Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

new sections

I just had all my (non-tinfoil) refs deleated. I tried to add two new sections, how can that be already covered?

---Layers--- Leaders of the so-called 'birther' movement have claimed that the birth certificate produced by Barack Obama is a fake, despite the president providing the the full long-form document last week, the 'birthers', have taken their case to a federal appeals court in Southern California, They claim the birth certificate had been doctored; that the document's serial number was out of sequence, the typing wasn't aligned, and it was printed on green paper instead of white paper like other Hawaiian birth records of that era.[1] The three-judg--panel of the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was told that that the long-form birth certificate released by Obama is 'not a true and correct image, it's very inventive computer art. [2] On the April 27 edition of Fox Business' Follow the Money, host Eric Bolling displayed an enlarged version of Obama's birth certificate and stated that a "green border" on the document "had to be Photoshopped in." [3] One graphic artist says he has discovered something strange about the certificate. There's no doubt that it has been edited and quite significantly, it's not a single document, it's actually compositive of layers, this indication would point to the probability of it being fake. [4]Robert Stanley, weekly correspondent for the Washington Times investigative radio, states that the purported birth certificate released by U.S. President Barack H. Obama on April 27, 2011 is a forensic forgery.

---fake Social Security number--- Another theory of Obama's ineligibility is that, Obama has a fake or stolen Social Security number. [5] That was issued in Connecticut, not Hawaii, and it was issued between 1977 and 1979.[6] As there is no record Obama ever had a mailing address in the state.[7] Private investigators claim his social security number belongs to someone born in 1890.[8] The theory seems to hinge on the idea that President Obama had a different SSN that he used to work in high school, and that he later illegally obtained a second SSN for unknown purposes.[9] It has also been claimed that Internet giant Google is suppressing search results for the new dispute over President Obama’s Social Security number(s) by diverting searches for news reports on the issue to unrelated stories about Elena Kagan, oil, Tampa and the Federal Reserve. [10]--  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 01:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not investigated each of your links, and am basing my comment on the assumption that many of them are of the same nature as the claim concerning "Internet giant Google is suppressing search results". No page at Wikipedia is suitable for advocacy or forum speculation (see WP:NOT). It is true that a zillion websites have either promotions of nonsense, or stories about such nonsense as entertaining space-fillers. However, to introduce such claims into an article would be to given them a false credibility (see WP:UNDUE). When a reliable source performs an analysis of the latest fad, suitable material may be added to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Way to cherry pick and dismiss every ref I have listed. How can topics/information not even covered in the article be undue? More like nonexistant. The layers in the new long form certificate are not covered, nor is the alledged fake social security number. So how are we to cover them if my refs are to be disregarded?--  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 03:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The claim that the birth certificate is a forgery is reported in the paragraph immediately above the place the "layers" section was inserted. Unless details of the specific allegations are supported by reliable sources, it's undue weight to accord them more coverage than what is already in the article.

Likewise, the sentence about Obama's father being from Africa is already covered in the previous section.

Since there is no Constitutional restriction on the citizenship or presidential eligibility of people who have Social Security numbers issued in response to requests from Connecticut, any speculation about that topic is completely unrelated to the subject of this article. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fat/Happy I see your point. Can we add some of the info about the layers of the PDF file and how there is two offical copies one with the green backgeound and one with the white, as well many people have called this file a feke in the media, this is not addressed.--  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 14:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are advocating fringe conspiracy theories, and your references have been original research, synthesis, while using non reliable sourcing. You should stop adding content to the article unless or until there is some sort of consensus to add it. The Daily Mail is a tabloid magazine, and opinion pieces by local internet outlets should be weighed properly. Dave Dial (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There's also the matter of ungrammatical, unencyclopedic tone that opines about the nature of the claims, in the authoritative voice (i.e. Wikipedia speaking). For example: "There's no doubt that" - that's obviously a statement that the proposition to follow is both true and obvious, not an uncited literal claim that in the entire world not a single person possesses a doubt about it. But Wikipedia is in the business of presenting facts, not telling people how obvious they are. "..it has been edited and [sic] quite significantly" - no reliable source for this, and it's based on speculative opinion. We don't have a citation to a statement that somebody edited it. Rather it's a claim somebody is making that it looks as if it's been edited. Also, who is to say that the editing was significant or quite so, that's pure subjective opinion.... "this indication would point to" (who is pointing and who is doing the pointing? Again, unsourced voicing of support for an opinion, not a fact. "the probability of it being fake." So we want Wikipedia to say the birthers are right and the certificate is fake? That's out there. Even if we get past the sourcing and biased wording (there are clearly some sources for the proposition that these claims have been made, although none for the proposition that the claims have merit) I don't think any of this needs to be covered with greater WP:WEIGHT than it already is. So I don't find any of this proposal acceptable. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so the Daily mail is not the best ref. However I could find others that say the skeptics presented their case to a federal appeals court in Southern California and maybe their claims. That seems relevant to the article. --  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 22:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The case to which you refer, Barnett v. Obama, is adequately discussed in the related article about eligibility litigation. --Weazie (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WHITE back ground

This should be addressed at some point. [11][12]"This handout image provided by the White House shows a copy of the long form of President Barack Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii." -- J. Scott Applewhite / AP Photo It's in the AP Photo Archives as image #110427018673... --  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

So... three different media outlets have copies of a handout the article says was given to media outlets. Exactly what should be addressed? Fat&Happy (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What could be addressed is the white house released two differen versions of the long form certificate. 1) With the white background (to the press core seen in the AP photo), 2) with the green safety paper (via the White House blog). Or maybe the White House graphic designer dropped a layer into the white version to make it look pretty. LOL --  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 22:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, since this article already clearly states that two certified copies were requested, made, and delivered, something should be added to the photocopier article, citing this as an example of the technological advantages of modern copiers – that unlike many older processes they are capable of outputting to many different types of paper stock. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To get a bit pedantic here

• The second paragraph of the "Long form, 2011" section states that what the WH received was, "two requested certified copies of the original birth certificate". Fuddy's transmittal lettter says that's what she transmitted to the WH. Just to be crystal clear here, we're talking about exactly two physical physical pieces of paper.
• The third paragraph says that on April 27,

1. "White House staff gave reporters a photocopy of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth and ...". I infer that the WH staff must have xeroxed a bunch of copies of one of those two physical pieces of paper and passed the xeroxes out to reporters.
2. "... and also posted it on the White House website." I infer the "it" mentioned here is this PDF file, Ref'd in the article at this point, and that the WH staff must have produced that file by scanning one of those two physical pieces of paper received from the Hawaii DOH.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with all that inferring, but I'm at a loss to suggest how to address that. If anyone can suggest some rewording, or add some RS-supported info to reduce it, I think that would be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with all that inferring, but I'm at a loss to suggest how to address that.

I wouldn't hold my breath awaiting RS major media "explanations". Clearly 2 different "photocopies" were distributed by the WH...one to the media alone and one to the general public via the WH website. That 2 different "photocopies" were forwarded by the State of Hawaii, whose obvious "differences" were neither requested nor remarked upon in any of the now-public communications, seems to be a remote, at best, probability.

Some "journalist" should inquire...but I doubt anyone will. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Policy on release of photocopies

I found an AP article [[13]] where they explain that this was a one-time exception to policy. Also, someone made a transcript of the press briefing [[14]] (despite Carney's request that it be pens only - no audio recording). Here they say that Judy Corley phoned the Hawaii dept of health of Thursday Apr 21. The dept determined that, "there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy". The dept agreed to waive the policy for this special case, and came up with specific wording to go in the request letter. Could we add that to the timeline, and make note of photocopies being a matter of policy, which the dept has the legal authority to set? JethroElfman (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just commenting that this source also printed the transcript, but with the heading "THE WHITE HOUSE : Office of the Press Secretary : For Immediate Release : April 27, 2011", and said "This transcript was provided by the White House." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Might also consider this, hawaii slams door on birthers [15] "The law, known as Act 100, takes a detour around the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by allowing state agencies a limited exemption from FOIA requirements when repeated requests for information are made by the same person. The law covers all agencies but it specifically targets people who repeatedly request a copy of Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate, the Honolulu Advertiser reported Thursday."--  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 19:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

characterization as "conspiracy theories"

I just read through this article and the wording throughout shows a clear editorial bias towards presenting 'truthers' as nutjobs. Examples of this include, use of 'claim' despite WP:CLAIM; repetitive descriptions of birthers using the pejoratives 'conspiracy theorists' or 'fringe theorists' (the repetition is just bad style in any case); and so on. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We reflect what reliable sources say on the matter, most/all of which treat this fringe nuttery for exactly what it is. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't justify the repetition. The repetition indicates editorial POV. And in any case, as I have been arguing at a different page, if reliable sources regard this as fringe nuttery, because fringe nuttery is not neutral, it should be attributed. E.g. "most have viewed X as a fringe theorist" rather than Wikipedia's voice saying "X is a fringe theorist". Alex Harvey (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Point taken that we should stick with the sources, and avoid both repetition and inserting sneaky editorial adjectives. However, it is well sourced that (1) these are fringe claims, and (2) a number of the proponents are outside the mainstream, have made illogical statements, and have been described in colorful terms. WP:CLAIM applies to using "claim" as a verb to discredit an assertion of fact. However, if it is indeed a claim we can describe it as a claim - not as a belief, theory, position, argument, statement, etc., all of which would give it undue credence. We have to be careful about the difference between balance and neutrality. Neutrality would suggest that we report the majority position, and that confirmed by the sources, as such, and point out where the sources universally describe a position as extreme or untrue. Balance would suggest that we report everybody's position equally, which we cannot do in the case of fringe theories. In other words, "Elvis-spotters have claimed to see Elvis riding throughout rural Arizona in a Winnebago" not "Elvis-spotters reported several vehicles registered to Elvis in Jerome, Arizona. A local government official said he could not recall whether or not residential parking permits had been issued to a person by the first name Elvis." - Wikidemon (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe all the evidence is in. It looks like a forgone conclusion. Brian Pearson (talk)

More eyes needed -- see Donald Trump

The biographical article on Donald Trump desperately needs attention. Some editors believe it omits or 'glosses over' Trump's recent political actions. Others think including recent events would be giving them undue weight. --Tangledorange (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New Gallup Poll

Submitted for consideration, USA Today is reporting the results of a May 5-8 Gallup poll...

In a Gallup Poll taken May 5-8, 47% of those surveyed — less than a majority — say they believe the president was "definitely" born in the United States. Another 18% say he "probably" was born here. But a third of Americans remain skeptical or unsure: 8% say he probably was born elsewhere, 5% say he definitely was, and 20% say they don't know enough to say. [16]

This appears to reflect somewhat less than the wholesale rejection of birther allegations that the media had initially portrayed. Given the media/pundit focus on the alleged affects of the release on public opinion, I believe this is probably a noteworthy development that might warrant inclusion here. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the article does not need to be updated every time a new poll comes out. But the drop in numbers due to the release of the long form is noteworthy. --Weazie (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We now have a long section with 5 different disjointed polls spelled out in full unencyclopedic longhand (e.g. a quote that points out the mathematical truism that 47% is "not a majority"). That's 3 or 4 too many, and does not assist the reader in understanding the phenomenon. The opinion polls are not necessarily a noteworthy part of the phenomenon, other than to establish three facts, all of which should be sourced to secondary analysis: (1) a significant number of Americans were skeptical, despite the facts; (2) skepticism ran higher among Republicans / conservatives (and perhaps in a separate section, among those with negative opinions of African Americans), and (3) the skepticism diminished (perhaps noting that it remained significant but perhaps not, depending on the weight of the sources) following publication of the long form certificate. A single paragraph is enough to do this. Beyond that, excessive detail to polls may say more about polls than it does about the actual subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) a significant number of Americans were skeptical, despite the facts

Characterizing "53%" of Americans as "significant" is rather understated and "despite the facts" strikes me as decidedly POV.

(2) skepticism ran higher among Republicans / conservatives...

...and higher among independents than Democrats / liberals. Again, a POV perspective.

...(and perhaps in a separate section, among those with negative opinions of African Americans)...

Lack of WP:RS (and NPOV) should preclude further developing this, IMHO, partisan-inspired smear...but if you have additional WP:RS, have at it (but be sure to wear gloves).

(3) the skepticism diminished (perhaps noting that it remained significant but perhaps not, depending on the weight of the sources)

But perhaps not? See above. "53%" of respondents (according to relatively "weighty" sources) would not commit to "definitely" born in the US. Dem's da facts (and, I might add, an issue that's probably all but been tabled among those in the forefront of the "eligibility" debate who are more focused on "natural born citizenship" as the overriding issue).

However, the section does appear to be suffering from "list-itis" and probably needs attention. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that's a "birther" sympathizers view of the numbers. Heck, if you polled the average American and asked them to name the 1st President of the U.S. you can bet that up to a third wouldn't know it was George Washington. That doesn't mean that Washington wasn't the first U.S. President, and reflects more on the education system than anything else. The fact is, only 13% say Obama was "definitely" or "probably" not born in the U.S., while 65% say he "definitely" or "probably" was. With 20% not knowing, or caring enough, to answer. Which reflects almost the same percentage as the last poll when 19% answered "they didn't know enough to say". Not knowing doesn't mean they are "birthers", nor does answering that Obama "probably" was born in the U.S. Only you are making that leap. Dave Dial (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You entered this discussion by means of an undiscussed, IMHO POV and contentious edit and are now edit-warring. Not good. Please allow development of this discussion towards consensus before further imposition of your personal POV on this article. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

DD2K has been part of the discussion here for a long while. I don't think there's a consensus on how to present the polls and IMO none of the presentations to date does a very good job due to length, focus, being scattershot and disjoint, and lack of context. Polls germane to the subject of an article are always difficult to present. Some reasons: (1) one organization's poll has different questions and methodologies so their polls do not necessarily compare, (2) most analysis tying changes in poll numbers to current events is conjectural, and subject to politicization by pundits and partisans; (3) there's no room to reproduce all results (making graphs of changes over time is a lot of work but can help condense this); (4) otherwise reliable sources say a lot of nonsense about polls, and don't understand the statistics; (5) the importance of social tends is not one person one vote; and (6) people saying something to a stranger on a subject in response to a survey is several steps removed from the subject itself, and may be completely insignificant or irrelevant to the subject. Here there is fairly widespread belief by Americans in a fringe theory (i.e. out of mainstream, unsupported, and false). That's not a POV about the subject of the article, it is the subject of the article, a widespread false belief. Since belief is the subject a hand, a poll of what people say they believe is likely relevant. So is the breakdown of who believes in it, the biggest correlation being that Republicans / conservatives believe it a great deal more than independents / moderates or Democrats / liberals. That should be obvious, but it's a very salient detail. Less commonly mentioned, but nevertheless mentioned often and by impeccable sources, is that people who have some discomfort over African-Americans are more likely to believe it. And in more recent news, the adherence to the belief went down but did not disappear after the latest birth certificate release. Those are the three relevant things I've seen so far about the polls. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning here strikes me as a general flirtation with suppression by WP:OR...

(1) one organization's poll has different questions and methodologies so their polls do not necessarily compare,...

I didn't offer any comparative. I offered a direct quote from one news source whose WP:RS is, I think, established and a cite to Gallup that near mirrors the USA Today reportage as to its import. BOTH lead their treatments with nearly identical reportage on the significance of the 47% finding.

(2) most analysis tying changes in poll numbers to current events is conjectural, and subject to politicization by pundits and partisans...

If the source(s) are WP:RS, any perceived politicization by pundits and partisans can and should be countered by the provision of additional WP:RS making that case. That's the way its done in WP-landia.

(3) there's no room to reproduce all results (making graphs of changes over time is a lot of work but can help condense this)...

You're making, I think, a more generic observation as to the "Poll" section, but I'll address the specific cite in question. Just as with the lede in WP, when two WP:RS sources both have the same "take" on a poll, there's notability there and it needs to be acknowledged here. If there is additional relevant content in the provided cites, then report that as well.

(4) otherwise reliable sources say a lot of nonsense about polls, and don't understand the statistics

That's not our job here. Our job is to incorporate relevant WP:RS reportage...to include WP:RS content that might make your case.

(5) the importance of social t(r)ends is not one person one vote...

Not quite sure what you're getting at here but, if I understand your point, it appears to be flirting with exclusion by WP:OR.

(6) people saying something to a stranger on a subject in response to a survey is several steps removed from the subject itself, and may be completely insignificant or irrelevant to the subject.

Ditto above.

So is the breakdown of who believes in it, the biggest correlation being that Republicans / conservatives believe it a great deal more than independents / moderates or Democrats / liberals.

That's a POV perspective...but easily dealt with by citing the source...fully.

Less commonly mentioned, but nevertheless mentioned often and by impeccable sources,...

Not even gonna go there. Wallow as you will. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your wording that you added does not reflect the full gist behind the source. Which is that those that believe/know that Obama "definitely" or "probably" was born in the U.S. rose by 9%, while those that believe Obama "definitely" or "probably" was not born in the U.S. decreased by almost half, from 24% to 13%. From the article:

“ Since the release of the birth certificate, news coverage of the issue has ebbed and the number of Americans who accept Obama as native-born has risen. In a Gallup Poll taken April 20-23, only 38% said they thought Obama was "definitely" born in this country; that number has risen by 9 points.In the earlier poll, 24% said Obama definitely or probably was born elsewhere; that has fallen almost by half, to 13%. ”

Also:

“ Ten percent of Republicans continue to say Obama was definitely born elsewhere, compared with 5% of independents and 2% of Democrats. Southerners and those with lower levels of income and education are most likely to doubt that Obama was born in the USA. ”

Which your edit totally ignores, while hi-lighting the irrelevant. I propose the following

A May 5-8 Gallup poll taken after the release of the original Certificate of Live Birth, reported that those who believe Obama was "definitely" born in the U.S. rose 9 points(38% to 47%), while those who state Obama "definitely" or "probably" was not born in the U.S. declined by almost half(from 24% to 13%). Southerners, those with low level incomes and education are most likely to doubt that Obama was born in the U.S., while a partisan breakdown shows that 10% of Republicans believe Obama was definitely born somewhere other than the U.S., double that of Independents(5%) and five times that of Democrats(2%).

Taken from the cited sourced article, the cited Gallup website, and the direct poll link. Dave Dial (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to JIJ - (1) OR is a content policy I have not added article content, so that does not apply - we are figuring out on the talk page how we should deal with the article, and informed personal opinions are the way this is done. (2) No, a source being generally reliable is not a magic ticket to getting into the encyclopedia - even if a source is usually trustworthy, if it is not trustworthy for the specific fact at hand it is not a good source. RS is a threshold, not an entitlement for inclusion. We throw out untrustworthy or inaccurate sources all the time, and a general observation that newspapers are inaccurate when blathering about polls is a good general reason for being skeptical when newspapers blather about polls; (4) absolutely wrong - we don't mechanically reproduce reputable publications here, we make judgments about what to include, and when a source is full of inaccuracies and blatant misunderstanding of the subject (as news of the day sources are when they try to interpret poll results) we can insist on higher standards; (5) A fundamental point - a poll reporting what the responses are is not the same thing as a reliable sources talking about what is an important trend - seriously, you need to understand this about popular culture: the importance of cultural trends is not a democratic vote established by polling; (6) You haven't made your case for POV - if Republicans think Obama is a fraud and Democrats think he is not, there is nothing POV about reporting the fact in the encyclopedia, it is a matter of covering the state of the world and any attempt to ignore this is itself a POV exercise. No wallowing, the connection between racial attitudes and eligibility skepticism is a fact of the world at large echoed by a few studies and widely reported, nothing any of us editors came up with. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please reread my response to your (1) above. I don't believe you address the point I raised, instead commenting on my overview introductory sense of "flirting" with WP:OR (or, perhaps better said utilizing your concept, suppression by "informed opinion"). JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, the concept of OR does not apply to the process of evaluating the strength of sources. The New York Times is not going to run something that says "newspaper analysis of polls is often not reliable for Wikipedia purposes and should not be cited in a way that gives undue weight or false importance to conjecture". When I comment that a newspaper's pointing out that 47% is not a majority is a trivial observation that shows the shallowness of its analysis, I don't have a New York Times citation for that. No doubt there is some written analysis about the lack of comprehension many otherwise solid journalists have for math and statistics but that's besides the point. Anyway, the point is that polls don't make for strong article content, but that there are three well-sourced things about the polls: (1) high number of people give birther theories credence (suggesting they believe in an untruth despite exposure to evidence), (2) Republicans / conservatives (and people with race issues) more likely to believe birther theories, (3) adherence dropped but did not disappear after new release of document. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that The Gallup Poll is simply that: a poll. By definition it isn't any source of facts, just a poll about what people think they see; but it is true: lately a lot of news "sources" have admittedly been getting away with using a poll as a given fact. As I understand, here at Wikipedia the writers are to cite sources, not opinions, which is all a poll is. Wikipedia is supposed to an encyclopedia of known fact; I forward that your "poll" cannot therefore be used in the manner you are attempting to use it: prematurely cite it as a "fact"; and I do believe that respectable encyclopedias do as well only cite an historical poll when absolutely necessary where there is no other available information since doing so tends to cause a reader to draw his own conclusion in an area the writer can be accused of attempting to steer him into. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Kenyan Birth Certificate

This thread is not about improving the article, and this is not a forum to proclaim conspiracy theories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I haven't time to login, but I've actually seen the Kenyan birth certificate; it says "British Protectorate." The arguments in the main article are wherefore refuted. Please goto archive.org and search for "birthers" to find the 9:59 sec documentary entitled: "Barak Obama Born in Kenya - The Documentary." They actually show the authenticated birth certificate; and I'd like to say: using a "blogger" as "credible" evidence of a "faked" or forged Kenyan birth certificate is not acceptable as evidence in any court of law and, as I believe, not good enough as such here at wikipedia. Am I wrong? 207.151.38.178 (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Yes, you are wrong. That "Kenyan birth certificate" thing was debunked within hours of its appearance. It's a photoshop from an entirely different birth certificate, (and not even one from Kenya.) As for reliable sources, you're really going to trust some guy's conspiracy video on the internet over the preponderance of legitimate news sources? --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Not to mention that the birth certificate in question used Republic of Kenya despite that fact that Obama was born in 1961 and Kenya was still a British collony until 1963 when it started using that name. So unless there is a good explailnation as to why someone making a valid Kenyan birth certificate would use a name for a country that did not yet exist at the time this is almost certainly a fake.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC) The certificate says: "Mombasa. British Protectorate of Kenya."; it does NOT say "Republic of Kenya". You're just a liar. Further, Peter Ogego, US Kenyan Ambassador further affirmed Obama's birth there in Mombasa. Obviously your "news sources" haven't been checked by most readers, but amount to nothing much more than scandal pages off a celebrity "insider" magazine. An affidavit to the authenticity of the Kenyan birth certificate was also filed in the Santa Ana, California Dist Court. If there were any faking, it would have had to have been done in Kenya where the affiant, Mr. Lucas Daniel Smith retrieved the document. Alligations of "photoshopping" are merely "sour grapes" until proven otherwise. The embossed seal of Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa however, CANNOT be photoshopped; and no allegations that I have seen allege the biometric foot imprint to be fake. "Hours"?; takes weeks etc. to file in a Dist Court.207.151.38.178 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC) This section is not productive. You are both/all discussing the topic of the article, not suggested improvements to the article. Without coverage in independent reliable sources, there is nothing to discuss here. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC) O.K. Well it seems to follow that one could improve the article by correcting facts such as: the so-called "phoney" Mombasa birth certificate, which it is not. Further, it -- the article -- should be corrected as I stated above: that the "phoney" Mombasa birth certificate does indeed state: "Mombasa. British Protectorate of Kenya."; and that in no way does it ever say anything such as "Republic of Kenya." Allegations of photoshopping need to be proven. I myself am a collector of documents and such, and I have found the video documentary located at archive.org (search: "birthers"; and the article entitled "BARACK OBAMA - BORN IN KENYA - The Documentary") to be completely factual, although some of the citations are a little wordy. You'll see there what one should suspect: a biometric foot imprint, the embossed seal of the delivery hospital, signators of the doctors, etc. The most independant reliable source you can find, sir, is that of the documents that were filed in the court by the affiant(s), which I might add were never stated by any of the courts to be fraudulant. The only question remaining is: does all of this mean that Mr. Barack Obama is illegally seated as President of the United States, and if so; do we as a country have any power at all to remove him as our Constitution does so state that we must? If we do not, then we are simply wide open, sitting political-ducks just ripe for the picking by who knows who. As far as jolly old England is concerned, this couldn't please them more: proving that in fact we are an illegitimate nation; completely unable to enforce our own laws at a most crucial point in our history, rendering our Constitution a worthless scrap of paper. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC) So you just blocked the article? Personal attack redacted I've got a source and everything, here it is: http://www.archive.org/details/BarackObama-BornInKenya-TheDocumentary. And as you can see right there the document is quite obviously an official document repleate with embossed seal, biometric foot imprint, and colored ink stamp of the authenticating agency. Further, in the video it can be seen several Kenyans surrounding Mr. Smith as he shows the document he retrieved while he was yet there in Kenya. What more do you need; the satisfaction America is illegitimate? This is definitely going to sour the relations between your country and ours; I assure you. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Going over Birth Cert

O.K. I don't come in here too often to wikipedia, but I did notice some suspicious sources (nos. 53 and 54) that should be reread by all. I did also notice the purported Mombasa Birth Certificate and arguments made on that Huffington Report don't add up. The father, of course it is saying on the Mombasa Birth Certificate, was born elsewhere in Nyansa. Please be more clear. WB2 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

These two sources support the text following text:

On August 2, 2009, Orly Taitz released and attached to court documents a purported Kenyan birth certificate which she said, if authenticated and shown to be genuine, would significantly narrow and shorten the discovery and pre-trial litigation period in the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit. Legal documents submitted describe the document as an "unauthenticated color photocopy of certified copy of registration of birth"

I believe they fully support this uncontroversial text, and the second is a UPI source, clearly reliable. The following material states that the purported certificate Taitz produced was a forgery, and that too is sourced (though many other sources are out there).[17] - Wikidemon (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about which "Kenyan birth certificate" is meant at any given point in the discussion, the [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=106135 Orly Taitz one] or the later [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=108005 Lucas Smith eBay one] with "footprint". Unfortunately, there don't seem to be too many reliable sources discussing them, especially the eBay one. It's somewhat interesting to note that, according to the links above, even Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily has called them both fakes. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

New Section editing

Why are new sections being put under the non-editable section for "Kenyan Birth Certificate"?WB2 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, a computer program puts a new section under the heading of the previous section. I noticed this before, but did not think that it was was worth complaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... Oh, come on. --PhGustaf (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I went to contest only to see it was already contested. This page was nominated for deletion twice and was kept twice. It was also reviewed once, with the decision upheld. It's not a candidate for speedy deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See User_talk:Muboshgu#Speedy_Deletion. It was a misunderstanding/accident. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Too long?

Can we please have more opinions on the 15 July 2011 revisions? Check the main article history and revision summaries. If no one manifest soon please ask for Wikipedia:Third opinion. Tukkek (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Article is fine. If you have a specific proposal, please make it. If your proposal is to remove the "Political candidates and elected officials" section and move it to another article, you can already see the view of other editors that the current article is ok. Per WP:BRD, when a bold edit is reverted, a case for the edit needs to be made, and "too long" is not enough. Yes the article is long, but there are plenty of longer articles and no requirement that articles only be short. If the section in question ever expands rapidly it might be worth revisiting the question of splitting the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit, but not the actual edit. In my opinion, sections 4 thru 6 ("Campaigners and proponents"; "Political impact"; "Commentary and criticism") are all bloated, convoluted, and addressing the same basic topic. If length really is an issue, I would prefer an approach where these sections are revised and trimmed for content, rather than merely creating another orphan article. But because this article is primarily about how these conspiracy theories affected the political discourse, removing the politicians from this article makes no sense. --Weazie (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   File size: 453 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 85 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 16 kB
   Wiki text: 124 kB
   Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8764 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 1138 B

Readable prose size is what matters here. Per WP:SIZERULE, an article above 50kB in readable prose size "may need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". So, a discussion is fine to have, but there is no impetus to split at this point, especially since there is no logical reason to split out the "politicians opinions" into its own article. I agree with Weazie that the size issue could be better dealt with by paring bloated sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My intention on splitting the politicians is that there's enough information about different points of view elsewhere in the article, and the (long, 13 subsections) list of individuals seem to me to merely be detailing the issue, hence justifying the use of the "details" template and a new page. Just wanted to clarify - maybe it's not the best solution. I agree with both that cleaning the sections would be better, but I'm not up to this task. Anyway, to add my opinion: the article is clearly long, and keeps repeating itself without adding anything new. I feel that it could certainly have 50% of the actual size and still keep roughly the same general informational value. Tukkek 189.61.227.222 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

racism

I added a line about racism to the lede. This is much too important a topic to be restricted to the body, and especially a single short paragraph buried half-way to the end. This is obviously racist to a large number of observers, part of the emergence of a lot of overt racism that had been largely hidden until Obama's election. — kwami (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. This article has been discussed at length with little or no attention paid to your allegation that I'm aware of. You are quite correct in your observation that the article itself pays alleged "racism" inherent in conspiracy theories little heed save for a sentence or two. That should suggest to you that current editorial opinion does not support mention in the lead per WP:LEAD. If you want to develop your position, then present RS content appropriate for main body inclusion rather than editorializing in the lead itself. That's the way it works here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a considerable body of strong sources to say that a lot of people have made the racial connection, and even some scholarly work to the effect of race and racial attitudes playing a part (see prior discussions). However, "widespread" opinion is a tough call to make. What does widespread mean? More than a thousand people for sure, but this is a big subject. I think the real question isn't how many people think or say it, but whether it's a prominent part of the overall phenomenon. That's a tough call. The racism claims have been bubbling under the surface a long while, and came out in a big way during Donald Trump's period of grandstanding. But looking back it's hard to say. Probably too soon, we'll let history be the judge. JakeInJoisey is right, though. It would have to be developed first and gain sources and consensus in the body, and only then consider it for the lead. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, "widespread" is a fairly meaningless term. (I changed it to "often", also ambiguous, but we can't just say "are seen" without any qualification.) But it is a common understanding of what is going on, and therefor belongs in the lede. The body may have to play catch-up, but this is regardless a fundamental aspect of the issue. — kwami (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Some refs:

The Guardian

USA Today

Christian Science Monitor

The Week

Jackson at Politico

The New York Times

Fareed Zakaria at CNN

Detroit Free Press

Standard-Examiner

Daily Show

— kwami (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the WP:LEAD requirement for notability as first demonstrated in the main body of the article. You are putting the lead cart before the main body horse. Please stop edit warring and, instead, support your position with WP:V, WP:RS content edits. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

While I for the most part agreed with Wikidemon's objection, I then went and read the article and there is a large paragraph dedicated to this with considerable sourcing. I also agree with both Wikidemon and Kwamikagami that there are numerous sources that state race is a key factor in believing this type of nonsense, while also pointing out that JakeInJoisey has been a pretty reliable birther sympathizer, at the very least. I'm not totally sold on "often" in place of "widespread", but it's much better than leaving it out of the lede altogether. The main body sourcing and the sources provided by Kwamikargami show plenty of sources, so weight is also satisfied. Dave Dial (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the sentence out. Here it is for reference:

The theories are often seen as part of a racist reaction to the first black president of the United States.

That is WAY to weasely and accusative in its current form, especially just dropped into the lede without clarifying text. Kwami, as an admin I expect better judgment from you. I don't dispute that the role of racism is significant, and well sourced. But this wording strongly implies that anyone who doubts the President's birthplace is a racist, and I can't stand for that. This statement needs to be worded better. --JaGa^talk 04:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not every Nazi was antisemitic, yet we have no problem saying that Nazism was an antisemitic movement. What would you suggest? — kwami (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be good if we could illustrate this, if copyright allows. For example, there is this photo of Obama as a monkey emailed by an elected Republican official in CA with the comment, "Now you know why — No birth certificate". And there's this from a birther blog, adopted from the racist hysteria of the "Obamacare" movement. And here's a Rep. politician apologizing for rampant racism within his party. All of these are on blogs, so I'd want to verify them, but surely the ugly side of the issue should be included. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the current rush to label individuals with differing views as "racist", it seems quite clear that for the most part, the fact that Obama Sr. was from a foreign land is what fuels these rumors. Let's leave the political hyperbole out of the lead.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This isn't hyperbole. Have you been paying attention? John McCain wasn't born in America, but that was never an issue. It's not a matter of "different" views, it's a matter of racist views. The same people who say he isn't American say he didn't deserve to go to college (he stole a white student's place), that he's getting a free ride, that he's a chimpanzee, that he has a bone in his nose. I suppose we shouldn't label the Nazis as "antisemitic" just because they have differing views? Of course not everyone who says this stuff is a racist, just as not all Holocaust deniers are antisemitic—some are just idiots and believe whatever they hear around them. But we have well-sourced, credible opinions from a broad range of people that at its core this is racism, and whitewashing that point of view would be irresponsible and dishonest. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What in the world does John McCain have to do with this discussion? His father was from the United States. The above rant (comparing birthers to Nazis) shows that you are not editing this page from a neutral stance. You have your mind set that birthers are either racists or idiots. This is a completely irrational view of the matter. As if a candidate with African-American ancestors such as Jesse Jackson faced these same accusations.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You really don't understand the parallel? You said that this was because Obama's father was from Kenya. Of course that has something to do with it. But his mother was from the United States, so it really wouldn't matter. And McCain wasn't born here, which is what the whole birther thing is about: not where his father was born, but where he was born.

No, not all birthers are idiots or racists. Some are political opportunists profiting off of idiocy and racism. But my opinion doesn't matter: what matters is that this is an essential element of the issue, and so belongs in the lede.

I can't parse what you said about Jackson: are you saying he did or did not face the same accusations? Of course, he was never president, and was never his party's candidate, which is when the racists really started coming out of the woodwork for Obama, but there's still been an amazing amount of racist crap about Jackson over the years.

Goldie Taylor sums it up nicely here.

I'll wait for JaGa to suggest a more appropriate wording, then back it goes. No censorship on WP, even if you don't like it. — kwami (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In actuality this movement began when Obama was running for president, so plausibly a similar movement could have developed against Jackson, which it did not. There's been no other president in recent times whose father was from a nation other than the United States. If Obama's father was from Sweden and he had the same political views as he does now, I'm sure this movement would still exist. The problem with stating in the lead that this has been called racism "widespread" is that it fails to state that these calls come from people with an agenda (just like the birthers). It's much easier to label something "racist" than to argue against it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide RS's for that POV. Who says they have an agenda? Many are simply offended by what they perceive as racism. No agenda required.

I don't recall specific racist reactions to Jackson, but he was never a serious contender for the presidency. He was never a threat. But there have been all sorts of accusations against him regardless. They simply escalate the higher s.o. gets. — kwami (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is just common sense. You should be able to have the editorial judgment to determine political rhetoric. Additionally, that's a bit of historical revisionism on your part to downplay the two campaigns of Jesse Jackson. One could label that revisionism as racist since Jackson was the first serious African American candidate. But a reasonable person could see that the one making that charge is doing so in an attempt to gain a rhetorical advantage.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

First serious candidate doesn't mean he ever had much chance of winning, which IMO he didn't. But if you're going to throw around accusations of racism against the people you're debating with, it could also be argued that it's racist to say that those taking offense at racism are merely making it up for political gain, a typical blame-the-victim mentality. Let's stick to the subject at hand without making insinuations against each other. Besides, arguing that this can't be racism because it didn't happen to Jackson is OR: we're not supposed to make judgments on history, but only to report what our sources say. And our sources show that many people, including many who are well respected and qualify as RS's, believe this movement to be racist. — kwami (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Once Godwin's law rears its ugly head, it's time for a break. --JaGa^talk 06:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think that was worth responding to, but perhaps I should. This is not an example of Godwin's law. I did not slander anyone here; what I did was to compare racism in the US to Nazism in Germany. That's a fair comparison (KKK, Neo-Nazis: not so different; pogroms against US blacks and pogroms against European Jews (apart from the Holocaust) again not so different), and Godwin argued that it is because comparisons may be warranted that Nazi similes should not be made frivolously. — kwami (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you do not plan to work on the wording of the statement for the lede? — kwami (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. You should suggest changes here, and get consensus (and not 15-minute, oh-one-other-guy-liked-it consensus either) before you add any accusations of racism to the lede. And in case you're tempted to simply restore your previous statement to the lede, I remind you that this article is under probation, and restoring content that has proven controversial without consensus would be edit warring. --JaGa^talk 06:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So you do not plan on improving the article in this area, but you reserve veto power against those who do? Sorry, that isn't going to fly either. This is widely seen as a racist movement—and AFAICT "widely" is accurate: no-one said "universally". That belongs in the lede. Either you can suggest improvements, or you can accept my best efforts. To delete relevant, sourced, due-weight info from the article is effectively censorship, even if your motivations are stylistic.

Since AFAICT this is a widely held view, but you see that wording as weasely, I honestly don't know how to make it non-weasely in your opinion. You're going to have to do your fair share in this case. As for it being accusatory, of course it's accusatory: Those holding this widely held POV are accusing the birthers of being racists, or of pandering to racists. To make it non-accusatory would be inaccurate.

What do you mean by "consensus"? The approval of any birthers watching this page? That would be like getting the approval of promoters of pseudoscience on pseudoscience articles. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wording

AFAIK the wording as I initially wrote it is accurate and appropriately summarizes the situation. Please adjust if you can improve it. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The theories are widely seen as part of a racist reaction to the first black president of the United States.

Edit1: The theories have been characterized by some commentators as "racist".

I improved the wording above, but still oppose the addition of the text to the lead as it gives undue weight.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It clearly gives it due weight, as others have noted. — kwami (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support the 2nd line being added, or modified as such(These theories have been characterized by commentators as racist, or a racial reaction to the first black president of the United States.), to the lede. I am slightly irritated by both the removal(instead of rewording to make better, even with the acknowledgment it belongs in the lede) and the Nazi comparisons. The sooner we decide and move on the better, imo. It's well sourced and fits into both the article and guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your wording is fine by me. Let's try that. — kwami (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the lede's current wording is fine (as is the justification why it deserves mention in the lede). My only quibble is with the sentence in the body that references "Trump's comments" -- it ought to give an example of Trump's purportedly offensive comments. --Weazie (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We've got a couple examples in the links I provided, and others are easily found. Care to try your hand at it? — kwami (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii refuses subpoena

Hawaii refuses subpoena of Obama birth certificate, citing privacy concerns

Interested editors may or may not find this to be of interest, but a subpoena is court-ordered, no? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:NOTAFORUM. 2. No; court-issued. --Weazie (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm offering this as a plausible addition to this article. While it will need, perhaps, more sourcing under WP:V and WP:RS (which, I assume, will be rather quickly forthcoming), it needs to be considered under WP:UNDUE as well. IMHO, no WP:NOTAFORUM consideration is applicable here as I'm interested in soliciting editor comment inre notability for inclusion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Gee, a local government refuses an illegal subpoena: nothing noteworthy there; I used to work in the equivalent Wisconsin office, which also obeyed the laws rather than some publicity-hungry judge(s) and lawyer(s). It was never encyclopedic information when we did so. WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOTNEWS would apply, even if WP:V and WP:RS were met. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no WP:RS (and, no, none will be forthcoming, as explained), WP:NOTAFORUM. --Weazie (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are probably correct as I've come to understand this story is a week old today and apparently went, thus far, unreported on (save for WND on June 14 which I never saw) though the Greeley Gazette (birther sympathetic as I recall) just published it today. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There are some fascinating incidents that occasionally enliven the normally boring routine of a vital statistics office. I remember with particular vividness the guy with the theory that having had a birth certificate on file made him a "subject" of the United States of America and vulnerable to income taxes, whereas (according to his theory) if he revoked his birth certificate, this would restore his status as a "freeborn citizen" (or some such term) of the original, constitutional UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (note the vital all-caps), and somehow not subject to income taxes. Perversely enough, we wouldn't let him revoke the registration of the fact of his birth. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Re more sourcing, a bit of googling turned up

• Sharon Rondeau (July 5, 2011), U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN HONOLULU SUBPOENAS LORETTA J. FUDDY, HAWAII HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, thepostemail.com {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help) (also seen at http://thearizonasentinel.com/tag/barack-hussein-obama/ -- probably also reprinted elsewhere
• Jack Minor (July 20, 2011), Hawaii refuses subpoena of Obama birth certificate, citing privacy concerns, greeleygazette.com {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help).

I don't have a clue as to the WP:RS status of these sources. I'm guessing that the story might have been reported elsewhere as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Both would fail WP:RS. The postandemail is basically a blog. This is a nonstory being passed around birther circles, nothing more. --Weazie (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a nonstory...

Certainly by RS standards at this point. But the State of Hawaii, if I understand the story, has until August 8 to comply with the provisions of the subpoena. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand the story, because it won't comply, and nothing will come from its noncompliance. (See Orangemike's anecdote.) And: WP:NOTAFORUM --Weazie (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

DISPUTE - POV - "False Claims" Section Title

I am tagging this section title as one of the more blatant violations of WP:NPOV policy I have yet to encounter. Surely this title must have been objected to in prior discussions and I can't imagine how consensus agreement on this title could have come to pass. I will be reviewing the archives for discussion related to this titleing and will reserve further comment pending completion of my review. In the interim, interested editor comment is solicited and appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not what NPOV means on WP. NPOV does not require that we shy away from an objective presentation of the facts because someone might disagree with it. It does not violate NPOV to say the Earth is round, just because someone from the Flat Earth Society might scream "POV! POV!". A good example of this is the long-fought resolution at WP:Pseudoscience, where we not only can say that astrology etc. is pseudoscience, but as a responsible encyclopedia we should say it is pseudoscience. I take the same approach to any article, including this one: People are making false claims, demonstrably so per our sources, so we are duty-bound to present them as false claims, not to hide that fact behind weasel words meant to avoid offending people who might believe otherwise. That is not POV, it's simply encyclopedic. — kwami (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur; however, similar articles (i.e., Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracies, faked moon landing) do refer to simply claims. --Weazie (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, IMHO and under WP:NPOV, cannot be represented as an arbiter of absolute "TRUTH" on ANY matter in DISPUTE by two or more opposing parties, no matter how frivoulous one view might be perceived by an alleged majority. It must REPORT, utilizing WP:V and WP:RS sourcing, what those SOURCES might offer on the relative veracity of those opposing views...NOT represent one or the other as veracity dominant. That is EXACTLY what "False Claims" does and it is an absolutely FALSE dichotomy to equate "conspiracy theories" with the absurd "flat earth" comparative. "Conspiracy theories and rebuttals" should be the title of this section and the current title is a mockery of WP:NPOV and what this project purports to represent. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a large section discussing this somewhere, and I forget the editors involved, but the gist was that the main title would state "False Claims" instead of labeling each section with "False claim about....etc.". So I am sure the compromise consensus is in the archives somewhere. In any case, it's not POV to lable false claims as false claims, especially in an article with BLP implications. Dave Dial (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You have done this before(using tags to push a fringe view), but I don't have time to dig through the archives right now. All I can say right now is that you need to step away from this article if you are going to start edit warring and tagging the obvious as POV. I'm sure it is objected to...by other birthers who don't rely on reliable sources and think there is some mass conspiracy here. Dave Dial (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

They're sourced as false claims, and that's the very subject of the article and reason for its notability. People advanced false claims about Obama's citizenship and birthplace. Perhaps we repeat the word "false" too often and it seems defensive, but that's more a matter of tone and style than POV. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yes, Dave, you remember correctly. See this discussion in archive 15 from earlier this year. The agreement was for the wording as it appears. Tvoz/talk 01:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I stated, I intended to review the archives for discussion related to the titleing of this section and have read the section you referenced. I have not yet begun my review on the evolution of this title and will reserve further comment until I do so. I concur that there was a consensus for this title evidenced in that discussion. However, I strongly disagree with a consensus that appears to be merely an accommodation to multiple problematical WP:NPOV existing entries and my POV objection, based upon what I perceive to be a clear violation of WP:NPOV still stands.

I believe a more credible consensus on the legitimacy of this title under WP:NPOV consideration may benefit from a more broad exposure and editorial expression of opinion than I've seen thus far. However, a thoughtful and persuasive comment on this subject could dispatch my concerns post-haste. Anyone got one? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your tag one more time, because a dispute tag suggests that there was, as it were, a dispute. There isn't one; there are no responsible sources that suggest that any of these claims are anything other than nonsense. Until and unless you can find such a source, you're just saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that isn't helpful. PhGustaf (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. It is not POV to describe something as 'false' if mainstream opinion is that it is patently false. There is no requirement to describe them otherwise to provide balance for fringe theories. POV tags are also not to be used to simply mark articles with "I disagree". They are there to attract discussion, and JakeInJoisey has not brought anything to the talk page that requires discussion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The reader is also referred to the resounding consensus against JiJ's arguments on the ANI thread (permanent link) which JiJ started on 21 July, received zero support for, and now seems to have abandoned. Bishonen | talk 11:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC).

Not quite, and this works better. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

downplaying perception of racism

There has been a persistent attempt on this article to downplay the perception that this movement is racist in motivation. The latest episode is to say that Goldie Taylor specifically is saddened by the President having to show his papers, even though this has been commented on by others. (And not just in the Black community; improvements in wording welcome.) The reason given is that the ref I provided happens to be by Goldie Taylor. However, we don't apply this standard to other claims. For example, we say "some people claim that the information in the birth certificate only has to be based on the testimony of one parent." But according to our source, it isn't "some people", it's Orly Taitz. Should we change that wording, then? Again, "some claim his 1981 trip to Pakistan took place at a time when there was supposedly a ban on United States passport holders entering that country". No ref, but the Orly Taitz ref above includes that. Change "some" to "Orly Taitz"? Come on. If you think that we need better sources, then tag for better sources. But don't downplay common reactions by implying that they're the opinion of only one person. — kwami (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this issue depends on one's background and sensitivity. I haven't checked all the recent edits, but a couple I did see were nothing to do with "downplaying". While this page is a continual target for Obama's opponents (a couple of whom probably believe the nonsense, while most are cynically using anyone can edit to spread FUD), there are several editors who keep the article at a reasonably good quality and compliant with Wikipedia's procedures. The "racism" issue is sensitive because in general such observations do not help: the fact that an assertion was made by a raving racist does not address whether the assertion is true, or what evidence there is for or against the assertion. While noting that a speaker is a racist may provide some information, it is an ad hominem logical fallacy that has no bearing on the issue (but would be suitable for an article on the beliefs of racists). Further, the term "racist" is usually hard to pin down in individual cases: it's easy and valid to take a big picture approach and state that in the apartheid era, many white South Africans were racists, and certain individuals can confidently be labeled as racist, but there is no reason to say someone is racist because they claim Obama was not born in the US. Yes, some of those backing the birthers may partly be motivated by underlying racism, but just as no birther evidence has any substance, there is similarly no substance to beliefs about the motivations of birthers—it's just an opinion (however sound) with no evidence. I would prefer no mention of "racism" in this article until a major and highly reliable study publishes meaningful numbers. Mentioning such an obvious ad hominem is not helpful to the issue (what are the birther claims? what is the evidence for and against? what are the outcomes?), and is just a distracting red flag. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It would only be a fallacy if this article were about the factual proposition that Obama is a non-citizen - in which case the article could reasonably be shortened to the single word "no" without examining the social context and motivations behind it. But here we're looking at the whole picture: what the theory is, how and why it came into being, how it spread, its impact and critiques. The conspiracy theories clearly have racial overtones - racial mistrust is clearly one of the contributing factors, the theories can be called racist themselves in that they contribute to institutional racism (white people need to prove anything, black people must prove to the doubters that they're citizens), and one of their effects is racial divisiveness and unease among African Americans. We don't need to address whether promoting a racially-tinged cause means one has racist motives. I don't think the question of motives is the real issue. More like prejudices. The critique is that some perceive blacks, foreigners, and people with funny names or nonstandard backgrounds as "others", whose status as genuine Americans is in question. That doesn't necessarily imply a motivation to treat others poorly, just ignorance, suspicion, mistrust, and all those things. I think this boils down purely to a weight problem. Is the perception that racism is at play a significant, widespread one that has a real impact and significant nexus with the subject, or is it a side issue? Some people consider power plants racist because of so-called environmental racism. A notable subject to be sure, but not of any significant weight in the power plant article. By contrast, it would be amiss to cover Jim Crow laws without mentioning racism. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the whole picture for this topic includes motivations and causal factors, and it is obviously true that, among others, African Americans would recognize racist undertones in the birther blather. But it's an unhelpful red flag issue here until some serious research is published. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to give reactions, we need to give reactions on both sides. And among the side that doesn't believe this, it's widely seen as racist. Of course, individual birthers may not be racist any more than individuals in any movement (I don't want to be accused of Godwin's law again, but I think it is a valid comparison in many ways, based as that was on patriotism and conspiracies theories about outsiders set on destroying the Fatherland; more so than say the KKK which I don't think anyone would join without understanding that it is fundamentally racist), but in the estimation of many, the birther movement as a whole would not exist without this racial dimension. Racism is fundamental to understanding why people would peddle this nonsense, just as it is fundamental for the-Movement-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named. — kwami (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

monkey image: keep or delete?

William Saturn requested that the non-free (emailed) image I added to the racism section be deleted. The reviewers on that page don't see any reason for it, arguing that we could explain the issue using only words instead, and have so far supported Will's request. If those of you here feel that an image to illustrate what people find so offensive adds to the article, please comment on the deletion-request page. — kwami (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus at deletion-request page seems to be running towards delete. Independent of that, I do respectfully believe that removal of the image from this article is appropriate. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the image for now pending discussion, as WP:NOT#CENSURED and no other argument has been advanced as yet against inclusion. The image is supported by a reliable source as part of the content of the page, and many other sources could be found. We use four other (possibly) non-free images on the page as illustrations of different expressions of birther statements, so the images non-free status is clearly not the issue. It's obviously a continuation of the racism discussion. Whether to include this content or not is a matter for consensus. Is there consensus to include, or not include, this particular subject in the article and if so, to use this image? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The image can stay out while it is discussed, this has nothing to do with censorship, so kindly stuff that weak card back in your deck. The racism angle of the birth certificate is tenuous enough as it is, it adds nothing to the article to use some random /b/-tard's shitty photoshop. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are two reasonable policy reasons to remove the image:

1. Per Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic.". How is this image relevant to the article in general or this section of the article specifically? Other than the caption of the image itself, there's no mention of Davenport and this picture. I believe this supports removal of the image from the article.
2. Per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Moral_issues, "The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable: ... Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject". I believe that this image unfairly means and ridicules the President. I believe this supports removal of the image file entirely from Wiki.

Finally, per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light.". The image is false (the subject is not a monkeychimp), and it is disparaging (his parents are not monkeyschimps). I believe this is a sufficient reason to leave the image out of the article pending WP:CONSENSUS.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict - addressing Tarc, no time to respond to Joe just yet) If it isn't censorship / IDONTLIKEIT, then why do you keep repeating how much you don't like it while giving any of a variety of weak tangential arguments - BLP, NFC, etc. - amidst what looks to be one overriding one, that you don't believe this article is a good place to play the race card? Among the bigotry-related incidents surrounding the conspiracy theory, this one image and the occasional Obama = Nazi signs at tea party rallies got the most mainstream attention and reliable source coverage. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Addressing Joe, now. Those are reasonable arguments but I disagree in all three cases. First, the image is highly relevant to the article. The article is about the nature and history of the conspiracy theory. A significant part of the history is the circulation of this particular image. I've gone ahead and sourced it, adding citations to the Daily mail, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, and others. These all describe the photograph in the context of the conspiracy theories, and specifically allegations of racism. Actually, the Daily Mail goes farther, and directly reports in a non-opinion piece that it is racist, a "birther message", and a matter of "nationwide anger". Second, the image is not included to ridicule the subject of the article. It is the subject of the article, and included to cover that subject. We didn't add it to make fun of Obama, we are covering someone else's attack on Obama. The BLP claim has the same flaw. We're not casting anything in a false or disparaging light, we're covering falsity and disparagement of others, not just with this image but the entire article. The entire article would be a BLP violation if we actually suggested it was true. Instead, we're covering a historical event. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored the image. It illustrates the topic better than words can. As for the connection to racism being "tenuous", Tarc is substituting his POV for encyclopedic content. Meanwhile, the debate on deleting the image would of course come down to 'delete' if the image isn't being used. — kwami (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And I have once again removed it. Some dumb image you found on the internet has no bearing on an encyclopedic topic, we can talk about racism without seeing someone's l33t 3rd-grade MS Paint skillz. The image not being in an article does not prejudice an FfD discussion, our editors are not a dim as you make them out to be. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc that while we're discussing the image, it probably is better to err on the side of caution and leave the image out. I disagree with Tarc that mere words express the content of the picture as well as the picture itself. The strong reactions some editors are having toward the image clearly demonstrate that. However, as Tarc says above, evidence of a pervasive character of racism in this 'movement' is still lacking, and I believe that adding this image could potentially be a bit undue by showing this 'movement' in a light that might not be warranted, i.e. 'they are just a bunch of racists'. I think there is no doubt that for some people, that is their motivation, but to paint all who question with the same brush, without some clear evidence, just seems improper. However, if it could be shown that a large percentage of those who hold this belief are simply racist toward the President, then I think it would be perfectly fine to use this image. -- Avanu (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Kwami's attempts to characterize the entire movement as purely racist strikes me as a gross generalization. That image has the weakest of links to the topic, and is only associated with a single non-notable bigot in OC. The image serves Kwami's agenda (paint the entire movement as racist) more than it does the article. --JaGa^talk 18:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not my agenda. I know people who served in the SS who I wouldn't characterize as racist/antisemitic, so I certainly wouldn't claim that all birthers are racist. (Yeah, I know, Godwin's Law. It's an appropriate analogy here.) But there is certainly a widespread perception that the movement is racist, and this is an excellent example of the kind of thing that gives that perception.

Meanwhile, Tarc has shown his extreme bias in the FfD debate with his spurious arguments. He says there, Not only "no" but "hell no". Some second-rate 4chan photoshop has no place or purpose in any Wikipedia article. Anyone trying to place this image into an article should have been blocked for vandalism or trolling, or both, honestly. First, the quality of the image has nothing to do with whether Fair Use is appropriate. Second, to say that I should be blocked of "vandalism or trolling, or both" shows that either he is too biased to think straight, or he has no idea what those terms mean or how WP works. He is also involved in a WP:COI in deleting the image here, for he knows full well that any Fair Use image which is not used in an article is automatically deleted, so his rational for removing the image, The image has no place in this article, and is heading to near-certain FfD defeat. Lick your wounds and move on, is disingenuous. If anyone needs to be blocked, it would be Tarc for gaming the system. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have belittled the image itself, the rationale for uploading it, the rationale for using it in an article, and the rationale for keeping it at FfD. I am an equal-opportunity belittler. What it boils down to though is you tried to use a non-free image to depict something that could easily be explained in words. And you really don't know what WP:COI actually means if you think it is applicable here. Tarc (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We disagree as to how well words can explain an image. But the rest of what you say here is not true. You didn't 'belittle', you said I was a troll and a vandal and should be blocked for it, merely because you disagree on whether the image is justified. Again, either you do not know what those words mean, in which case you're remarkably ignorant for someone who's been on WP for 6 years, or you do know but don't care, in which case you're a bullshitter. — kwami (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly an unbelievably subjective standard. A case could easily be made for removing all images from Wikipedia, but without question, images make articles more interesting. -- Avanu (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I can vouch for most of that. It was one of Tarc's more outspoken moments. You wouldn't want Wikipedia to be boring, would you? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) The amount of reverting on inclusion or exclusion of the image in the article is not helping us resolve the issues. I think there are two issues worthy of reaching consensus:

1. Is the Davenport email incident notable and duly worthy of inclusion in this article?
2. Is the image in question necessary to illustrate the text in this article?

I am uncertain regarding item 1. On the deletion-request page for the image, links were posted that appear to support the notability of the incident. That does not address the appropriateness of including the incident here. However, regarding item 2, I believe a good justification has been provided (also on the images FfD page) that text alone can adequately describe the image, thus its inclusion here would not meet this criteria of WP:NFCC: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk)

Now that's a reasonable assessment. I wish we would all address the actual issues like this. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Objection

Point of order. The non-human primates in the image are chimpanzees. Chimps are apes, not monkeys. That is all. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted, monkey -> chimp, for my edits here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for a reminder of what's so great about Wikipedia. :) --JaGa^talk 22:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

This topic is designated as a message to the Wikipedia moderator(s):

Why does Wikipedia utilize the the term "Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" rather than "Obama citizenship question developments"? Since this topic was last edited, many experts in the field of scanning, typography, and Adobe software use and application have made objective analyses of the April 2011 "birth certificate" release by the White House. There is a consensus developing among well-published experts (such as Mara Zebest, a world-renown Adobe Acrobat, Illustrator, and Photoshop expert/author)resulting from a forensic analysis of pdf release that this document consisted of multiple layers and multiple cuts and pasting from other documents, rather than a singular layer consistent with a single scan. I would hope that the moderators of this well-known online "encyclopedia" would use a more inclusive and less controversial title. When an erudite, well-trained and styled writer (obviously not me...according to Jakeinjoisey) wishes to post the new objective findings or discoveries to this topic, they are relegated to posting evidence under the title of "conspiracy theories," which automatically gives the reader the impression that a "cook" or "nutjob" is adding specious material. This hardly rises to the level of impartial content. Thank you. Coyotesx5 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is addressed in the article. Despite what some "world-renown expert" says, that theory was immediately debunked. See here for a brief explanation of the debunking by the National Review (not exactly a hotbed of Obama supporters). --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Does contributing to a few technical text books really make you "world renowned"? Can you cite anywhere this developing consensus involving anyone else? The article certainly suggests that few believe this theory, so a consensus among well published experts that disagrees would certainly be notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we change the title of the article and delete all the internal references to fringe theories as soon as Alvin T. Onaka makes an appearance on national television to say the document appearing to bear his official signature is a forgery. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the "findings" of this "world-renown expert" (which above posts seem to debunk anyway), these are still theories (as in, unproven conjecture) that there is a conspiracy (group of people secretly working towards a goal) taking place. I don't see how the title is in any way impartial. It's factual. 206.28.38.227 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

More NPOV please

In keeping with W:NPOV, I'd like to recommend the term "fringe" from the mention of "fringe theorists" be removed. This term tends to indicate a prejudice towards the idea, and seems to place a derogatory slant towards any individual who held an opposing viewpoint. (Very casual contributor here, so please, feel free to inform me how better to place this desired edit / suggestion)Erelas RyAlcar (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

See Q1/A1 on the FAQ list at the beginning of this talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This talkpage is a good place for your suggestion, so there's no problem there. However, I strongly doubt that you'll get consensus for the change you want; and without consensus, your edit would be promptly reverted. See the guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories for a pertinent discussion of the weight to be given to different theories. In brief, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is." Failing to identify fringe theorists as being fringe theorists in this article would amount to giving them "undue weight". It's a common misperception that WP:NPOV means every theory should be given the same weight. That's not the case. Regards, Bishonen | talk 19:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

I do agree that Fringe should be removed completely. This is an obvious slant to the left, and the "Bithers" as they are called by the Left, do have some valid points. Biggest being that Obama's father never was a US citizen. He was only on a student (temporary) Visa, signafying that he had no intention of becoming a citizen. The Founding Fathers was very careful in the word usuage, in some area, US citizen was used, BUT in regards to the President (& anyone who could end up in that position, like the VP) had to be a Natural Born citizen. This meant that BOTH parents must be a Legal Citizen at the time of the childs birth. So placing Frings is Not a neutral and honest standing, in this case and article. HLM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.135.195 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Natural born citizen means no such thing. Mystylplx (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

69.76.135.195, in your comment above, all after "This meant that" is a statement of your own opinion regarding what was meant. Others hold differing opinions, and the topic of the meaning of "natural born citizen" has been beaten to death in lots of discussions here and elsewhere. That said, I'll comment that this article clearly does lean left and that this so-called "fringe" view is prominently reported and apparently involves a pretty substantial fringe -- see e.g., Stephanie Condon, Poll: One in four Americans think Obama was not born in U.S., CBS News, April 21, 2011. (I chortle at the neutral reporting in that CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit. The lead sentence says it all.) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1 in 4 is still less than the number of Americans who believe in Astrology yet astrology is still fringe. It's not simply a matter of how many Americans that believe in something that makes it fringe--it's a question of how many credible intelligent people believe in it. Mystylplx (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. WP:DUE only applies to significant viewpoints expressed by WP:RS sources and, as a practical matter in WP, any assertion published by any source can be judged unreliable based on the editorial POV of WP editors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but since I've never seen anything even remotely resembling a credible source saying Obama was not born in the U.S. then that is irrelevant in this case. It's not even a close call--the theory is unquestionably fringe.. Even people like Ann Coulter and Glen Beck agree with that. Calling it so isn't 'leaning left,' it's recognizing reality. Mystylplx (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Reaction in the African American Community

Is this an appropriate title for this subsection, considering that only one incident is mentioned? Is the opinion of one black person representative of the opinions of the community? Perhaps a better title could be found for this subsection. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Another military birther

Air Force Staff Sergeant Daryn Moran is being discharged for refusal to obey orders, since he claims Obama is not the legal President. [18]. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point, it is slightly more precise to say that Moran, who is being discharged, believes Obama is ineligible. The cause/effect is still unclear. --Weazie (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually he calls "B. Obama" (his preferred term for Mr. Obama) an "enemy". The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance this has to the article. I'm sure there are birthers in all walks of life. I don't think an Air Force Staff Sergeant being discharged for refusing to report for duty (whatever his excuse) is particularly notable. Mystylplx (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I just brought it up since it shows that the birthers have not stopped. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

People haven't stopped believing that lemmings throw themselves off of cliffs, but that doesn't mean the Lemming page should be updated every time someone reiterates that belief. 206.28.38.227 (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur that it isn't notable (at this point). --Weazie (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Relevance for Wikipedia

As the english wikipedia is read and edited from all over the world, I wonder why this article has to be THAT long. I really don't think this is really relevant. This article wastes a huge amount of energy which could be used to make sensible contributions to the wikipedia. Now this energy is wasted on fighting political polarised writers who try to hijack this article.

My proposition is that an administrator locks this article for public editing and cuts away unnecessary content. So far.

--81.57.8.148 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it your belief that if this article didn't exist, people who work on it would work on other things? People work on what they feel is important. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Em, sorry for putting it on the top of the discussion page. @Mark: Actually no, probably more than the half would not contribute. Yet, the "other half" would not need to waste energy to counter balance opinions. But I am surprised, the revision history does not look that frequent to me. So maybe it is not that bad. But nevertheless I think this article is way to long, and has way to much media (8 pictures, 1 video) included. Quality is not quantity of information, actually to much unnecessary and boring information kills an article. Okay, to go into detail and waste energy.

• Political candidates and elected officials

Largely unnecessary, it is not relevant to give a detailed summary of the congressman which speculated on this matter, the article does not gain in quality through that. Such information may benefit the articles of these other "politicians". The only relevant entry is the one of Donald Trump who may have been the reason why Obama published his certificate,

• Campaigners and proponents

Unnecessary. Cut! Cut! Cut! If there is still flesh after removing the grease, well leave it.

Seriously, who is interested in what Charlie Sheen, WorldNetDaily, Talk Show Hosts and Second Row Politicians might have said about this issue? To state that birthers are mostly found within the ranks of the "Tea Party" and "Right Wing Extremists" (like blabla the terrorist) might be a good summarisation of the paragraph, notable exceptions to this statement might still contribute. The polls, in section "opinion surveys" might be merged with this section. To that matter I think it is crazy to give an overview over the existing polls on this subject, as if the subject could be voted on. Where the polls undermine or contradict a hypothesis leave it, otherwise delete it.

So I will stop for now and wait a few days for your opinions before starting the weed out. --Catmangu (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with cutting the sections you suggested. Cutting anything else would have to be decided on a case by case basis, but I support the cuts you suggest. Mystylplx (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be methodical in condensing the article, in order to gain consensus. It is a large subject at the intersection of a bunch of mainstream and fringe elements in American politics, and the article has bloated over time as it collected a lot of disparate information. Among the proponents WorldNetDaily is certainly an important piece of the puzzle. Orly Taitz for sure, and Hillary Clinton's campaign. I'm not sure any of the celebrities matter (other than Donald Trump, who's in the politician section) but the list of talk show hosts is pretty significant, as much of this stuff came from the blogosphere and talk radio. Regarding politicians, Gingrich, Bachman, Huckabeee, and Palin figure in. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur that this article needs to be shortened. It's way, way too long. This is, in my opinion, a fairly clear example of undue weight. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian Sovereignty Argument

Should the argument that Obama was born in a state that Hawaiian sovereign activists claim is not a legal state but an occupied Kingdom of Hawaii be presented? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Might as well add that Richard Nixon may not be eligible because some in Mexico saw the accusation of California as illegal. Or that Woodrow Wilson couldn't have been president because Virginia was part of the Confederacy. Perhaps no one can be president because some in Britain still may not recognize the independence of the USA.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about Nixon or Wilson, JOJ, and there's no need to be sarcastic. @KAVEBEAR, I've heard that one, but don't think it's very widespread. But if it's been written about in reliable sources there's no reason it can't be briefly mentioned. Mystylplx (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not sarcasm, its reality. Welcome to wikipedia.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't plan on writing anything, but maybe someone else would. That's the reason I brought it up. And a brief note is probably as far as it should go. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of this particular tinfoil angle. Inclusion would depend on the sourcing; if it only appears in a handful of fringe blogs, forget it. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian sovereignty advocates aren't white people, so birthers are unlikely to be interested in allying with them in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And, by the same token, the left wouldn't want to be critical of them. Xcal68 (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There is this.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it's worth it....

But a Georgia court has actually agreed to hear a birther case: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2012/01/04/1880356/georgia-judge-to-hear-arguments.html 147.138.92.76 (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If it gets anywhere, maybe. It's mentioned in Orly Taitz and Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation, both linked from here and the latter noted in the litigation section as the detailed article for that topic. Ravensfire (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mars Missions and CIA Links

Can someone add in the Mars missions and CIA links to this? Recent stories out last week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.97.120 (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

roflmfao...

This one is too good to miss:

Two former participants in the CIA’s Mars visitation program of the early 1980’s have confirmed that U.S. President Barack H. Obama was enrolled in their Mars training class in 1980 and was among the young Americans from the program who they later encountered on the Martian surface after reaching Mars via "jump room".

Andrew D. Basiago, 50, a lawyer in Washington State who served in DARPA’s time travel program Project Pegasus in the 1970’s, and fellow chrononaut William B. Stillings, 44, who was tapped by the Mars program for his technical genius, have publicly confirmed that Obama was enrolled in their Mars training class in 1980 and that each later encountered Obama during visits to rudimentary U.S. facilities on Mars that took place from 1981 to 1983.

Their astonishing revelations provide a new dimension to the controversy surrounding President Obama’s background and pose the possibility that it is an elaborate ruse to conceal Obama’s participation as a young man in the U.S. secret space program.

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2011/11/mars-visitors-basiago-and-stillings-confirm-barack-obama-traveled-to-mars-1.html

http://www.geekosystem.com/mars-obama-conspiracy/

Fat&Happy (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

:) I really wish we could add that! Mystylplx (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait! We can! 1, 2, 3! Mystylplx (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet more confirmation of the interesting idea that people dream up ever-more crazy things to believe as a sign to their peers that their belief is even stronger than that of the group—which elevates their status and the exclusivity of the group. Is there an article about this somewhere? Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See the three links I posted above. :) Mystylplx (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I already enjoyed them, thanks. I'm now wondering about the big picture: how do people manage to believe the stuff they do (or say they do), as in my previous message. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Either way it would not belong here since according to this theory Obama is American so he would still be the legitimate president even if this was true.--69.159.111.241 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but this article isn't actually about his eligibility, it's about conspiracy theories about his eligibility. And here we have a new theory on why those theories came about. A conspiracy to obfuscate by creating conspiracy theories, if you will. Or possibly an entire new article on Barack Obama CIA conspiracy theories would be better. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What if the reason he went to Mars was to visit his real parents? JamesMLane t c 07:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought they were from Krypton. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What if he holds dual Martian/American citizenship? :P

Maybe the article title should be renamed to simply Barack Obama Conspiracy theories. After all, some birthers don't even claim he's not a citizen, just that he's not a natural born citizen. There's also the claims that he's secretely a Muslim, that he has ties to terrorists, that he's not actually black but instead is an Arab, that he's secretly gay, that he's spent $2 million to hide his records, that OBL wasn't really killed, that his middle name is Muhammad, and that his real father was Frank Marshall Davis. And that's just off the top of my head. Is there some reason this article is specific only to citizenship conspiracy theories? Mystylplx (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Single-article overload? Remember, we also have Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. Fat&Happy (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Social Security Number

I do not see any mention in the article of his social security number. The number is [redacted] and is from a dead person in Connecticut. Source http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/barack-obamas-ssn-042-68-4425-fails-e-verify-system-birth-ceritificate-forged-draft-registration-forged-17-oct-2011-issue-washington-times-national-weekly-edition-pg-5-cdr-kerchners-bl/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.59.207 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A Wordpress blog is not a reliable source. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Although many birthers like to claim Obama is using a dead Connecticuter's social security number, that has nothing to do with Obama's citizenship (or eligibility). (And I redacted the actual number from the IP's comment.) --Weazie (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to throw this out there: Jean Paul Ludwig's SSN is not the one listed by the birthers. The guy died in 1981, twenty years after Obama was born and, most likely, well after Obama already had his SSN issued and was using it.[19] Dueling NRS. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

National Review as a reputable source and the Drudge Report

I also notice the 2011 long form cites the National Review as a reputable source and the Drudge Report as conspiracy theorists, even though Drudge has a much higher Alexa rank and readership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.59.207 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And your point is? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In no way is a websites Alexa rank relevant. Mystylplx (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Course it is! Youtube is rank 3rd in the world. That means if it's on Youtube it's 99.99% reliable and trumps everything. Except a Facebook group (rank #2), that is. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of I Can Has Cheezburger?, which is 60k higher than Drudge on Alexa's ranking. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well according to Alexa Google is #1 in the world, so anything found through Google should be reliable... ;-P Mystylplx (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's settled then, the cat can has his Cheezburger. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

KAPIOLANI Hospital, in Hawaii

Just a little side note. Whether you believe it is, or is not a conspiracy.

Obama’s birth certificate released in April of 2011 has the name of the hospital that delivered him as Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. To quote Wikipedia: The facility was originally founded by Queen Kapiolani as the Kapilani Maternity Home in 1890 for which she held bazaars and luaus to raise $8,000 needed to start the Home. Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital opened in 1909 named for Emma Kauikeolani Napoleon Mahelona (1862­1931), the wife of Albert Spencer Wilcox (1844-1919).[1] In 1978, it merged with Kapiolani Maternity Home to become Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. However, as of 1978 (up to the date of the actual merger) the maternity part of the hospital was still known as the Kapi`olani Maternity Home. Obama was born in 1961, 17 years before the name change. How did “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” get on his birth certificate, when it didn't exist in 1961? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukidongo (talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is not here for editors to construct, propose or promote, further conspiracy theories. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Origins of the Claims

"During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign."

This is logically inconsistent, as an e-mail cannot be both "anonymous" and known to be "from supporters of Hillary Clinton". "From" implies authorship. I would suggest rewording this as follows: "During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails were circulated which questioned Obama's citizenship, including among supporters of Hillary Clinton, whose primary election campaign was faltering." 69.25.174.165 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Jonathan Perkins

One can remain anonymous and still claim to support Clinton. --Weazie (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Illogical or not. We stick to what can be verified from the cite. It says "Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I know this is OR, but just for the sake of clearing it up for the IP user, I was peripherally involved with that so am aware of how it came about. The emails originated with an internet user whose online name is TexasDarlin. She was a rabid Clinton supporter during the primaries and posted a lot on DKOS and MyDD as well as her own blog site. She was anonymous in the sense that no one knows what her real name is. Mystylplx (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Title Change

"Conspiracy theory," by definition, is a theory without evidence. The theories in this article that have good evidence are not conspiracy theories and should be moved to "controversies" under Obama or some other article. --Coching (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)--216.239.45.4 (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please review the RFQ for an explanation as to why the title is what it is. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no theories in this article that have good evidence. More importantly, there are no theories in this article that are taken seriously by reliable sources.Mystylplx (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in “Kenya , East Africa”. This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the “British East Africa Protectorate”. ---can someone explain this?

Also, on the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children's Hospital” and “Kapi'olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978? source: http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx TodKarlson (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Cheers. --Weazie (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kenya was a British protectorate but in fact it did exist and was called Kenya. Also what Weazie said. Mystylplx (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Born in Indonesia?

According to the source used in the Orly Taitz article conerning the Georgia lawsuit ([20]), Taitz is now claiming that Obama was born in Indonesia. Is this a new theory? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the WP:RS is wrong -- Taitz did not allege Obama was born in Indonesia. Rather, the reporter thought that was the point Taitz was attempting to prove. But the RS says what the RS says.... --Weazie (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Gah. We need a reliable-er source, then.

There should be something at WP:RS downweighting "online sites for local TV news stations." The article misspells the president's freaking name -- twice.--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

citizen through mother

Isn't Obama a citizen by virtue that his mother is one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#Statute.2C_by_parentage --41.151.109.84 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressed in the article here. --Weazie (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is to say that the answer is in dispute. Andrew Malcolm and Eugene Volokh are both considered reliable, but their responses conflict. JethroElfman (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether the conflict between Malcom and Volokh is still ongoing (I haven't researched it, but I suspect not), but it only matters in a scenario where Obama was born outside of the US. I don't know of any reliable source positing that (there may be reliable sources reporting about persons and organizations positing that -- any such sources should be given due weight here). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Legal status

There are a number of headlines here but only a fraction relate to the legal status of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.44.25 (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by this sentence. It makes no sense to me, since our articles have no "legal status". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia....a suppository (sic) for people who need a soap box

This is just another article that is nothing more than a dumping ground for rubbish. All it does is list every rumor or supposition suggesting Obama is not the man to be president of the United States. This article shows why the Wikipedia model is so flawed: foot-fall equals notability. No it doesn't. Just like the crap contained in the Moon landing conspiracy theories, this article only lists what whack jobs want people to know, with rebuttals. This article should just note that there are those who have an agenda to prove that Obama was not born in USA. Why on earth it should then list in minutiae every fantasy is beyond me? .... Oh wait a minute it's because so many people think it, proving once again the misnomer of naming Wikipeida as an encylopedia. It's nothing of the sort, it's just a repository for published facts, but facts that are numerous. There is no analysis, only narrative. They said, he said, she said et al. Yet this article fails because it does not appreciate the philosophical concept of Russell's teapot: those who make the claims have the burden of proof to prove what they are saying not shift that onus to others.

This article just lists what the whack jobs are saying, then spins it around with the rebuttal, er "none of that is true because...". This is ridiculous, the article should assume the burden of proof lies with those making the claims not for the US president to defend such claims. The fact that this talkpage has 16 pages of archive demonstrates how much people want to fantasise about this. It is all fantasy because there is nothing except people saying it that Obama was born anywhere else but Hawaii. Besides who could be remotely interested in this anyway unless it has something to do with WP:soapbox? I base my point on the issue that this is such a mundane technicality, because he was raised and lived in the USA for his entire life, anyway. (Jesus was born in a stable, does that make Him a horse?) Likewise there is no discussion of the issue at hand, only the fantasy claims. Where is the encyclopedic critique? Article 2, which the birthers are using for Obama's annulment, was a caveat created by the Whigs to stop closet 18th-century loyalists bringing in a pro-British leader who might "vote" the USA out of independence and back into the British Empire, or worst still the French outremer! Like any written constitution its purpose was for another time and place. However like any absolutes in a world of change, it's real meaning is lost to a new generation. Only the words remain and they are reinterpreted (for the cinematic meaning of what I just said watch Memento). Just like the right to bare arms, in the 2nd amendment, an 18th century proviso for a frontier land. It was never meant to mean automatic weapons in the 21st century. But trying to telling that to the NRA!

This article just demonstrates how the Wikipedia model for open source material is not dictated by the quality of the argument or the available information. No, at all. It is solely based on the numbers of interested parties regardless of whether it is tripe or not! It is also let down by the notion of consensus. This method relies on the lowest common denominator. Just like democracy: it's a system where two idiots can always out vote a genius. On Wikipedia that means a single voice of reason violates original research and self publishing, whereas the "less-than-able" can spend hours and hours of their lives creating articles like this. All based on assumptions that have no more basis in fact than Pastafarianism.

I would be naive to say I will expect to see any change here, or a sense of rationality, because that is not Wikipedia's way. Once a popular soapbox article is created its keepers/guardians will spend the remainders of their lives (or until one edit war too many drives them away licking their wounds) doing their upmost to keep their invested agenda alive. It's sad really because this just shows that truth is not what the facts say, it's what the you want.

Think about it...

Josh T 109.156.28.178 (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't hurt yourself coming down off of that soapbox. You are correct though, but it's something that will probably always be a limitation of WP because of the nature of the project. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. Ravensfire (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As I relate above, this article set me down the path to changing my mind about the issue. Cygdrive (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Campaigners and proponents

For an overseas perspective, there are notable individuals, such as Lord Christopher Monckton, a politician and former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who assert that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery. [21] Is this worth a single line of text, noting these theories have gained traction further afield? — ThePowerofX 15:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with adding Monckton to the list of proponents. --Weazie (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

But it should be noted that Monckton is, well, Monckton: not exactly considered a rational voice on much of anything; he's too conservative even for a lot of the Tories! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike, how is an ad hominem justification within an encyclopedia? ThePowerofX, no need to ask for permission, be bold and write in what you have as long as you've got references. - Gunnanmon (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say we shouldn't list him among the proponents. I just wanted to caution anybody not familiar with his checkered record to look at his record before thinking that because Monckton believes it means that anybody else outside the U.S. took the whole thing seriously. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Paula Jean Little

A WP:BLP issue has been raised. A new Section might be created when this issue is cleared.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
She is a birther who claims (illegally) to be the legitimate President in place of Barack Obama. http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9031858 Shall we mention her in the Article? I'm sure there are plenty of psychiatric patients who think they're Barack Obama, but the difference is that she claims the Presidency under her own name, not to be Obama. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC) If it starts to get picked up by more sources, it's something to consider. Right now it's really in the fringe of fringe. Ravensfire (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I'll also note that the provided source does not say that she's a birther; merely that she claims to be the POTUS. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC) If you want to split hairs, it doesn't say that. On what other basis would one (other than Barack Obama) claim to be President under one's own name? She doesn't claim to be Barack Obama, just to be President. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Based on what it said in the article there is noting to indicate that here claim to be the President has anything to do with the birther issue. Logically, it does not make logical sense to attach this to that issue because even if Obama were to removed from office over this and she believed that Obama was not born in the USA there is nothing to even remotely suggest the she would inherit the presidency. Seriously, this most likely a flight of fantasy on the person's part than a Birther issue. I'd be shocked if even the birthers would bring this one up--174.93.169.157 (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC) This is a case of someone with psychological issues, and perhaps if this thread isn't a violation of BLP, it still borders on breaking privacy and moral standards of decency. I would rather this thread be closed and/or nonindexed. Dave Dial (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC) To 174.93.169.157, a majority of birthers do not recognize her claim I'm sure, but the birther movement is no more rational than her claim. Obama had an American mother, which would have made him a Constitutional natural-born Citizen even if he had been born on foreign soil (which incidentally he wasn't). To Dave Dial, I will close this thread myself, but if I have anything to say it will still be Archive-Indexed. The guidelines don't say we can't publish BLPs at all, only that they must be conservative, and a single line or very short subsection with a cited source to verify it is pretty conservative in my book. Furthermore, the source article is already published, and I'm not divulging anything not already in the source (I have no intimate knowledge of her to divulge). Therefore, any and all privacy was already broken when the source article was published almost a year ago. I didn't create any new privacy issues to speak of here. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguments based on the internet image of the Hawaiian birth certificates

I am very angry that busybodies deleted my contribution about the fact that the Hawaiian b/cs were printed, as required by federal law, on tamper-proof security paper -- and how that security paper could have contributed to the Photoshop anomalies that led amateurs to think that that the Hawaiian b/cs were faked. My stuff was deleted within seconds of my writing it, and when I came back five minutes later with reference citations, it was gone. Let someone else do the heavy lifting then, or leave an important issue unaddressed. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to find a decent reliable source other than some blog, then it needs to stay out. Your complaining about people actually insisting on sources, not some utter crap like you've tried to use won't help. If it's important, it's going to be in a reliable source. If it's just in blogs, it's basically at the same level at the birthers. Ravensfire (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite apart from that, the rest of what was added about security paper is original research. The cite given says nothing about Obama's birth certificate, so it is the contributing editor's own analysis that what it says is of any relevance. I don't know what the blog references removed had to say to make the connection, but as noted above, they're not reliable sources anyway. If you wish to add this you need a reliable source that discusses security paper specifically in relation to Obama's birth certificate. Wikipedia cannot be the one making the connection between the two. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

¶ I am still cranked about this. Non-blog sources have very little directly addressing this matter, but various people with expertise in matters of Photoshop vs. security paper have offered explanations on blogs, frequently with extensive explanations that clarify the technical details. The end result is that the use of the federally-required security paper for Obama's b/c causes the anomalous Photoshop readings which, in turn, are the mainstay of the accusations being peddled by Orly Taitz, Jerome Corsi, Joe Arpaio, and others. Sussmanbern (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the policy on reliable sources. I understand your frustration, but except in very narrow circumstances are blogs allowed to be used as sources on Wikipedia. I've had more than a few articles where I've had to not put in information I thought was relevant and helpful because I could only find blog sources. Ravensfire (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In the subsection "Rejection by conspiracy theorists", there is already mention of the Photoshop-like anomaly issue — sourced to a "blog" entry by Nathan Goulding of the National Review. This source is, in my opinion, acceptable per WP:NEWSBLOG, since Goulding is a high-ranking National Review executive, and the comment in question is attributed to Goulding personally and not to National Review. To be sure, this source does not say anything specifically about tamper-proof security paper — rather, it suggests the anomalous layers can happen simply due to OCR being active during the scanning process. — Richwales 19:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'

see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 and WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The advertising for Obama's autobiography states that he was born in Kenya http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii This is notable enough that it deserves to be included in the article. Toot toot hey beep beep (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Nothing there worth including. For what it's worth, if we found a third party source to establish that contributor Larry O'Connor and whoever is is operating Breitbart's site now are birthers, it might belong on a breitbart-related article. They're not notable so they don't belong on the list of prominent birthers in this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC) I just googled and got these other sources: http://www.wtam.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=10134429 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146034/Obama-born-Kenya-raised-Indonesia-Hawaii-Presidents-literary-agency-promotional-booklet-1991-claims-WAS-born-Africa.html?ito=feeds-newsxml http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/17/literary-agents-1991-catalog-surfaces-with-claim-obama-was-born-in-kenya/ http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51570 http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/228157-new-report-of-obamas-birth-in-kenya Toot toot hey beep beep (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks. At least one of those and probably more are reliable sources. If this latest wrinkle becomes a big deal then it may become part of the ongoing conspiracy theory story. We probably won't know for a few days. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Here's more. I suppose we'll have to wail until a better source confirms this to cite it in the article, but that shouldn't take very long: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007 "According to archive.org, a website that caches websites on a regular basis, the Dystel.com website – the official website for Dystel & Goderich, Obama’s literary agents – was using the Barack Obama “born in Kenya” language until April 2007, just two months after then-Senator Obama declared his campaign for the presidency." Toot toot hey beep beep (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC) From the internet archive of his publisher from 2007: http://wayback.archive.org/web/jsp/Interstitial.jsp?seconds=5&date=1175626801000&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dystel.com%2Fclientlist.html&target=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20070403190001%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.dystel.com%2Fclientlist.html Welcome to Wayback. Loading... http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html as close to the date: 19:00:01 Apr 3, 2007 as is available.. http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller. Toot toot hey beep beep (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC) The blurb's statement regarding birth in Kenya was incorrect: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/17/literary_agent_says_1991_booklet_was_a_mistake.html If it was a "mistake," then why did Obama's own publisher continue to make the same "mistake" for the next 16 years? Toot toot hey beep beep (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Well, just like I said, it didn't take long at all for a better source to confirm that his publisher kept saying that he was born in Kenya all the way until 2007: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566 In a follow-up post, Breitbart.com noted that Obama was listed as being born in Kenya on the Dyster & Goderich website until April 2007, "just two months after then-Senator Obama declared his campaign for the presidency." Toot toot hey beep beep (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC) There you go. It seems to be a "former literary agent", not his publisher. My guess is that this won't convince anyone he was actually born in Kenya who doesn't believe that already, but there will be some people concerned over whether he created, allowed, or negligently ignored a misstatement made by his agent and why. Looking to the wayback machine ourselves is a good way to confirm what the news says, but we can't use the results of our own digging as verification, that's WP:OR (our independent research on what the wayback machine says). But anyway, there are reliable sources reporting on what the wayback machine says so we don't have to cite ourselves here. I still think it's going to be several days at least before we have any idea where this story is going to go. BTW, I'll save the usual scolding and suspicion of brand new accounts who post anti-Obama stuff because: (1) you seem to be right on this, and (2) cool account name. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks! I really liked that handle - it's too bad they blocked it. A mod posted a "welcome" message on my talk page, and then the same mod blocked me - what a sneaky thing to do! Well, anyway, here is another source that says they kept saying Obama was born in Kenya all the way until 2007 - right up until the time Obama decided to run for President. That's quite a "mistake" to keep doing it for 16 years! http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100158834/obama-used-to-be-a-kenyan/ QfB6Kqqd5u (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Literary agent 1991-2007

Not sure exactly how or where, but it seems obvious this matter belongs at this article:

• "According to a promotional booklet produced by the agency, Acton & Dystel, to showcase its roster of writers, Obama was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients. "This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me--an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote in an emailed statement"—"'Born in Kenya': Obama's Literary Agent Misidentified His Birthplace in 1991" by Dylan Stableford, Yahoo News, May 18, 2012, [22]
• "The simmering political row over President Obama’s heritage was dramatically reignited today as a 1991 booklet boldly announced that the Democrat was ‘born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.’ ...Miriam Goderich, who now works at partner company Dystel & Goderich, is listed as the pamphlet’s editor. An assistant for Ms Goderich told MailOnline that she was not commenting on the story at this time."—UK Daily Mail, May 17, 2012, [23]

Any ideas on doing so responsibly? --→gab 24dot grab← 17:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As I was discussing with the banished but ever-courteous Grundle, it's hard to know right now exactly how this particular matter will play out over time, so it's too early to say for sure. It seems pretty likely that it will be a significant enough wrinkle in the overall history of the subject that it will be included in some form or another. The coverage in the past 24 hours would be enough for a brief mention at least even if nobody ever covered it again, and it is likely they will cover it some more. Under the circumstances the safest thing to do is to just go with the basic facts without arguments on either side about what it means, something like: The issue gained new prominence again in May, 2012, after the [publication] reported that a literary agent for [book] had published a brochure and website saying he was born in Kenya. We can wait a few days and see what else, if anything, needs to be said. I'm sure some people would want to say it "incorrectly identified" him as being born in Kenya, or that it "cast doubt" on this or that other thing, but these are unnecessary embellishments. I think everyone would agree that these basic facts are true / verifiable, even if they don't agree on how and where to say them. Best to let the facts speak for themselves. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done that via a series of edits.[24] I hope this isn't too controversial. If anyone is shocked or appalled, though, I won't take it personally if someone wants to revert one or more steps. But please, do keep in the wording improvements. I really care more that things are written clearly than anything else. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is inaccurate to put this info under "Origins of the Claim." The publication of the pamphlet did not start the controversy; it is merely an example that proponents use as "proof" of their claim. This placement makes it sound like people were scratching their heads over this in 1991. Thus, it should be moved elsewhere, in my opinion. --EECEE (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur. The pamphlet did not help originate these claims. --Weazie (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. As a personal opinion. And when it was first posted there, I went into the article to edit it by moving the statement to a section that better reflects the chronology of when it became an issue. I stopped when I reviewed the cited source, the first sentence of which is, "A possible source of the so-called 'birther' issue—or at least a potential cause of the rumors that have dogged President Barack Obama—has been identified." This needs to be worked around, though that's probably not impossible. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No reliable source mentions this brochure/web site until May 2012; this date is when this should be considered to enter the birther time line. The ABC News article does not contradict this fact. Until a reliable source is found that indicates that anyone was aware this brochure / web site even existed prior to then, I think "May 2012" should be considered the time when this became part of the birther story. The article could mention that ABC News states it's a "possible source".

If the article was about Dystel, then "1991" would be the date to be considered.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)