Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Guideline Refresher Course

I feel like I need to mention some guidelines for the benefit of a lot of new users whose first contribution to talk pages seems to often be here.

WP:NOTAFORUM - This isn't a message board... we're trying to create good articles, not campaign on behalf of our own beliefs.
WP:NPOV - We use all significant viewpoints by reliable sources. If you think an article is really biased, try and find sources in opposition that an average person who did not have a stance on the issue would find reliable. If you can't find sources, but the other side has a thousand it's not evidence of a massive conspiracy... it's evidence of a consensus.
WP:SOURCES - "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." This means that DailyKos, Drudge Report, blogs and the like don't work as sources. -- Alyas Grey : talk 04:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights/reminders — We are always learning, sometimes by doing and being corrected. Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

CNN article on birtherism, might have something useful. Or not.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/23/politics/birthers-arizona-iowa/index.html?iref=obinsite Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's from May, but has many good quotes. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Florida Case Proceeding

...and will hear WH counsel motion to dismiss on Monday next...

Significantly, Judge Terry Lewis in Leon County – known for his rulings in the Bush v. Gore case at the center of the 2000 contested election – has confronted the White House for failing to support its claim that the term “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution means something other than the offspring of two American citizens. [http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/sheriff-joe-challenges-eligibility-in-florida/]

JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that, Jake? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be reverberating in the wacko-sphere. I found this press release[1] and a few others. Reading through the disingenuous phrasing, it appears that the court is simply docketing the suit as a matter of procedure. Unless and until you're declared a vexatious litigant or otherwise ordered to stop bringing lawsuits you can always get your day in court and then issue press releases that the judge is considering your question. What the birther press is trumpeting up is that in this particular case the plaintiff side cites 19th century judicial commentary about eligibility that the defense side seems to have ignored, so he's asking the defense to brief the issue. That doesn't imply any endorsement. So far the mainstream press hasn't covered this case, probably because yet another birther lawsuit just isn't news. Perhaps the irony (or speculating here, venue shopping by the plaintiff) of this going before a judge who has picked a President before will pique somebody's interest and we'll get some coverage. It is not likely to be very flattering to the plaintiff side, their lawyer looks like a real piece of work, writing fervidly about Obama being treasonous, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, socialist, etc.[2] - Wikidemon (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog and man bites off man's face are news, but possibly not notable. Yet another lawsuit about Obama's parentage is not even news, because it can't be verified by reliable secondary sources. Every plaintiff must, as a matter of procedural due process, get a fair hearing; it does not mean they have a chance. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the Obama eligibility litigation article, this Florida case was dismissed. --Weazie (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

New articles created from this one

So after someone on another site I go to commented she was not voting for "Barry Sotero", this set in motion quite a series of events for me this afternoon. I hope my actions have been satisfactory.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this article for six months, due to the recent spike in IP vandalism, and taking into account the long history (~ 2 years) of IP vandalism on this page. I believe this action was called for, but if people believe that I've acted in haste (or that I'm acting in a biased fashion because it's probably well known that I have little patience for the birther POV), please feel free to bring this action up for discussion, shorten/rescind it, or whatever you feel is appropriate. — Richwales 18:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

only a person who KNOWS he's wrong can call adding two more lines of text about a very pertinent issue - the fact of 16 years of continued non-objection by Barack Obama to this so-called "misidentification" of his birthplace - from an already quoted reputable news source like ABC news "vandalism", but hey buddy if you can get away with it, more power to you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.244.24 (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon further examination of the recent IP edits on this page, I've changed my mind and have concluded that most of the IP edits in the last day or so could legitimately have been made in good faith. Since I semi'ed this page for persistent IP "vandalism" — and since edit-warring over content is not "vandalism" — I'm undoing my earlier action and have unprotected this article.

My understanding is that semi-protection can still legitimately be used to stop persistent IP edit-warring (even if not strictly vandalism). So I might reverse myself and semi-protect this article again in the future if disruptive editing from multiple IP addresses makes it necessary — and I will not raise suggestions of wheel-warring against any other admin who feels I'm being too soft here and that the page really does need to be re-semi'ed now.

Everyone also please note that this article has been on Article Probation since 2008 (see here for details). As such, edit warring, incivility, and other disruptive actions can result in immediate sanctions. — Richwales 01:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In the three hours since you unprotected this article, there have been 4 IP edits that were immediately reverted. I think you had it right the first time. --Weazie (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've posted at WP:RFPP, requesting an opinion from other admins as to whether this article should be semi-protected or not. — Richwales 15:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 6 months due to persistent edits that may be BLP violations as well as a moderately high level of vandalism. While this isn't a biographical article, the majority of the content is biographical in nature, thus WP:BLP comes into play. I've stated at WP:RFPP that if any admin wants to overrule me on this, they are free to do so without permission, with the request of a notification on my talk page. I haven't actually met Richwales before today, but I appreciate and respect his decision to take it to further review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted an IP edit. It would seem the recent expiration of the total protection also inadvertently took away the semi-protection that was in place. If an admin could restore semi-protection (until post-election), that would be great. Thanks --Weazie (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki link to French Wikipedia article

FYI: Someone on the French Wikipedia slapped together a horridly incomplete counterpart to this article — mentioning only Joe Arpaio's "investigation", and treating it positively — and they included an interwiki link to our article (here in the English Wikipedia). Two bots dutifully added a reciprocal interwiki link from here to this French article. I've removed the link in both articles (after first trying to comment out the link in the French article, but one of the bots picked it up anyway and added it back here). I've also left a comment on the talk pages for HRoestBot and EmausBot, asking for a way to flag articles here so that a given foreign interwiki link will not be added — because I'm worried that someone on the French Wikipedia is likely to add the link back there eventually (either not realizing the problem or not accepting our objections to having our article link back to theirs). We'll see what happens. — Richwales 05:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Do any of the regular editors here have a passable knowledge of French? The article on fr:Wikipedia is becoming worse and worse; the latest revision I saw included a (satirical) expansion of Obama's name to about seven names and a mention of the Disney World Mickey mouse parade in the Arpaio section. Just replacing the entire article with a reasonable translation of the lead from ours would solve our linkage issue and improve the integrity of French WP at the same time. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I also note that the primary contributor to the French article, King of Shambhala (talk · contribs), has a brief but rather interesting edit history on en:Wikipedia too. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have some French ability, but I would need to spend time working on an article there (time I'm afraid I don't really have right now). I do note that "King of Shambhala" has been flagged for a sockpuppet investigation with a Checkuser check. Unfortunately, even if someone gets site-banned here on the English Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically translate into a ban on any other language's Wikipedia (i.e., we cannot force another wiki to ban someone just because they've been banned here). One of the reasons I want to find out if there is a way to block interwiki links — and why I'll probably escalate the issue if the bot writers say this feature doesn't exist and they aren't prepared to add it right away — is that this can provide a "back door" for people to force us to link to objectionable material, on the pretext that it's been accepted in another language's Wikipedia (over which we don't have any editorial control here in the English Wikipedia). — Richwales 06:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The French I know is minimal, and definitely not enough to converse with someone fluent on the French Wikipedia. It's just enough to know that article is worthless and attempting to paint Arpaio as someone who exposed a fraud(the President). I do agree that the best course is to have the bot operators make some sort of adjustment so we can deny the cross-wiki linking to these types of articles. If I were fluent in French, I may have tried to ask the article creator to improve the article before attempting to link to the English wiki, but that would probably result in the same efforts one would expect from trying to convince and English speaking person who believed in conspiracy theories. Thanks to Rich for the attempted fixes so far. Dave Dial (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

See previous observations on User:King of Shambhala, the article author, who appears to have an adequate command of English. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

King of Shambhala has now been indef-blocked as a sock of a user banned since 2008. I doubt he would be receptive to any sort of request on the French Wikipedia to have him stop. The only hope is probably either to convince the frwiki admins to block him there as well, or to convince the relevant bot maintainers here (at enwiki) to fashion a way for us to block the inclusion of selected interwiki links known to be bad news. — Richwales 16:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead has been improved somewhat. It now says (possibly not with full accuracy) that the theories are not supported by the vast majority of Republicans, but are being pushed by the media right (Limbaugh, Hannity, Dobbs) and the Tea Party. The Arpaio section remains the only section in main text and doesn't provide any counter to his statements. The billboard and long-form birth certificate images from our article have been incorporated. And there's a mini-war against a vandal going on.

The more I think about it, the less convinced I am that blocking interwiki links is the best approach. People using this page are probably primarily interested in the English version, and in the U.S. are not really likely to be multilingual. If there is a toxic dump next door to your house, building a fence along the property line so your guests can't see it is at best a temporary solution; the dump maintains its toxicity, and the way to fight it is to clean it up. Two of you have some knowledge of French, but not enough time to address the issue there. OK. But there is now an open discussion here, and another editor may see the link and have the knowledge, time, and inclination to fix the problem. Sharing knowledge is a basic tenet of Wikipedia, and the more people that see the inaccurate or POV "knowledge", the more likely it is to be corrected. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree. Unless you truly have a firm knowledge of a language, is it really our place to determine we don't look of another language's article? Who's to say we're not picking up on some nuance that would be obvious to a native French speaker? Who's to say what is notable, verifiable and general consensus on the English language Wikipedia applies to other languages?

And as for trying to monitor all other languages' related articles to ensure they match the standard you're trying to reach here; that way lies madness. There's only so much you can do. Let French editors worry about French articles. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I say run the en.wiki version, or at least the intro, through Google Translate, put it up over there and see what happens. Tarc (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Running the full article through would probably require more than one pass; Google translate seems to have a size limit after which it just echoes the original input.

I was tempted to do just the lead when this discussion started last night. The one major deterrent was that GT returns natural-born citizen as citoyen canadien de naissance, which in turn back-translates as Canadian citizen by birth, making me think one of the most important phrases in the article has an idiom issue. Eliminating the hyphen yields naturelle citoyen né, which just looks structurally wrong to me (I have absolutely zero background in French, as opposed to German or Spanish, where I can do some adjustments to syntax based on long-ago-and-far-away courses.) So I held off in hopes the problem would be resolved by regular editors there. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Google translations are to be avoided. They're better than nothing when attempting to read a foreign language page, but never good enough to be re-published. It translates completely literally, with additional best-guesses, which causes errors like the one Fat&Happy highlighted. Usually the final translation is awful, even my rudimentary French can spot that. And I've seen enough Google translations into English articles to appreciate how bad they can be. First French editor to see it would probably revert on sight for mangling the language! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Long Form Birth Certificate Signs of Manipulation

The following has been deleted from the page today due to "not a reliable source":

"...[there] are multiple links found in the link panel in [Adobe] Illustrator that show segments that have been scaled and rotated within the document. One link in particular shows it has been rotated -90% and scaled to 48%, while other parts of the document have been scaled to 24%. An Adobe and Illustrator expert, Mara Zebest, claims that "if the document is scanned, regardless of whether OCR software was used or not, there is still a consistency in the scanning process. Items will not scale at diferent sizes during a scan." After completing her research, she claims "The PDF file released by the White House contains evidence of manipulation ..."

This was deleted by "DD2K" on June 8 2012, at 23:26 with the reason "Not a reliable source for this -- You can't give facts to entertain birther fancies with these sources"

The fact that these links exist in Adobe Illustrator with scaling/rotation properties is not a fantacy, and can be see at the references provided or by downloading the PDF from the whitehouse website directy. Certainly the whitehouse is a reliable source to reference, as for Mara Zebest, I argue that she is a reliable source and her qualifications were referenced, (namely, she is an author of over 100 adobe, photoshop, ilustrator and Microsoft software books, and teaches private lessons on Adobe InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, and Microsoft Office to Government Employees and Fortune 500 Corporations, . Could there be a more reliable source for working with Adobe? Certainly more experience than Nathan Goulding who is included in the article for his opinion on Adobe Illustrator.

As for the article she was quoted from, which was referenced, was about Mara Zebest at [http://www.wnd.com/ www.wnd.com], written by Jerome R. Corsi ([http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/316749/ Article Here]), Corsi is a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" [http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/316749/] How is this not a reliable source as well?

Regardless of whether we agree with these findings or not, we have to include the facts of the matter. I am not a "birther" by any means, but I do wish to see the facts included in this article even if they cannot be explained.

I move that the above deleted lines be re-submitted, they can be re-written and edited of course, but they are very reliable sources. Thank you. (Zgoutreach (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC))

Please search the archives at WP:RSN to see that wnd.com does not satisfy WP:RS. To put it another way: if the POTUS had displayed a forged birth certificate, that information would be headline news in multiple highly reliable sources. The encyclopedic article merely needs to note that there are some claims regarding a forgery. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the article needs to note that there are some claims regarding a forgery. That's all I intended to include and don't plan on saying it's a forgery, of course. It's easy to do a quick search for Mara Zebest, to see how prolific a writer she is, and very valuable source to reference these claims. Can we not include quotes from her 12 page report that merely point out obvious facts and observations anyone can see from the birth certificate download from the whitehouse.gov

Please help, how should I reference these facts? (Here's the facts: anyone can go to whitehouse.gov and open it in "adobe illustrator CS5" and see links on the link panel that show segments of words that have been scaled/rotated at various degrees and percentages. This is not in dispute, so how should I go about referencing this? I great place I found to reference it is here: [3] (page 10), which walks people through it, written by a credible author. Or i could just refence the whitehouse website?? Thanks (Zgoutreach (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC))

I should have used quote marks("facts") when I made my edit summary, and this is obviously fantasy. It is not from any reliable source(you should look where Johnuniq suggests), and there is a reason why this isn't on the front page of the NYT or Washington Post. A reason obvious to all but birthers. If it does turn up on a reliable source, then feel free to bring this back to the Talk page. I'll gladly eat my hat and request both Elvis and Tupac make appearances in the TV movie. Dave Dial (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to know for sure, anyone can do it 1) download the BC here 2) open in Adobe Illustrator CS5, 3) open the links panel 4) there are 9 rows with random words 5) click on any row, where it says "transform" next to it, it says it has been scaled horizontally & veritcally 24%, rotated -90 degrees. 8 of these links have the same info except for the "background" link which has been scaled horizontally & veritcally by 48%. Everything I have said in this paragraph is fact. Please correct me where I'm wrong.

Anyone can do this right now, you don't need an outside reference to see plain facts like this, this isn't even a claim, just an observation everyone can see. If you prefer you can watch someone else do these steps in a 2min youtube video here or someone else doing it here in 9 minutes, or a for the most detail, a 35min video here. There are lots of other results of people doing the same thing on youtube. You don't have to waste your time on these videos, it takes less than 2 minutes to go to the whitehouse.gov and check it out yourself. There are many other questions about the birth certifacte as well, but I won't even get into that. This is information is worthwile itself. At least we can all agree on these "scaled/rotation" observations. Right? Thanks (Zgoutreach (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC))

No, we agree on none of it, and none of this nonsense can go into the article. That's called original research, which is not reliable or usable for an encyclopedia article. This is not a blog where you simply write about your own ideas or theories, or those of crackpot fringe sources like WND. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I provided a link to the birth certif. just for people wanting to see for themselves, of course it can't be used as a reference. And if none of these plain observations can be included at all in the article, i can live with that, but it'd be a shame to ignore. (Zgoutreach (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC))

WP:OR; WP:NOTAFORUM. Cheers. --Weazie (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarc is exhibiting extreme bias, writing his own unsourced ideas, which should not be permitted on Wikipedia. University Internet Cafe Booth 6 (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur, and not actionable. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Poppycock. Tarc is exhibiting good sense, which should be encouraged in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles.Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Facts, not someone's interpretation of "good sense" are appropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetcafebooth6 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem confused, and on more levels than I can be bothered to point out. -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Any disagreements over the appropriateness of a given item from a given source should be taken up at WP:RSN (reliability of sources), WP:NORN (avoiding original research), or WP:NPOVN (neutral viewpoint). In any event, edit warring is not acceptable, even if you are convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Remember, too, that this article is on article probation, along with all other articles relating to Barack Obama. — Richwales 05:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding here's an explanation of why these layer might be there. Seems rather plausible and rational. And it has nothing to do with exotic theories, just the way PDF optimization works. -- Avanu (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided states that "It’s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let’s leave it at that."

However this column writer is not an expert. An Adobe and Illustrator expert, Mara Zebest, claims that "if the document is scanned, regardless of whether OCR software was used or not, there is still a consistency in the scanning process. Items will not scale at diferent sizes during a scan." One link in particular shows it has been rotated -90% and scaled to 48%, while other parts of the document have been scaled to 24%. After completing her research, she claims "The PDF file released by the White House contains evidence of manipulation ..." Zgoutreach (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please find a better source for the above claims. WND is not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. — Richwales 01:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, that Zebest is an Adobe expert is completely irrelevant, since there is no evidence that the document was created by an Adobe product; the evidence is that it was created by Mac OS "Preview"; in addition, Zebest has no education nor experience in forensics. [4] This would explain why her offers of evidence have failed to persuade a single judge; on this subject, she is not a reliable source. rewinn (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"Showing papers"

The Article reads:

Goldie Taylor, a commentator for the African American news site The Grio, characterized the demand that Obama provide his birth certificate as an equivalent of making him "show his papers", as blacks were once required to do under Jim Crow laws.

Only which showing papers are not found within articles of Jim Crow laws, List of Jim Crow law examples by State, or Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era. Should any of those be edited to synchronize? K61824 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

See pass laws: perhaps that's what Taylor was thinking of? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think that Taylor was thinking of South African laws. I don't think those articles you mention need to be edited to synchronize -- not unless blacks being required to "show papers" under Jim Crow laws is supportable in reliable sources and is a significant point under those topics. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Taylor's article opens with an anecdote about her great-great-grandfather being jailed in 1899 Missouri for not having his papers. --Weazie (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Awkward wording in lead

I may or may not be Republican or American, but I just found this phrasing awkward.

Polls conducted in 2010 suggested that at least one quarter of adult Americans doubted Obama's U.S. birth,[8][9] while a May 2011 Gallup poll found that doubts persisted among 13% of Americans and 23% of Republicans.

To me, it sounded like it's putting Americans and Republicans in two different categories, as though Republicans are not Americans. I'm sure this wasn't the intent, but I have no doubt that a solution can be worked out to fix this minor issue.

Thanks.

--Activism1234 19:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps ..."23% of Republicans and 13% of all Americans surveyed". 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I would start with the Republicans, for whom this is more of a phenomenon. How about 23% of Republicans, and 13% of Americans overall, ..." - Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't mind what 69.62.243.48 recommended, but support Wikidemon's more. --Activism1234 02:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

New PHD Dissertation Proves Hawaiʻi is not actually part of United States of America

Doctoral Dissertation, "The American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Beginning the Transition from Occupied to Restored State." University of Hawai`i at Manoa, Political Science, December 20, 2008 (to be published).

Thus in light of this newly discovered proof it matters not if Obama's claim to be born in Hawaiʻi is true because as it turns out Hawaiʻi was never annexed to the united states and Hawaiʻi remains an illegally occupied sovereign nation.

See also the video presentation and documents on this the website.

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manupupule (talk • contribs) 08:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory. Extending the logic, conquest of the other 49 states from their former inhabitants was not legitimate either. At any rate, that argument is unlikely to gain any traction in US courts. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yummy! And as the election draws nearer, these stories are going to get better and better. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if that don't beat all. Talk about jumping the shark with nuclear powered water skis. Yikes. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What grabbed me here was the recasting of "On June 1, 2010, I filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for Washington, D.C., against President Obama, et al. for the violation of an 1893 Executive Agreement ..." in the cited source into, "in light of this newly discovered proof", above. Sigh... Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

B.S. and WP:FRINGE for Wikipedia. --Activism1234 13:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to burst the author's bubble, but you cannot "prove" that Hawaii is "not part of the United States of America." The proposition is not subject to "proof" in the way that a factual issue is subject to proof (e.g., whether Joe shot Bill on such and such date, etc.). Whether Hawaii is validly part of the USA is at best a political issue or a legal issue. Arguing that such and such a state is not part of the USA is, from a political and legal standpoint, like arguing that one of the 27 amendments to the Constitution was not properly ratified (see, e.g., the various arguments about the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth and Nineteenth amendments through the years). Such arguments have no legal merit. Famspear (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And let us assume for a moment that Hawai'i were an "occupied sovereign nation". Congress has the Constitutional power to create states out of territory captured by conquest, even if some of it remains a sovereign nation. We know this because much of the United States consists of sovereign nations, that is to say, Indian tribes. Those born in Indian country are native born citizens of the USA, able to serve as President the same as anyone else. Thus even if the thesis were correct, Obama would satisfy the Constitution's birth requirements.

Moreover, the annexation of Hawai'i was authorized by Congress under its power delegated by the Constitution. Any penalty for any illegality in the process would be directed against the government of the United States, not against any individual citizen, especially one who was not even born at the time of the alleged act. Thus even if some international court were to divest the United States of Hawai'i (...a silly notion!) there would be no impact upon the legal rights of its residents under our Constitution; they would remain native-born American citizens (albeit expatriats). rewinn (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant original synthesis in regards to this article. And an unpublished PhD Dissertation does not satisfy WP:FRINGE and WP:RS guidelines. We don't even know if it satisfies the University of Hawaii. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, OR, fringe etc. BTW, see Legal status of Hawaii for the underlying history/argument (albeit a bit too non-NPOV for my taste); Hawaii's status is an old argument, assuming that it invalidates past citizenship is a new wrinkle though. Studerby (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney

Mitt Romney Goes Birther. Sufficiently notable to be included? --Weazie (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh. He hasn't endorsed birtherism. It was a joke, not Romney's forte. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't Romney's characterization of it as a joke should end discussion of the matter. Politicians are perfectly capable of giving two different messages to different target audiences. Commentators don't all agree that notion that Birtherism proponents all genuinely believe what they espouse. Some believe that Birtherism is cynical tactic to stoke racial/cultural fears. See for instance this piece by David Remnick in the New Yorker: "these rumors, this industry of fantasy, are designed to arouse a fear of the Other, of an African-American man with a white American mother and a black Kenyan father." (from http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/04/trump-birtherism-and-race-baiting.html#ixzz24fCSK6nB). Romney's remarks weren't structured as a joke targeting Birtherism as silliness. Rather, they designed as if to play the Otherness card. Romney said, "No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place where we were born and raised." In other words, he seems to be saying, I am safely American, beyond suspicion. The other guy is shady and mysterious so people for verification of where he's really from. And that's essentially the suggestion in the Salon piece linked above. Romney is trying to play to racial animus in the base while not necessarily believing it himself. And it did take some of the neutral observers by surprise. The New York Daily News noted that reporters at the event gasped at the remark (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mitt-romney-birther-joke-outrages-president-barack-obama-campaign-article-1.1144125#ixzz24fEWM6tx). --JamesAM (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what Romney actually meant so far it at this time to be at most a single instance of political pandering and I don't think this one instance in itself is enough for an inclusion. I could see a case inclusion if Romney continually uses the birther issue to aid his campaign or their is a spike in people who believe that Obama was not born in America and reliable sources directly tie the spike with Romney's comments etc.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Either Romney has occassional appalling lapses of judgment, or something more sinister is going on. Regardless of the details, it's part of the current campaign cycle and belongs elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theories"....

...could still be used more often in this superinformative article from a neutral standpoint! A total of 30+ mentions seems not suggestive enough from a logical standpoint. A good idea might be to rename at least half of the 20+ mentions of the relatively uncommon term "birther" with "conspiracy theorists".

I think 50 mentions should be the least, I mean, it's Wikipedia, keep up some standards and don't treat the readers like they were morons or so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.49.213 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a small suspicion that many of those who now say they don't want to be called birthers would also complain about being called conspiracy theorists. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, "I'm no birther but" has about 24,000 ghits, and "I'm no conspiracy theorist but" + Obama has about 37,000 ghits. Carry on.--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this has been discussed several times before and the consensus has always been to use the term conspiracy theory. I can't think of anything that has changed since the last discussion to suggest that any significant change in consensus would occur especially since no new evidence has been presented in this discussion.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP OP does make a fair (but snarky) point: The article need not use the term "conspiracy theory" (or theorists) excessively. Use of the term "birther" in the body of article (as opposed to quoting (in a WP:RS) those who have used the term), however, may spark yet-another talk-page war, so a more-neutral word might be used, i.e., proponents, believers, adherents, supporters, etc. --Weazie (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, we should definitely use it as the full description, but we don't have to repeat that description umpteen times throughout the article. If we're talking about a lost deer on the side of the road, we can say that once or twice in the article and thereafter refer to it as the deer or the animal in question. We don't have to repeat lost deer on the side of the road every time we mention it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"the adherents", "those who promote the theory", "advocates of the claim". There are multiple choices of terms that do not involve "birther". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

← (How do you define a 'conspiracy theorist'? Is that not too vague a term for an encyclopedia?) Why is this article locked? When I read this article, it sounds like it was written by an Obama staffer. Is not the idea of Wikipedia to be a free and open forum, that follows 'swarm' intelligence? By this I mean that all views, provided they are referenced, can be included in an article, and that given enough time, a reasonably accurate statistical average of the issue will form? When one examines the long form of the President's birth certificate,for instance, it clearly is not a scan, but consists of at least 3 layers when viewed in Adobe InDesign. By not allowing the ability to change the content freely, it merely diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia. Is this the people's encyclopedia, or just another deceptive layer in the corporate control grid that is encircling this planet? Seeing that this is not the first article that has this peculiar property, I must conclude the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.82.226 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the idea is not "to be a free and open forum, that follows 'swarm' intelligence". It is to create an encyclopedia based upon what reliable sources have published about the topics. And in particular, we take a strong stance against fringe ideas and those pushing them attempting to use Wikipedia as a mouthpiece. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Review needed for the French Wiki link

Some "new" editors are showing up today to revert the fr.wiki link back into this article, which was removed due to that article's poor quality and conspiracy-mongering, following consensus reached at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 17#Interwiki link to French Wikipedia article. If there's anyone around with a rudimentary grasp of French still, can we review if the article has changed significantly since the last discussion? Tarc (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I just read the page you're linking to: Unless I'm mistaken the section was unconclusive since no one had even a basic understanding of French, and Google Translate was messy. Furthermore, you have no authority to remove an interwiki based on the (supposed) bias of the article. Did you guys check the Japanese article? Besides, trying to scare people off with an ominous "at your own risk" is plain ridiculous.

Oh btw the French article has evolved, I'd say improved, since it was created (when it was indeed a piece of crap). (:Julien:) ✒ 16:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflit w/ (:Julien:) ) So now the enwiki contributors decide what is acceptable or not on frwikipedia. That's worth knowing! Did you even take the time to report the issue on the french wikipedia ? I can't see anything on the talk page. Anyway, you have no authority to decide to remove a link for such a reason. I don't deny that the french article is a POV, I didn't even look at it (seems ok at first sight). Tell me, do you remove in-line links to poor quality articles on enwiki? No. Oh you know what? You should remove all the 800 links to this miserable article. Needless to say I'm outraged: it's the first time I see such manners on Wikipedia. Fabrice Ferrer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a translation of the fairly brief article. At first glance, it doesn't seem to be horribly biased:

Conspiracy theory on citizenship of Barack Obama

Before and after the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States , several controversies have occurred on the validity of his birth certificate, his identity documents, place of birth, as well as stories of his past. The issue is that if Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he would not have the right to be president according to Article II of the Constitution of the United States .
This set of challenges is usually described by the term " birther ", in relation to the term" truther "which means supporters of conspiracy theories about the attacks of September 11, 2001 . The publication of parts of the civil status of President Obama has not stopped the controversy.
The vast majority of the Republicans refrained from using this polemic against Obama, but the conservative media ( Rush Limbaugh , Sean Hannity , Lou Dobbs ...) as well as the Tea Party has taken over and developed these theories.

Joe Arpaio

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona announced 17 July 2012 that the Obama birth certificate is a fake 4 . Rejecting this contention, an Assistant Attorney General of Hawaii has said that "President Obama was born in Honolulu and his birth certificate is valid ... Regarding the recent allegations of a sheriff in Arizona, they are misinterpretations and mis-informed about the law of Hawaii 5 " . Representatives from Arizona, whose governor Jan Brewer and Secretary of State Ken Bennett , also rejected the claims of Arpaio and recognized the validity of Obama's birth certificate 6

JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

To answer the above questions on "authority", yes, we do have it. One Wikipedia is not bound by the mistakes, misjudgements, or local decisions of another. If the article is now deemed ok, then we can restore the link. But this knee-jerk crap by ill-informed outsiders needs to stop Tarc (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have some ability in French, so I think I can comment intelligently on this matter.

The last time we discussed the issue of the fr.wiki link, the French article was of very poor quality and was definitely biased. Its only significant piece of information at that time was a description of Joe Arpaio and his conclusion that Obama's birth certificate was "100% false" and that Congress should open an investigation. The current version of the article still goes into detail only about Arpaio's claims, but the majority of the paragraph now explains that Arpaio's allegations have been rejected (and Obama's birth certificate is considered authentic) by officials in Hawaii, as well as by Arizona's governor and secretary of state.

Additionally, when we last talked about this matter, the French article at that time was primarily the product of a user named "King of Shambhala" — presumably the same person as King of Shambhala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a known sock of the banned user Geir Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This account is still in good standing at fr.wiki, but it has not made any edits there for about three months, and other editors have extensively rewritten the Arpaio material in the Obama citizenship conspiracy theory article. In addition to writing the aforementioned incomplete and biased treatment of the Joe Arpaio affair, "King of Shambhala" also included material at fr.wiki suggesting that Obama may be the Antichrist; this material — which IMO would constitute a clear violation of both WP:BLP and the community probation on Obama-related articles if it were to appear anywhere at en.wiki — has all been removed from fr.wiki's article, though it continues to appear on the user's own user page at fr.wiki.

At this point, I don't see any particular need for us to block the inclusion of an interwiki link to the fr.wiki article. If "King of Shambhala" should ever reappear over there and undo the recent improvements to the French article, we might want to revisit this decision, but it doesn't appear to be an issue right now.

A block or ban of a user on the English Wikipedia does not, of course, have any enforceability on other projects (and I am not suggesting that it should). It might make sense for someone to contact admins at fr.wiki and advise them of what we understand over here regarding "King of Shambhala" — whereupon it would clearly be up to that project's admins to decide what (if anything) they want to do about the matter.

I am also not suggesting by any means that en.wiki editors or admins should be able to dictate the contents of articles at fr.wiki or other wikis. I do believe, however, that we (en.wiki editors and admins) do have a right to keep interwiki links to inappropriate or misleading out of our articles here — especially when the material on the other wiki's page violates WP:BLP (indeed, I would go so far as to propose that blockage of an interwiki link on en.wiki is mandated if a BLP issue is known to exist). — Richwales 17:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that today, on the French Wikipedia village pump, someone asks to create the French version of this article without knowing it did already exist in French (we have a daily section "Article creation" and people often asks for translation of articles of the English Wikipedia). I personally use the English Wikipedia as a "pivot" Wikipedia. If I see the French interlink, I go to the article and sometimes correct/improve it. It means that removing this link removes the navigation between Wikipedias.

I didn't know about the French articles review process by English speakers before the insertion of a interwiki link. It sounds totally new to me and I am really skeptical about it. Is there a page on English Wikipedia about this process ? Thanks. DeansFA (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't (and, as far as I know, isn't) a regularly institutionalized process involved here. It just happened that when an interwiki link to this particular fr.wiki article showed up here in July, I decided to go have a look at the French article, and I was horrified, so I attempted to remove the interwiki link and stop it from being recreated by bots. I believe my actions were fully in accordance with the policies in place for material on en.wiki, and I stand behind what I did last July (though I'm open to correction if necessary). I'm not trying to argue for a general right of censorship of material on other wikis, and I do understand that suppressing interwiki links could complicate efforts (such as what DeansFA described above) to improve material on other wikis. At the same time, I am concerned about the potential for abuse in cases where an interwiki-linked article from a non-English wiki contains material that violates en.wiki policies. I do realize that the en.wiki "External Links" policy guideline does not apply to interwiki links (see WP:ELPOINTS #5) — so such points as WP:ELNO #2 (misleading external links) or WP:ELBLP (external info violating WP:BLP) don't specifically apply here — but I do think there is a problem here and that it needs to be addressed through careful discussion. Do people think it might be better to start a general discussion somewhere on this issue, possibly at Help talk:Interlanguage links or Wikipedia talk:External links? — Richwales 20:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

if you fully read ELPOINTS, it states "This guideline does not apply to links to non-English Wikipedia articles; they are added after External links according to Wikipedia:Layout." the full sentence appears to be discussing only the layout placement and not in relation content at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. In any case, WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy (and I have corrected my earlier comment accordingly) — and as a guideline, it cannot override policies such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. — Richwales 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I know of no recognised policy that suggests editors of one article can decide to not link to another because they don't like its content, whether that article is in the same language Wikipedia or not. I'd also point out that WP:BLP is an English language Wikipedia policy. The idea that one language Wikipedia should dictate to another when an article is acceptable and worthy of a link opens a whole unacceptable can of worms. We should not attempt to insist that other Wikipedias follow policies that may not apply there, any more than they can insist on the reverse. Otherwise we may as well scrap the whole idea of interwiki linking. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

While EN wikipedia has no control over other language article content (and should not), we do have WP:EL guidelines that are based on the fact that we do not link outside of EN wikipedia to various types of pages: copyright vios and attack pages being specifically called out s well as ELNO #2 "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting" . If we have reason to beleive that a different language wikipedia article is falling under such problematic categories and ambassadors to the other language article are unable to quickly fix the issue, we are under no obligation to keep the link and probably under guidance to not maintain it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Right now, the External Links guideline explicitly says it doesn't apply to interwiki links; see point #5 in WP:ELPOINTS. Of course, being a guideline, WP:EL cannot override policies such as BLP or NPOV.

I hope everyone can understand that I am not talking here about whether editors or administrators at en.wiki ought to have censorship power over the content of articles in fr.wiki or other non-English Wikipedias. And I'm also not suggesting that we (en.wiki people) should have veto power over participation at non-English wikis by people who have been indef-blocked or site-banned here. However, as TheRedPenOfDoom just said, we (en.wiki people) may in some situations have an obligation not to interlink to particularly egregious violations of our policies in foreign-language Wikipedia editions — and if that is the case, then we need to understand exactly what circumstances would make this necessary, and exactly how to indicate the problem so that a blocked interlink won't be "helpfully" reinstated by bots or by unaware (or even very aware) human editors.

I've started a general discussion of this question at the BLP policy talk page (WT:BLP), and I would invite people to go over there to talk about the general issues as they pertain to what we should do here on the English Wikipedia. Again, I'm not suggesting by any means that we should try to take over foreign wikis and censor their content. — Richwales 22:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Since my French is lacking and I cannot translate the article fluently, I will just trust that you(Richwales) know whether the article on French Wikipedia violates our BLP policies. I've just tried to read it again for this discussion, and it seems much, much better than it previously was. I hope our friends on French Wikipedia understand that we do not want to exclude links from their project, and only wish to protect our policies if needed. I'm sure we welcome interwiki linking and hope all wikis prosper. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion, the current version of the French article is OK. I note that, within the past several hours, the Joe Arpaio material has been completely removed from the French article (by commenting it out in the source text), and the lead section has been extensively rewritten — the article is basically a three-paragraph stub now, and it delves into the controversy even less than the lead section of the English article currently does. Additionally, the French article has been renamed, and the new title omits the word complot (conspiracy). So, at the present time, I don't believe there is any reason (be it per BLP, NPOV, or any other policy issue) for us to be concerned about an interwiki link to the French article included within the English article. — Richwales 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So ridiculous. The Joe Arpaio material did appear again. Remove the link to the French article ! Quick ! DeansFA (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The Arpaio material has reappeared in the French article — but in the more balanced form (saying that Arpaio's claims have been rejected by state officials in Hawaii and Arizona). So it's not clear to me that there is any urgent need to disable our interwiki link. On the other hand, if the French article gets dragged into an edit war, then (in that case) I would propose that we probably should stop linking to it until after things have calmed down. But, as I said, we don't appear to be there just yet. — Richwales 05:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When the interwiki links will be soon stored on the wikidata project, it will be funny to see English guys explaining to a community composed of Germans, French, Italians… that they have to follow the External links guideline of English wikipedia when they want to add interwiki links. Kind of impatient to see that. DeansFA (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So. I'm a french contributor. I'm very happy the fr-link is coming back. But obviously, the discussion about "have we the authority or not" seems really weird for me (and, I think, also the fr-community). If a french article seems violate some en-policies, you should be very careful ! Many en-policies doesn't exit in WP-fr, and, even if you disagree with the version, you can't deny these articles are talking about the same thing. That's the reason of the interwikis' existence : link articles which have the same subject in different languages. I suggest : next time you see a problem in a french article, let a note in the talk mage, add a banner, everything but take the interwiki away. Or, in the future, only good articles and quality articles will be link.

Sorry for my english, not the best i hope.--Sammyday (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I found an archived discussion (from 2009) on a related topic (interwiki links vs. the NPOV policy) — Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 60#Interwiki links

The basic feeling from this old discussion appears to be that (1) it isn't generally reasonable for English Wikipedia editors to examine foreign-language Wikipedia articles to determine if they satisfy NPOV or other policies in the way we expect our own articles to do; (2) there are valuable reasons for being able to access foreign-language counterparts to an English Wikipedia article, even if they have POV or other problems; and (3) we should probably assume by default that an interwiki link is suitable, except when technical problems are involved or the WMF muckamucks declare an "office action". This approach to the issue would be OK as far as I'm concerned, but I would still feel better if it were said somewhere, in black and white, as an authoritative interpretation of policy (not just in a guideline such as WP:EL). — Richwales 06:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory or legitimate controversy?

We don't need another four years of this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The problem with this article is that it not-so-implicitly takes a non-neutral POV, accepting as fact (and without question) the entirety of the disputed facts of Obama's life. Even attempting to add standard neutral language such as "alleged" is seen as birther bias. Given that the evidence that there is something wrong with Obama's narrative is now overwhelming, and half the population agree that there is something wrong with the man's history, this should at least be re-classified as a "controversy" rather than a "conspiracy theory." But again, this is Wikipedia, where as a matter of policy, truth doesn't matter. Jwbaumann (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC) I've added a new section heading for this issue. Our treatment of the Obama citizenship question needs to be guided by what can be verified through reliable sources. If contrary views are sufficiently covered via sources of types that are generally accepted as reliable per Wikipedia policy, then these can and should be covered in the article in order to maintain its neutral viewpoint. Up till now, the consensus has been that the reliable sources consider Obama's Hawaii birth to be an accepted fact without credible grounds to question it. If you believe things have changed to the point that this is no longer a valid conclusion, it is perfectly legitimate to discuss the matter here (on the article's talk page) and attempt to reach a new, modified consensus. However, repeated changing of the article text in defiance of the existing consensus (and with no attempt to achieve a new consensus other than to say your edits are intended to achieve neutrality) is not acceptable, per Wikipedia's edit warring policy. — Richwales 04:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Stated another way: Bring us your sources substantiating your conclusion that "the evidence that there is something wrong with Obama's narrative is now overwhelming", and let us all evaluate the usability of these sources per Wikipedia's content policies. "Verifiability, not truth" doesn't (IMO) mean "truth doesn't matter" — it doesn't mean we can say anything that can be "verified", regardless of whether it is true — it means we cannot say something simply because we're convinced it's true, without verifying it. — Richwales 05:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC) But it does mean that we can exclude by consensus any assertion which we believe is not true -- evaluating any sources supporting that assertion as unreliable for their support of that particular assertion because of our conviction that the assertion is untrue. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC) We all know what the "overwhelming" new evidence is, the misstatement by Obama's literary agent. It's already mentioned the article. It -- the unveiling of the mistake in the context of the birther movement, not the mistake as an event in itself -- gained a few mainstream news mentions when Breitbart raised it. The news cycle is dying down so it's a minor blip. This falls squarely within WP:FRINGE. We don't have to continually justify that in the face of every new believer who shows up breathlessly clinging to some new scrap of supposed proof. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC) "Overwhelming" evidence = inconsequential third party makes a mistake in bio write-up years ago, no one notices or cares until now. It's noted in the article that some have got excited about this, nothing more needs done because nothing has changed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC) "Nobody cared". Wrong. Obama cared. He made the change just as he started to run for President.True Observer (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC) At best this is WP:FRINGE. Painting it as bias is just a rhetorical tool, ill-wielded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.149 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Look at George Romney, born in Mexico but of USA citizens, (just one would qualify). Although George Romney was born in Mexico, he himself was a naturalized citizen because his parents were citizens. [5] What about the mother of Barack Hussein Obama? Was she an American citizen? If so, then BHObama was a citizen also. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC) To answer my own question, "Ann Dunham was born November 29, 1942, Wichita, Kansas, USA!" ... So Barack is a naturalized citizen also. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC) [Copied from response to similar comments at Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama#Certificate of Live Birth and Birth Certificate vs. Certification of Live Birth.] Not exactly. In order to become president, Romney would have needed to be a natural born, not a naturalized, citizen; the common understanding – disputed by some at the natural born citizen article – is that someone who is a citizen at birth is a "natural born" citizen. However, according to U.S. law in 1961, if Obama had been born in Kenya (or Indonesia, or Pakistan, or even Canada), he would not have been a citizen at birth because his mother was not old enough at the time to have lived in the U.S. for five years following her 14th birthday. Unless she was not legally married; if she was an unwed mother, IIRC, the five-year residence requirement did not apply.Fat&Happy (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC) FYI, I've added Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama to the 'See also' section — there is a lot of content over there. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Dear Happy one: Thanks for your comment/wisdom. Can someone then explain Obama's mom (or dad) Bottom Line? Is BHObama OK? ... — ... Apparently, George Romney was OK to run for president. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC) ("So Barack is a naturalized citizen also." I assume you meant to say "natural-born".) The natural-born status of Barack Obama is, of course, disputed by some, but the generally accepted mainstream view is that since he was born in Hawaii in 1961, he has been a US citizen since birth, and he is thus a "natural-born" citizen. Some conspiracy theorists argue either that Obama wasn't really born in Hawaii and is using a forged birth certificate (in which case he wasn't born in the US and would not have inherited citizenship at birth via his mother), or that it doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii because they subscribe to the De Vattel / Minor v. Happersett fringe theory requiring a "natural-born" citizen to be born of two American parents. But as I said, the mainstream view is that he's a natural-born citizen. George Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico to American parents. He was indisputably a US citizen from birth (there weren't any objections at the time about a forged birth certificate or any such stuff), but when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1967/68, there was some talk at the time about whether he was or wasn't a "natural-born" citizen because he wasn't born in the US. It never got anywhere near the level of the current anti-Obama birther mania — and in any case, George Romney's candidacy imploded in early 1968 following his infamous "brainwashing" gaffe, so the issue never really came to a head. For that matter, there was also some small level of discussion in 1964 over whether Barry Goldwater (born in the pre-statehood Arizona Territory) was a natural-born citizen or not — but the suggestion that he might not be eligible for the Presidency was quickly dropped and was never a significant factor in the 1964 election. — Richwales 16:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Doesn't the title actually take a pro-Obama line? If it is stated to be a "conspiracy theory", it is essentially represented as a loony minority view unsupported by evidence or logic.203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Sounds right. Any reliable sources out there that describe it otherwise? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC) In much the same way that the "Moon landing conspiracy theories" page title takes a pro-NASA line.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC) And the article Flat Earth bluntly starts off by saying "The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk" and does not give equal weight to Flatearthers. See WP:FRINGE. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and a British subject at the time of his birth, which made Jr. forever ineligible for the Presidency. For the same reason, Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio is ineligible for the Presidency and Vice Presidency because his parents were Cuban citizens, not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Therefore, Barack Obama, according to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution, is an illegal President. The law requires a candidate for the Presidency to be a "natural born citizen," that is, a second generation American, a U.S. citizen, whose parents were also U.S. citizens at the time of the candidate's birth. There is no ambiguity, although those who wish to undermine the Constitution would like the American people to think otherwise. There is no ambiguity, although those who wish to undermine the Constitution would like the American people to think otherwise. If you are unwilling to accept the exhaustive legal documentation regarding the true meaning of "natural born" citizenship, you may also try the common sense question: Why has every President since Martin van Buren been a second generation American except Obama and Chester A. Arthur, who also lied about his personal history? According to his own autobiography "Dreams from My Father," Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and, therefore, is an illegal President. Every law that he has signed and every appointment that he has made is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyd12 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC) The fact that a person's father was a citizen of Kenya and a British subject at the time of his birth does not make the son of that person ineligible for the Presidency. The fact that a person's parents were Cuban citizens, not U.S. citizens, does not make that person ineligible to be President of the United States. This is pretty basic stuff. Famspear (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Clue: The legal definition of "natural born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution is not "a second generation American, a U.S. citizen, whose parents were also U.S. citizens at the time of the candidate's birth." Where do people come up with garbage like this? Oh, wait.... I think I have a pretty good idea.... Famspear (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the word "birther" offensive to birthers?

Is there any evidence for a claim that the word "birther" is pejorative / derogatory / offensive? At Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause, I'm being taken to task by someone who is objecting to my use of the term "birther" — alleging that it is "a patently offensive term which may occasionally be used by those within its definition as a badge of honor, but it is not acceptable for use by those outside the group since their intent is always seen as insulting and negative toward those they direct it at." I dispute this claim and am not aware of any reliable source that backs it up, but if there are in fact verifiable statements by "birthers" objecting to non-"birthers" using the term, I think this would be appropriate to mention in an appropriate spot in this article. Comments? — Richwales 04:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is a perjorative term. People in the Tea Party don't call themselves "teabaggers". Nor do I suspect that those who discount the President's birth certificate prefer to be called "birthers". Perhaps "skeptic" or "patriot", but I would highly doubt they would adopt the term "birther", since it isn't really an explanation of their ideas or motives. -- Avanu (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously skeptic on its own would not be enough. Skeptical about what? Patriot is nonsense. One doesn't have to doubt Obama's birthplace to be patriotic. Birther is concise and accurate. What's wrong with it? As for motives, well, I have my theory, but I doubt if birthers would like it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Birther Report and birthers.org are but two examples of birthers self-identifying as such. Orly Taitz calls herself Queen of the Birthers. --Weazie (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The answer is, it doesn't matter. It can be used both as a pejorative and a self-descriptor(As Weazie has shown above). We really on what reliable sources report on, as well as what people search for on the internet. The term Birther is well known and a redirect to this article. As the term Truther is a redirect to the 9-11 conspiracy theorists article. I don't know if there is a Cheeser redirect to those who believe the Moon is made of cheese, but that would be a similar use of the verbiage. In real life, as shown by the overwhelming majority of sources, people who believe in these conspiracy theories are in fact mocked by the use of these terms. It's not up to Wikipedia to redefine these terms, but to explain them using reliable sources. If one is offended by the terms, they should be asking themselves why they believe in such ridiculous theories. It's not up to Wikipedia to make those theories seem less absurd. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

To make my question clearer / more focussed: Do any reliable sources support a claim that people who question the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama are offended when others (holding a different opinion) refer to them as "birthers"? For this narrow purpose, I believe WP:SELFPUB may permit citing such claims found in anti-Obama blogs (per the "sources of information about themselves" exception). As far as I'm aware, "birthers" do not generally object to being called by this label by "non-birthers" — but if (and only if) there is in fact any verifiable evidence that any appreciable segment of the "birther" population considers the term to be offensive, it would be appropriate IMO to mention this fact here in conjunction with the first use of the term in this article. — Richwales 16:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Donald Trump: 'Birther' Is A 'Derogatory Term'. Meanwhile, back in the real world. --Weazie (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC).

Dave Dial is only partly right above. While we obviously need to defer to "reliable sources", we don't start off articles by using vitriolic or loaded language. We take a tone that is neutral in spirit, for our intro, and in the body of the article, we explain how various terms may get used, IF it is actually appropriate. But there is no need for Wikipedia to adopt negative terminology simply because a lot of people say it. We're not 'the public', we're an encyclopedia. -- Avanu (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Noting that "a lot of people use it," is, in fact, encyclopedic. --Weazie (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We would, of course, need a better source than Jimmy Kimmel's piece in the Gotcha Media blog to support an explicit claim for the "a lot of people use it" view.

As for Donald Trump's statement that he considers "birther" to be derogatory: On the one hand, I think Trump's general prominence and notability makes it reasonable to try to find some way to include his view here. On the other hand, even a mere footnote on the first use of "birther" in the current text (documenting Trump's rejection of the term) creates a major risk of giving undue weight to a fringe view. Unless at least one other big name has come out in agreement with Trump on this point, it may not be possible to include his view and still retain neutrality in the article's handling of the issue.

In any event, I'm not aware of any evidence that any significant segment of the population views "birther" as being on the same offensive plane as, say, some consider "anchor baby" to be. — Richwales 19:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that "a lot of people" use "birther" is evident by number of times people quoted in this article use the term (as well as news sources' frequent usage). "Birther," in fact, appears in this article mostly in direct quotes. (The Kimmel video was to demonstrate no one cares about this temptest-in-a-teacup navelgazing.) --Weazie (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Amazing effort with that edit de-birthering the article Weazie, although it has strained the English language a bit in places. Can those I would call birthers with no offence intended, but who take offence anyway, please come up with a sensible, unambiguous word for what they are? It would help this problem go away properly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said before — unless we can identify at least one person other than Donald Trump, noteworthy enough to merit mention in a reliable source, who has said he/she considers the term "birther" to be derogatory or offensive, I'm concerned that we may be violating WP:UNDUE and/or WP:FRINGE by changing the article text to say that it is a term that "some find offensive". Can we find any more? Are there any more? Otherwise, we should only mention (in a non-prominent way) that Donald Trump has said he considers the term "derogatory" (per the cited source). — Richwales 23:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Part of the insulting nature is that it is a label. It assumes that everyone is identical on the issue. Some of these people believe that you must have two natural-born US parents to be natural born yourself. Some think it must be at least one. Some of them think if you aren't born on US soil, you can't be natural born. On and on and on. The one thing they all seem to agree on is that Obama isn't technically a citizen. It is a bit like saying someone is a "truther" because they have a question or two about the circumstances of the 9/11 attacks. You aren't automatically a "truther" if you believe that there stuff is not being honestly told or if you think it might not all make sense. These things are labels that are intended to demonize and characterize people as a thing that they may or may not be. Pretty much every source out there acknowledges this as a term intended to pigeonhole and mock people who have such beliefs. People who don't believe the holocaust happened are "holocaust deniers", rather than simply people with a question about the facts. People who question climate change are "deniers" now as well.

Let me paraphrase/quote from Psychology Today (link).

According to linguist Benjamin Whorf, the words we use to describe what we see aren't just idle placeholders--they actually determine what we see. He called this his linguistic relativity hypothesis.

After being called Colorado's #1 birther by Curtis Hubbard, Denver Post Editorial Page Editor (link), Peter Boyles commented "Birther is a term that was given, not accepted." "In other words, the term came from guys like you. I never called myself a birther."

Phil Wolf, also named in the Denver Post editoral, erected a billboard about Obama's citizenship, was asked if he calls himself a birther. "Of course not," he said. "I'm a thinker. I ask questions. Maybe we haven't been dumbed down like so many people have been. I question a lot of things. If there's not an answer, the question lingers."

I can find example after example... even that website that Weazie mentioned above 'birthers.org' says "(The mainstream media) want to mock us by giving us a label to discredit and marginalize us." "Labeling and ridiculing the opposition is a tactic of the communist union organizer Saul Alinsky...." "We accept their name, the Birthers for wanting to give rebirth to that which we as Americans hold dear. To return the favor of giving us a name in which we can find a common identity, we in turn give them a name that must be our polarizing opposites, 'the O-Borters.'"

Obviously not a name each of these groups find to be positive or uplifting. There is a lot more proof, and honestly it seems rather like an obvious thing unless you're just looking at this super biased. -- Avanu (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The article now contains only reliable sources directly quoting "weighty" uses of the term "birther." Surely you have a suggestion to improve this article, because soapboxing on the talk page violates WP:TALK. --Weazie (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Who is soapboxing? I was answering a question. -- Avanu (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Quoting a non-reliably sourced blog improves this article ... how? (See WP:TALK.) --Weazie (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It helps answer the question posed by Richwales at the start of this thread. Why do you keep tossing a link to WP:TALK? You're just being weird about this. -- Avanu (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Because this navelgazing WP:WALLOFTEXT violates WP:TALK. --Weazie (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so birthers don't like being called birthers, and want to give us a long description of what they are. I therefore have every right to give a long description too. I'll go with "conservatives who cannot cope with the idea of a black Democrat President, and will use every strategy available, ethical or otherwise, to try to get rid of him." It's funny that none of them mentioned that really obvious aspect of their position. I've never heard anyone yet say "I really like Obama and the Democrats. It's a shame he's not eligible to be President." I say that if you take an extreme position on something, you just have to deal with the way the mainstream describes you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 October 2012‎ (UTC)

This discussion is too funny! Of course it's a derogatory term, it mocks and makes light of people who hold the position. Whether the birthers object to it or not is besides the point, it's derogatory. Compare with Obamacare, another derogatory term also in general use (even among supporters). Seems to be a WP:COMMONNAME issue. I think we should point out somewhere that the term is indeed mocking, but unless we can find a succinct neutral alternative (such as climate change "skeptics") it will have to do as an identifier. -- Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2012‎ (UTC)

But given that we have no simple alternative, you must accept that some current usage of the word is neither mocking nor derogatory. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Kind of agree with Wikidemon on the term Obamacare. In fact, Obama embraced the term at the debates tonight. Not entire sure that "birther" has made that crossover. But it is clearly a common term. It just may not accurately describe all individuals. -- Avanu (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The article as presently written only quotes people (in reliable sources) who used the term "birther". Common name or not, derogatory or not, it is what they said. Does anyone plan on actually making any suggestions on how to improve this article? Or WP:BEBOLD and just make edits? --Weazie (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The term is not used gratuitously, and primarily where sources use it. Whether that upsets people or not is not Wikipedia's problem. There is no policy that says readers have a right not to be offended. If sources can be found that explain it is "mocking" then by all means add them. But most other sources seems to treat it as simple short-hand and we shouldn't shy away from it because of what some think it implies. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it isn't Original Research that it is often (not always) used as an insult. I provided sourcing for that, and except for the fact that this article isn't about proving such a pointless fact, I could demonstrate it to even a "birther's" satisfaction (if such things were possible). Also, Weazie, its getting kind of old having the harpy attitude about simply answering Richwales' question. I think we get it. You *think* his question violates WP:TALK. Now, could you please just not keep going on about it? I think he asked a reasonable question, you yourself posted several answers above, and when you didn't see the responses you liked, you began badgering people about WP:TALK.

I think EscapeOrbit is right above to note that it is not being used gratuitiously, and in some cases it is also simply a shorthand to avoid having to provide a long explanation. Despite wanting to avoiding censoring our content, I also don't think we need to go out of our way to offend anyone either. It sounds like we're striking a good balance. -- Avanu (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Changes to the article? Anyone? --Weazie (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read the original question at the top of the section? "if there are in fact verifiable statements by "birthers" objecting to non-"birthers" using the term, I think this would be appropriate to mention in an appropriate spot in this article. Comments?" My answer to this question is having seen the sources, I'm not convinced it's that relevant or due weight. But those who think differently should feel free to be bold and edit the article and we'll see how it works out. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point, EscapeOrbit. I also think Weazie needs to drop the stick and stop accusing people of some sort of soapboxing. I'll make it clear, Weazie. Shut up about the WP:TALK comment. We get it. We don't need a 7th reminder. I also do not see anyone here soapboxing, I see people intelligently discussing an issue of relevance to the article. -- Avanu (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Cheers. --Weazie (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Weazie, your reminders have gotten to the point that they are over the top. In breach of civil conduct, if you will. Either contribute to the discussion positively, discuss it with a user personally, or with an admin personally, or take it to AN/I. Either way, reminding people OVER and OVER when no one is breaching the talk page guideline is disruptive. -- Avanu (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

At present, it appears that the answer to my original question is "probably not" — given that, as best I can tell, only one newsworthy individual (Donald Trump) has been identified as a questioner of Obama's presidential eligibility who considers the term "birther" to be offensive. A statement has already been added to the article documenting Trump's objection (but without claiming to make his view generally applicable to others). If no other examples of this sort can be found, and if people decide at this point that this discussion has fulfilled its purpose and can be wrapped up, I will not object. — Richwales 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Thanks. --Weazie (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Also concur. -- Avanu (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

← (By definition it is. Which idiot wrote this? eg. Is the word 'nigger' offensive to 'niggers'? Do you see my point?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.82.226 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(No.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

From the Peanut Gallery: "Birthers who consider it an insult to be called a 'Birther', consider it a compliment when they consider the speaker." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Contesting a recent revert

This is re this revert by User:DD2K. The edit summary said, "No. Your own transcription and synthesis isn't acceptable. Neither is Obamarecords.com a reliable source" (parts of that were wikilinked, and I haven't redone the wikilinks here).

• The revert deleted several dead link tags I had added to the article. OK, the links weren't dead in the sense that they got 404 errors; they were dead in the sense that the articles originally relied on to support assertions in the article were no longer present at those URLs and were not findable at http://archive.org. I've replaced these deleted dead link tags with failed verification tags. The dead link tags concerned the cited sources, so they appeared in the References section. The {{fv}}s concern support of the assertions, so they appear inline in the article body.
• The revert removed a replacement of a dead link at http://constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=811 with a live archived link at http://web.archive.org/web/20110725193742/http://constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=811. Please take a second look at that.

• The revert removed a replacement of a dead link at http://store.barackobama.com/made-in-the-usa-mug.html with a link to a live archived link at http://web.archive.org/web/20110723002253/http://store.barackobama.com/made-in-the-usa-mug.html. Please take a second look at that.

• I had replaced a cite reading "http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate%7C<!--does not work, original still exists -archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5iGGBysud|archivedate=July 1, 2009-->" with a link to this archived URL. You reverted that. Please take a second look at this.

• The revert removed a transcript snippet I had posted of a sworn statement, saying that the source I used wasn't considered reliable for that. OK, I don't know whether the transcript is real or bogus -- I relied on that source. I'm located on a small island in the Philippines and have access only to online sources -- my research capabilities are limited.

• The revert reversed my correction of a serious error in reportage of a Sarah Obama interview. After the revert, the article reads:

In a June 2012 interview at her Kenyan home, Sarah Obama was asked: "Some people want to believe that the president was born in Kenya. Have these people ever bothered you or asked for his birth certificate?" Her response was: "But Barack Obama wasn’t born in Kenya."

After the revert, the article relies on a dead link for support. I had replaced the dead link with a live link to an alternative source of the item cited in support. The final bit of that item reads:

I said,

“Some people want to believe that the president was born in Kenya. Have these people ever bothered you or asked for his birth certificate?”

Mrs. Obama looked concerned, started to protest. But it turned out it was because the rabbits, post-coitus, had started to run away via a security guard’s carelessly ajar gate.

I repeated my question and it was translated. Mrs. Obama wrinkled up her face. Then the interpreter jumped in: “She says, ‘But Barack Obama wasn’t born in Kenya.’” That should settle it.

Please take a second look at this.

If this was a knee-jerk revert, please try to avoid similar knee-jerks in future. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The simple solution is, don't make legitimate edits(1,2) after edits that is blatantly against Wiki guidelines(1,2). Your edits seem to be an effort to make it seems as if there is some conspiracy theory by legitimate reliable sources, while relying on your own OR/synthesis and an obvious, fringe, non reliable source. No, it was not a 'knee-jerk revert'. I would appreciate it if you would not make any controversial edits on this article, especially without bringing it to the Talk page first. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've got a typo or a parapraxis in there re the word legitimate. Re controversial edits, see WP:BRD. I made what I saw as perfectly legitimate edits, mainly tagging and fixing dead links. The links I focused on were links green-tagged by the Checklinke tool where, upon checking those links individually, I found that the URL supplied in a cite did not lead to a web page which supported the article assertions in support of which the links were offered. Realizing that editors of this page tend to have polarized views and to edit with polarized POV mindset, I halfway expected a discussion of some of the individual changes I had made. I consider your mass revert of my fixes/changes to be not WP:NPOV. In the spirit of the D part of BRD, I request that you address the changes I've explained at bullet points above individually -- point by point. In my view, the changes should be immediately unreverted -- particularly those which are straightforward replacement of dead links with live replacements from an internet archive. Please identify the changes for which I've provided I've bullet-pointed explanations above where you have objection to their unreversion, and explain your objection in the context of the bullet-pointed explanations of those individual changes which I gave above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No. I am not going to get into another long drawn out discussion with you again about your original research and penchant for using fringe websites that are not reliable sources. The next step would be a RfC/U, not another long drawn out discussion. Which I neither want to do, nor wish to devote the time to. So please, just follow the guidelines and stop trying to insert your own POV into this article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in a series of exchanges about POV either. My edits which you reverted mainly involved tagging or repairing links in citess which had gone stale. What I am going to do is to look at each change your revert made individually, explain each one individually below, and redo the changes as individual edits where it seems to me that is indicated. I'm time-sharing this with other activities, and it might take me some time to go through all the changes which your revert made; I'll indicate below when I'm done. If you feel that these changes should be brought up at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, feel free. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Your revert removed a dead link tag which I had placed on URL http://www2.az-independent.com/?s=obama+father+immigration+file&x=0&y=0. The target site changes that URL to http://www.azinews.com/. In reaction to your revert, I had tagged the Ref citing that URL as failed verification. It really ought to be tagged as a dead link, though, and in this edit I changed the tag back to dead link. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Your revert reversed a complicated and messy change which I had botched in trying to fix a dead link. The article wikitext read, and reads post-revert, as follows

<ref name="obama-truth">{{Cite web|url=http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate%7C<!--does not work, original still exists -archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5iGGBysud|archivedate=July 1, 2009-->|title=The truth about Barack's birth certificate|publisher=Obama for America|date=June 12, 2008|accessdate=February 2, 2011}}</ref>

In there, the URL http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate%7C is stale (the target site changes it to http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/articles/5/birthcertificate%7C). The URL in the HTML comment (http://www.webcitation.org/5iGGBysud) does work. I had tried to fix that and had botched the fix. I have redone the fix in this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Your revert removed a dead link tag which I had placed on URL http://hawaii.gov/gov/newsroom/press-releases/AttachmentsToCertificateOfLiveBirthRelease.pdf. The target site changes that URL to http://governor.hawaii.gov/. In reaction to your revert, I had tagged the Ref citing that URL as failed verification. It really ought to be tagged as a dead link, though, and in this edit I changed the tag back to dead link. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• This bit may have been the change which triggered you into ranting about your perception that I was making POV changes. I had clarified a part of the article which was and still is supported by a cited source newspaper piece titled "Here's the truth: 'Birther' claims are just plain nuts" which is apparently accepted as a neutral bit of reportage in this article. The source of the clarifications I added was a video which is present in that source which the article cites. I also added the info that one of the participants in the conversation which the video presents had executed a sworn affidavit describing the conversation. I relied on and cited this link to what purports to be a copy of that affidavit to support a capsulized description of its content which I added to the article. You claim that that source is unreliable. I don't know whether the transcript is real or bogus -- I relied on that source. I'm located on a small island in the Philippines and have access only to online sources -- my research capabilities are limited. In this edit, I've restored by clarifications supported by the video in the "Here's the truth: 'Birther' claims are just plain nuts" article which is considered reliable here and left out mention of the affidavit which I had added. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• The revert reinstated a snippet from the article saying "Sarah Obama shed more light on the controversy in a 2007 interview with the Chicago Tribune. In the interview, Obama's paternal step grandmother stated that six months after Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham were married, she received a letter at her home in Kenya announcing the birth of Barack Obama II, who was born August 4, 1961." That is supported by a cite of this dead link source. I wasn't able to find a legitimate alternate copy of that article. In response to your revert I had earlier tagged the Ref there with a fv tag. In this edit, I removed that fv tag and added a dl tag instead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

using the recording itself is an improper use of a primary source, which particularly if you have to rely on non reliable sources like obamarecord.com to make out what is being said. You need a reliable source to make/publish a transcript. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still going through bits from the reversion. I'll come back and look at this later. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not rely on anything at obamarecord.com to make out what is being said in any recording. The bulleted item above does not involve a recording. This comment appears not to be discussing the bulleted item above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Here's another bit you might want to discuss, though it seems to me like a very straightforward correction of a serious error of reportage in the article. The erronious reportasge was supported by a cite of a dead link source. I found a live link to that source, and discovered the error when reviewing what the article asserted vs. what the source said. More detail about that can be seen here. I've reinstated my error correction and my cite of the alternative source in this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• The revert had reversed a dead link fix for the URL http://constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=811. In this edit I've redone that fix. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• The revert had reversed a dead link fix for the URL http://store.barackobama.com/made-in-the-usa-mug.htm. In this edit I've redone that fix. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That completes a pass through the revert item-by-item. Please discuss any items needing discussing individually above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Jan Brewer on the over-commenting electors

I reverted this edit because in my opinion, the fact that the governor disagreed with the conspiracy theories is not encyclopedic. Had she called for consequences to the electors who made the statements supporting the conspiracy theories (such calling for Tom Morrissey to step down as chair of the Arizona GOP) then perhaps it would have been encyclopedic. But in my opinion, mere disagreement is not encyclopedic. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems notable here; after all, the paragraph is about Republicans in Arizona. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that every Arizona Republican who is notable (has a Wikipedia page) and publicly disagreed with the 3 electors should be listed in the article? Victor Victoria (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe only Governors and up. I'd have to see the references. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy Article Merging

This page should really be merged with the main article on Barrack Obama; like all other controversy pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

There have been two full-blown AfD discussions on this, one of them followed up with a Deletion Review. In every case, the consensus was to "keep", just because the topic (however absurd) is so big. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Kinda like the fake moonlanding conspiracy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article mention the fact that the long form from whitehouse.gov is proof of nothing?

Is it a lack of sources? Go load the file up with something that displays multiple layers and has search. You'll figure out quickly that:

1. The document is so manipulated that it's not proof of anything.
2. There may or may not have been OCR-related processing done to the images, but go text search the document. No results.

Sometimes the fringe are actually right[1]. Facts don't care whether they're fringe or not, only people do. I've worked with digital imaging for two decades, and didn't vote for Obama, McCain, or Romney in the last two elections. I'm more worried about the NDAA than Obama citizenship because Romney wanted the same power. With that out of the way, this document is trash, and if it was "proof" that a family member was murdered I'd be sure to expose it in court. The court of public opinion and the national press aren't so good though (see Richard Jewell).

If:

1. You're more into the truth than what you want to find.
2. You understand imaging and have a multi-layer document viewer.

...then you'll see this document is proof of nothing.

[1] I read that FDR kept the people from owning gold. "No Way!" I thought. No, it is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.43.40 (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

if you have actual reliable sources supporting your contentions, please bring them. Otherwise Wikipedia is not the place to vent your personal opinions and analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A person should be innocent of wrong doing until proven Guilty. There is no proof that President Obama was born in Kenya. Personally, my personal politics is opposite President Obama, and Dr. Savage is fun to listen to once in a white. The point is that the United States Supreme Court Justices, (even Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy), are not convinced that there is enough proof that the President was born in Kenya to even take up the case. My person opinion does not matter, the President is innocent unless on can PROVE otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is sources. There simply is no reliable source for the claim that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake. Certainly there are people who believe it is fake and there are reliable sources of that, but not that the document itself is fake. I could also point you to pages on the Internet that say that the Xerox WorkCentre 7655 that the White House owns creates all the artifacts you think are marks of forgery, but I can't source that either because it as well as your claims of image expertise are original research, and that's not allowed in the Wikipedia. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No mention of the claim that the birth hospital was named differently

I've heard claims that the name of Obama's birth hospital, as indicated on his birth certificate, "Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital", was not called that at the time of Obama's birth and thus indicates a forged birth certificate. Snopes debunked the claim (link), and probably other sources have as well. I'm wondering why there's no mention of this in the article. It might leave a reader who is aware of this conspiracy claim the impression that it's true since Wikipedia didn't even mention it. Aelius28 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much time we need to waste playing whack-a-mole, but maybe a sentence could be added to the "Rejection by conspiracy theorists" section to the effect that "claims of supposed anachronisms in the content of the birth certificate are demonstrably false", with the Snopes article as a cite. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if every piece of bullshit ever written or spoken about Obama made it into this article it would probably become the biggest in Wikipedia. But I agree with that suggestion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

??? Aelius28, the content is still in the article. Here it is:

• Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (now called Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children) in Honolulu, Hawaii,

Brangifer (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This one might be worth doing something about because the original source of the theory came from an error in the Wikipedia article on Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children back in April of 2011. It erroneously said that the hospital name was such and such at such and such date. Subsequently, a huge well-sourced section was added to that article (the timeline) on its history and name changes. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Barack Soetero

Barack Soetero has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I see it has been deleted. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Content gap? "Barry Soetoro" redirects here, but is not once mentioned in the article

Perhaps the phrase was lost during some editing and restructuring? It strikes me as odd that a redirect's destination would not be able to explain the redirect's rationale. The Masked Booby (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? It's not that uncommon, in my experience. But, according to this discussion, the agreed-upon destination at that point was actually Barack Obama -- which does not mention "Barry Soetoro" either.

It seems to me that the most likely target today would be Early life and career of Barack Obama#Indonesia, since he was indeed briefly known as "Barry Soetoro" at that time in his life.[6] Saying this name is only tied to conspiracy theories seems to me to give undue weight to those theories.

Perhaps this should be discussed at the appropriate talk page? --NapoliRoma (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think perhaps it should be mentioned on this page. Just in terms of, you know, something akin to:

This would, of course, require a WP:RELIABLESOURCE first.-jss (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Two reliable sources, actually, one that says that it's conspiracy theorists who use it and another that says that it's the name he was registered under. RNealK (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It would seem to me that no discussion of Obama eligibility conspiracy theories would be complete without a reference to "Barry Soetoro." It's central to the Indonesian adoption theory (Obama isn't eligible because his name was changed in Indonesia when he was adopted and and he never changed it back, so he's not really president.) It's central to the Obama education theories (Obama attended Occidental College as a foreign student named "Barry Soetoro"). Even this month it appeared in the "Obama is a lying gay drug fiend" theory when Mia Marie Pope made the talk show rounds saying that's the name she knew Obama by in high school, proving he was dishonest. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Loretta Fuddy, Director of Hawaii Department of Health dies in plane crash

Loretta Fuddy, Director of Hawaii Department of Health, who verified the Barack Obama birth certificate, died in a plane crash yesterday. She was the only one who died. What is the proper way to document that here? PearlCityTavern (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait until a reliable source describes the way in which nutters from the Tea Party incorporate this into an existing conspiracy theory, or create a new one. It's not our job to do it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

For good or ill, such sources already exist, notably "Fatal Hawaii plane crash triggers fresh conspiracy theories", Los Angeles Times, December 12, 2013. Another useful source may be "Birther Movement Capitalizes On Loretta Fuddy's Tragic Death", The Huffington Post, December 12, 2013, which includes a number of links to other reports. I imagine a brief paragraph could be appended to the "Long form, 2011" section of the article, reporting her death and the immediate response from the conspiracy proponents. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

After reading those two sources I'm going to start my own conspiracy theory on why they differ so much. One explicitly says she didn't get out of the plane. The other says she did. Obviously both reliable sources. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

One more, USA Today: [7]. It´s a bit WP:RECENT right now though, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To the extent it is even relevant to the article, I concur with Arxiloxos's proposed approach. --Weazie (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24215974/hawaii-survivor-plane-lost-power-then-glided Hollstein said he was surprised to hear after the swim that one of the passengers, Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy, had later died. "She was doing fine out of the airplane," Hollstein said. "Her assistant was really watching her. He was taking care of her." Fuddy, 65, was the only fatality out of nine people on the plane that crashed Wednesday. An autopsy was expected to be conducted Friday .... But the next passenger Peer tried to save, Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy, was not responsive and he couldn't find a pulse. "It was not a good feeling," he said. In the final moments of her life, Fuddy clung to the hand of her deputy, Keith Yamamoto, while floating in the water. Fuddy, who became widely known in 2011 for her role in making President Barack Obama's birth certificate public, held hands with Yamamoto as he tried to help her relax, said the Rev. Patrick Killilea, who consoled Yamamoto after the ordeal. "He recounted how he said he helped Loretta into her life jacket and he held her hand for some time," the priest said. "They were all floating together, and she let go and there was no response from her." PearlCityTavern (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

PearlCityTavern (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

An autopsy was conducted Friday on Fuddy but results were not yet available, Maui County spokesman Rod Antone said. http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20131217_Makani_Kai_pilot_returns_to_cockpit_after_leaving_hospital.html?id=236271501 PearlCityTavern (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The National Transportation Safety Board originally thought the plane would be unrecoverable, but the Makani Kai owner pushed the issue and hired a helicopter that eventually spotted the plane about 400 to 500 yards offshore, and 60 to 70 feet under water. http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/salvage-crew-begins-recovery-of-crashed-molokai-plane/-/8905354/23533820/-/14icjd9/-/index.html PearlCityTavern (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Taitz unsuccessfully sued to prevent Fuddy from being cremated. --Weazie (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Add it to Orly Taitz. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. If this article is amended to include a (brief) reference to Fuddy's death, I would support including information about this lawsuit as well. --Weazie (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The unmentioned connection between the Obama administration and the Molokai airline (Makani Kai): Most of the revenue of Makani Kai is from the Obama administration, in the form of an exclusive two-year contract of $932,000 per year. http://www.hawaiibusiness.com/Hawaii-Business/March-2012/Cheaper-Now-to-Fly-into-Kalaupapa/ PearlCityTavern (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)PearlCityTavern (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of this factoid would violate WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, or both. --Weazie (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The linked article does NOT say that most of Makani Kai's revenue comes from the Essential Air Service subsidy. It gives no information whatsoever on what portion of the revenue comes from the subsidy. --JamesAM (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Loretta Fuddy: cause of death

An investigation into her death and an autopsy showed that she successfully evacuated the plane, had successfully inflated her life jacket, but had a cardiac arrhythmia while waiting with the other passengers for rescue; see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/loretta-fuddy-cause-of-death_n_4592104.html and http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140113_Health_Director_Loretta_Fuddy_died_of_cardiac_arrhythimia.html?id=240014161 . We can put these crackpot conspiracy theories to bed: her death has no factual relevance to this article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! I thought she was the only living witness to the actual copying of the birth certificate from the original. That's how the article text reads on that. And she died (no matter how) only a couple of years later. Not relevant to an article that's primarily about the birth certificate? I don't see that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This entire article is about false conclusions. So, to the extent it is relevant to this article, Fuddy's death would need to be couched in the birther's beliefs, e.g., "Despite her death being ruled an accident, people such as Orly Taitz believe she was murdered by Obama." And with a reliable source citing the proponent of that belief, of course. --Weazie (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it that way either, and I don't think we are supposed to work that way on WP, i.e. creating and maintaing articles that are intentionally biased one way or another. Omitting her death is odd in that - neutral - context. I believe a WP article's name cannot be Wikipedia's guarantee for 'ya that the conspiracy theories about ... are absolutely false. Or could it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE require articles not to engage in false equivalence. If the consensus of WP:RS articles say something is false, then Wikipedia will report it as false. No WP:RS article has said Fuddy's death is tied to Obama's eligibility; it would violate WP:SYNTH or WP:OR for Wikipedia to tie it in on its own accord. (That there are people who believe there is a link may be relevant to this article.) --Weazie (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

SSN

The article seems to pass over in silence the Social Security numbers that have been issued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.53.143 (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not silence, purged. We purge any information that can be traced to Obama's buying of that SS# to work at Baskin Robbins. Now be quite, you've seen what happened to Fuddy. Shhhh.</snark> Dave Dial (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP commenter has a point: The article might benefit (citing reliable sources, of course) by mentioning the false belief that Obama has been using a SSN other than those duly issued to him. --Weazie (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I've not seen much coverage concerning this particular nutter theory. Snopes and HuffPost have addressed it, maybe Dave Weigle wrote something too. That would probably be enough. Dave Dial (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, this article is about the conspiracies involving Obama's citizenship. U.S. citizenship isn't required to obtain a SSN, and both citizens and non-citizens have fraudulently SSNs not assigned to them. So this particular theory doesn't advance this article; rather, it is a separate theory that is also popular with those who don't believe Obama is a natural-born citizen. --Weazie (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

MISCELLANEOUS

¶ With regard to the green paper on which the Obama birth certificates, both short & long forms, are printed: This is 'security paper' deliberately designed to frustrate and reveal attempts at erasure or falsification (the green pattern is called 'basketweave'). The use of such paper was already the practice in some states, but was made a nationwide requirement by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 108-458, Dec. 17, 2004; section 7211 (b)(3)(A), 118 Stat.L. 3638 at 3826, now 5 USC § 301 official note. "Not later than [Dec. 17, 2005] ... the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall by regulation establish minimum standards for birth certificates for use by Federal agencies for official purposes that (A) at a minimum, shall ... require the use of safety paper or an alternative, equally secure medium, .... and other features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or otherise duplicating the birth certificate for fraudulent purposes......" According to Obama, the original black & white certified photocopy of his birth record issued shortly after his birth in 1961 was destroyed in a house fire some decades back, so he had to obtain a replacement copy from the Hawaii Dept of Health, which is the certificate on green paper. That the green basketweave pattern was deliberately designed to frustrate attempts at photocopying and the like helps explain why internet images of the certificate seem to show anomalies that fuel birthers' fantasies. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the first I have heard of the fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.3.38 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

One source for the fire claim is an article by the UK's Sky News on February 27, 2010, though the Fogbow debunk site says there was no fire and points to an Internet satire site as the originating source (in January 2010). —ADavidB 19:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this a Conspiracy?

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

---

By definition, conspiracies are engaged in in secret. Conspiracies also relate to illegal conduct. There is nothing secret about the claim that Obama is not a US Citizen. It is also not illegal to make that charge. When 40% of the public believes that Obama is or may not be a US Citizen, it is no longer a conspiracy. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/have_we_got_a_conspiracy_for_you_9_11_jfk_obama_s_citizenship. If anything, the conspiracy is to continue to call it a conspiracy.True Observer (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

When fringe right-wingnuts profess a vast network of cover-ups, SSN# forging, certificate-forging and the like, all orchestrated to get a supposed Kenyan Marxist illegal alien into office, then yes, "conspiracy" is precisely the right term to describe the allegations. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason these are rightly called "conspiracy theories" is that people are claiming that there is a conspiracy to hide what they think is the truth about Obama's citizenship status. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

40% of anything is not fringe.True Observer (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Great Meta-Stuff

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I must confess, I'm a long-time enthusiast of Talk Archives as they accumulate behind contentious political articles such as this one. The body of it is worthy of its own literary genre, like "True Crime," "Film Criticism," or "Travel Writing." If Wiki formatted, bound & published the Talk Archives behind its top 20 most controversial articles, I'd buy it, and so might many. Wiki could even publish annual updates! I'm trying to think of a clever title since the term "Wiki Wars" so hackneyed, but there could be different editions, like "Politics," "Religion," "Geography," "Music," or simply "Obama," or "9/11." I suspect that few Wiki readers, much less critics, have a clue the volume & quality of thought that goes into contentious article creation & maintenance, and it's about time Wikipedians get credit for it. Anything popularizing how Wiki sausage gets made may further serve as an effective recruitment tool to the project. I just mention it since this particular Talk page has been recently quiet, and although that's a good sign that the article's achieved equilibrium, I miss the spectator sport value of vigorous debate (especially against inanity). Anyhow, thanks, all, for the great reads over the years. It offers an often hilarious, sometimes disconcerting, but always entertaining, glimpse into something I can't quite articulate about the human condition, but one of enormous human interest. So keep up the good work, all! Your fans are cheering on the most competent among you (I imagine that reliable sources will one day credit you for it, too!) AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "I miss the spectator sport value of vigorous debate..." Debate is over. There is more proof that it's a forgery than not. Those arguing against forgery avoid like the plague experts in forgeries. Instead, they keep using circular arguments by quoting biased liberal media to support their position.True Observer (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Ah, that evil biased liberal media. Where would the haters be without it? HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC) User:AgentOrangeTabby, you are quite right. People who don't understand, read, and participate in the backstory workings of how content is created here are missing out on a university grade education in critical thinking, vetting of sources, editorial skills, etc.. Unfortunately true believers, like our mocker above, are likely impervious to real learning, but instead follow the birther party line. It's more comfortable. They are often beyond hope. The sound of a mind slamming shut is an awful sound, and we hear it from them quite often. Other editors, the ones who possess openness to learning and have some critical thinking skills, can actually learn and improve their knowledge base tremendously here. Those who have a positive learning curve will actually change their POV after reading our articles, thus aligning their POV with what reliable sources say, which is a lot better than the uninformed and preconceived ideas they had when they arrived here. True Observer, please provide RS for your claims and we will consider including them here. We'd also have to change the name of the article and leave out "conspiracy theories", because once proven it's no longer a "theory". For some odd reason the GOP, Obama's presidential opponents, the CIA, FBI, MI5, KGB, Mossad, etc., NONE of them or any other of the enemies of the USA and Obama, have ever provided any proof that Obama was anything other than a normal kid born in Hawaii. Only a few crackpots claim otherwise. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Was it really neccesary to type that big reply in response to True Observer? The fact that True Observer's short simple comment was able to strike a chord like that does nothing but lend it some credence, especially from these kind of opposition. Kirothereaper (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC) The birther movement is essentially dead, so stumbling across a person who still actively believes in any of that is something like being Indiana Jones and unearthing a dusty artifact, or rarer, coming across someone who still thinks John F Kennedy was a Vatican plant that did the bidding of the Pope. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Updating the polling data in the lead

I was curious this morning to see if there has been any polling of birther beliefs more recent than the 2011 cited now. Came across a Wash Times article that cites this Economist/YouGov poll from Feb 2014. Do we want to update the lead with this or newer data, if there is something more recent than Feb out there? Tarc (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I absolutely hate YouGov polls, they are historically inaccurate and are conducted via 'web interviews'. Which means by email through an 'opt-in internet panel', which means people who sign up to be polled via internet. Which means multiple email addresses can be used by one person giving different statistics. Look at the description of the poll at the bottom of the original source. Dave Dial (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah ok, good catch. Will keep looking for something current. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Article is Canted and One-sided

Discussion that follows is more balanced, but reading the article leaves out all the facts against his US birth and portrays oponents as indisputably wrong. Yet there are dozens of places where you can see proof the Long form was modified and Kenya has produced his original hospital records and birth certificate. His birth was registerred in Kenya on the 5th at the hosptial and on the 9th at their district office. One of many sites that have the images: http://thepowerhour.com/news4/obama_kenyan_birth_certificate.htm but the official version still seems to hold that the obviously falsified document is real. Also why was he spending millionis of dollars to try to keep his records hidden if there was nothing hinkey about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.232.192.10 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 November 2014

That it is "indisputably wrong" is how reliable sources describe the topic, so our article reflects that. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)