Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Alan Keyes redux

Is this worth including ? The news is in the second paragraph (the rest is background):

In a video (see below) released Friday, Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois that launched the new president's national political career, calls Obama a communist and usurper and says he refuses to acknowledge the validity of Obama's inauguration over lingering questions in the minds of many conspiracists about the 44th president's birthplace.

— Malcolm, Andrew (2009-02-21). "Alan Keyes stokes Obama birth certificate controversy". LA Times.

Abecedare (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So Obama is a commie, homo-loving son of a gun? :-)--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

blp! Blp !! BLP !!! :) Abecedare (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, along with the theoretical 'Wiki for persons who indulge in negative creativity' there should be an equivalent where conspiracists can be redirected to. With these two wikis the enjoyment of participants in all three areas will be improved.

(Could an archive be done) Jackiespeel (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This was posted (and then deleted) at the Alan Keyes page after some disagreement about whether the reports of Keyes' comments quality as reliable sources. The first significant and detailed reporting of this talk came at these two reporter blogs on the websites of the Los Angeles Times (the Andrew Malcolm post that Abecedare cites above) and the Chicago Tribune:

• http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-birth-cer.html

• http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/02/another-stale-breath-of-crazy-from-alan-keyes-.html

Yesterday someone posted this news at Alan Keyes, citing (among other, more dubious sources) the Los Angeles Times reporter blog; my feeling was that this was sufficient sourcing based on WP:RS under the guideline of Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources:

"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). "

However, another experienced editor thought this wasn't sufficient sourcing,and deleted the item. In addition to many other blogs, the story is reported by a TV station in Hastings, Nebraska, where the interview occurred. This report is a little less extensive and doesn't directly quote the "usurper" language in print, but it does include a video of the interview, and I assume it does qualify under WP:RS.

• http://new.khastv.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16300&storytopic=4

By the way, we now also have Senator Richard Shelby's comment about how he hasn't seen the birth certificate, which the blog world has also jumped on; the latest seems to be that Shelby is claiming his comment was taken out of context, while the local paper in Cullman, Alabama that reported the story is standing by its story. http://www.cullmantimes.com/breakingnews/local_story_053205749.html

--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper blog posts written by regular reporters/columnists of the newspaper are certainly acceptable under WP:V (footnote 5) which you quote, and as has been discussed multiple times on WP:RSN. The question here (and I guess at Alan Keyes) is not reliability of sourcing, but dueness, which is an editorial judgment to be arrived at by consensus.

The Shelby quote and correction/retraction is also discussed at Swampland, which is a Times + CNN collaboration and therefore reliable (as far as wikipedia is concerned). Abecedare (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the subject has more or less drawn to a close for the present as far as WP is concerned: all that can be said is (1) there is an unclarity, and a certain amount of debate, (2) some people find a problem with this, and view it from the more negative end of the spectrum, while other people are prepared to accept the foul-up theory of history, (3) there are various sources which fit WP criteria, and (4) whatever the legalities, and arguments for constitutional change, such matters are best discussed elsewhere. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if you want a good laugh, or a good scare, try to picture a social event in which the likes of Malkin, Hannity, Coulter, and "Carpetbagger" Keyes would all be in the same room. And maybe O'Reilly as the voice of moderation. Can you imagine anything more fun? Like maybe a root canal? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Which variety of Communist - Third, Fourth or other? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Alan Keyes refuses to accept Obama's election. Gasp! The world comes to an end! Well, a lot of Illinoisians refused to accept that he was anything resembling an Illinois resident in 2004. I wonder if there are variety levels for "Carpetbaggers"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Which 'he'? And Third International or Fourth International. How many "actual communists are there of the kind that Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and all the others would recognise as such (or sufficiently communist for them to dispute whether they were or not)? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Which 'he'? Alan Keyes. He wasn't an Illinois resident, he was just brought in at the last legal moment to provide some token opposition to Obama in the Senate race, after the regular candidate pulled out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The best assessment of Keyes in the 2004 Senate race was this one at the time by Republican consultant Mike Murphy in The Weekly Standard: "I thought the Keyes weakness is painfully obvious, but here goes: The job of a political candidate is to attract people to a party's political philosophy and bring victory to the party on Election Day. In two U.S. Senate races and two presidential campaigns, Alan Keyes has done the exact opposite: shown a great ability to stampede voters away from his candidacy like a herd of panicking animals fleeing a huge volcanic eruption. Even Keyes' cable TV chat show, with its unforgettably Orwellian title, Alan Keyes Is Making Sense, was abruptly cancelled for low ratings. When voters listen to a successful candidate they get a strong feeling that this person can do the job and make life better. When voters listen to Alan Keyes, they get the perception, 'Wow, this guy is stone cold nuts' and they run home to hide their children. We Republicans are the free market party, so look to Keyes's prior history in elections and trust the market." Wasted Time R (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful. It's good to have guys like that in the party, though, because it makes the others look normal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, getting back to the LA Times piece "Alan Keyes stokes Obama birth certificate controversy", it seems appropriate for a footnote in this article. Objections?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just another piece of the conspiracy theorists' platform, so you may as well. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. His is definitely a fringe view, but he doesn't quite seem to the point of making a Hillaryesque statement about a vast left-wing conspiracy. People can judge for themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New overview article

Politico has a new overview article on the topic:

Smith, Ben (2009-03-01). "Culture of conspiracy: The Birthers". Politico. Retrieved 2009-03-01.

Most of its contents is already covered by the wikipedia article, but there may be a few additional tidbits to add, for example:

• Use of the term The Birthers. (have other sources used it ?)
• Criticism from the right, as in the Michael Medved quote referring to the movement's leaders as "crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters" who are "the worst enemy of the conservative movement", and "It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look demented. It makes us look sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company." Also, statement by Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch. These are useful to establish that this is a fringe issue even among conservatives opposed to Obama.
• More inflammatory statements from Orly Taitz, Keyes etc ... but that may already be sufficiently covered.

Any comments or other suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly validates our choice of title, and yes pieces of it should be incorporated into the article. I like the Medved quote at the end: "I'm not a conspiracist, but this could be a very big conspiracy to make conservatives disgrace themselves." We must thus be part of that conspiracy too! Wasted Time R (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What are the would-be-invalidators trying to misdirect people away from?

If they have a case (beyond 'absence of crystal ball syndrome') why not actually come up with a reasoned discussion, stating what procedures should be undertaken etc?

Time for the next archive-sectioning? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Medved quote, if genuine, is the perfect capper for this nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Politico article is worth mentioning in our article, for sure. But it would be more compelling and persuausive to the "birthers" if it would actually address and rebut their specific concerns. Obama was undeniably a trans-oceanic traveller during the month he was born, and Hawaii newspaper notices of his birth were merely printed automatically whenever a parent requested a birth certificate, but there is still extremely compelling proof that he was born in Hawaii. I personally don't consider a form laser-printed in 2007 to be very compelling (it doesn't even say if he was born in a hospital or not), and Hawaii officials have declined to "confirm vital information" in the original, unreleased long-form certificate.[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that the verified Medved quote would be an excellent insertion. The term "birther" is so inherently POV that it would require extraordinary citation; the Medved quote expresses the same or better contempt without the label. As for the birth certificate, we have a perfectly fine assurance of its validity from the State of Hawaii. It's not our job to enlighten the birthers. PhGustaf (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there is plenty of hyperbolic shooting off at the mouth all the way around on BOTH sides of this issue. I would prefer this article to aspire towards the encyclopedic and informational rather than piling on more commentary and opinion. That said, I think it would be useful to introduce and define the term "birther" in the article... as long as it's done in a mature, neutral and encyclopedic fashion. Certainly the term is meant to be derogatory, but there's nothing POV about putting it in the article... unless the acticle itself makes a not so thinly veiled attempt to legitimize/delegitimize one point of view over another. JBarta (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind introducing the term "birther" in the article if we can find a couple more sources using it. That way we would be fully backed up by more then one ref's referring to it. Brothejr (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We'd need citations showing the term is in general, or at least frequent, use. One politico mention doesn't hack it. PhGustaf (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph has published just such a reference - see [2]. I've added a citation to the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there are elements of circularity.

The most that can be positively said is (a) There are several ambiguities, some of which are of the 'not having a crystal ball at the time' variety, (b) Sufficient detail has been provided in various contexts for various official persons to be convinced. (c) Some people 'for a variety of reasons' think that there is a problem with Obama's qualifications, (d) Other people are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt 'even if there should be more transparency.'

Given that a number of presidential cabinet appointments over the years have been rejected for not adhering to the rules, and the attempts to find sufficient proof on Obama to prove he was unqualified on this point, the balance of proof does seem to be towards duly qualified.

If Al Gore had won the 2000 election would there have been a 'is he qualified' discussion? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Obama is qualified, but I'm not sure why you state that point here. In editing this article, we're not called upon to come to a conclusion about whether the balance of proof is on the Obama side or the Keyes side. We have neither the need nor the authorization to set ourselves up as the High Council of Wikipedia and purport to adjudicate this dispute. We just report on it. The only ambiguity that strikes me offhand is whether "birther" is intended as a derogatory term. It's awkward to say "person who believes that Barack Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States because of the circumstances of his birth" -- so, if that's the meaning you want to convey, what's the non-derogatory term? I think "birther" is as good as anything. It's certainly more neutral than "Obama birth conspiracy theorist". JamesMLane t c 09:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a Lawsuit

Today a ruling came out in the latest Philip Berg case. I consider it notable because of Mr. Berg's prominence and the fact that the judge was unusually harsh in his criticism of Mr. Berg, suggesting growing impatience among the judiciary.

I added a graf to the Litigation section, but the edit was reverted on the grounds of Notability.

Comments? TheMaestro (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This article doesn't cover every litigation regarding whether or not Obama meets the "natural-born citizen" requirement of the constitution. The litigation needs to have been mentioned in a secondary source in order to get included. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This case might in fact be worth mentioning, since IIRC it was notable for using military personnel as litigants in order to establish standing, and I think that some secondary sources talked about it (don't sue me if my memory is faulty :) ). But I agree with Bobblehead. that it should not be added till such mainstream sources are located. As usual, it may be best to discuss the exact wording and gain consensus on talk page - so that we can avoid revert-warring and instability in the main article. Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everybody. It's a really informative story but it needs a secondary source. Perhaps AP will send out a story tomorrow; that would be enough. Perhaps not; the mainstream press has (for good reason) little interest in this stuff.

There are few things pleasanter to read than opinions by funny angry judges. PhGustaf (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And that's merely a regular old judge. Just imagine what Judge Judy would have to say about some of this stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is now an AP story on this. Nedra Pickler, "Judge assails cases doubting Obama's citizenship", Associated Press, March 5, 2009. Shorter version of same article in the New York Times, apparently going into tomorrow's print version. "Lawsuit Over Citizenship Thwarted". --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Since Maestro started this, I suggest he work the reference into his graf and post it here for discussion: Abcd's point about revert-warring is well taken. PhGustaf (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Mention the bit about the lawyer of record (Hemenway?) maybe having to pay for the defense. PhGustaf (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, my entry was meant as a starting-point anyway -- I used as my only source the text of the judge's decision, hoping that others who knew more about it would expand on it. The text (there was a corresponding reference link) was:

Philip Berg brought this suit on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, "a retired Air Force colonel ... tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama...", in the words of James Robertson, the District Judge who dismissed the case on March 5, 2009. His opinion, which goes on to call Berg and a co-attorney agents provocateurs, begins by describing the case as one that "would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do ... The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end." TheMaestro (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

One puzzling aspect of that case is the premise. I don't see why a retired Air Force Colonel would have to worry about taking orders from anybody. Except maybe the wife. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"(because he might possibly be recalled to duty)" explains the judge, with some sarcasm... TheMaestro (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that the AP and NYT have covered it, I agree that it should be mentioned. The judge's response (threatening to sanction the lawyers) is noteworthy - it will be interesting to see if other judges take a similar line to deter future lawsuits. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's covered by the AP (and soon to be hundreds of other outlets that carry the AP), I don't see an overall reason to prevent the article from being mentioned. However, I would stick to what the AP article (or any other secondary sources that crop up) covered and include the premise of the case (that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was born in Kenya, that the birth certificate Obama provided is a fake, and it was not filed against Obama's legal name, but against "Barry Soetero") and the judge's reaction to the lawsuit (ordering the "plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.") If the secondary sources don't find the details of the retired Air Force colonel notable, then should we? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Have there been similar instances?

Have there been similar instances, where the American Birth ststus of Presidents, or Presidential Candidates has been questioned? Acsialsystems (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

McCain, for one. I think there were also questions about Goldwater and about one of the late 19th-century Presidents, possibly Hayes or Arthur. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a list of similar instances here.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the title of that section is not "Presidential citizenship conspiracy theories". JBarta (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Primarily because most of the presidential candidates in that list were questioned by mainstream historians/constitutional scholars, not just by a few fringe elements of society. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "fringe" by editors.

CosmicLatte has undone certain edits removing the word "fringe", claiming that the use of such a word by an editor does not violate WP:NPOV, but is merely "calling a spade a spade." (This might be considered a poor choice of phrase given the subject.) If the use of the word "fringe" by an editor does not reflect bias, then perhaps the use of the term "lunatic fringe" would be even more unbiased and appropriate? NDM (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This article uses the word "fringe" a lot, and it also uses the word "conspiracy" a lot. NDM, which of those two words do you think is more biased and unappropriate? I'm just curious.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Both words are appropriate to describe the conspiratorial thinking that leads people to hold fringe beliefs (whether it's flat eathers, the people who think the moon landing actually took place in a burbank studio, or these birther idiots). No, defining subscribers to fringe beliefs as "insane" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. But the fact that these people's beliefs (whether they hold them because they are political opportunists, insane, or just not particularly bright is irrelevant) are located, wow, all the way over there -- out on the fringe -- is why we call these beliefs "fringe."Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And per WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories"...exactly what we have going on here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

One-Sided Article

Why not mention Ron Polarik's analysis of the certificate of live birth? Why not mention Obama's paternal grandmother, before being muzzled by the Kenyan government, saying she was in the delivery room for Obama's birth in Kenya? Why not mention Wayne Madsen having located a birth certificate for Obama being born in the Kenyan Maternity Hospital, in Mombassa? Why doesn't Obama produce hospital records from Honolulu and a regular birth certificate?

This matter is not trivial and should be at least mentioned in the long, glowing main biographical article for Barrack Obama even if the article states that the allegations are unproven and courts have not given status to plaintiffs in this matter.

This one-sided article is another example of leftist control of Wikipedia. Another example I saw today was about Emissions Trading.

76.177.225.181 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Antiayers

Yes, facts do seem to have a leftist bias... Lets replace them with rumors, falsehoods and conspiracy theories. 66.253.230.52 (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an inherent small liberal bias because of the make-up of its editors. Generally, we expect editors to be intellectual 15-49 white English-speaking males. Generally speaking, you'd expect a left-slant in most places with that make-up. Whether it affects the neutrality of the article, I doubt it. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess that means we can always come to wikipedia to find out what intellectual 15-49 white English-speaking males' viewpoint is. Kangasaurus (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor's internal bias and personal viewpoint will affect the neutrality of the article. The degree to which that neutrality is affected is directly proportional to the degree in which the editor denies it. JBarta (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What about persons who do not fall into one or more of "15-49 white English-speaking males" - who can be liberal etc? And surely people of whatever political/cultural/other persuasion can contribute viably to WP (and, with a large proportion of articles is non-relevant).

When the US gets round to modifing the legislation) (whatever its original justification) the issue will be resolved. (g) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Move warring is bad.

Move-warring is bad. Worse than normal revert-warring. Protected (on the WRONG version, which I think happens to be the status quo ante too.) – To the move warrers: you guys ought to know better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, rather pathetic from those involved. Grsz¹¹ 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed on Sceptre

Following the disruptive move war at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, I've proposed a topic ban on Sceptre for repeatedly violating article probation. Please see WP:AN/I#Disruptive conduct by Sceptre and leave comments there if you wish. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Before moving back, please explain to me why the old title doesn't violate BLP. It equates and de-legitimises people who are on a (vain) quest for transparency with conspiracy theorists. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your deceptive edit summary that the change reflected a rough consensus absent any recent discussion makes it hard to assume good faith. A "theory" isn't a person. So calling it a conspiracy theory isn't pejorative. It "is" a conspiracy theory. I reverted your move, and within a minute you moved again. I'll remind you this article is on probation, and per BRD you should have come to talk after your bold move was reverted. I'm about to switch back. Don't move it again. There has been endless talk page discussion rejecting such a move. Consensus can change, but there has been no recent discussion on a page move one way or another.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you call someone who espouses a conspiracy theory? A conspiracy theorist. Under the current title, this article alleges that, because they are making legal challenges to Obama's citizenship, that some people they are conspiracy theorists. Which we can't do, per BLP, because we need concrete evidence to say someone is something. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, if there is a theory about a conspiracy to cover up Obama's national origin, then people who hold those views are, in fact, conspiracy theorists. The term may have negative connotations, but just because someone has a theory about a conspiracy, does not mean they are a kook and does not mean their theory is wrong. Not saying this "theory" has any merit, just saying labeling it a conspiracy does not automatically indicate falsehood. Conspiracy theory is an accurate discription of the claims these people are making. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, take Donofrio for example. If we disregard his other theories, look at his lawsuit. He doesn't allege there's a conspiracy about his citizenship; in fact, he filed a suit to define eligibility. Andy Martin sued to have the birth certificate released, which does not automatically mean that he subscribes to the theory (vexatious history aside, it's plausible he sued to have this tricky matter solved). Fessler introduced the matter at the behest of her constituents, which a legislator is supposed to do (the only thing I can recall my MP doing recently is to make a motion regarding a train route). The TN state representatives manifestly don't believe in the theory; Casada even said that he believes Obama is eligible. Given the connotations of the term "conspiracy theory", we must not equate these people to such theorists unless we have concrete evidence that they are. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Sceptre over this, although all my previous attempts to get the name of the article changed have failed. If even one person covered in this article is not alleging any sort of conspiracy, then labeling it a conspiracy is wrong. I am not sure if you can call that a BLP violation, but it would certainly constitute some sort of defamation. This article was originally conceived by anti-Obama editors whose attempts to shove this BLP-busting crap into the main Obama article were thwarted. It quickly became a dumping ground for all sorts of anti-Obama fringe nonsense, and I suggested the article should be deleted for being a POV fork. Since then, more liberally-minded editors have attempted to "embrace the horror" (to quote Steve Buscemi) and use the name of this article as a way of generalizing its heterogeneous content - treating people with legitimate grievances, vexatious litigants and wack-job fringetards as the same, and even suggesting the disparate groups are conspiring. So I think that one of two things must happen:

1. The article title must be changed.
2. The article contents must be split up so that things that aren't "citizenship conspiracies" are not incorrectly described as such.

-- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Raising a question of "OMG ILLEGAL ALIEN PREZ!" is by definition a conspiracy theory, IMO. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But the people I've mentioned don't seem to be alleging any conspiracy about Obama's birthplace. Suing to release a record and alleging that the record is being deliberately hidden is not the same thing. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is sounding more and more like an argument about semantics. Suing to release a record and alleging that the record is being deliberately hidden is not the same thing. When you think something is being hidden, that equals a conspiracy. Thus the title conspiracy theory. This all grounds down to a bunch of groups that all have different ideas about Obama's birth. Each one feels that it is being covered up for one reason or another. Each one is taking a different route to try and "uncover" the truth. These theories of theirs are considered conspiracy theories. Plain and simple. Brothejr (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources? You still haven't explained the Tennessee representatives or Fessler, who are either ambivalent or believe that Obama is eligible. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that reliable sources [3] refer to Donofrio's claims as conspiracy theories.. --guyzero | talk 16:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. It says that a conspiracy theory exists, but doesn't say that Donofrio is a theorist. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It says "Leo Donofrio, who brought the case, also claims that John McCain would not be eligible to be president either, as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. There's almost no chance this will be the end of the controversy. It's incredibly difficult -- in fact, just about impossible -- to convince people who believe in conspiracy theories like this one that their belief is mistaken..." --guyzero | talk 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sceptre and Scjessey about this. BLP applies not just to the subject of the article (President Obama), but to all others involved as well. Currently, there is an eligibility requirement in the Constitution, and Obama offered some proof of eligibility. Those who seek more and better proof are not necessarily conspiracists. Those who believe that eligibility ought to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not just by a preponderence of the evidence, are not necessarily conpiracists either. I opposed creation of this article, but now that the damn thing exists let's at least strive for the appearance of impartiality. Sceptre was merely asking that the title reflect the lead sentence. What's so horrible about that? As Scjessey said, if even one person covered in this article is not alleging any sort of conspiracy, then labeling everyone involved as a conspiracy theorist is wrong. I don't believe for a minute that it happened, but if Ann Dunham gave birth outside Hawaii, and requested a birth certificate upon her return, then that would not be a conspiracy. Likewise, if she gave birth in Hawaii, but Barack Obama's father's foreign citizenship makes the son something other than a "Natural born citizen" then that would not be a conspiracy theory either.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, the conspiracy theory covers not just what happened in 1961 but what's happening in 2007-2009. Look again at Donofrio's blog entry where he describes his perilous journey to the Supreme Court, shadowed by operatives of the evil powers that be. As for the title not reflecting an "appearance of impartiality", do you think 9/11 conspiracy theories and Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories are wrongly named too? Wasted Time R (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that there are conspiracy theories out there, but not all of the pertinent theories are conspiracy theories. Do you believe that those seeking proof of eligibility beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not just by a preponderence of the evidence, are necessarily conpiracists?

Regarding 9/11, people discussed in this article would be delighted if Obama's citizenship would receive .01% of the official investigative efforts that were devoted to 9/11. Given all of the official investigations into 9/11, claiming that they were all rigged is most definitely a conspiracy theory. Apples and oranges.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 The problem is, there aren't any that don't aspire to some aspect of the conspiracy theory. Andy Martin falls rather firmly into the "Obama's birth certificate is a forgery" aspect of the conspiracy theory and while Donofrio's legal case may fall into just being a legal question, as noted above by Guyzero, the reliable sources lump him into the conspiracy theory group and when Donofrio posted his announcement that he was no longer going to participate in legal cases related to Obama's eligibility, he espoused the classic conspiracy theorist reasons (black helicopters flying over his house at all hours, "Blackwater types" following him, etc). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

← Based on the litigants comments outside of the legal cases (and in many cases, inside their legal cases), all of the pertinent theories out there are conspiracy theories. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of Donofrios' theories were conspiracy theories whereas some were not, so saying that they all were is false. Just because the guy thought he was being shadowed on the way to filing his brief doesn't mean that the brief itself contained conspiracy theories. And what about the state legislators? They're simply saying that next time around (2012) they want better proof of eligibility, plus some of them are joining a lawsuit. Do we really know what's in their heads? And do we really know what's in Kreep's head?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, the reasoning behind the litigation is just as important as the litigation itself. The cases don't exist in a vacuum and Donofrio is a perfect example of this. As far as the State Legislators... Yet again, they aren't just saying "Next time we need to verify natural born citizen status", they are saying "Next time we need to verify natural born citizen status, because this time there are so many questions about Obama's qualifications." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobblehead, can you please clarify? Are you saying that if this Obama episode has led anyone to believe that there ought to be a higher standard of proof for presidential eligibility then those people are conspiracy theorists? Or are you saying that all such people also harbor other theories that are conspiracy theories?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the reason for the call for the higher standard of proof for presidential eligibility is because the people calling for the higher standard are Birthers.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at past Talk here, none of us (myself included) are advancing any new arguments, we're just rehashing the same disagreements over and over and over. In fact, I suspect that we're not really posting here anymore, and a bot is generating all this text. How's that for a conspiracy theory? Wasted Time R (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have long suspected that you were a bot.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey now, I have a comment generator that uses keywords in another person's comments to determine the best sentences to use in response to their comments and then presents me with a selection of possible responses for me to select. So I'll have you know, I'm bot-assisted, not a bot. :) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobblehead, please rest assured that I do not doubt your non-botness.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this real simple-like; the baseline of this situation here is that Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen that 100% meets the specifications set out by the US Constitution. He has always claimed to be and has always portrayed himself as a natural-born U.S. citizen of a Kenyan father and an American mother, born in the state of Hawaii. Every single person noted in this article has broached the notion that the above is 'not true. The rationales and lines of attack have varied...the certificate of live birth (COLB) is forged, the COLB is not enough, father's Indonesian citizenship made his son an Indonesian subject, fathers Indonesian citizenship made his son a British subject, etc...etc... All of these avenues have been pursued with one goal in mind; to "prove" that Barack Obama lied about his citizenship, to "prove" that he has knowingly assumed the highest office of the land under false pretenses.

That, dear readers, is the epitome of a conspiracy allegation. Tarc (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, just as a correction. It's the step-father's Indonesian citizenship and the claim that Obama was adopted by Soetoro that some of the conspiracy theorists are using to say Obama lost his US citizenship and it is the fact that Kenya was a British colony at the time that Obama was born that made him a "British subject".--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That, dear Tarc, is the epitome of the problem we're having here. The flimsy legal issue about whether the son of a foreigner can be a "Natural Born Citizen" is a legal issue rather than a factual issue, and if some fringe lawyer disagrees with Obama about it then that does not mean the lawyer is accusing Obama of lying. On the factual issue, many of the legal briefs in this case have asserted that Obama may be mistaken "intentionally or unintentionally" (e.g. he may just not be interested in finding out all the facts about his birth). And even if Obama were lying, one person does not make a conspiracy.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And they've all been roundly dismissed as nonesense and categorized appropriately as conspiracy theories by a preponderance of reliable sources. The fact is -- he was born in Hawaii. There is no evidence that he ever held another nationality (which would be controversial for a president but is not on its face disqualifying anyways) and the "legal" issues all hinge around beliefs that some deep "truth" about his birth (secretly born in kenya), or a secret british citizenship, or a secret indonesian citizenship that would have been impossible for him to acquire (your birth father had to be indonesian to be an indo citizen in those days) and has somehow been kept perfectly concealed for decades by some array of local and foreign governments and friends of obama. etc... Bali ultimate (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: what Ferrylodge said was what I'm going to say. His father gives a little bit of room for people to dispute his natural-born citizenship without being conspiracy theorists, because the legal point about what exactly makes a natural-born citizen has never been specifically defined. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. You need very solid reliable sources before you call someone a "conspiracy theorist". It is only the title of this article that is causing a problem. Don't get me wrong, I think they're all lunatic fringetards and everything - I just think you have to be careful with the name of the article because it labels folk who are not claiming a conspiracy when this has not been properly established or supported by RS. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Try to find a reliable source that doesn't refer to Birthers as conspiracy theorists or fringe theorists, or their theories as conspiracies or fringe. The fuzzy area around what makes a natural born citizen has existed ever since the founders took the part out of the constitution that defined natural born citizen, but left it in as a requirement to be President. The people behind the lawsuits that are applying that fuzzy area to Obama is what is making a seemingly acceptable legal question part of the overall conspiracy theory. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We don't label people as conspiracy theorists and then ask for sources to the contrary; we give people a blank slate, then label them according to reliable sources. Which we don't have for Fessler or the Tennessee representatives. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the previous discussions, Sceptre. This includes the discussions you have been involved in. More than enough sources have been provided that support identifying them as furthering the conspiracy theory and supporting it. This includes Fessler and the Tennessee representatives. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want sources that call this a conspiracy theory. We've got those. I want sources that specifically and unquestionably label Fessler and the TN representatives as conspiracy theorists. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much done. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, even if reliable sources had not already been provided, it is not necessary for us to provide reliable sources that call them conspiracy theorists because the article does not call them conspiracy theorists. The reliable sources tie their actions to the conspiracy theories and that is how they are phrased in this article. At this point, you're just rehashing what has already been covered. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yes it does. Someone who espouses a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theorist. And Wikipedia doesn't do guilt by association. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just reread the applicable paragraphs and I don't see anywhere in there that mentions the phrase "Conspiracy theorist", just that they have either joined legal actions that have been linked to the conspiracy theory by reliable sources, or that they have proposed laws that reliable sources have linked to the conspiracy theory. If the actions have not been linked to the conspiracy theory, then they shouldn't be included in this article, but I don't see any instances that are not at least verifiable. The only questionable one is the Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution which seems to rely primarily upon Ben Smith's blog on Politico. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Linked to the conspiracy theory" isn't good enough. It needs to be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is been done by proponents of the conspiracy theory. If it doesn't mention "conspiracy theory" specifically, either it needs to be removed as it doesn't fit the article, or the article needs to be renamed to accomodate it. At any rate, it's unacceptable as it is. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweet mother of pearl... It's like talking to a wall. Everything in this article is article is verifiable and complies with BLP. The article does not say that Fessler is a conspiracy theorist, just that her actions have been linked to the conspiracy theory by reliable sources. The same is true of the Tennessee politicians. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's like talking to a brick wall. I still haven't seen sources alleging her to be a conspiracy theorist, even though I've asked you fifty times. "Linked to" is not good enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And as I've pointed out fifty times, this article doesn't accuse her of being a conspiracy theorist so a source that expressly calls her a "conspiracy theorist" is not required. Just because a person is in an article about a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that person is, ipso facto, a conspiracy theorist. The law that she submitted has been linked to the conspiracy theory (in those words) by a rock solid reliable source and her inclusion in this article is based on her link to that proposed law. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The same article also says that she knew it wouldn't get considered. She was a lame duck at that point, and most likely put the legislation in to appease her constituents. The justification for keeping her in the article is slimming. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Then the proper course of action is to propose removing that paragraph from this article, not to move war over the title of the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're correct there Bobblehead. You seem to be saying that it would be okay to have a Wikipedia article about Obama's eligibility that focusses exclusively on the fringiest people involved. Wouldn't that kind of be like having an article exclusively about Hillary Clinton controversies, or an article exclusively about the evil aspects of Bobblehead?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My comment was based solely on Sceptre's comment about Fessler only proposing the law in order to appease her constituents and that she never intended anything to come of it. If something doesn't have any verifiable connection to the conspiracy theory then it shouldn't be in the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't give any room for a legitimate dispute. All this has come down to is a bit of semantic masturbation over the term "conspiracy theorist". Even if they're just raising questions about what it means to be "natural born", it is still being done with the aim to disqualify a now-sitting president from office, alleging that the presidency was won under false pretenses. By any normal definition of the term, that is conspiracy theorizing. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But that blanket concept is not supported by a reliable source. I feel just the way you do about it, but that doesn't make it okay for use in an article title. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fessler

Just a quick discussion: what are feelings towards removing Fessler? It removes one of the two major parts I'm disputing (the other being the Tennessee representatives; in order of how much I want them removed, it goes TNSRs, Fessler, Martin, Donofrio). Looking at the news source given, I think it's apparent Fessler proposed the legislation just to appease her constituents. She was a lame duck at that point and knew it wouldn't get a hearing. I'm not sure how much relevance she has to the article now, but I think it's not that much. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says she was only doing it to appease her constituents? According to the sources she only said she didn't think the law wouldn't be heard before the end of the session at the end of the week, or before the elector's vote. That doesn't necessarily mean she expected the law to not be picked up by another legislator in the next session. She also said she was doing it at the behest of the constituents and because she had some concerns about Obama's status as a natural born citizen. That doesn't seem to be an "appease the constituents" submission. Maybe a "making a point" submission, but not an appeasement. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Half of that post, and this post, is a gut feeling. From how I'm reading the Dispatch article, it says to me that Fessler knew that the legislature wouldn't convene in time to even consider it. It's not uncommon for politicians to stall legislation until it expires; Reagan did it thirty-nine times. I'm racking my brains trying to think of a reason it was introduced a week into December, after her successor was elected and towards the end of the legislative session, and the only reason I can think of which makes her constituents not brain-dead is that she knew about it before the election. Mind you, Warren County was handily won by McCain. Hrm... Sceptre ^(talk) 22:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Fessler didn't think the law would see the light of day, but that doesn't mean it was an appeasement to her constituents. Based on the Dispatch's paraphrasing of her comment to them, it seems she actually believed at the time that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen. It isn't uncommon for legislators to submit bills they know won't see the light of day and it's not always done to appease the constituents, but rather on the hope that it will actually get heard. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick Google News search for Fessler, and only came across [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89428 this WorldNetDaily] reference. Casting WND's obvious conservative lean aside for the sake of this post, it gives another plausible reason as to why she introduced the legislation: her constituents contacted her, and she submitted the legislation because the Ohio Legislature seemingly asks for more proof of eligibility. This story being the sole result I can find on Google News also raises the question on whether it should be in the article; the other cases got more coverage than that.

As a side note, skimming the WND article, it linked to this (again, right-leaning) website. Might be useful for listing legal challenges, if we agree to go down that route. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No way - neither that nor WND are reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think I know that already? There's a difference between "useful" and "reliable". The former was used in as a point that there's a perfectly plausible reason that Fessler introduced it that doesn't rely on her belief that Obama's hiding something; the latter was linked to to say "this site has a list of some lawsuits, it might be useful to compile a list of said lawsuits and find reliable sources about them." Sceptre ^(talk) 00:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are only two reliable sources that mention Fessler, couldn't the argument be made that including the law is an example of WP:UNDUE? I know there are limited reliable sources covering this topic in general, but relying upon two sources seems even sketchy for this topic. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's all I can find. You might be able to find more. But yeah, I think it's getting too much UNDUE for even this article. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the the detailed discussion of (failed ?) bills and motions in state assempbies is undue, especially since mainstream media (even state press) seems to have given them short shrift. However, instead of deleting them outright, wouldn't it be better to summarize the issue in a sentence or two? Something like, "In Dec 2008- Jan 2009, a few state legislatures in Ohio, Missouri,... proposed bills and motions requiring ... None of these measures were adopted by the state assemblies." Note sure if that is completely accurate, but you get the idea. Anyone want to give it a try ? Abecedare (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Revisit archive

Just as a useful exercise, I revisited an archived discussion (last section on the page) on this very problem. In it, I proposed using "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims", which had significant support (but not enough for a change). It had the advantage of brevity and neutrality. Perhaps it is worth reconsidering? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• oppose per all the reasons i've given before.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but with a preposition or two added (e.g. Claims about Barack Obama's presidential eligibility). Shorter than "Conspiracy theories and legal challenges". I feel, though, that without it being debunked in the title, it's going to be derided as not neutral (despite the fact that Wikipedia doesn't debunk itself). Sceptre ^(talk) 18:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I would support just about anything Scjessey and Sceptre say on this issue, because they are striving to be reasonable and neutral. There are many, many, many reliable sources that do not use the kind of derogatory language that is now used in this Wikipedia article title. E.g. see Murray, Jon. “Gov. seeks to throw out Obama suit,” Indianapolis Star (2009-02-26). I feel that this Wikipedia article title is being used to smear every single person in the United States who would like to see better enforcement of a clause in the Constitution, using a higher standard of proof. And I would kindly point out that if such people prevail, and Obama meets that standard, then he would be helped more than anyone.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons I've stated a dozen times before here. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons as I have give many times in the past. Brothejr (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't calling for a vote or anything like that. I was hoping that people would revisit the archive and take a look at what was said. Bear in mind that the content of the article has changed since that discussion, so it is not unreasonable to reconsider the title in that light. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The content of the article has not significantly changed and neither has the treatment of the subject by the reliable sources. If anything, the treatment of the subject and its reference as a conspiracy/fringe theory has gotten worse in reliable sources. Most are either outright ignoring them, or basically mocking them at this point. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I continue to oppose changing the title - my reading of recent sources and this article agrees with Bobblehead's. Tvoz/talk 19:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support much improved title. CENSEI (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It's certainly better than the current title. It's perfectly neutral and is an honest description of the issue. JBarta (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This discussion is a complete waste of time - it has been discussed numerous times before. The bottom line is that multiple reliable sources describe these claims as conspiracy theories, and this article follows the established pattern of calling a spade a spade - compare 9/11 conspiracy theories, Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• It will continue to be a complete waste of time until you begin to show some discernment instead of making sweeping generalizations. Support for a higher standard of proof of eligibility is not the same as theorizing a conspiracy. Asking Obama to put the matter to rest by coughing up his original 1961 Hawaii birth certificate (or by allowing the alleged hospital to divulge whether or not he was born there) is not the same as saying he doesn't have a valid 1961 birth certificate (or that he was not born in Hawaii). I'm not asking Obama to do anything, but the people who are don't have to all be smeared here. And just because the word "conspiracy" has been appropriately used in other article titles doesn't mean it's okay to use the term willy-nilly.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that multiple reliable sources do not use the phrase conspiracy theory. It goes both ways. Personally I think we should just pick an accurate title rather than a trying to "call a spade a spade".JBarta (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The point that the birthers (or birther-apologists) are missing, or elliding, is that Obama's eligibility has already been proved to the required legal standard. The underlying conspiracy theory is that Obama is refusing to release the paper birth certificate because it says something different to the electronic record published by the Hawaiian authorities. These people are pursuing "clarifications" because they don't believe that what the Hawaiians have released is genuine. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, whatever the legal standard presently is, it seems that some litigants think it ought to be higher---that does not necessarily make them conspiracy theorists. As far as your other assertions, they are just plain wrong. Donofrio specifically praised Obama for the fact that he did not "bend his integrity" by providing documents that he was not legally required to provide. As far as the genuineness of birth certificates is concerned, some of the litigants have speculated that it would have been easy to obtain such a certificate merely by telling a fib. I emphatically do not believe that happened, but in all honesty I have no idea how easy it would have been (i.e. whether it would have required any conspiracy).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I may recommend topic banning the person who proposes this for the n+1th time. Enough is enough with right wingers editors trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for their anti-Obama propaganda. This is an encyclopedia, not Rush Limbaugh's talk show. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  Jehochman, you may want to refactor that statement. This isn't a bunch of SPAs proposing the change, this is a bunch of established, and in most cases (certainly myself, most likely Scjessey and Ferrylodge), left-wing editors proposing the change. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a right-winger on some issues, and a left-winger on others. But I really, honestly do not believe that Wikipedia should be for any kind of propaganda. NPOV is all any of us should be looking for here, and there's a legitimate dispute about whether the article title is NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the point I'm trying to make. This happens in a lot of articles about fringe issues. Wikipedia has an inherent pro-scientific liberal white American male bias. In our effort to discuss such issues on Wikipedia, said bias nudges us into writing a bit more negatively about the subject than what reliable sources indicate, and purport such articles to be neutral. Sometimes, the support that the liberal-leaning version is neutral is like reading conservatrolls' comments. That's why WikiProject countering systemic bias exists; to mitigate and hopefully eliminate the inherent bias. And I think there is some systemic bias in this article. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have always favored using direct language. The claims about Obama's citizenship are pure conspiracy theorizing. Adding weasel words and euphamisms is against reality and policy. Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not always. Underlying some of the theories about Obama's citizenship is an interesting legal question about what exactly constitutes a "natural-born citizen". Some of those theories about whether he's natural-born probably don't qualify as conspiracy theories as they don't allege a conspiracy. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

←I am removing myself from this discussion, despite my concerns about the name of the article, on the basis that the discourse has become unreasonably hostile. I am also de-watchlisting this page in disgust. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, that is a pretty surprising statement coming from a person charged with the responsibility of being an administrator around here. Given your highly charged, blatently non-neutral and completely unconstructive opinion on the matter, I think it would be good form to recuse yourself from any administrator duties relating to this article. JBarta (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm with Jehochman on this one. The persistent harping on the article title is disruptive. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Use in the article of the word "claims" and its derivatives

The article makes frequent use of the word "claims" and forms thereof, always in reference to the assertions of those contending that Obama is or might be ineligible. The connotation of "claims" is to cast doubt on the accuracy of the statement being reported. That's why its use is generally discouraged. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim. Here, it's pervasive and even used in headings.

A few of the instances are clearly correct, because they're in verbatim quotations. A few refer to allegations in legal papers, where some sort of defense of the use might be made; even in those instances, however, allowing the current language to stand would blur the distinction between different kinds of statements in a complaint initiating a lawsuit (not all such statements are claims).

There seems to be consensus for characterizing Berg et al. as members of a "fringe" who are promoting a "conspiracy theory". I agree with that consensus. I believe, however, that we should implement it openly, by using terms like "conspiracy theory", and not try to smuggle it in by using "claims" where "states" or "asserts" or "alleges" would do just as well. I propose changing every appearance of the term except in direct quotation. JamesMLane t c 21:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, given that some of these are litigation-based, I think the use may be acceptable. I've no qualms about using "states", "asserts", or "alleges", but I do have concerns about using "conspiracy theory" more than it is now; any more and it's ramming it down the reader's throats. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not everything that's litigation-based thereby becomes a "claim". For example, suppose I have a boundary dispute with my neighbor. My complaint might claim ownership of the old oak tree between our houses. I might back up that claim by pointing to a deed conveying to me all land more than 100 feet east of Orly Taitz Street. The statement in my complaint that "Defendant signed the deed attached hereto as Exhibit A" isn't a claim, it's an allegation. At least that's the way the terms would be used in U.S. law. To say "Plaintiff claims that defendant signed the deed" would be an imprecise usage, though admittedly you could find examples in briefs and judicial opinions. As to your second point, offhand I don't see that replacing any of the "claims" instances would necessitate use of another "conspiracy theory", but if it does, so be it. JamesMLane t c 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WTA does give us a bit of leeway if it's used in a litigation sense, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- probably too much leeway, IMHO, but I can understand why nobody wants to try to draw fine legal distinctions in a style guideline. Just because we're allowed to employ a misleading usage doesn't mean that we ought to, though. I don't think "claims" adds anything over "states" and the like except to convey the writer's opinion that the statement referred to is not correct. JamesMLane t c 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with "alleges" vs "claims". Using the term "conspiracy theory" is a little more dicey however. If someone alleges that Obama is in cahoots with the State of Hawaii and they conspired to falsify or dishonestly misrepresent documents, and that claim is solidly contradicted by the evidence, then we could reasonably call it a "conspiracy theory". However, much (if not most) of the article describes issues where there is no conspiracy. So the term "conspiracy theory" should be used judiciously and accurately and not as an attempt to smear the entire topic. JBarta (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, there are enough other threads about the term "conspiracy theory". More than enough, in fact. Waaaay more than enough. Let's confine this thread to "claims". I appreciate your agreeing with me on that word. JamesMLane t c 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In this thread you mention the phrase "conspiracy theory" 3 times. I was simply responding to your post. JBarta (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Irony! I mentioned "conspiracy theory" to try to distinguish it, i.e., to make clear what subject I was not raising. I now understand from your comment that it had the opposite effect. Oh, well, thanks for giving me the chance to clear it up. JamesMLane t c 23:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that in those instances where claim is used in regard to legal actions, it can be maintained, but for sake of abating the implications, allege should be used as as synonym in places. Avoid an ACACAC pattern as it'll look creepy and forced. If one party makes a statement outside the legal proceeding, to an interviewer, use stated, or explained, or somethign else. In non-legal places, use it sparingly. If someone claims he was born elsewhere, change claims. If someone claims to hold proof/evidence he lied, then claimed works, as a claim often implies an assertion of ownership of something, and 'hidden documents' would be a claim. I think in this way we can bring 'claim' more in line with denotative uses and out of the 'liar' connotations. ThuranX (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If we parse its usage case-by-case in the way you suggest, we might be able to come to consensus on each instance. Maybe not, though. I would dispute your last example -- it may be undisputed that the person owns the report from the forgery expert whom he hired, while being hotly disputed that the report proves what he says, with the result that editors take to bickering over using "claims" there.

I think the question is whether there's any benefit to going through the effort of trying to separate wheat from chaff here. If we just replace every nonquotational instance of "claims" with one of the synonyms above, do we lose anything? We ensure fairness to the birthers and avert further protracted discussion on this talk page. JamesMLane t c 23:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"ensure fairness to the birthers"... this is the sort of approach that detracts from the neutrality of the article. When an editor approaches the issue in such a dismissive manner, the result is a non-neutral article. Is it really too much to ask to approach the subject with complete neutrality and objectivity? To edit as if you had no value opinion one way or another? JBarta (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done my best to approach the subject neutrally, although all of us of course are human. I assume your objection is that you consider the term "birther" derogatory and therefore don't want anyone to use it on the talk page. I've previously stated that I think it's a reasonably neutral term. If it bothers you, however, feel free to read my comment as calling for fairness to the fringe conspiracy theorists. Whatever you call these nutjobs courageous patriots, they deserve not to have their every statement labeled a "claim". JamesMLane t c 01:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My objection is along the lines of objecting to a judge who might say "we're gonna give this criminal a fair trial". JBarta (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Birthers are a FRINGE minority, and their outlandish claims do not need fair coverage, simply neutral in proportion to the minority and well cited. You want us to treat their claims EQUALLY to the truth. They make outlandish assertions. Assertion=Claim. I offered a simple guideline that would NOT require reviewing EACH instance, but simply consensus for the idea, at which point anyone can implement it, and ask here for any individually confusing cases, which would not be ALL cases. Since you reject that idea, I'm gonna go with let it stand as is. ThuranX (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Non sequitor in Donofrio v. Wells section

In the Donofrio v. Wells section, para. 4 starts "Justice Thomas's actions attracted interest from commentators ..." but Justice Thomas is not mentioned previously. Possibly the result of edits & deletions, but I can't figure out what it should have been. Not that I tried very hard, but if we're going to have this article it ought to be well written.CouldOughta (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't realize that WP is pioneering the art of 4D reading: length and width on the article page, depth on the talk page, and time in the history. Piece them altogether, and you can get some pretty good articles! Leave any of them out, and you're at the mercy of the Fates ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A new non-recycled issue to consider regarding the article title

This recent edit introduced into this article information about a U.S. Congressman Posey who has introduced a bill to enforce the Natural Born Citizen Clause. The edit seems fine, except that now the title of this article is labelling this U.S. Congressman as a conspiracy theorist. This article's assertion that U.S. Congressman Posey is a conspiracy theorist triggers a BLP requirement: the BLP policy places the burden of evidence on those who wish for this article to label Posey as a conspiracy theorist. In other words, if there is no consensus that this inflammatory assertion meets all Wikipedia guidelines, then any editor is entitled to remove the assertion. I do not believe there is consensus to assert that Congressman Posey is a conspiracy theorist. The only practical way to remove this inflammatory assertion seems to be to broaden the article title. We could alternatively remove Posey from the article, but I do not think that would be appropriate, since he is clearly related to the whole controversy. My suggestion: "Barack Obama citizenship theories."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Um...in the real world, any congressperson who suggests that the duly-elected and sworn-in president of the United States in ineligible is a crackpot. Sadly, I don't think that statement is "inflammatory" at all, because the sad fact is the Congress is full of crackpots. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The cited article says that the congressman is proposing to require an original birth certificate to prove eligibility during future presidential elections, in order to settle the matter quickly and take it off the table. If you think that idea is crackpot, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think it would help people like Obama (who obviously could produce solid proof of eligibility), while ensuring that matters like this won't fester, and while ensuring that the Constitution is enforced.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The current language does not raise any concern of the type voiced by Ferrylodge. Contrary to Akhilleus's implication, the current language also does not assert that any member of Congress consideres Obama ineligible. Instead, the current language quotes Posey himself as stating that his motive is to prevent the recurrence of such a controversy. That's consistent with his agreeing with Berg et al. on the merits, but it's also consistent with his thinking, "These birthers are the biggest bunch of loonies I've ever seen in my life, and I do NOT want to have to put up with such absurdity ever again. Let's just require that from now on everyone has to submit a birth certificate on Day One. Then I won't have any more loonies sending me seven-page letters about this kind of thing." Our article even expressly says that Posey refused to give an opinion about whether the conspiracy theories were true. Therefore, we aren't calling him a conspiracy theorist. JamesMLane t c 02:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have so far not expressed an opinion on the correct name of this article, and don't intend to do so now either. But I don't accept the claim that "the title of this article is labelling this U.S. Congressman as a conspiracy theorist." With respect, this is a straw man argument based on a false premise. The only claim being made by the article is that the subject of Rep. Posey's bill is related to, and perhaps a completely well-intentioned reaction to, the subject of this article; and this claim is very well supported by the cited sources [4], [5], [6]. Mentioning that in the article (as we should), does not in any way label Rep. Posey a conspiracy theorist.

Note that, as is mentioned in the article, Obama released a copy of his birth cert. during the 2008 campaign in reaction to early conjecture about his eligibility - and no editor thought that the title of this article ended up labeling him a conspiracy theorist! Abecedare (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The present article says: "The campaign questioning Obama's eligibility has received support from a number of Republican members of state legislatures and one Republican member of the US House of Representatives." This article is very obviously calling Congressman Posey a conspiracy theorist. That's what this article has always been used for, and it will continue to be used for that purpose until the title is corrected.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That sentence is unsourced and a BLP violation and so I have removed it till we find an explicit source that Posey et al are supporting the Obama ineligibility claim.

But I still don't agree with your premise that mentioning Posey or her bill in this article is akin to labeling her a conspiracy theorists. There may be reasons for or against renaming this article, but this isn't one of them. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, in December I wrote at this talk page: "if everyone who thinks Obama ought to prove his eligibility is part of a vast conspiracy, then Obama himself is part of that conspiracy, because he decided that he ought to reveal his short-form birth certificate."[7] If this article is going to include extensive coverage of people who think Obama ought to provide better proof of his eligibility, either in this election cycle or the next, then we ought to have a broader title that does not slime them all. Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You have proven my statement, "and no editor thought that the title of this article ended up labeling him a conspiracy theorist" incorrect :-)

However, I do honestly believe that this article is not labeling Posey or Obama (!) a conspiracy theorist. It is plainly labeling the idea that Obama was born in Kenya, or is otherwise ineligible for Presidency, a conspiracy theory - this label can be defended based on reliable sources but, as I have stated earlier, other article titles can also be similarly justified. That is the reason I have been neutral with regards to the title and intend to remain so, until new compelling arguments are presented from either sides. Unfortunately the alleged BLP violation is not convincing to me. Abecedare (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least part of the alleged BLP violation was convincing to you. Thanks for removing it.

This article still says about Posey: "His initiative was strongly criticized by Florida Democrats, who accused Posey of trying to 'fan the rumors on the extreme fringe of the Republican Party' and 'pandering to the right wing'." Our Wikipedia article title is taking the side of the Florida Democratic Party. If Posey is not advancing a conspiracy theory, then why mention him in an article about a conspiracy theory? Can't we at least put "alleged" in the article title?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We mention Rep. Posey not because we think that he is "advancing a conspiracy theory", (and anyway, who cares what we think!), but because multiple reliable sources tell us that the bill is in response to the "controversy" that is the subject of this article. Even Rep. Posey has said as much; the only dispute is whether this is a good faith effort (as claimed by Posey) or a bad faith pandering (as alleged by the Dems.) and we quote both the sides ... exactly as we should. I really don't see anything objectionable here. Of course, if this effort happens to die down over the next couple of weeks, we can shorten its discussion, just as we shortened the discussion of the bills and motions in the state assemblies. If, on the other hand, it succeeds, it will need to be mentioned in the lede. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's some legislation or litigation that seeks to improve enforcement of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, then the editors of this Wikipedia article simply wait patiently until some source disparages it as part of a "conspiracy theory" (or motivated by some "conspiracy theory”). Then and only then does that legislation or litigation get mentioned in this article. This news from Indiana is a perfect example; no one has yet trashed the litigants as conspiracy theorists, so it can’t be included yet in this Wikipedia article. But once the mudslinging begins, then those Indiana litigants can be slimed like everyone else in the present article. The title of the present Wikipedia article is structured to ridicule and condemn any efforts to improve enforcement of this constitutional provision, and is designed to exclude any relevant information that cannot be ridiculed and condemned. It's a POV fork without the other prong.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

←
Sorry, Ferrylodge, but that argument makes no sense to me. For instance, by your logic, the Politico article titled Culture of conspiracy: : the Birthers shouldn't contain the sentence "The state's governor, Linda Lingle, has attested to the authenticity of the birth certificate" since the state governor's actions have not been "ridiculed" to be part of the conspiracy theory (they would, rather, be part of the "conspiracy"). Many such counterexamples can be cited.
As I have said before, I can live with the current article title or a different one, but I do not accept the argument that the current title limits the scope of the article to describing only actions (persons) that can be described as conspiracy theories (theorists). Clearly any (wikipedia or real-world scholarly) article on conspiracy theories, such as the ones about the Lunar landing or JFK assassination, should cover the (1) claims of the theory, (2) the accepted facts, and (3) real world reaction to the controversy, including (say) any proposed changes in law or practices. That is exactly what this article does. Abecedare (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not said anything about what newspaper articles should or should not say. I've only said what this Wikipedia article should or should not say. And I emphatically insist that this Wikipedia article should not screen out non-conspiracy-theory characterizations in order to only allow conspiracy-theory characterizations.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare. Our article reports significant actions taken in connection with the eligibility issue. That includes lawsuits by CT proponents. It includes the FactCheck report by a CT debunker. (To paraphrase Ferrylodge's question: "If FactCheck is not advancing a conspiracy theory, then why mention it in an article about a conspiracy theory?" The answer is that actions by FactCheck are part of the story.) By the same token, our article includes the Posey legislation by a politician who decliines to commit publicly to either side.

As for the Indiana example, I have no problem with including a mention of it. JamesMLane t c 04:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Abecedare. The approach which this article has always taken - right from the start - is exactly as he says, covering the claims, the accepted facts and the real-world reaction. It's not "sliming" to report both sides; that's what NPOV requires ("The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly"). As for the Indiana case, I'm not sure why it hasn't been included but I suspect it probably should not be. I don't think we've ever really worked out in detail the criteria for including specific legal actions, but I would suggest the following: (1) they involve people who are independently notable (Berg, Martin, Keyes); (2) they reach the US Supreme Court; (3) they produce a significant result other than a mere dismissal (as in Hollister v. Soetoro). That covers all of the cases currently cited in the article. I think we have to be careful about what we include, as there have been dozens of cases around the country; clearly they don't all have the same level of significance. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cases meeting the first or the third of your suggested criteria would certainly merit more discussion. If "reach the US Supreme Court" means only a petition for certiorari that was denied without comment, that fact doesn't impart much significance to that individual case. For the cases that aren't significant, though, we could include them without additional discussion: "Similar cases have also been filed and have been dismissed in (State Name)(footnote) and (State Name) (footnote), and as of March 2009 are pending in (State Name)(footnote) and (State Name) (footnote)." JamesMLane t c 16:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Legislative actions - threshold for inclusion

I've reverted Bobblehead's removal of two legislative initiatives, though I've left out the third one that he removed. The tabling of bills is a significant legislative action, and still more so the tabling of a constitutional amendment (which is perhaps the most far-reaching action a legislator can take), so these should definitely be included. The third example, the tabling of a resolution, is a far less significant action - it involves no changes to the law and has no binding effect on the legislature - so I think this probably should be left out. The threshold for inclusion, in short, should be that the action should have an effect on the law in the jurisdiction for which the legislator is responsible. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is our job to make such legislative distinctions. If things are covered by independent, reliable sources, we should cover them, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE. If some little local newspaper writes about a legislator who tables a resolution, that's probably not worth covering. Barack Obama is national news. Anything significant would be covered by national press. Jehochman ^Talk 11:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily - the US is a big place, there's a lot of things going on, and the handful of outlets that can be considered "national" necessarily have a limited amount of coverage of state-level issues. I would say that it is significant if it's covered in the state-level media, but probably not if the only references to it are from small-town outlets. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A story in state level media, such as the Los Angeles Times may be notable enough to qualify, while a story in the West Hartford News probably isn't. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Distortion re. Congressman Posey

This article was recently edited to insert the following about U.S. Congressman Posey: "His initiative was interpreted by the media as being 'aimed at raising questions about Obama's fitness for the White House and revisiting the Internet-fueled rumor that Obama wasn't born in the U.S.'" Again, this is horseshit. Would people try to just present an honest, straightforward article here?

First of all, the piece in question was equivocal, saying that Posey's bill "appears aimed at raising questions about Obama's fitness for the White House" (emphasis added). Secondly, one piece in the "media" does not establish what the entire "media" thinks. Thirdly, this was an opinion piece, rather than a news article. It's labelled at the top as "Commentary". Fourthly, is it the mission of this article to find the most derogatory possible comments about people who want to improve enforcement of the Natural Born Citizen Clause? Ever heard of WP:Undue weight and WP:NPOV?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ferrylodge on this one. This cite: "^ Clark, Lesley (2009-03-13). "Florida GOP'er revisits Obama birth certificate controversy". McClatchy Newspapers. http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcb_washington/20090313/pl_mcb_washington/washington200903floridagoperrevisitsobamabirthcertificatecontroversyhtml. Retrieved on 2009-03-14." is just a rehash of the Politico story with somebody's opinion thrown in. It's of no value as a WP:RS. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this comment adds nothing. We report Posey's side of the story concerning the relationship between his bill and the Obama controversy. We report an opposing opinion, properly attributed and sourced (it's from the chair of the Florida Democratic Party, a prominent spokesperson). That's adequate. JamesMLane t c 16:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Keyes v. Bowen update

According to this, the California state court in Keyes v. Bowen granted the respodents' demurrers, "without leave to amend," on March 13, 2009. WND has reported the ruling[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91613], but I haven't seen it reported in an accepted reliable source yet, so I haven't yet posted this information to the article. Interested editors may wish to be on the lookout for an appropriate citable secondary source.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking too (and I looked on Factiva on Saturday) but nothing yet. Perhaps a sign that the media is tiring of this story? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This topic has always been a "slow news day" story for the media and now that Obama is in office, they have better things to cover. It's not a coincidence that the period that this topic was covered the most of RS was between the election and inauguration day. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Kenyan Ambassador

Perhaps this information should be included in the article:

A radio interview with Kenyan Ambassador Peter N.R.O. Ogego has been widely publicized since the ambassador called President-elect Barack Obama’s Kenyan birthplace a “well-known” attraction...

url=http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916 EMSPhydeaux (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I clicked the link. Epic fail. Not a reliable source, and the kenyan ambassador didn't really say that anyway, according to the unreliable source. Here's the whole useless dialog (according to the unreliable source).

Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”

Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”

Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”

Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”

Ogego’s assistant insisted he was speaking about Barack Obama Sr., and not President-elect Obama.

WND asked, “Is Obama’s birthplace in Kenya?”

The woman replied firmly, “No.” Bali ultimate (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How is this not a reliable source? These are the original people who made the call. You can listen to the mp3 yourself and find if this is correct. Ok... so he said that Obama's birth place in Kenya is "already an attraction" and "It’s already well known." Either way, this is a big part of of the controversy. Whether it be true or not.EMSPhydeaux (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

Good luck with epistemology. If you struggle over any of the big words, let me know. But to be clear -- no. This has no place here. Bali ultimate (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow! I had no idea that's what you meant! Dam my mental retardation!!! Seriously, don't be a troll. I am here honestly presenting a big part of the story and you are calling me an idiot. Wikipedia is ruined by people like you who are only here to protect their opinions by censoring anything they don't like. If you seriously have any honest intentions, civilly discuss matters; don't resort to an ad hominem.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This particular urban legend was debunked long ago, particularly and especially by reading the full transcript, and not the cherry-picked version preferred by the WND types. There is no place for deliberately misleading sources in this article, sorry. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted User:EMSPhydeaux's addition of this out-of-context, and long debunked misinformation. Abecedare (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of Context?

Apparently someone thought the quote from the ambassador was "out of context." I think the full context is unnecessary in this case, but if one could explain how the full context changes the meaning, I would be happy to agree. If you wish to have the full context because the it has been claimed to be taken out of context, I would also agree with that, but I would think one would simply replace my wording with the full context rather than removing the story all together.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote was removed by me because:

1. It is out of context, since you quoted a partial misleading piece of the conversation, and somehow left out the part where the ambassador's assistant unequivocally says that Barack Obama (Jr) was not born in Kenya.
2. It is undue even if the full context is mentioned, since mainstream reliable sources have found it worthy enough to cover this totally manufactured and trivially debunked "controversy".

Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there that it is "manufactured?" Who "debunked" it? World Net Daily confirmed the phone call by also calling the ambassador. This isn't some right-wing blogger claiming he called the ambassador; this is a radio station which has audio recording and confirmation from another source.

World Net Daily had the discussion with the assistant long after the original conversation and it has nothing to do with what the ambassador actually said anyway. The full context shows what I said was true to what the ambassador said. You cannot dispute that.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that this is not the most reliable source possible, but there is also no reason to assume it is not a reliable source. If you wish to dismiss it simply based upon the fact that no neutral source has looked into this, I can understand that.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I looked a little more and it seems World Net Daily is a reliable source. It is even a source on this very article, so perhaps the double standards should stop here?EMSPhydeaux (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WND is a piece of non-WP:NPOV hackery that is unfit to be used as a reliable source for anything other than basic, factual, undisputed information. That is how it is (sparingly) used in this article. As I noted earlier, te full transcript of the interview shows that the interviewee later corrected himself, as he was speaking about the birthplace of Obama Senior, not the current president. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you really consider this disputable? Two independent sources confirmed it. Both have a reputation of fact checking. Sure they both think Obama should show his birth certificate, but that isn't an extreme view. Ogego later backpedaled, so what? He did so weeks after later. It is clear from the original transcript that he did not mean Obama Senior. Either way, I think we should add this as it is part of the conspiracy theory; a huge part. This is the place for citizenship conspiracy theories after all isn't it? If you do a search on google you will find hundreds of results on it.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What are your two reliable sources? The time difference in the Ambassador correcting things may be more due to him not being aware that the nutters were running around saying he confirmed Obama Jr was born in Kenya when he meant Sr. Obama Sr. is apparently rather famous in Kenya. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

World Net Daily and http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916 . He's correcting things because he said Obama was born in Kenya, but all I am saying is that it should be included as part of the "Citizenship facts, rumors and claims" as it is a big part of the conspiracy theory.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source. It, unfortunately, has a reputation for factual inaccuracies and loose editor standards. The WRIF clip is a primary source and apparently one where the Ambassador believes he was misinterpreted/misunderstood the question. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there are "hundreds of results" on a google search, as it it just a reflection of the conservative echo chamber that still desperately clings to Birthergate by a ragged fingernail. Misstatements instigated by partisan interviewers are not proper Wikipedia material. End of story. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so. The Ambassador apparently never replied to WND. The ambassador's assistant did. It's hard for me to understand why there is a selection dedicated to "Citizenship facts, rumors and claims" while none of the rumors about Obama's citizenship is included. Perhaps this should be set on the shelf until it is further confirmed by a secondary source. No one really thinks it is a fake though.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it happened is irrefutable. Whether or not there is a notable controversy regarding what the man said, that is quite refutable. What WND and their ilk are trying to spin this as is Ogego "slipping" and inadvertently spilling "The Truth" (according to Birthers) that Obama was foreign-born. That interpretation of the interview is what run afoul of WP:FRINGE. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

All "facts, rumors and claims" must have a reliable source to support them. If there isn't one, then they shouldn't be included in the article. It's as simple as that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this entire article is dedicated to a "fringe" view, but whatever. It is obvious no one will allow this to be placed on here until a major news network confirms it.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't an exception to WP:RS. If anything, we have to go with the higher standard identified in WP:BLP. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about an exception. WRIF seems to be a reliable source even if WND isn't. The only object is that WRIF members believe Ogego mistakenly gave away Obama's Kenyan birth place. That could be considered a fringed view (although I haven't seen any views opposing this one). It is not a fringe view that Ogego said what he said. It would not be outside of the guidelines of wikipedia to mention what Ogego said and explain advocates of the view that Obama may not be eligible for the Presidency think Ogego slipped and told the truth about Obama's birth in Kenya. While, the assistant said Obama was not born in Kenya. Roughly something like that.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this an article

This article is tabloid (conspiracy nonsense) trash. It should be deleted off of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, it should be deleted. 124.176.115.160 (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about bits of nonsense that have cultural significance, such as Flat Earth. Deletion would have to be pursued through WP:AfD. My prediction, based on the comments of several editors here, is that the proposed deletion would be soundly rejected and the article would be kept. JamesMLane t c 08:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And in fact it has already been through AfD twice and DRV once, and has been kept by an overwhelming majority. Check the header at the top of this page for links to the deletion discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Article misleads about Hawaii law

Since December 23, 2008, the article has had some variation on the following highly misleading passage:

People such as Alan Keyes who are questioning Obama's birth location point to a Hawaii statute that allows births to be registered for children born out of state; however, that law was only passed in 1982 (21 years after Obama's birth registration) and its text does not indicate that out-of-state births will be listed with a Hawaiian place of birth.

The major issue with that paragraph is that it falsely implies that the date when the law was added matters and that Obama would not be eligible under that law. However, the law itself refers to parents who gave birth while declaring as their residence the "Territory or State of Hawaii". Because it mentions the "Territory" of Hawaii - which was dissolved in 1959 - the law was clearly meant to be retroactive to those born before 1982. Details here.

Since the article has been misleading people for over two months, simply making a quiet edit doesn't seem like enough of a cure. Does Wikipedia have some sort of newspaper-style corrections page? ZXY4931 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're proposing we use your original research about what was "clearly" the intent of that law's drafters. No need for a change or correction. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is making an implicit statement about the law. Is that implicit statement backed up by a "reliable source" (the NYT perhaps)? There's certainly an alternative to using my opinion about the law, but I'm sure it will be much more convenient to simply leave it in its current, misleading state. ZXY4931 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem with your theory is that even if the law was retroactive it wouldn't have been applicable in this case. The law seems to indicate that it requires the parents or legal guardian of a minor child to submit the application. Obama was either 20 or 21 in 1982 (depending on what date the law went active), so wouldn't seem to meet the criteria of being a "minor child". But then, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know? :) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking the part about minors out of the law will make it clearer: Upon application of an adult... the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult... That means that an adult who was born outside Hawaii can apply on their own behalf and get a certificate for themselves. ZXY4931 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Except it's irrelevant here. We know from the COLB that the original certificate was filed with the registrar four days after Obama's birth. We also know that a birth announcement with the same information appeared in two Honolulu papers within ten days of his birth.--75.42.93.227 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? There are no reliable sources for any of this, and it hardly seems relevant. his birth certificate was issued at the time of his birth in the US state of hawaii. This is a useless digression that's wasting our time. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Since the end of 2008, the article has been implying that when the law was passed matters. Whether you agree with that interpretation or disagree, the article is stating a legal opinion. Where exactly is the "reliable source" for that opinion?

2. Here's the actual Hawaiian law; if those who watch over the article were interested in a balanced treatment one way would be include the relevant portions in the entry pointing out the use of the word "Territory": link

3. I'll be taking this to the "Editor Assistance" section next; hopefully I'll get more assistance than I did the last time: link, although I doubt it. ZXY4931 (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Error in lead

The lead was recently edited to insert the following: "Hawaii State law offers no provision to have such released, and HRS §338-18 stipulates that 'copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original.'" The citation is merely to a state statute. There is no indication that other laws and statutes bar release of a birth certificate if the person in question consents. According to an article in the Honolulu Advertiser, state law does allow release of the document:

Under state law, such copies may only be released to those who have a "tangible relationship" to the person whose record is being sought, said Janice Okubo, state Department of Health spokeswoman....Okubo said, "If someone from Obama's campaign gave us permission in person and presented some kind of verification that he or she was Obama's designee, we could release the vital record."[8]

Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that that article says nothing about a hospital-generated certificate of live birth. And neither does the statute.--75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Advertiser piece says the person was trying to get "a copy of Obama's birth certificate, and related files and records."[9] I find it difficult to believe this did not include a copy of the original long-form. In any event, the present Wikipedia article does not say the person was trying to get a copy of the long-form.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure you realize that what you "find difficult to believe" is not the same as accurately portraying what's in a newspaper article. And although the Wiki article doesn't presently say the person was trying to get a copy of the long form, I see you criticizing someone on this page as "misinterpreting the statement of Hawaii officials" when he or she pointed out that the newspaper article didn't say that either.--Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, would people please chill out, and just try to present a neutral article, without trying to slant the facts? If a neutral presentation of the facts supports and bolsters Obama, then just let the facts speak for themselves. This isn't the place for spin and persuasion, okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, a more pertinent statute is this one, which says: "The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record" (emphasis added).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The piece is talking about getting a certified copy. The article in the Honolulu Advertizer, the person was just trying to get the normal copy normally issued, not the orignal or a copy of it. The Advertiser piece is therefore irrelevant. 74.233.157.218 (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Advertiser piece says the person was trying to get "a copy of Obama's birth certificate, and related files and records."[10] I find it difficult to believe this did not include a copy of the original long-form. In any event, the present Wikipedia article does not say the person was trying to get a copy of the long-form.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's good that you have finally come to the talk page. However, you are linking to statutes and giving them your own interpretation, and that's a no-no at Wikipedia. See WP:OR. Your interpretation is wrong, but even if your interpretation were right it constitutes original research. You have linked to a statute and asserted in the lead of this Wikipedia article that “per Hawaii State law HRS §338-18, there is no provision to have [the long-form] released.” That's false, and original research to boot.

Statute 338-19 specifically authorizes the State of Hawaii to prepare "photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office" (emphasis added).

Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it authorizes the department to make copies when the original records are in such a condition that they cannot be consulted or used without resulting in injury or destruction of the record. It isn't an authorization or requirement to release any sort of document. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Statute 338-13 also authorizes photographic copies of any record. That includes original long-form birth certificates.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that provision is subject to the requirements of Sec. 338-18, among others. And you notice that Sec. 338-18 restricts the release of records "except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health." Do you happen to know what the DOH rules might provide? --75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And statute 338-18 specifically says that the state can release that copy if "it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record." In any event, it's not our job to provide original legal analysis in the lead of this article. Look for reliable and neutral sources that analyze the Hawaii statutes.

I recommend that you also take a look at WP:BLP. The burden is on you to justify insertion of added material in a biography of a living person.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a biography of a living person. It is a discussion of various conspiracy theories. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You’re not only misinterpreting Hawaii law, but also misinterpreting a statement by Hawaii officials. A plaintiff wanted to see Obama’s original long-form birth certificate.[11] In response, Hawaii officials said that, "If someone from Obama's campaign gave us permission in person and presented some kind of verification that he or she was Obama's designee, we could release the vital record."[12]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're quoting from two different articles. The "response" from Ms. Okubo was not made in response to Andy Martin's request but to a reporter's question. That second article went back and forth between references to "birth certificates" and "vital records" and the only quote from Andy Martin was wanting to see a "copy from the state" rather than an online copy. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The second article says the person was trying to get "a copy of Obama's birth certificate, and related files and records."[13] I find it difficult to believe this did not include a copy of the original long-form. In any event, the present Wikipedia article does not say the person was trying to get a copy of the long-form.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Other reliable sources have also confirmed that Obama could release the long-form.[14]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Where exactly in that article do "reliable sources" confirm any such thing? Be specific, please. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The article says, "If the long-form birth certificate were released...." That sure sounds like the author realizes it could be released. But it's not cited for that principle in this Wikipedia article, so we need not quibble about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article says, "If the long-form birth certificate were released, with its unequivocal identification of Hawaii as Obama's place of birth, the cycle would almost certainly continue." That sure sounds like the author isn't making any observations about the legal requirements for release of long-form certificates, but arguing that even if those particular demands were met, the accusations would nevertheless continue. Hardly a "confirmation" of anything, and certainly not from more than one source, reliable or not.

No, it's not cited in the Wiki article, but cited here to bolster your argument. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Because you've inserted false and disputed info into the lead of a BLP, I'm going to revert your edit one more time. You’re going about this the wrong way. You need to build consensus here at the talk page, instead of edit-warring. See WP:3RR. This is a 3RR warning.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this article is not a biography of a living person. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This article contains biographical material about living persons, and so WP:BLP applies. I'll try to respond to your other comments later today or tomorrow.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But the insertion you objected to, whatever other problems it may have had, was not in a portion of the article containing biographical material. It was in the lead para, dealing with the conspiracy theories themselves. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the sentence in the lead said: "A common complaint of those questioning Obama's eligibility is that he has not released a photocopy of his original, official certificate of live birth—only the shorter official summary certification&mdash." You wanted to add to that sentence, in order to make it sound like those complaints are ridiculous and baseless. They may well be ridiculous and baseless, and those questioning Obama's eligibility may in some cases be morons, but they are still living persons. Therefore WP:BLP applies.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't make that edit. Second, that para is still not biographical material within the Wiki meaning of the term. Finally, your point about those questioning Obama's eligibility being living persons makes no sense in this context. Perhaps you want to restate your point? --75.42.93.227 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 74.233.157.218 made that edit. Sometimes, IPs shift around. If it wasn't you, then I retract anything I said that implied it was you. Perhaps if you get a user name there will be less confusion. In any event someone made the edit, and that's why I mentioned BLP, and I really don't have time now to get into a longer argument about it. Whether BLP applies or not (and I think it certianly does), this article needs to be accurate.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just created a user name for this article, to avoid confusion. I have another user name but prefer that it not be connected to an IP address, as has happened here. I will of course only use this name in our discussions.--Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder to all editors that this article is under probation, and the IP and Ferrylodge are on the verge of violating WP:3RR.
To IP, yes this article is covered by WP:BLP insomuch as it deals with living persons such as Obama, the litigants, etc; however this edit does not seem to be an obvious BLP issue that would justify ignoring WP:3RR or invoking WP:IAR (by either sides!). Could the issue be discussed here instead, perhaps with more editors being involved ? Abecedare (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I've tried rephrasing a sentence in the article in order to satisfy the IP (rather than reverting). IP, it would be best to talk about stuff here at the talk page, instead of going back and forth with article edits.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to get into an edit war with you either, and I thought my earlier point about quoting officials in articles might have been sufficient. At any rate, your latest edit is really not "as precisely accurate to the source as can be." That would be an actual quote and nothing more. I think it constitutes synthesis/original research to say Fukino's statement was in response to a question or questions about what the original BC says; the reporter's editorializing is not a question. And absent an actual question and answer format, there is no indication what this statement was in "response" to. You can't just skip around an article and draw your own conclusions. BTW, Fukino is the director of DOH, not just a "spokeswoman." --75.42.93.227 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a news report from a reliable source. It's not proper to pick out the parts you don't like, and call them "editorializing." I'll admit that some news reporters do subtly editorialize in reliable sources (and sometimes not so subtly), but I see no indication that that happened here. The reporter said what Fukino was responding to, and if you don't believe the reporter then please supply a contrary reliable source. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither is it proper to collapse the parts one likes to make one's own point. That is called synthesis, and it is original research. The reporter made a stylistic choice. He didn't say what he asked Fukino, neither does he say it was in direct response to a claim about a Kenyan birthplace on the birth certificate. And the edit as it now stands certainly is not "as precisely accurate to the source as can be." --75.42.93.227 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(Undent)No, I've not engaged in either synthesis or any other kind of original research here. The cited source says:

“ Berg responds that nowhere does the press release say this original certificate is actually American. Instead, he says, the certificate in Hawaii's vaults is from Kenya. Hawaii's answer to this will surely fuel more fires. "Unfortunately the way state laws are written we are not allowed to confirm vital information and vital records," said Janice Okubo, a spokeswoman for Hawaii's department of health. "I cannot confirm individual information because that is against the law." ”

This Wikipedia article merely offers a concise and straightforward summary:

“ In response to questions about what the original birth certificate says, a spokeswoman for Hawaii’s department of health asserted that state law does not allow her department to confirm vital information and vital records. ”

Your arguments might be more convincing if you had tried rephrasing instead of repeatedly deleting. But in any event, your arguments are not persuasive.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the definition of synthesis.

Once again, we do not know exactly what question was posed to Ms. Fukino. She could have been responding to an entirely different question, and reporter believed it sufficed as an "answer" to Berg's claim or to questioners in general. It is inaccurate to say it was a "response" to Berg. A straightforward quote without any interpretation of the material is what would be "as precisely accurate to the source as can be." --75.42.93.227 (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not offering any alternative wording, and none is needed. As you can see above, the cited source says that Fukino gave "Hawaii's answer to this." The "this" was an inquiry about what the original certificate says. This Wikipedia article just says what's in the news report. If you'd like to cite a contrary news report, then I'll be 100% in favor of including that in the present Wikipedia article too.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is the reporter's interpretation of what "this" is...and it could be the certificate question in general, Berg's claim, or his own question about verifying records. It is not accurate to say Fukino's statement was "in response" to anything but a reporter's unknown question.

As to alternative wording, it would be more accurate to simply say, "In response to a reporter's question on the birth certificate issue, the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, [first name] Fukino said ..." A direct excerpt from the article would be most accurate of all, and would show the context. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer is virtually meaningless without describing what it is an answer to. As people can see above, the news article is crystal clear that it's an answer to assertions/questions about the "original certificate" and the "certificate in Hawaii's vaults". There is no ambiguity whatsoever. If the news report is wrong, then please supply a reliable reference that gives contrary info. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't meaningless at all. It is completely accurate to say that the represenative has said she cannot comment on vital records, period. The article isn't "crystal clear" at all...crystal clear would be if the reporter reported exactly what the woman had been asked. The rest is merely the stylistic choice of the reporter, because once again we don't have the actual context of the statement. To extrapolate it into some sort of factual assertion for a Wiki article constitutes synthesis. If you want to be accurate, include the entire excerpt, including the Martin quote.

Furthermore, by collapsing the second quote from another article into the same paragraph, you have given the inaccurate impression that the spokeswoman was talking about releasing the certificate of live birth in the same article:

" ... a spokeswoman for Hawaii’s department of health asserted that state law does not allow her department to confirm vital information and vital records.[39] The spokeswoman says: 'If someone from Obama's campaign gave us permission in person and presented some kind of verification that he or she was Obama's designee, we could release the vital record.'[40] "

That should be corrected as well.--Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The news reporter describes (without quoting) what the spokesperson was answering, and reporters paraphrase like that all the time; it doesn't mean it's unreliable. I don't see anything to call the reliability of the paraphrasing into question. I understand that you don't want this article to be misleading, and neither do I. But it's not feasible to repeat verbatim everything that we're relying on from all of the cited sources, or to insist that the cited sources provide verbatim quotes instead of paraphrasing. The fact that we provide two different footnote numbers indicates that we are using two different sources instead of the same article, and the reader can confirm that it's not the same article by simply looking at our footnotes. Just to be on the safe side, I've clarified in the article that the two statements by the spokesperson were on different occasions.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you clarified that the spokeswoman commented on two separate occasions; however, it still seems to imply that she was talking about the certificate of live birth.

I didn't say the article excerpt had to be quoted verbatim, I said it should be accurate, and the present extrapolation is not (see prior discussion). Quoting verbatim is only one option. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

On the second occasion, a person was trying to get "a copy of Obama's birth certificate, and related files and records."[15] And the state said they could only release stuff with Obama's permission. This makes sense to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you elaborated on that in the footnote. But I still think the two sentences together imply that she was responding the second time on the question of "what was on the original." In any case, as I've said, it is the prior sentence that is the real problem, because there is nothing in the article saying she was "responding to questions" at all. In fact, Martin's statement about the Kenyan birth certificate wasn't a even a question, but a flat out statement of "fact." So aside from stating a conclusion, the sentence is not even accurate. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the prior sentence, I've just edited it to track the cited source even more closely, and also I put the full verbatim material from the source into the footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that effort. However, it's still conclusionary, and despite the footnote, the second sentence still seems to imply it's about what's on the certificate of live birth, when the issue was who could obtain documents at all. So here's some suggested language:

"According to the Honolulu Advertiser, Hawaii's answer .... . On another occasion, the same spokeswoman elaborated on state policy for the release of vital records: " [quote]" ....

Just a suggestion, but maybe you see what I'm getting at here. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We aims to please, so I'll put in part of your suggested language. But I disagree that there's any need to say "According to the Honolulu Advertiser...." The whole point of using and citing and footnoting reliable sources is so we don't have to preface everything with language like that. People can look at the footnote for details, IMO. Also, saying "According to the Honolulu Advertiser...." would make it sound like its an editorial or something.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that edit to the second sentence. Still, the first sentence is picking up the reporter's stylistic choice and using it as fact. As I said, we don't have any idea of the real context of Ms. Okubo's statement. It's not as if she said, "Here's my answer to those concerns ... ." So, maybe as a compromise, we could agree to an edit like this: "Hawaii's reported answer to concerns ... ." While I would prefer a more literal change, I think this at least informs readers that this comment was reported in that context, not that it is a proven fact. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Saw your most recent edit. Looks nice, thanks. Whew! --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the current wording[16] a bit weaselly. Either the State of Hawai'i said that they are not allowed to the info on vital records or they didn't. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent for everyone's sanity)The state of Hawaii said that they are not allowed to verify the info on vital records, according to the reliable source. If you want to remove the word "reportedly" then that's fine with me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To Bobblehead: If you follow the long discussion between me and Ferrylodge, you'll see it's not a question of whether the state said they don't verify info on vital records or not. It's a question of whether that statement was really given "in response to concerns about what's on the original birth certificate" (paraphrasing). Because that requires extrapolating from how a reporter chose to describe it rather than evident from the statement itself, we agreed to say it was "reportedly" in response to those concerns. I see that the way the edit was done may have lead to the impression that the state was "reportedly" saying something; I would suggest an edit that makes it clear that it was "reportedly in response to concerns." I think that would be the most accurate portrayal of the statement.

I do NOT agree with the most recent edit, which leaves no qualifying language. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Agree completely with, " it would be best ... with article edits." !

From what I have read in the above discussion the whole issue is rather lame, so I'll keep out of this discussion personally; but I am sure you can get other regular editors involved ,or use WP:30 etc. Getting blocked over this (IMO) very minor issue would be a shame. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ferrylodge on this one. The Hawaii statute on "vital records" obviously covers birth certificates. The comments in the Honolulu Advertiser story are, IMO, clearly relevant here because said comments treat birth certificates as a specific instance of the kinds of vital records covered by Hawaii law and dealt with by the state Department of Health whose spokesperson's comments were reported in the story.

Also, in an effort to help readers, I replaced the original URL given for the Honolulu Advertiser story with the actual URL of the story on their web site (rather than a search result page). This should help other editors to find the article, read it for themselves, and determine whether it is or is not relevant to any disputes regarding Obama's birth certificate. Richwales (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're addressing my disccusion with FL, the question as I understand it is whether the comments were referencing original hospital-generated certificates of live birth. The term "birth certificate" seems to be used interchangeably throughout the articles. And to say a DOH official is describing a hospital-generated certificate of live birth when she mentions "vital records" is drawing an unwarranted conclusion. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This really seems like nitpicking to me. Almost no source is going to be absolutely perfect with Vulcan-level precision — and if we were to hold all sources to such a standard, there really wouldn't be much of anything available for us to use anywhere in Wikipedia. If you can find an even better source to use here — or other, reliable sources supporting contrary views — that would be wonderful, but my current opinion is that the given source (used in the way it is being used) is perfectly fine for our purposes in this article. Richwales (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that the source is unreliable, it's that it's being used to assert a fact it doesn't really show. And for such a high-profile article, precision should be the standard, don't you think?

As far as nitpicking, I don't agree. There is some anecdotal evidence that the COLB is all Hawaii will send you if you request a birth certificate these days. From one website, for example:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/why-doesnt-he-show-the-damn-thing/comment-page-4/#comment-6062

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/why-doesnt-he-show-the-damn-thing/comment-page-5/#comment-6437

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/birth-certificates-101-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-6278

That may be wrong, but until anyone has dispositive proof one way or the other, I think Wiki editors should be especially careful not use sources in such a way that they imply something not actually said. Even if the original research rule didn't apply.--Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Keyes v. Bowen

• I edited this section, the part talking about the outcome of the case should have been after the part stating what the case was. I moved it in accordance with the way the other sections are writen. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• I then propose we rewrite all the other sections, about the litigation, and begin them all with a sentence about the current state of each case. There is no reason to subject Wikipedia readers to the drivel that passes for the "legal" argument of each of these conspiracy loons er litigants whithout informing them, in advance, that the cases have been dismissed, or are in various stages of dismissal as they work their way to the trashbins of various courts. Judges are pesterred with the inane mumblings of these lawyers and their, even more clueless, clients. That comes with the job. Anybody can file a case. It is bad enough that this article exists here at all without providing the conspirators-without-a-clue some legitimatecy by attaching the words "Filed Lawsuit" and "Court" especially "Supreme Court" to their theories. If we are to do that, then we should at least do so with the word "Dismissed" attached to the front, not the back of the line. IMNSHO Bluespaceoddity2 (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of hammering away at the point in each section like that, it would be more succinct and more informative to the reader for us to include a blanket statement at the top of the litigation section. After the summary reference to where the suits have been filed, I've added: "No such suit has yet resulted in the grant of any relief to the plaintiffs by any court." For some readers, that will save them the effort of reading the detail subsections that describe the separate cases. JamesMLane t c 20:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't help readers that are here for a specific case and selects that case from the table of content. They'd skip the info in the section header and go right to the case section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Trouble is, that's treading on synthesis: obvious as your conclusion is, it's a conclusion you've made yourself, and not one from a Reliable Source. The call is close enough that I'm not going to strike the change, but I am going to poke around and see if I find a source mentioning the whole pile of lameass litigation. PhGustaf (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobblehead, you're right, but a reader who's here for a specific case will probably read the entire paragraph about that case, regardless of the order in which the facts are presented. Hence, while my solution isn't perfect, it will benefit the general reader while not affecting the reader concerned about one case.

PhGustaf, if it's OK to say that Case A resulted in no relief, and it's OK to say that Case B resulted in no relief, then it's not an improper synthesis to say that neither Case A nor Case B resulted in relief. (Otherwise, the rule would push us into an infinite regression along the lines of "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles".) Then the only question is whether it's improper synthesis to state or imply that the cases we've looked at are all the cases. I believe that, with or without my sentence, our article clearly implies that no court has granted relief on any of these causes of action. Of course, if your poking produces a good source, so much the better. JamesMLane t c 06:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the Wikipedia rules on primary sources but it seems patently absurd to have conspiracy making headlines in the article when the court files show that not a single one of the litigants made a coherent legal argument. It can not be that Wikipedia rules are enforced so strictly that even references to the court rulings are to be excluded in the absence of media attention. Keeping the article would be an even greater farce than it is already if this were true. So, while continuing to search for additional sources, I propose that text from the court opinions is placed verbatim in the article with the least amount of further interpretation.

It is my intention to once again edit the Keyes v Bowen entry but this time -with a more serious approach- along the lines mentioned. In a biography article you don't wait until the last line or paragraph to indicate whether a person is dead or alive. Next to the name the date and place of birth and when and where the person died are the first things mentioned in any properly written Wiki biography. Date filed, Date dismissed and last court involved can be used here in a similar manner, in a properly constructed first sentence, as a brief introduction for each case. That isn't intrusive or complicated. It shouldn't even require more than one line.

It could be something like this: On March 13, 2009 Cal. Superior Court. Judge Kenny, dismissed the lawsuit filed by Keyes on Nov. 14, 2008. Keyes' contended... etc

Or something like this: On Nov. 14, 2008 Keyes filed a lawsuit against Sec. St. Bowen. The case was dismissed March 13, 2009... etc. Keyes contended... etc

A timeline and summary can then follow, if so desired.

I also support the explanation in the general introduction to the litigation. I personally don't care if the arguments are explained over and over again for each individual case. Noting the differences where the approach differed slightly would suffice. This could be achieved by grouping similar litigation together. Often the cases are repetitive and simply exist only because there are many different states. Looks to me that writing a general litigation introduction was achieved by JamesMLane without breaking synthesis restrictions. Let's try to find the line without crossing it rather than threading to cautiously leaving a decidedly POV article slanted towards providing a soapbox for conspiracy loons. Bluespaceoddity2 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)