of Live Birth." -- TheMaestro (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Too many states!

With the article as long as it is, I'm wondering if it's time to carve out the section on eligibility legislation and make a new list article on the topic. Although clearly related to and deriving from the Obama conspiracy theories (something we can source and mention in the new article) it is a distinct subject, with an importance that extends beyond the political fray that triggered it. Any thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be one possibility. Or, to make the article more "encyclopedic," it could simply say (something like) "Numerous states introduced legislation seeking to require candidates to demonstrate their eligibility. As commentators noted, some bills were rather obviously aimed at President Obama, and the constitutionality of others were doubted." And then in the footnotes link to all the articles.

Oh: there are even more states with similar legislation; they just haven't made it into RSs yet. --Weazie (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

both parents required to be citizens

Could someone add all the other presidents who would not qualify as "natural born citizens" were it required that both parents be citizens/born citizens? CNN says that there are six other presidents who would not qualify under that standard. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that's notable enough for inclusion. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that it really isn't notable. (Also: Of those six, only Chester Arthur had a parent who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth; for the other five, the non-U.S. born parents had become citizens at the time of the future presidents' births.) --Weazie (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

intro too long ?

is the introduction too long? i cant even see the table of contents without scrolling down

i really just want a quick summation,
for more info il scroll down — Preceding unsigned comment added by 336 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing of claims

In this article, prior to the recent reverts, there was a subsection that was titled "Claims that Hawaiian born is not 'natural-born' citizen". That subsection had two subsubsections: "Parental citizenship claims" and "Dual citizenship claims". I do not understand why an editor would remove the subsection heading but leave the two subsubheadings. This creates much more of a messy, nonsensical article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The subsection "Claims that Hawaiian born is not "natural-born" citizen" was tiny and actually included one unsourced sentence that "there have been claims that, although born in Hawaii, Obama does not qualify as a "natural-born citizen". Brandmeister t 00:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that subsection also included two subsubsections. The first subsubsection explained the theory that, in order for a person to be a natural born citizen, both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of that person's birth, even if the birth was in Hawaii. The second subsubsection in that subsection explained the theory that a person cannot be a natural born citizen if he is a dual citizen at birth, even if the birth was in Hawaii.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite/reorg?

In reviewing the article, I think the "Campaigners and proponents," "Political impact," and "Commentary and criticism" sections are really all addressing the same subject: various people's reactions to these "theories." In other words, I don't think presently there's really a meaningful distinction between these three sections. I would suggest some better organization, but am at a loss as to what that might be, exactly. --Weazie (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're doing good so far, so give it a try. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The article is about a theory that says he is not eligible to be president because he does not meet the citizenship requirement. Therefore the opening sentence should read:

"Conspiracy theories about the citizenship of Barack Obama reject the legitimacy of the United States citizenship of President Barack Obama and his eligibility to be President of the United States. " (emphasis added)

Using the conjunction or in place of and is non-sensical, inaccurate and confusing. No one would really care about his citizenship status if it did not raise an eligibility issue. There would be no conspiracy theory. It's not an either/or situation: both elements are needed, both are discussed in this article. Therefore I have restored the word "and" to the sentence.KeptSouth (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the sentence is not accurate. In order to dispute his eligibility for the presidency, one need not dispute the "legitimacy" of his citizenship, but only the "natural born" nature thereof. Some theorists, in particular those who advance the "dual citizen at birth" argument, concede he is a legitimate "citizen", just not a "natural born citizen". The and only works if the words "natural born" are also incorporated into the first half of the sentence. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we agree completely on the need for "natural born" citizen. I will change the odd term "legitimacy" to "natural born".-Regards KeptSouth (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Conspiracy theory" jargon is a left-wing tactic to muddy the waters. McCain was born outside the United States, in Panama. What is the difference? He can produce a physical paper birth certificate. No internet picture, or claims by Hawaiian officials matter to the issue. The fact is that BO has no birth certificate to show. 108.66.42.93 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You got a point, "Conspiracy Theories" should be under criticism not as title or intro of an article, as this is a violation of neutrality. --41.16.66.58 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. See previous discussions on this. Ravensfire (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"These conspiracy theories received attention...."

I think it belongs in the lede section; it introduces the timeline relevant to the article. --Weazie (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That specific portion may belong, but the section jumps back and forth, and the way Anythingyouwant re-organized the lede, it's garbled. The consensus version was much smoother. I attempted to keep all of the text, but re-arrange the lede to make it seem a little better, but that was reverted also. Right now, it goes from describing the conspiracy theory, then jumps to the Democratic primaries and 2011 Abercrombie, then goes back into describing the conspiracy theories. Dave Dial (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede re-organization

Evidently, special permission from Anythingyouwant is required in order to restore the lede to the consensus version(1,2). Despite claims by AYW that the current version has been in place for 'months' and even 'years', the consensus version was changed by Anythingyouwant on January 8, 2011, which Anythingyouwant claimed was 'per talk page'(and then added more on January 22, 2010). Even though the only talk page discussion was from an anon ip that wanted the information added to the lede, but no agreement whatsoever. Fat&Happy made an attempt to restore the consensus version on February 27, but Anythingyouwant quickly reverted him. There are a couple points about this that are troubling. First, the lede doesn't look right and the flow is garbled. Removing the section about Abercrombie(in the lede) fixed this for the most part. Right now it skips from description, to events, back to description, and then events. The other problems seem obvious from the links provided above. Dave Dial (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Without responding to all that, may I simply ask why you removed the material that begins "These conspiracy theories received attention...."? Randomly looking at the article as of August 2009, it said "These theories received attention...."[9] Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As an attempt at a compromise, since you reverted my re-arrangement that made the lede flow much better. Dave Dial (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you mean that the article is acceptable as-is, then I could go along with that for now. But if you mean that you removed "These conspiracy theories received attention...." as a compromise, then I don't understand, because I never wanted that removed---did you want it removed? If so, why?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'm again reverting this change again in part,[10] per WP:BRD (minus the "vague" tag) as the language proposed does not improve the article. Calling the rumors "false, disproved" rather than just "false" is erroneous in three senses. First, it is not supported by the source cited, which uses neither "false" nor "disproved" to describe the rumors. We can infer that they are false from that and other sources. However, the sources do not say they were proven false. Second, it is illogical and probably untrue. The sentence is about how the rumors started. It seems unlikely (and there is no source support) to say that the rumors were already proven false at the moment they were created. Before they existed, there was nothing to disprove. If "disproved" is supposed to refer to the fact that after the rumors began circulating they were refuted, that's not clear from the language and it would be out of chronological order - later parts of the article make clear that the rumors were refuted. Third, (and apropos of my dead horse comment), this sounds like the argumentative language that sometimes creeps into the article and has to be regularly pruned. The point of this or any article is to lay out facts about the world as described by sources. It's not to argue for or against any disputed proposition, even a proposition as fringe-y as these conspiracy theories. The article is about the theories, not an exercise in proving them wrong. The same reasoning applies to the out-of-place quote that investigators determined there is "not one shred of evidence" for the theories. That would be something that also happened later, and it is not supported by the source, which flatly says that there is no evidence but does not speak of investigations. If it's not abundantly clear from the totality of the article, and specific places calling them "false" more than once, we're not going to convince anyone by adding yet more assertions of their falsity to sundry article sections. Rather, that actually weakens the point by (correctly) making it seem as we are trying to prove something. It's also not relevant to that section. The source article made that as a general background statement about the conspiracy theories overall, as part of an exposition of how the rumors got started. We do that too, elsewhere. It is background to the entire article, not just this section, and already adequately covered elsewhere. I should also note that it's not a fully reliable source for that kind of statement, based on the tone and purpose as a "perspective" piece. I'm removing the "vague" tag as I had already restored "origin, religion and birth certificate" as the subject of the rumors, which had replaced the less informative "background". - Wikidemon (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so my question is answered here. Probably a better place. heh. Sorry for not responding quicker, I've been gone all weekend. In any case, while I mostly agree with your assessment and my intentions to make the the entry more specific and remove the "vague" tag are met, I say that the source provided is a definite reliable source to make the conclusions stated. A Pulitzer Prize winning piece from Politifact.Com(The St. Petersburg Times) who most certainly did investigate not only the birth certificate claims, but a variety of all the claims made by the fringe conspiracy theorists. In which the source states "PolitiFact has researched all of these accusations and none of them are true." The section is titled "Origins of the claims", so I thought adding the portion you removed fit the section. But I'm not going to keep insisting the portion be expanding, especially considering the sections below to trim the article, which I agree with. Dave Dial (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I can hardly think of a more reliable source. It should be used liberally. Is there a problem here? I'm not familiar with the background. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Doesn't most of this stuff belong (if anywhere) on the article about Trump, or if he does launch a serious presidential campaign, in that article? This article is long enough as it is (see previous discussion), and any irony or criticism regarding Trump's own life situation is just a journalistic riposte, not really related to Obama conspiracy theories. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the irony/criticism should be cut. Trump is a potential candidate and suddenly a major spokesperson for these issues; he deserves to be mentioned. Also, Trump just released his "long form" certificate. Completeness would dictate that the release of his first certificate also be noted, but brevity would dictate only this last one be mentioned. --Weazie (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree Trump should be mentioned as a johnny-come-lately member of the birther brigade. Publicity stunts he chooses to stage with his own birth certificate have no relevance to this article, though. Trump was born in New York City, which has different forms, rules, and procedures than Hawaii – and for that matter, than the State of New York. Trump released the birth certificate he had from New York City; Obama released the birth certificate he had from Hawaii. If we're going to start mentioning everybody who releases a copy of their birth certificate, should we not also have a section listing the 35 men who served as president, from Van Buren to Bush, whose birth certificates we have not seen? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's any part we should keep as most relevant, it's how his birther remarks have been received. That's why they are notable. Per the section heading, Trump is a notable Republican who has plopped right down into the dilemma as if he didn't know it existed, which has made him a target for some pretty strong ridicule.

As to the length of the article, I thought we were reaching agreement that we'd split much of that content off into a fork. Are we there yet? Let's just do that and forget about cutting good content because of length concerns. That's an irrelevant concern since we're going to split the article anyway. Some of what was removed was done in a manner that, if it had been done by a drive by IP, I'd have called it blatant vandalism. Since it wasn't, I won't, but it did seem a bit rude (but the length concerns are a mitigating factor , so we can deal with it later). Anyway, please be a bit more careful with deleting carefully sourced content.

Let's split the article. Can we do that now? Then we won't have these types of situations. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, his comments are (marginally) notable because, as mentioned, Trump is yet another Republican who decided to enter the fray, augmented by the fact that, unlike Chuck Norris or Luke Scott, he has publicly expressed an interest in entering the race for president – something he has the visibility and resources to do if he chooses. This was the reason accepted by several editors to include a brief statement on his expressed opinions, even before the personal insults started being thrown around by a couple of news anchors and a partisan politician in Obama's party. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm....F&H.....are you forgetting which article this is? It is only his remarks about "this topic" that are relevant here. The fact that he's entering the race for presidency is of no direct relevance here. That only influences his notability as a Republican and public person. It's his remarks that relate to the conspiracy theories that are relevant here, and especially their reception by the media and other notables.

Thus the various criticisms and ridicule he's received are highly relevant here and their deletion by you is very problematic. They aren't my words and they don't violate BLP. The thing that makes his birther remarks most notable is the reaction to them, and there have been many and they've been strong. What I quoted was mild. We aren't allowed to whitewash things. If a source is disparaging or expresses ridicule, we aren't allowed to diminish the POV expressed in the source. That's POV editing. NPOV REQUIRES that we cover the subject from all POV expressed in RS, and leaving out a POV is a violation of NPOV. To avoid BLP problems we cite RS and quote the source. That's exactly what I did, so I don't see any policy-based reason for your deletion of the very part that was relevant in this article. Please explain. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a misconception about reliable sources in evidence here. Being reliably sourced is merely the minimum requirement for content inclusion. There is no policy that all content appearing in a reliable source must be, or even may be, included in articles. None of the people quoted are recognized experts in identifying someone as a "joke" or a "fool", or an opinion as "ridiculous". Those are merely personal opinions by non-expert – and in one instance partisan – sources; as such, I contend their inclusion is a violation of BLP policies. Additionally, the personal opinions expressed add nothing to an understanding of the conspiracy theories which are the subject of this article. So to put it in the Wikilawyering terms you ask for, my policy based reasons for removal of the comments are that they violate BLP by including personal insults from non-expert and partisan sources; even if it were not a BLP violation, it is purely ad hominem commentary, adding no insights to the article topic. The content, contentious on its face, was boldly added and subsequently reverted. Now under discussion, it has yet to gain a clear consensus for inclusion. If you dispute the contentiousness of the content, or my assertion that it is a BLPvio, you are, of course, free to seek alternative opinions through an RfC or at WP:BLPN. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that in the removed material Trump obliquely criticized Obama, and then Ben Smith criticized Trump's criticism. WP:BLP says, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.", and goes on to say, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; ...", wikilinking WP:DUE, which says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." I gather than both Trump's and Smith's viewpoints have received substantial media attention (perhaps Trump's more than Smith's). Given that, it seems to me that the Trump's viewpoint should be represented, and perhaps Smith's as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ben Smith portion was a pure undue weight issue, more regarding Trumps actions than Smith's response, as discussed (far) above in the third paragraph of this section. I'm still not sure of the relevance to this article of Trump releasing any version of his own birth certificate, but the Smith article was probably a proportionate response if the stunt is to be included. (I really don't follow The Donald stories all that much – has there been quite a bit of third-party commentary on the Smith article?) The larger disagreement centers around what had been the section's third paragraph, regarding the CNN discussion. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

F&H, the CNN discussion was significant coverage and the part that was relevant here (about Trump) got deleted, but the part (not about Trump) that was only generally relevant was kept. It's relevant that the CNN anchor had been to Hawaii and interviewed people who knew Obama as a child, but that's not relevant to the Trump section. When media like CNN comment on Trump's birther statements, that's notable enough for inclusion. Opinions, including disparaging remarks, are okay when properly sourced, which specifically makes them NOT a BLP matter. If unsourced it would be different. (That applies to Trump's opinions about Obama - which would be a BLP violation if unsourced - and to others' opinions of his opinions. It works both ways and we include both.) Are you here to defend Trump? Just how far are you prepared to go in whitewashing him by refusing to include negative media reactions to his comments? Would you act the same if they had been positive reactions? I'm really wondering if this is worth taking higher up or if we can settle this here. I don't see why you're making such a big deal about a RS like CNN. Anywhere else we'd include it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. The retained portion, regarding interviews with people who knew Obama as a child, is directly pertinent to Trump's claim that "growing up no one knew him." That's actually the only bearing it has on the subject of this article, since memories of him as a child could be just as vivid if he were born in Kenya, Germany, or Antarctica. Unsupported opinions that Trump is a joke or a fool add nothing. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But they do add something. They show how his statements have been received. That's very encyclopedic information. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that banter about his statements adds anything to the understanding of the conspiracy theories. And the entire Trump fiasco is hopelessly overblown – for the current 15 minutes, at least. But if we must submit to this round of recentism and pump the story, rather than relying on cheap personal shots from the usual suspects, we would be better including surprisingly rational commentary from an unexpected source or possibly even an attempt at (gasp) intelligent analysis of the situation. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article clearly has a right wing slant to it. For only 11% of the country believing he isn't American, this article overly represents that view point. We have a lot of opinions from Republican who think he isn't American compared to Democrats or Independents who dispel those rumors. Look at the pictures, 4 are non citizen related while 0 are citizen related. CTJF83 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone responds to this, note I'm headed to work so won't provide a response for 9+ hours. CTJF83 02:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your issue. This is not an article about Barack Obama or the facts of his birth and childhood. It's about a fringe set of conspiracy theories. The goal of the article is to explain the theories as advanced by their proponents while still making it clear that they are fringe, not mainstream. A similar article might be Flat Earth Society, which mentions, almost casually, that overwhelming scientific opinion says the Earth is "round", and then proceeds through the rest of the article to discuss the Society and its history, beliefs, and leadership. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, per F&H. The article is about the theories and it must discuss and explain them. Since they are untrue and the RS prove that to be the case, the RS are clearly used to full effect, so I see not problem. If there are other aspects or other RS that can be used, please suggest them, but don't tag the article before seeking to resolve the matter here first. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, You are leading me to your thoughts, but I'm not quite there....how does this being a wacko fringe theory affect it being neutral? CTJF83 12:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I share F&H's thoughts in that I don't understand your concern. This article is about fringe, wacko theories, the 11% who believe them, and the ones who have been lying to them. That means it would naturally be mainly about them. That's obviously not a neutral presentation of the whole big picture since we aren't dealing with the big picture here. Like a psychiatrist who specializes in mental illness and/or disturbances, we're not looking at normal people, but delving into a fringe, wacko way of thinking and documenting it. That's the nature of these types of articles. What saves it is that NPOV requires inclusion of the opposing POV, so we have plenty of well-sourced facts and opinions that rebut the nonsense.

This is the proper approach to dealing with all conspiracy theories at Wikipedia. No one should be in doubt about what's fringe supposition and lies and what's fact.

IMO, in the end I suspect that most "reasonable" people should come away with a clear impression that some people just aren't qualified for public office, and in this case it's those who repeat this nonsense. In fact some have ruined their credibility. This subject is political poison and suicide. Unfortunately not all people are "reasonable" and insist on believing and repeating this stuff. If there were an article devoted to figurative Darwin Award recipients, lots of those mentioned in this article would fit there. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

By analogy, let's take the politics out of it and imagine a completely different type of false belief, held in this case by certain children: there is Santa Claus, Bogeyman, the Tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny. The articles go into considerable detail to describe the supposed appearance, activities, origin, etc., of these folkloric figures - with nearly 100% bias in favor of describing the phenomenology of the believers, and nearly zero critiques or rebuttals. I haven't checked all of these, but if you look in other realms like phrenology, spontaneous generation, and the loch ness monster, you'll probably find similar results. It's only when we get to contemporary political conspiracy theories that currently have many adherents in the English-speaking world (climate change, 9/11 truth, etc.) that we sometimes feel the urge to present both sides of the case, and sometimes actually advocate and argue for the mainstream position. I think that's a mistake because it plunges Wikipedia into the fray, instead of simply describing what the sources say. This article is about the conspiracy theories themselves, not about a supposed controversy on the subject (which the sources would say is not a bona fide controversy, because there are not two viable sides to it). - Wikidemon (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in partial agreement that there should not be an overkill of proclaiming the fringe theories "false" over and over. But let us also remember that a vast difference remains between an article that covers the Easter bunny and one that covers Barack Obama. The two immediate differences that come to mind are that this falls under the BLP and article probation guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that this is a "controversy" AND a "conspiracy theory" article. The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, etc. are in a very different class. There is no controversy or conspiracy theory, and no serious harm to society from them. This article deals with a subject that potentially destabilizes the political system of a country and inspires potential internal terrorism and assassination attempts. Remember that the Tea Party includes many zealots who openly sympathize with Timothy McVeigh. When Sean Hannity, while speaking in front of Tea Party members, called them "Tim McVeigh wannabes", they cheered him(!), so this is no joke or bedtime story. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You could choose conspiracy theories that have serious consequences - like Jews poisoning the wells, the (name tribe in country) secretly practicing black magic and needing to be slaughtered, or vaccines causing Autism, and it's the same thing. We cover the phenomenon on fringe beliefs, rather than doing a point-counterpoint. I do not agree that there is a controversy over Obama's birthplace or citizenship anymore than there is a controversy over whether childhood vaccines cause autism. The simple answer is they don't, and beliefs to the contrary are considered a social phenomenon rather than an argument to be critiqued. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand....the article is about the wacko theories, not discussing if he was born here or elsewhere. CTJF83 20:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of this being different from the Easter Bunny, etc.; however, what's with the remarks about the Tea Party? I've been to Tea Party rallies and have seen no such sympathy for Timothy McVeigh. The Sean Hannity clip was taken out of context (and there are other videos that show this). He was speaking in jest because that is how the Tea Party is portrayed by others. - 75.81.1.78 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)