Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

lock article

If you don't want this article to be edited than why not lock it? --12george1 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be impatient. The members of the plot will be locking it once the correct version has been perfected.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ding. Dong. Error. Sorry Bali, but the question should only be answered by people who don't want the article to be edited. Personally, I do want the article to be edited. I want editors to go out and find independent reliable sources discussing conspiracy theories, and either make or propose changes to the article that represent the viewpoints of those sources neutrally and giving due weight to their importance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would simply add that many "reliable sources" take a decidedly non-neutral position on the issue and that slant is somewhat reflected in this article. I would also suggest that when reporting on this issue, it is common for some "reliable sources" to get the facts slightly wrong or present the facts in such a way as to support their predetermined judgement (reliability is relative). One of the benefits of some "unreliable sources" is that the main points of the controversy are made perfectly plain. All that said, despite the moderate slant, the article currently does a pretty good job explaining the issues clearly. Jbarta (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We just don't want you to edit it... -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not very sporting of you, and probably violates one or two Wikipedia policies. I hope you'll take that back or modify your statement. Jbarta (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This user is bellyaching about the reverts to his attempts to link to websites of the tinfoil, lunatic fringe of this issue. So seeing how their actions are proving to be counter-productive towards improving this article, I see little wrong with the sentiment expressed. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

First, if you must, dispute the edits but don't reject the user as if this were some sort of social club. Second, who is "we"? (Personally I'm not a big fan of self-appointed spokespersons... or should I say we are not a big fan of self-appointed spokespersons?). Jbarta (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should make it clearer when I'm making a joke (see the edit summary)... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, now I see the joke. We still stand behind my statements and we think a joke that has to be explained must not be a very good joke :-) Tis ok though, we forgive you. Jbarta (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of reliable sources, why are we linking to WND articles? I thought we had fairly well argued that since WND tends to be rather fringe that it would be a red flag of a possible weight issue if something was sourced solely to WND. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The article establishes pretty well that WND is notable in the campaign against Obama's eligibility, and quotes to WND are qualified as such. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking "tinfoil hat" in Salon quote?

Some of us evidently disagree as to whether or not the phrase "tinfoil hat" should be wikilinked in the following Salon quote: In response to the notion that Obama's grandparents might have planted a birth announcement in newspapers just so their grandson could someday be president, FactCheck suggested that "those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat." I added such a link, but it was reverted by another editor who cited the advice in WP:MOSQUOTE: Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.

I feel this particular situation constitutes a more than sufficiently "good reason" and that a wikilink to the phrase "tinfoil hat" is justified. Some people (including non-native speakers of English) could be confused by this phrase or wish to read more about it; and in my view, a wikilink would not be confusing, misleading, cluttering, constitute any substantive "change" to the quotation, or in any other way be inconsistent with the text's original meaning or intent.

Rather than follow my first impulse (to re-revert and boldly put the wikilink back in), I'd like to ask for other opinions about this. If people would prefer to take such a discussion to the talk page for WP:MOS, rather than talk about it here, that's fine. Richwales (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All your points are sound. Go ahead and relink. PhGustaf (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, by all means, wikilink it. That said, personally I'm getting pretty tired of the term "tinfoil hat" all the way around. Until a month ago I was blissfully unaware of the term and under the apparently mistaken impression that I was perfectly sane, intelligent and logical. JBarta (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Everybody's out of step but johnny.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be simple enough to rephrase so that the word "tinfoil hat" is used outside the quotes, and then there's no problem with wikilinking it. I'll rephrase to do that.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I rephrased: "In response to the notion that Obama's grandparents might have planted a birth announcement in newspapers just so their grandson could someday be president, FactCheck suggested that people who think so ought to put tinfoil hats on their heads." I don't see any good reason why we have to use a quote here.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that PhGustaf has reverted me, on grounds of "stylishness". Whatever.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the policy, as I read it, is to keep the link from distracting from the quote. In this case, though, it doesn't, and destroying the rather good quote to allow the link doesn't serve that purpose. PhGustaf (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we add this to WP:LAME ? :) Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Adoption" by Soetoro ?

I recently undid this edit to the article. While I understand that the attempt was to link the section title closer to the article subject, the new title "Obama lost citizenship when adopted by Lolo Soetero", seemed to presume as a fact that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. It is indeed a fact that Lolo was Obama's stepfather, but none of the current references state directly that Obama was formally adopted, and I didn't find anything definitive on a quick news search. So I think it would be better to discuss the issue (with reliable sources!) on talk page first - please avoid providing unreferenced opinion or speculation!

Secondly, is Sonoran News a reliable source for this article ? It advertises itself as a conservative watchdog, and this article doesn't read as a piece of unbiased journalism. (For example, "In his memoir, “Dreams from my Father,” Soetoro is silent about his birthplace, although he speaks in detail about his life in Indonesia." (emphasis added) ) Abecedare (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any evidence that Barack was adopted by Soetero... Well, any legal evidence. The claim is that because Barack was registered at one of the school's he attended in Indonesia as "Barry Soetero" and was listed as an "Indonesian" that they only reason that could have happened is if Barack was adopted by Soetoro. Basically, the adoption is another facet of the conspiracy theory. I probably should have worded it differently, but the section as it is currently worded does not make it clear why the claim that Obama's legal name not being Barack Obama should be included in this article. I've seen it mentioned in a couple of reliable sources, I'll see if I can find it.

I'm not sure about Sonoran News. I was getting ready to remove it from the article, but according to the "About page" for Sonoran News, it is a weekly newspaper delivered to 43,000 homes and businesses in Arizona.. It's certainly not unbiased, just not sure if it is not a "reliable source". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Found the source that mentions the adoption part of Berg's theory. It's the WaPo "Tales from the Fringe" story.[1] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thius source might clarify the issue some: [[http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72656]]Die4Dixie (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WND is not in any way a reliable source for factual claims, particularly about living people. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WND is a privately financed advocacy web site posing as a news site. They have no editorial standards and will basically print anything so long at it is ideologically correct. But in general, I am opposed to ANY reference on this topic unless the newspaper has a credible source for what they are saying.Kevin (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And this some of the tecnical details of the conspiracy theories [[2]]Die4Dixie (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoaxers have demonstrated that IsraelInsider will print anything without verification. Their bias is too great to allow citations from them in the WP.Kevin (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Yes, I had seen that WashPo article. I agree that the adoption theory is part of Berg's allegation; I just haven't seen it stated anywhere as a fact. Google news search for berg adoption obama shows hardly any reliable mainstream sources (note that many of the links are talking about the adoption of the constitution etc), so I wonder if creating a whole section on this particular Berg allegation is not WP:UNDUE anyway. Any thoughts or suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Try a dogpile search with Obama adopt SoeteroDie4Dixie (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We could remove the section header and fold it into the Not natural-born even if born in Hawai'i. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And since some of the conspiracy allegations refer to an alledged conversation that Michelle Ovama had with an African press group, the story probably belongs in the article . One source here [[3]]Die4Dixie (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As per my understanding WND, IsraelInsider and definitely mountainsageblog are not really reliable sources. Since the article subject has received such wide media coverage, we should take a look at what the mainstream media sources have covered and what weightage thay have accorded to each allegation/legal case, i.e. be aware of not only verifiability but also due weight. Abecedare (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The African International Press links to this youtube video from their sight. I think that the sources would be reliable as to what the conspiracry theorists believe.No?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't use unreliable websites as primary sources for what conspiracy theorists believe, especially (1) for a BLP., (2) since the issue has received enormous secondary coverage (see WP:PARITY) Abecedare (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)D4D, we can't use the sources that you are providing. They are blogs and are not reliable sources... If you can find a reliable source that ties the conspiracy theories to Michele's supposed interview with African International Press, then we can probably add it... But then, we'd also have to include that the Obama's claim the interview never happened and that either the reporter made it up, or was punked.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course we would. This si not to say they are right, but that the theories exist.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are valid for statements of what they believe. Here is a link to the interview with the Kenyan Ambassador done by a radio station and is used by some theorists: [[4]]. It is the first in the list. This is not a BLP article, it is a conspiracy theory articleDie4Dixie (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP encompasses any article that discusses a living person. Seeing as this article's primary focus is Barack Obama, a living person, I would say that yes, this is every must adhere to BLP. Grsz¹¹ 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Talk pages too. Tvoz/talk 04:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hogwash. "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially..." This from WP:BLP. We are not adding biographical material. We are adding information about conspiracy theories. Please read the polocy.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

D4D, even if it is part of a conspiracy theory, it is still making claims about Obama's biography. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP if it is credited( plus we are calling them a conspiracy theory) it can go in. Per the reasoning that you three are putting forward, this article's existance is a violation of BLP. So what line are you drawing for an article devoted to conspiracy theories about Obama's nationality?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To summarize my understanding:

• Right now we have one mainstream secondary source which verifies Berg's allegation through a single Berg quote: ""He knows he was adopted in Indonesia."
• We talk about the alleged Indonesian citizenship in the lede and in Berg vs Obama section

I think, unless evidence of more secondary coverage is forthcoming, devoting a whole subsection to discuss this minor issue is undue. I'll look for more such reliable sources, and any help in that will be appreciated. Abecedare (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be correct if Berg were the only one alledging this.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said reliable secondary sources that show this are welcome. I haven't seen any yet. Abecedare (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the subsection header and put it into the born in Hawai'i and still not a natural-born citizen. Does that work? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How about " Born in Hawaii but natural born status lost"?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Definitely an improvement, thanks. However given that searching for Gregory Hollister obama finds only 3 right-wing websites, I don't think this deserves a place in the article at all. After all, dozens of such suits have been filed in local/state court. Abecedare (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean we should remove mention of Hollister's lawsuit? Or that entire paragraph? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

At least the Hollister's lawsuit :) Abecedare (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For the sources I offered, we can use them per [[5]]. They are reliable to use to report what the contents of the sources are. Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha. I see Salon is being used. that is not any more reliable(or less so) than the sources I offered.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)D4D, the sources you provided do not meet WP:RS. They are self-published sources and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia at all. Even if this article is not BLP we can't use them as sources. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WND, israelinsider.com, and a blog are not reliable sources for any thing other than perhaps basic, factual, non-controversial data about themselves. For anything else, they are, to be blunt, crap. Tarc (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you giving them too much credit, Tarc? Surely you should apologize to crap for comparing WND, israelinsider.com, and the blog to it.... :) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For the sources I offered, we can use them per WP:RS[[6]]. They are reliable to use to report what the contents of the sources are. Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

D4D, you've been on Wikipedia long enough that you should at least have some concept of RS by now, but it would appear that you do not. The reason why Wikipedia has a reliable source guideline is because the information that is being sourced has to be somewhat factual. Read the rest of the guideline. The sources themselves have to have a history of accuracy before they can be used for anything but uncontroversial statements about themselves. WND has a history of publishing stories on fringe topics that are very tenuously based upon reality as if they are reality. There is nothing reliable about WND and frankly, it shouldn't be used on Wikipedia for anything. I'd be hesitant on using it in WorldNetDaily. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You should pay particular attention to Wikipedia:RS#Extremist and fringe sources. especially in regards to WND... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely understand this about typical articles. What i'm having a hard time understanding is that we are dealing with a fringy subject. Even the Stormfront (website) uses the fringe source of the web site. Could you clarify the difference?Die4Dixie (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that this is not an article on WND, IsraelInsider, et al, and even on those articles we wouldn't quote the websites for claims they made about any subject other than themselves.

The fact that this is an article on fringey subject about a living public person does not mean that we can forget about WP:RS and use any source that Google search throws up. In fact, as per WP:REDFLAG and, yes, WP:BLP we have to be particularly careful in using high quality sources for such subjects. For example, we wouldn't simply quote a fringey website that accused Obama of a crime or immoral act here, unless mainstream secondary sources reported on it so that that accusation itself was noteworthy. Does that make the distinction clearer ? Abecedare (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if this was a fringey subject about something other than a living person, Wikipedia's standards for sourcing does not drop just because the subject itself is questionable. If a source is not a reliable source for the standard Wikipedia article, then it is not a reliable source for the fringier ones. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So that I am clear: These sources are not reliable sources to state the sources have stated the things that they have stated?Die4Dixie (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

← It is better to say, these sources are not reliable sources that can be used to make claims about Barack Obama and the conspiracy theory surrounding his status as a natural-born citizen. They can only be used as sources about facts about themselves. They can not be used to make claims about a third party. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

D4D, If you are still not convinced, or have further questions you can post a question of WP:RS/N and can get independent input. That will be a better venue for such discussion. Abecedare (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, as I was unaware of the existence of this notice board. You have made your objects known here. Will you plan to post to that board on this issue, or allow for independent input?Die4Dixie (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Indonesian school thing, the way I understood it is that in order to gain admission to this Indonesian school, he had to be a citizen of Indonesia... and in order to be a citizen of Indonesia he had to renounce any other (or just US?) citizenship... and a way of achieving that citizenship was to be adopted by an Indonesian... or something like that. As with other things in this story, I'm not sure what can actually be reliably reported in any way (without getting into original research) because any potentially useful or revealing documents have been withheld by Obama (from what I understand) and all that's left is a claim that no one has any standing to pursue. A claim that isn't really reported with much seriousness by "respectable" and "unbiased" press and the only ones that do report it in any depth have proven themselves fairly unreliable. Sort of leaves one standing out in the breeze holding on to not much of anything. Just tossing out a comment here. Jbarta (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Christ on a bicycle Jbarta - I lived in Indonesia for 10 years (coincidentally 2 blocks from the elementary school Obama attended) and allow me to state categorically that many foreign children attend Indonesian public elementary schools and that the Indonesian state does not require these foreign 8-year-olds to renounce their citizenship as the price of attendance. Furthermore, many millions of Indonesian nationals have a second nationality; i personally know dozens of them (not that this last is relevant anyways).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"christ on a bicycle" -- I'll have to remember that, it's cute. I wasn't asserting any of it as necessarily true, just the various claims as I understood them (I thought it appropriate given the subject and some of it wasn't touched on in the discussion). I also gave a link to a website below that goes through and seems to refute Berg's claims one by one in a detailed manner. I figured that would be helpful as well. I would also suggest that maybe the way things were in Indonesia 40 years ago may be different than they are now. I don't know. I'm not trying to be unreasonable, just trying to add to the discussion the best I can. I will say this, if Obama were more forthright on the matter and everything was in fact as advertised and implied, we wouldn't be having this discussion, this page wouldn't even exist and Berg would be tending to other irons in the fire. Jbarta (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For the entire duration of the Indonesian Republic it has been almost impossible for any child not born of an Indonesian father to obtain Indonesian citizenship (this has occasionally led to ridiculous and heartbreaking efforts at deporting children of Indonesian mothers whose foreign fathers had died). Why on earth should Obama have to be forthright about things in Indonesian law that have no bearing on him, about which he should not be reasonably expected to know anything? There is nothing to be "examined" here, unless one believes a conspiracy theory that is not supported by a single fact to be found anywhere on planet earth.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point I can't offer you much of a response. This particular issue I'm not entirely familiar with beyond the broad claims that have been made. By my understanding, it's entirely possible that these particular claims are completely baseless. And I'm not sure if you're suggesting Obama 1) has nothing to offer in the way of documentation even if he wanted to or 2) doesn't need to offer documentation unless compelled to do so. By your previous comments, I've understood you to mean #2. Jbarta (talk)

One last time and then i'm done. It is impossible for Obama to provide documentary evidence that something that never happened never happened. I can point out all the reasons why this particular brand of conspiratorial thinking is unlikely (to whit, the Indonesian government isn't in the habit of making 8-year old elementary students apply for citizenship and in fact makes it impossible for children not born of an indonesian father to become citizens) but i can't definitively "prove" this highly unlikely, unprecedented thing didn't happen. No one can.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So is it your assertion that Obama could not offer any documentation that would have any bearing on any citizenship related issue pertaining to his years in Indonesia because not only are no documents being withheld, no such documents even existed in the first place? That if Moses himself came down and compelled him to reveal any and all such documents he could not because there simply are none and never were any? Does that represent your view? (I'm not arguing, I'm trying to understand... if it looks as if the holy grail never existed, I might re-consider looking for it... just like I stopped looking for a "forged" birth certificate posted on Obama's web site... although don't ask me my other opinions on that "forgery", I guarantee you won't like them) Jbarta (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide documentary evidence that Moses existed? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe i'm getting drawn in again. Ok, real last try. Jbarta -- I demand you provide definitive documentation that you are not now and never have been a citizen of Zembla. Your failure to do so will be highly suspicious and indicative that you ARE a citizen of Zembla.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:RS/N about the sources. It appears that it is ok to say that WND says xyz and use WND as a source. If this is not what was said, please tell me.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, appears the discussion is still evolving.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw where Abecedare now seems to think that WDN is a reliable source. The question now is where when and how we will use this now RS.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I never stated that WND is a reliable source! Please read my comment on WP:RSN and above again. Abecedare (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look in the morning. If I mischaracterized what you said, I apologize and will strike them. It appears that WDN is a reliable source for what they themselves claim. It appears that I will now be sent to other forums until I am told no, right?Die4Dixie (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Potentially useful background info & analysis on the whole Soetoro/Indonesia issue. (unfortunately, some of the links are broken) Jbarta (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think WND is a reliable source under the definition used on WP. Just remember "reliable" doesn't mean "always correct", it simply means the story's been published by an organization with an editorial board. I certainly don't count it as "extremist". I simply suggest qualifying statements attributed to WND as "the conservative news outlet WorldNetDaily said xyz". Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I claim no expertise regarding WND. However, as my 21:46, 29 December 2008 edit showed, they engaged in some blatant self-contradiction regarding their assessment of the COLB authenticity question, with Joseph Farah in December misrepresenting what Drew Zahn had written in August. This should be taken into account when weighing WND's reliability.TheMaestro (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is only reliable for what WorldNetDaily says. There is no way in a million years that WDN could be considered a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They're an RS enough to quote in the article on what WND says, whether or not a more reliable source quoted them. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear. I only think it is reliable source for it's won comments, not for anything with a poistive/negative truth value.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then that raises notability issues. WND is notable enough to have an article about WND, but that doesn't mean that their opinion on any subject is notable to articles about that subject. We need reliable third-party sources which discuss WND 's opinion on these matters to make it notable enough for inclusion. We can't simply include their opinion as a primary source since they are neither a reliable source nor the subject of this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Im not so much interested in their opinion, but that page of theirs has a photograph allegedly of the school registration that the mainstream media is tiptoeing around, and a detailed albeit partisian discussion of such. We should simply say that an alleged photograph was discussed on WND. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't say anything of the sort. Because WND is not a reliable source, we can't cite a "photograph" from their website. Introducing weasel words such as "alleged" doesn't mitigate the situation in any way. WND is only a source for WND's opinion, not factual material and the notability of WND's opinion to this article has not been established in any way. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The photograph came from a site called Daylife which identifies it as an AP photo and says it has a partnership with the Associated Press. While I originally had doubts as to the provenance of this photo ( what you call "weasel words", I call understatement), I checked out Daylife and they appear to be a news site based in NYC. I'm positive this is a real AP photo; while I can't explain why this photo isn't more widely cited, I find it hard to believe that the AP would let a website say they had a partnership with them if it wasn't so. The WND article simply says that if he was formally adopted, then citizenship would be conferred upon him, and it says that it's difficult for noncitizens to register for school in Indonesia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If the photo is by the AP, then perhaps you should find it in a reliable source and a reliable source that dies that photo to the conspiracy theories. As has already been established several times here, WND isn't a reliable source that can be used to support "facts" about the various theories covered in this article. I've done some hunting around and I've only been able to find mention tying the photo (or his registering as Barry Soetoro for that matter) to the conspiracy theories in fringe sites and blogs... If you can find a source that we can use, then it can be included in the article, but until then there isn't much we can do. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we cite the AP photo itself for the claim the photo exists? Alternatively, there was an article in the Baltimore Sun[7] that detailed WorldNetDaily's prominence in questioning the legitimacy of Obama's taking office, and I believe citing it permits including WND material as a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

← Being recognized as covering a subject that has been deemed illegitimate by reliable sources does not make WorldNetDaily a reliable source on the topic. If anything, the Baltimore Sun article is just more evidence that WorldNetDaily is a fringe site that shouldn't be used in this article. As the guideline says, exceptional claims require exceptional sources and WorldNetDaily is definitely not an exceptional source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 10:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

An exceptional claim would be if we used WND to flat-out say that he held Indonesian citizenship, which I am definitely not suggesting. The Baltimore Sun article simply shows that WND can be a primary source in an article about Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I suggest using mainstream sources that talk about the school record and the alleged "adoption", but only using WND, after qualifying it as a "right-wing news source prominent in challenging the legality of his taking office" with a cite to Baltimore, to say that WND wrote about the aforementioned photograph. I don't plan to use WND's interpretations of the photograph. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WND's coverage of the conspiracy theories is already included in the article. That being said, if you can find a reliable source that covers the conspiracy theory and the "evidence" for that theory, then it should be unnecessary to source WND at all. If your only source is WND, then chances are, including the theory and evidence in this article is giving the theory undue weight. That's a round about way of saying, the use of WND is a bit of a catch-22. If a reliable source exists, use the reliable source, if a reliable source doesn't exist, then WND shouldn't be used due to undue weight.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Other media have made comments about a "school registration", but WND went ahead and actually referenced the photo. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mention by reliable sources of the school registration in regards to the conspiracy theory. I've seen it referenced in the "He's a Muslim!" kerfuffle, but not the "He's not a natural-born citizen" kerfuffle... Can you provide a link for this? The Baltimore Sun article you linked above doesn't mention the school registration or adoption theory at all. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian law at the time allowed naturalization of adopted children BUT only if it did not create dual citizenship.

US Law prevents a minor from renouncing their citizenship / Indonesian law at the time prohibited dual citizenship / Therefore Barack Obama did not become an Indonesian Citizen / QED

US Law prevents a minor from renouncing their citizenship / Somehow (illegally) Indonesia granted Obama citizenship / Therefore he became a dual US-Indonesian citizen / He is still a natural born US citizen (Perkins v. Elg) / QED

However you slice it, Indonesian citizenship is irrelevant to Obama's natural born US citizenship.Kevin (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Original intent of the Constitution

It seems to me that the original intent of the Constitutional provision could also be looked at. That was to prevent a European king or emperor from sending his son over to run for president with an eye towards making the US part of his domain. Has this been brought up in the public debate? If it has it could be mentioned in the article.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Has any reliable source brought this up in conjunction with this tinhattery? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that i've seen, and would involve a rather lengthy digression that would at best skirt original research, and would only be really relevant in a debate over what the supreme court might or might not do if it accepted a case and was considering "original intent" issues as it tried to make its ruling; the supreme court hasn't accepted any of these cases. No need for shoe-horning this in.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting historical background on the topic, but I would think it would find a better home in the natural-born citizen article. JBarta (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The matter is covered in the NBS article, which is already linked in the first graf. Nothing to do here. PhGustaf (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While the matter is best covered in NBC article, that article lacks one very important court citation which applies specifically here, namely from Lynch v. Clarke (NY-1844) which says "The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not." New York Legal Observer, 1844. Lynch was cited in United States v. Wong Kim Ark et al.Kevin (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's touched on by mentioning Jay's letter to Washington, but I wouldn't call it covered. I'd say there is room in the natural-born citizen article for more historical background covering the rationale behind the natural-born citizen clause in the Constitution. That said, I agree with you that it's proper place is not here. JBarta (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Original intent cannot be discussed in a vacuum (ignoring the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court decisions). Those who base their Obama citizenship deficiency arguments on original intent are essentially re-arguing United States v. Wong Kim Ark. We can't take on the scope of that discussion here. What we should say here is simply that most legal scholars agree that persons born in the United States (except for the families of ambassadors) are natural born citizens. For that there are several citations from law school professors, such as Joseph Chin, and law review articles, and court cases. See The Great Mother of All Natural Born Citizen Quotation Pages for your pick of referenceable citations.Kevin (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No-obama.jpg

This picture has reappeared. I'm guessing there will be someone else who figures it's not needed. So I figured I'd start a section where we can fight about about it. Personally I don't have much of an opinion either way, although I'd tend to side with leaving it in. I think relevant pictures make an article more interesting. (I just noticed though... according to the sign, the birth certificate is "sealed until after Nov 4th?") JBarta (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to have disappeared at some point - I'm not sure who removed it or why. I agree that it does add interest to the article; it is otherwise rather lacking in relevant images. The accompanying text speaks of how activists have promoted the claims, and the image shows a real-life example of such activism. Re the "sealed until after Nov 4th" claim, that was a conspiracy theory I recall seeing on some blogs before the election - that Obama's birth certificate would show that he was not eligible, but it would not be revealed until it was too late for anyone to do anything about it. Paranoid nonsense, of course... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh of course... nonsense... who in their right mind would ever believe that original birth certificate would ever see the light of day before or after Nov 4th? (At least not without a court order and enough legal wrangling to choke a mule... in an attempt to keep hidden that which no one is trying to hide... pure nonsense... of course.) JBarta (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you believe that the state of Hawaii is "in on" this "conspiracy?" Okay. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The original certificate is still sealed, so the idea that it would be unsealed after the election seems to be incorrect (so far). I have no problem with the image.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All birth certificates in Hawaii are "sealed." The state does not release personal records to anyone that asks for them, and with good reason. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the short form released by the Obama campaign is no longer sealed.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, geez. Not this again. First of all, there's nothing at all notable about some nut on the street making a crazy sign about his conspiratorial beliefs. Second of all, the caption, which was originally fought over, gives undue weight to this tinhat belief. He's not simply "protesting over Obama's birth certificate" he's making up a crazy lie about it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the only "crazy lie" is that he was mistakenly informed that after Nov 4th, the birth certificate would be released. Silly protester. JBarta (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is an appropriate forum for promoting these conspiracy theories. It's not. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see if we can't get some consensus here... yes image or no image? JBarta (talk)

• I say yes. JBarta (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• yes. It's an iconic image. As they say a picture is worth 1000 words.Kevin (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. It's not a vote. See WP:NOT#DEM for further explanation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, other than just doing things your way, how would you suggest we build consensus on this issue? You'll have to be patient with me (seriously)... I'm relatively new to the ways of Wikipedia. JBarta (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey's comment about "notability" is misplaced. The image does not illustrate the notability of any particular flavour of anti-Obama conspiracy theory. What it does illustrate, however, is anti-Obama conspiracy theory activism - in this particular case, at an Obama rally in November 2008, just before the election. It's the activism that is relevant and directly related to the text. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep the picture, if only as an entertaining bit of folk art. PhGustaf (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You leave the dumbass' picture. His family will be so proud.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be some support for keeping the picture so I'll drop it. However, I'm going to restore the original caption. The sign is promoting a conspiracy theory (and a decidedly false one at that). To say that he is simply "protesting about Obama's birth certificate" implies that it is a matter of opinion or that the claim has some sort of validity. It would be giving far too much weight to an extremely fringe claim (and thus veer into WP:BLP problems. Also, don't forget the subject of this article. It's not simply a dumping ground for anything anti-Obama, it's specifically about these conspiracy theories. If you're going to argue that it's not a conspiracy theory, then the photo really doesn't belong in the article to begin with. And finally, there is no way to verify where or when this photo was taken, so we can't really get that specific with it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone mentioned in this article is a conspiracy theorist. Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, for example, were not conspiracy theorists. The person in the image may or may not be a conspiracy theorist---we do not know one way or the other from the image. The word "Why?" is not a conspiracy theory, right? I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of smearing people as conspriacy theorists merely because they ask a monosyllabic question about why President-elect Obama does not release some information that is certainly pertinent to his eligibility, and is very similar to information that he has already released. I will restore the caption of ChrisO.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"May or may not be a conspiracy theorist?" Considering that he's made a sign espousing a false conspiracy theory, it's not a smear to say that he's promoting a conspiracy theory. And please, stop playing games and pretending that the issue is the word "why." When someone asks "why" of a falsehood, it violates WP:NPOV to say that he is simply "questioning" that which isn't even true. And again, if it's not a conspiracy theory then it doesn't belong in this article anyway. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see your birth certificate, Looneymonkey. I think you must be Hillary Clinton ("vast right-wing conspiracy...oooh....vast, vast I tell you").Ferrylodge (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead of silly edit warring, let us just caption the image with a straightforward description of what it is: a John McCain supporter holding a banner that questions the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. The scare quotes around "birth certificate" and the "Why?" clearly indicate the intent, and the McCain logo in the corner indicates the allegiances of the person who made the banner. If this caption argument is going to continue, it would be better to simply remove the image completely - particularly because of its dubious origin and conflicting copyright information. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the dubiousness? I asked the photographer if it could be used, and he gave permission and changed the licensing to allow us to use it. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess captioning it "Village idiot draws attention to failings of US educational system" won't fly?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe the claims about Obama's birth certificate having been forged are wholly baseless — but for whatever it might be worth, I have no objection at all to the current caption ("A John McCain supporter questioning the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate") — or perhaps to a more general caption along the lines of "A John McCain supporter questioning Obama's eligibility as a candidate for President". I don't feel any pressing need to explicitly dismiss the protestor as a loony conspiracy theorist in the caption of the photo. Richwales (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Give him points, at least he spelled every word correctly. Unlike the "morans" guy... I'm content with the current caption, by the way. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Current caption is okay.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

The Wikipedia policy about Youtube is as follows:

YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution. They may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere, such as Wesley Autrey's appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation.

In view of this policy, we may want to consider mentioning the following two Youtube vidoes in this article: Keith Olberman Interviews Jonathan Turley and Keyes Interview.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We couldn't link to the YouTube video of Turley's appearance on Olbermann because it is a copyright violation and, thanks to US law, knowingly linking to copyright violations is contributory infringement (See WP:COPY). If you can find a clip of the video that is authorized by MSNBC, then I could see it being linked, until then you'll be stuck using a link to the transcript. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How about the Keyes interview?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to allow a link to a YouTube video in general due to WP:SPS. I'm even less inclined to believe that an interview on a YouTube channel called IlluminatiTV is even remotely allowable on Wikipedia. That being said, you could come up with a suggested wording for a sentence for it to reference and then post it on WP:RS/N for review. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure it's worth my time. It's clearly Keyes speaking about the subject of this article, and I have no doubts about the video's authenticity. But I think I'd rather go see Gran Torino (film) tonight, rather than haggle about this.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The first two google hits for the Keye's interviewer 'Molotov' Mitchell ([8], [9]), don't inspire confidence as to its journalistic/encyclopedic value. Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The video is not relevant for the perspicacity or neutrality of the interviewer, but rather for the remarks of the interviewee. If we had reliable evidence that Keyes had published the same exact remarks in some unsavory print publication, then there would be no question about footnoting it here in this article. When a politician gives a speech, Wikipedia doesn't ignore it merely because of who the audience was.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point. If a reliable source, say Wall Street Journal or Washington Post had interviewed Alan Keyes and published his quotes in the newspaper, that would establish that the content has undergone editorial review and is noteworthy. On the other hand, when a person known for his open bias and "inflammatory YouTubing" interviews Keyes and publishes it on Youtube, it does not make the comments noteworthy, unless some respectable source, like the aforementioned newspapers, specifically refers to them. So yes, the savoriness of the publication of an interview is a factor to consider in weighing the value of proposed article content. Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think you're getting a bit bogged down in the rules. To the extent that this Wikipedia article is about Alan Keyes, the video is basically equivalent to a self-published statement by him, which is often fine per Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. But like I said, I don't intend to push for inclusion of the video. Better things to do.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about Alan Keyes, to the extent that this article is about a person, that person is Barack Obama. It is true that Alan Keyes is a player in the conspiracy theories swirling around his eligibility status, but any use of a self-published source that is not by Barack Obama would be inappropriate use here. As noted in the verifiability policy, self-published sources can only be used to support uncontroversial claims about the person in the source in their article. It's a bit of a stretch to say that comments Alan Keyes is making about Barack Obama meet the criteria of WP:SELFPUB. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 11:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, you've convinced me. We'll leave out both the Olberman and Keyes videos. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Title tag

I notice that an editor’s comment about the title was recently deleted,[10] so I’ll restore it below (the deletion was understandable, since the comment was inserted into a closed discussion). Also, I notice that an editor recently inserted an NPOV tag on the article due to the title, and the tag was subsequently removed.[11] The following tag would be more appropriate: {{Disputed title|date=January 2009}}.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward installing that tag. There was a majority for naming this article as it has been named, but considerable opposition as well.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after suggesting this tag, and then reminding people about it, and seeing that there was no opposition, I inserted it at 7:03 on 18 January. Then along comes an editor who reverts it with this edit summary: "Please don't add disruptive tag on issue that has been polled and RfC'd almost daily for weeks."[12] First of all, I don't care for the insinuation that I've been disruptive. Such derogatory and insulting accusations are all too frequent at Wikipedia, and it's a royal pain in the ass. Regarding the title, yes, it was polled and RfC'd almost daily for weeks, because....obviously....the title is disputed. So what's wrong with saying it's a disputed title? Give me a break. There was zero previous discussion about inserting the tag.

It says at the top of this talk page: "Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, banned by an administrator from this and related articles and pages, and/or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia." If I did not know better, I might think that this flimsy accusation of disruption was an attempt to get me blocked or banned. Perhaps the editor in question might want to withdraw the absurd accusation?

It seems like it ought to be possible to disagree with another editor, and even to revert another editor, without making inflammatory and false accusations.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you just changed your comment [and you shouldn't do this after several editors responded already] I have to squeeze my response in here. The title was discussed before as was pointed out and if there was zero discussion as you said you somehow missed it even so you where involved if I'm not mistaken.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed my comment before anyone responded to it. Care to provide a diff for this latest accusation ? What is this, Accusation Day? As for the rest of your comment, I do not understand what you're saying. There was previous discussion about what the title should be, but zero previous discussion about whether to insert the tag or not. And please try not to insert comments in the middle of other people's comments. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. [13]--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I count 15 responses after your initial comment before your latest edit to it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Clean-Keeper, perhaps you can educate me here. There were 15 responses to other peoples' comments, not to my comment, right? What's wrong with editing a comment of mine before anyone has responded to my comment? And what advantage or benefit was there in you posting your comment in the middle of mine; I honestly do not understand.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your "15 responses" remark seems totally false to me. Here's a diff showing my comment and all edits I subsequently made to my comment. No one responded in the interim. Why do you say that there were 15 responses?????Ferrylodge (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and why are you taking it as an accusation????????--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I edited my comment at 00:29 on 19 January. Have you got a diff of anyone responding to my comment before 00:29 on 19 January? Whether your assertion (about editing my comment after someone had already responded to it) was an accusation or instead was something else, the assertion was not true, as I would hope you would please acknowledge. I would view it as rude if someone actually made a non-trivial edit to a comment to which someone had already responded.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FL, you started this section so comments are based on your initial comment(s).

But why are you so (eager?) to "proof me wrong" or whatever you try to achieve with your responses? There is no right and wrong and I would like to keep on commenting on the issue(s) as I did and so should you. Everything else just doesn't belong here and just leads us further away from the subject. So why don't we keep this kind of "stuff" out of here?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already moved this conversation to your talk page.[14] I'm sorry that you do not see the seriousness of asserting that I edited a comment after 15 people already responded to it. If what you really meant is that I am supposed to post all comments at the end of a talk page section, and never between other comments, then I think that takes "clean-keeping" to an unwise extreme. In any event, I do not understand how posting a comment between other comments would justify your subsequent comment right in the middle of mine.[15]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, I responded there.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The title is biased and seeks to add editorial commentary to the issues surrounding the eligibility of president elect BO|BS. Case in point "A number of fringe activists, pundits and political opponents" is false. There are a significant portion of the US population that are primarily concerned with upholding the law. Period. Rename the article or delete it because objectivity is out the window here.72.46.221.164 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The law is being upheld. That is not at issue here. Kooky conspiracy theories that are not supported as fact by a single reliable source are the subject of this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "kooky" conspiracy in this? Who has to conspire to be sure ONE MAN's long form birth certificate isn't given out? No one conspires to do that, one person signs for it. This isn't a conspiracy, it's everyday laziness by government officials who can't be held accountable to do their job so they don't. Here's the single fact, the long form hasn't been produced and the short form doesn't hold water. This is what I call the tiger in the woods phenomenon - a man sees a tiger in the woods, or is it a shadow? Should he really wait around to find out? The mind is good at finding patterns, especially ones that have an outside chance of being deadly. There are plenty of good and solid minds seeing a tiger here - so word to the wise be careful who you are calling kooks at the cost of your own credibility. Huckit (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you actually suggesting? That Obama's long-form birth certificate doesn't exist? Why would they issue a short-form certificate for him then? In order to believe your kooky theory that Obama falsified his citizenship, you would have to also believe that the State of Hawaii is in on the conspiracy. Sorry, you're welcome to believe whatever crazy stuff you like, but there isn't a single reliable source anywhere that supports it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to see the bias. Use a parallel fiction replacing terms with counterparts of equal toxicity: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - becomes - Barack Obama citizenship indolence theories; A number of fringe activists, pundits and political opponents of the Illinois Senator alleged that he was not a natural-born citizen...- becomes - A number of corrupted officials, fatuous asses and something-for-nothingers assert he is a natural-born citizen; And so forth. Wikipedia seems like the Constitution of the US, if you don't uphold the {objectivity|law of the land} you lose your {credibility|representational democracy}.Huckit (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Like the faked moon landings or Jewish complicity in 9/11, the notion that Obama is somehow ineligible to be president simply falls into the lunatic fringe of Tinfoil Conspiracy-Land. The allegations simply aren't credible or notable, as much as the truthers would like them to be. So, the title is more than apt to describe the situation. Tarc (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You have seen the long form of the birth certificate? Or maybe you've seen the Harvard records? Likely not, and you haven't addressed the bias but you did use language characteristic of someone incapable of discussing an issue with maturity.Huckit (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Would a title like Challenges to Barack Obama's eligibility as President of the United States be more palatable (or, perhaps better said, more equally unpalatable to people on all sides)? Richwales (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WIthin the past week or so there were four straw polls on a name change with a clear consensus on no change. There is no new information that would have changed that majority opinion.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias is bias. Get rid of it or lose credibility.Huckit (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Labelling them as "Challenges" gives the false impression that they hold much water. Grsz¹¹ 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Call it speculation and be clear that the long form of the birth certificate isn't made public domain. Explain why Kenyans say he was born in Kenya.Huckit (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Which "Kenyans" are you referring to? Can you cite a single reliable source that Claims Obama was born in Kenya? --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Kenyan ambassador says his birthplace is well known in a phone call on a public radio show. Maybe you want to call that unreliable but why leave something to chance if it doesn't have to be especially considering the stakes. Also if I'm wrong about that then I want to know. The long form hasn't been produced and there's sufficient doubt. The short form in that state proves a parent applied for a birth certificate, nothing else. Hold this man to the same standards as any citizen. This is not a conspiracy, this is just plain old alleged fraud. Mainstream isn't synonymous with correct, unbiased or objective. Lots of people have an axe to grind on this subject, so this article should have it ground on both sides - then it would be sharp.Huckit (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no, you need a reliable source to make your argument. And using wording such as "why leave something to chance" and "Hold this man to the same standards as any citizen" indicate that you seem to have a certain agenda to push here, and it would be better for yourself and everyone if you dropped that. Grsz¹¹ 04:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

← I note that the "disputed title" tag was added, with no discussion here other than an assertion by one editor that he's inclined to do so. Seems to me the overwhelming and repeated consensus, as Bali ultimate points out, was that the current title was the right one. Numerous "straw polls" were conducted, all with the same result. If consensus is that the title should stand, is adding this tag not just another way of re-opening the same futile discussion? I realize that the tag just states that there is a dispute, but the dispute was repeatedly rejected, so what is the point of the tag other than to perpetuate the discussion? Is there consensus for the tag? Can other editors weigh in please? Tvoz/talk 08:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tvoz. We just closed an RFC on this like 12 days ago. I understand that consensus can change, but barring some new development "Conspiracy theories" or "Fringe theories" are the most WP:NPOV, WP:V (policy) compliant titles. Note that this new discussion does not contain a single reliable source to back up any of the arguements presented. --guyzero | talk 08:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Insertion of the tag was simply a bad-faith exercise in WP:POINT. This was extremely inappropriate (and sanctionable) behavior by Ferrylodge. Cut out the nonsense! He knows better perfectly well, and should discontinue this abuse of WP before a user conduct RfC is necessary. LotLE×talk 09:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed your comment here, LotLE. I've already responded to your accusatory edit summary above. I would suggest that you get a grip, and stop making blatantly false accusations. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

google.com define:conspiracy - a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act - Princeton Wordnet. Conspiracy theory tag hasn't been established. Onus is on the author to establish the "fringe theory" is actually a conspiracy theory. Currently long form of the birth certificate is controlled by a single person - no conspirator(s) required.Huckit (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oha. By that definition we have to change titles for quite a lot of articles as for example the 9/11 conspiracy theories, right?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong and your rationalization for the misnomer is irrelevant. Conspiracy Theory requires a group, this issue can be put to rest by one man. In the case of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, (ie controlled demolition) multiple officials are required. There is no ground for calling this a conspiracy theory except to push a position since that designation is considered derogatory by most (on par with "kook"). Should wikipedia engage in name calling? By your rationale, allowing this sort of name calling is tantamount to opening every page to opinion and abusive attack.Huckit (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources call these items "conspiracy theories" or "false rumors": [16], [17], [18], [19]. thanks, --guyzero | talk 08:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, your reliable sources amount to two unheard news sites, an opinion piece and the perpetually biased Washington Post (only read the first two sentences and you know what tack they're on - unabashedly). If I could find the AP release I saw (Donofrio/Berg?) I'd post it. Rather unlikely they would stoop to this name calling.Huckit (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It is derogatory in regards to those who have filed these frivolous lawsuits, yes, and rightly so. These were fringe theories, far removed from any sort of serious mainstream coverage. When reliable sources did note the topic, it was merely to note the conspiracy/fringiness of it, not to give legitimate coverage, because there was no legitimacy to begin with. The article is aptly named, and should remain so. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, frivolous. We will stamp them out with name calling. And we all know unequivocally the mainstream is always right. Anyone who questions it should have no voice and be given no quarter because they are kooky and wrong. Sieg heil.Huckit (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press/USA Today: [20] (new release), AOLNews: [21] (editorial) also refer to these as "conspiracy theories" or "unfounded, conspiratorial". cheers, --guyzero | talk 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Clearly you can't ask this man (above all men) to produce the complete background documents or you will be labeled a conspiracy theorist synonymous with kook. I see now how a small but significant fraction of the population is insane.Huckit (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you invoked the almighty Godwin's Law above, it is probably safe to consider this matter concluded. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, by the same token name calling makes this article garbage.Huckit (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Article probation removal

Seeing as the fever pitch leading up to the election & inauguration has subsided and troubles occurring in this article are no more than any other article, I propose that we remove the Article Probation tag. There hasn't been a sanction in over two months and except for one, there hasn't even been a post on the probation talk page in nearly a month. JBarta (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The lack of sanctions simply shows that the probation is working. And this article is particularly susceptible to troubles. Leave it be. PhGustaf (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the only way to deal with article vandalism and disruptive edits is to place an article on probation? Let's assume we were to remove the probation tag, what do you suppose would happen and how might the absence of the probation tag hamper any effort to deal with such vandalism? And no, I don't entirely buy that lack of sanctions means the probation is working. If there were still a serious problem, then I would think there would still be a steady stream of sanctions. (I'm reminded of a law that apparently was on the books in Cleveland until recently that cattle could not be driven down a particular main avenue in the city. It could have been argued that since no one had been driving cattle down that road in decades, it was obvious that the law was working.) JBarta (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The probation is not specifically applied against this article, but rather against all of the articles related to Barack Obama. If you want to get the probation on this article lifted, you will need to have that discussion on WP:AN/I and get the probation lifted off the entire topic. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It would seem most Obama related pages are actually NOT on article probation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 If all Obama related articles have been put on probation, but in reality most are not... is there a reason for that contradiction? JBarta (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It just means that most articles don't have the template on them, it does not mean that they are not covered by the probation. Please read Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation for a definition of what is covered by the article probation. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I take that to mean one of two things, either the template is optional, or the other articles have them incorrectly omitted. Which is correct? JBarta (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

All Obama related articles are under probation even if they don't state so.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose end of "probation." No strong reason for it, good reasons against it.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's probably a little of both. The template is meant as a warning to new users to save people from having to warn them that the article is under probation, but the lack of the template does not mean the article is not covered by the probation. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree that anything is cooling down, indeed the conspiracy theorists have literally gone nuts over the last few days, with calls for the arrest of the Supreme Court, the creation of a civilian militia and a "new government". Philip Berg is even pleading for Oprah to intervene with Barack Obama to act like a man and decline to be sworn in. Dr. Orly Taitz is demanding Chief Just Roberts recuse himself from swearing in Obama due to conflict of interest. I am now tracking 62 anti-Obama web sites with significant fringe/conspiracy theory content. Keep it on probation.Kevin (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

When an article probation is established at WP:AN, it has to be removed there. A little side discussion at a sub article talk page is not sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 00:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(Admin hat on.) This is an instance of topic probation, not the much narrower article probation applicable to a single page. In this case, all articles related to the general topic of Barack Obama (broadly construed) are subject to editing sanctions for an indefinite period. This is applicable whether or not any specific article has been flagged as being under probation. It is only withdrawn when the topic probation itself is withdrawn. Removing the template would not end the probation on this article; only the ending of the topic probation as a whole would do that. I don't see much chance of that any time soon, so any talk about ending it for this article is moot anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly deserve your "admin hat" here as you pointed out the facts of the probation in a clear and non-challengeable manner.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the situation better now. Thank you all for your patience. JBarta (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Document Examiners

How can we adequately cover the conspiracy theories without talking about the "forensic document examiners"--Sandra Lines, and the pseudonymous "Ronald Polarik, PhD" and "TechDude"? Kevin (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

refutation of foreign birth

I made this edit, and it was undone. The statement from the Dir of Health ONLY says they have the birth certificate... not that he was or was not born in Hawaii. There is no reason to extend the Dir's statement to infer a location of birth. Just report what was stated. JBarta (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to be pedantic. Nothing is being inferred. The very fact they confirmed that Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate is confirmation that he was born in Hawaii (and a refutation of claims that he was not). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. You are synthesizing a fact. The state of Hawaii did not confirm or refute he was born in Hawaii. They have confirmed they have his original birth certificate. At best, somewhere along the line, the director may have said something along the lines that his birth certificate states he was born in Hawaii (which would be true because the certification of birth does state the place of birth as Hawaii). But the Director of Health has not made the clear statement that Obama was born in Hawaii... or anywhere else for that matter. It's not pedantic... it's accurate. JBarta (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's completely pedantic and not at all accurate. A Hawaiian birth certificate is proof that he was born in Hawaii. That's how a birth certificate works. By confirming that they have his long-form birth certificate, they are confirming that he was born in Hawaii. Anyway, his short form birth certificate says the same quite clearly. You're trying make quite a stretch and the intention seems to be to obfuscate, rather than clarify. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press starts its report about the Fukino statement as "State officials said Friday there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii," and Seattle Times headlines it as "Hawaii: Obama born in U.S." Isn't our lead consistent with that ? I don't see how "born in Hawaii" is not a refutation of foreign birth; but I am sure conspiracists will find a way :) Abecedare (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling the argument is soon going to be about what the definition of "is" is. ;) --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that no one has objected to the lead saying that Obama was "sworn in as President." After all, that is patently false and as Chris Wallace opined, "I'm not sure that Barack Obama really is the President of the United States." Should keep some bloggers/websites busy for the next four years ! Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I was a little surprised at the slightly jumbled oath. I've seen quite a few inaugurations and don't remember anything quite like that. JBarta (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the Seattle Times saw fit to make the leap (my apologies). The way Wikipedia works, it seems that if a reliable source says something, then it can be included. I still believe the Hawaii statement merely says they have the original birth certificate on record, nothing more. I believe that's the way it should also read in this article. Extending that statement to suggest the Dept of Health ALSO refutes any possible foreign birth is incorrect in my opinion. If the dept wished to say he was born in Hawaii, then one would think they'd say he was born in Hawaii. They didn't. Since "reliable" sources also make the same mistake and Wikipedia seems to value reliable sources' interpretations as much (or possibly more than) the actual statement being reported on, my only recourse seems to be to drop it. JBarta (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's like claiming that just because a doctor is quoted as saying "the patient is walking around the hospital and talking with his family" we can't infer that the patient is alive. Ridiculous. Obama couldn't have a Hawaiian birth certificate unless he was born in Hawaii. If he has a birth certificate, he was born there, end of story (unless you subscribe to ultra-kooky conspiracy theories in which the state of Hawaii is in on this massive fraud and illegally issued a birth certificate to a foreigner). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example... if I said my shirt had red in it, would you be accurate in reporting that I said I had a red shirt? No, you would be accurate in reporting that I said my shirt had red in it. JBarta (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

By OR I would tip on Menstruation :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, like, do you birthers watch television or anything? It's over. He's been sworn in, he's president, he's going to 10 inauguration balls hoping he doesn't fall over from exhaustion. Whether you think he was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or a crater on Mars, he's president now and democracy is still functioning and the constitution is still in effect and the world hasn't collapsed. Get over it, find another article to work on, and move forward. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha... lololol. WTR, you just rounded up my day with you're funny but accurate remark. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have the nagging feeling I'm in the wrong place. JBarta (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe not. It's up to you to decide.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WTR is a killjoy, pay him no mind. However, unless and until one of these lawsuits (e.g. the Keyes lawsuit) is actually heard by a court of law, there's really not much to do here at this article. If the Keyes lawsuit progresses, then we'll have some additional info to add here, most likely along the lines of "Obama releases original birth certificate signed by doctor indicating precise birthplace in Hawaii hospital."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I "dare" to differ. WTR is a decent and excellent editor who contributed for a long time in a NPOV manner that most of us can only dream of. You don't have to agree with WTR but you certainly are not in the position of judging and dismissing his/her comment like this. But good luck with the lawsuit.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your. Humor. Detector. Is. Malfunctioning. I didn't think I needed to put a smiley face after that first sentence. I've been busily changing "Obama" to "President Obama" at Wikipedia, just like the other reasonable people have been doing.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My "humor-detector" never malfunctions. As a matter of fact this would be logically impossible but your smiley generator seems to have that problem :) By the way:"Patents, trademarks, and copyrights". If you're not a "rip-off" kinda guy I might get back to you sometime :p .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I ain't cheap. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you're a "rip-off" just as I thought :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Ferrylodge stole that line from me! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a copyright attorney so I can do as I damn please (shudders to think that Obama is a constitutional law attorney). Killjoy.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought you were a patent attorney. I guess the same knowledge/skills apply to both. If you find some legal attack on the GFDL, we can all quit this and do something useful! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights. The all-inclusive term is "intellectual property." I fell way behind at work due to Wikipedia, but the recession is conveniently giving me a chance to catch up with work (at the cost of half my life savings, by the way). If Obama helps fill up my coffers, then I'll be happy just like all the other greedy, selfish, materialistic Americans.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

IP lawyers are a frequent presence in the software biz, and are reviled by the FOSS crowd (which doesn't include me). But if you grind your teeth for the next four years, that won't be good for your business either ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I hereby return this talk page to conspiracy-related matters....I mean fringe matters.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just was about to say: You know that we're soaping here like I never saw before (and never anticipated also) but hopefully no one pays attention and shuts us down. That is soooo against the WP spirit.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama has re-taken the oath, so there goes that potential obsession. Next, Obama is heading for Hawaii, to be reborn again! Which will take care of this article. If you consider that Lost is about to restart, perhaps not as impossible as you might think :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What a wet blanket! Just as I was about to register www.obamaisnotpresident.com and make my millions :( Abecedare (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment for WP:WikiProject Barack Obama

In concordance with four other projects and in recognition of the detailed content and huge number of sources I must give this article a B rating, but with reluctance. There are some confusing aspects of the structure and some point of view issues that need to be fixed. The title of the article says that it is about theories, but it is not well structured to allow readers to consider each theory independently - it tends to lump them together. (I also agree that the name should change, because a conspiracy theory requires a conspiracy - a legal argument about British citizenship, however unreasonable, is not a conspiracy theory). The point of view errs on one hand by using words like "fringe" much too often, and on the other by failing to make clear from the lead onward which ideas or "theories" were explicitly denied by court decisions or other broad consensus actions. Mike Serfas (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been uncomfortable with the tone of this article since I first read it, and have never liked the title. Although I recognize that partisans from both camps have strongly-held beliefs regarding the President's legitimacy, the Freedom on Information Act issues and Constitutional Law seem to have received short shrift. Perhaps a card-carrying member of the Green Party with asbestos underdrawers and a law degree could reorganize and update this one? Nightmote (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The allegation is that people are conspiring to hide the "truth" about Obama's citizenship. Therefore, it's a conspiracy theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What BB says: The alleged conspiracies are to hide the truth about Obama's actual citizenship, birthplace, whatever. The theories discussed have two aspects: (1) Something happened differently than what is purported (or having a different legal significance); (2) A bunch of folks have conspired to hide/obfuscate/etc this event/meaning. LotLE×talk 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assertions are not correct. The legal position of those bringing suit is, by and large, that the vetting process of the United States government is not comprehensive enough or trasparent enough for an individual with a complex family history including a non-citizen parent and multi-year residence outside of the United States. I think that it would be productive to expand the "litigation" section to include a BRIEF summary of all federal and state lawsuits, which are the heart of the article. I think that the "commentary and criticism" section should be eliminated altogether because it invites a war of conflicting quotes while avoiding the chilling presence of facts. Nightmote (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking away the criticisms would leave the casual reader with the false impression that the suits actually have merit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The merit of any given suit is established by the verdict. The commentary section of this article deals with opinions, not facts. One could include any number of quotes for or against the suits; the quotes (unless they form part of a majority or minority court opinion) have no bearing and should go. Nightmote (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Donofrio comments on lawsuit and aftermath

There's what appears to be a blog-type post from Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/truce/ dated February 1. He disassociates himself from the idea, promulgated by some birthers, that military personnel should refuse to obey orders on the basis that Obama isn't legitimately the Commander in Chief. He expresses his complete lack of faith in the U.S. legal system. He also recounts what he says are incidents of harassment related to his lawsuit -- some kind of sabotage of his cell phone, people following him for weeks, helicopters over his home "every night for hours", etc., and the appearance of some "Blackwater types" who detected his presence in Washington to file papers at the Supreme Court and tried to intercept him. Perhaps most important is that, in the aftermath of the litigation, he writes, "I am now going to step away from the POTUS eligibility issue and move on with my life."

Of course, a blog isn't a reliable source for the truth of factual matters asserted therein, but a post by Donofrio could be cited to present facts about his opinions. I just don't know the provenance of this particular page. Is it actually by Donofrio? If we can be confident on that point then there should be some reference to it. JamesMLane t c 06:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a self-published source can only be used to support uncontroversial info about the author (i.e. minor biographical information), it can't be used to support the author's opinion about a different subject, unless they are a recognized expert in the field (i.e. published scholar). Since Donofrio is not a recognized expert in the field, any self-published source of his can only be used to support minor, non-controversial biographical information about him. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 12:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

His various attention-seeking claims, and his face-saving attempts to distance himself from all of this, just reinforce the conspiracy-theory nature of his arguments. And considering the shady way that Dubya got the job, they've got a lot of nerve challenging Obama's authority to be commander-in-chief. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"shady"? You should consider recusing yourself from this article.Nightmote (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it can't be used to support Donofrio's opinion. We could not assert as a fact that Obama is ineligible or that the legal system is corrupt or that helicopters buzzed Donofrio's house, with our only support for any such statement being Donofrio's blog. We can, however, report facts about opinions, per WP:NPOV. Donofrio's blog is a perfectly valid source for a statement like "Donofrio has expressed his complete lack of faith in the U.S. legal system" or "Donofrio asserted that, as a result of filing his lawsuit, people were following him." To take the specific example that I think is the best candidate for inclusion, the cited page states, "I am now going to step away from the POTUS eligibility issue and move on with my life." If we're confident that it is indeed Donofrio's own blog, then that passage will support a statement in our article along the lines of "Following Obama's inauguration, Donofrio announced his intention to 'step away' from the issue." Donofrio has been a significant player in this drama. His decision to give up merits a sentence in the article. JamesMLane t c 03:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IF it's actually his blog. Can that be verified? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

attacks upon my sanity... Um... Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic and biased

Added tags because this article, which is longer than the article about Obama's campaign, effectively gives credence to a theory so insane and obscure not one Congressman objected to Obama's confirmation. WRT the lawsuits: vexatious litigation, vexatious litigation, poker player, health food vendor, and a politican who's still pissed that Obama didn't even need to campaign to be elected to the Senate four years ago. Hardly shows notability, does it? Legislatively, five state representatives from conservative states. At least half of the "responses" from real people don't seem to be belief in the theory; just a request for greater transparency. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How does it give credence? As far as I can see, every theory proposed is dismissed in documented fashion in the article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

By giving so much room on Wikipedia to it. This article is longer than the article about Obama's campaign. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe instead of just trying to delete the article, or slapping tags over it, why not try and help make the article better? Maybe by helping the article it gets trimmed down in size? Might that be a little more constructive? Brothejr (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple questions sometimes require complex answers, and the ones raising those questions have a place to go, here, to get those answers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And it's closed as a keep, like it was last time, because most everyone here realizes these theories are bogus, but the article serves a purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it's unacceptable for Wikipedia. End of. You can't fix something that didn't work the first time. It's a minority fringe concept; we have five state representatives out of over seven thousand subscribing to this theory. Given that lower house legislators, as a rule, love playing party politics, five state representatives objecting to his confirmation is a really low number. To be acceptable for Wikipedia as a fringe theory, you would've need at least one federal representative, or an equivalent proportion at state level, to have objected to Obama's confirmation. No-one at the federal level did. Compare to Dubya, who had twenty federal representatives challenge his confirmation. Another reason why it's unacceptable is because it's a POV fork. You wouldn't be able to get it into Barack Obama, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, Public image of Barack Obama or United States presidential election, 2008. It isn't linked to in {{BarackObamaSegmentsUnderInfoBox}} or {{Barack Obama}}. This article was created to highlight a wingnut theory that doesn't need highlighting. If it was created to refute, it's unacceptable for Wikipedia is not in the business of refuting theories just for the sake of. If it was created to promote, it's unacceptable for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not for promoting fringe theories. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus says otherwise. End of. Who subscribes to the theory doesn't matter. The theory has been deemed notable due to reliable sources reporting on it. That doesn't make it true. You can post a tag that argues NPOV. Posting a tag claiming the article shouldn't exist, is your own pointy POV-pushing, defying consensus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not, and never has done, override NPOV. It is notable by the general notability guideline. But a lot of fringe theories are. Different notability guidelines apply to fringe theories, based on the real-life acceptance of the theory. If a theory is so obscure it's held by a extremely small minority, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It isn't notable by relative standards, either. Sure, reliable sources reported on it. But that's what they're supposed to do. Anything to do with Obama is sure to have been reported on during election season. Obama's kids got way more coverage from news sources during the election, but they're covered less in Wikipedia. Something about that screams "undue weight". Sceptre ^(talk) 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this article is a POV fork, because it's dealing in comprehensive detail with a minor point that doesn't have enough weight to be included in the major Obama articles. It's also not really longer than the Obama campaign article, once you include that article's subarticles (such as the one that covers the whole primary campaign) into the total. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what makes this article inadmissable. If it doesn't have enough weight to be included in the major Obama articles, not even as a two-line sentences, it shouldn't be its own article. This should be covered, if it must, in the election/transition and campaign articles: the campaign article should deal with the Obama team refuting the claims; and transition/election article covering the lawsuits, with one or two sentences per lawsuit at the most. What people don't seem to realise is that Wikipedia does not cover theories just so they can be refuted. Wikipedia may refute theories, but in an encyclopedic manner. I have my doubts as to how encyclopedic this is; it seems like a quote/reference farm at the least. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is mentioned in Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And there were many comments in the two AFD's that explain the value of the article. We acknowledge that Sceptre doesn't like it. We don't particularly like it either. But it covers a notable topic and it serves a purpose. If you delete it, its information will reappear soon after when some latecomer from conservapedia or someplace decides that it needs to be here. Then Sceptre can spend even more time on trying to get rid of it, instead of focusing on other work. I don't see where that scenario is any improvement over the current situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable by what metric? That it was covered by the news media in detail? Newsflash!: Every minute detail about him is, and was going to be covered. Take for example, the rumour he was Muslim. It was covered in about the same amount of detail as this by the media, with about as many sources. It was deleted. Overwhelmingly. The current trend at AFD that all articles can be fixed is too optimistic/idealistic. Sometimes articles such as this can't be fixed. Besides, keeping "because someone will insert it somewhere else anyway" is not a good argument for keeping material. We just revert, block, and ignore any conservatrolls who try to insert this material. Capisce? Sceptre ^(talk) 20:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your complaints. And consensus says otherwise. Capisce? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can't override policies or guidelines fully, only bend them a little. You can't formulate a consensus to have policy-violating material. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but consensus is that this article does not violate policies. You really need to acknowledge that and move on to something more productive. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that consensus is at odds to the consensus on the other Obama articles that this is too inconsequential/retarded for the other articles, which makes this an undue weight issue. I haven't been told how exactly this article doesn't give undue weight. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing undue weight with the concept of encyclopedicity. Undue weight is an article-specific issue. It would certainly be undue weight in other Obama articles, which is why such content has been removed and migrated into this article where necessary. However, by definition a discussion of Obama conspiracy theories can't be undue weight in an article that is dedicated to the topic of Obama conspiracy theories. By comparison, it would be undue weight to have a lengthy discussion of flat earthism in an article about geography, but there's no problem discussing that POV in an article dedicated to the topic of a flat earth. To quote WP:UNDUE: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Consensus has already been reached on several occasions that this topic is encyclopedic in its own article but is undue weight in others, so the requirements of WP:UNDUE are clearly satisfied. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If a theory is so obscure it isn't allowed as an opposing view in an article the size of Barack Obama, odds are that it isn't allowed on Wikipedia at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I opposed creation of this article, and have never opposed deletion of it. However, there is some logic to the notion that the best way to refute nonsense is to provide enlightenment, and to do so in a neutral, non-disparaging manner. At 54kb, this article does not seem to long. Per WP:TOOLONG, "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style)." So, while some may prefer to cut this article down to a stub in lieu of deleting this article, I do not support the tag atop the article saying it's too long.

If you take a close look at the facts surrounding Obama's Mom, it strains credulity that she did not visit Kenya until after her first husband's death in the 1980s. But the chance that she was there during Obama's birth is extremely vanishingly remote. There's a slightly greater chance that Obama may have falsely claimed a foreign birth if that was advantageous to get financial aid, which I suspect is why the fringe attorneys are now going after his records at Occidental College: not to prove a foreign birth, but rather to fish for embarassing material. Anyway....none of that speculation needs to go into this article. What I'm saying is: this article's not currently too long. That's not to say that it could not be made more concise here and there.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha. The plot thickens. Ya know, Horse Feathers was filmed at Occidental. So maybe Obama really is a "Marxist"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some resemblance to Curly, at least policy-wise.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Better Curly than Hoover. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Better Hoover than Bluto... oh wait, Hoover went to Faber, not Occidental. never mind. Blueboar (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you Otter apologize for that one. Speaking of which... John Tyler was the first Accidental President. So does this make Obama the first Occidental President? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Curly deserves a Last Hurrah. PhGustaf (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, Ferrylodge, you may be close to stumbling upon The Truth and then soon, like your pal Donofrio above, you'll be forced to dye your hair, travel off the grid, and spot agents of the "cult" disguised as homeless people. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If only there were enough left to bother dying. Do we have an article on Sy Sperling yet?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

God is great / God is fair / To some he gave brains / To others, hair. Of course, if that translated into electoral popularity, McCain would have won by a landslide. Or at least by a hair. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Turning the argument around: why isn't the case for ending the ban on non-American born persons being allowed to run for the Presidency (even if other constraints are imposed - eg "many years' residence")? From what I understand there was logic behind the original decision - and I read somewhere that a future-President's birthdate was altered so that he would appear to be born on US soil rather than on ship - and the argument has already been made with respect to Arnold_Schwarzenegger. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cuz of the tearists and the imgrunts. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's arguable that the "natural-born citizen" bit in the Constitution has served its purpose (we have had no European kings taking over) and should be removed. But this isn't the place to discuss the matter. PhGustaf (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that the non-English-speaking King George I of England and the likewise German-born King George II influenced this point, but many Americans still don't think that outsourcing the Presidency is a good idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Although the discussion on postmodern Constitutional relevancy is fascinating, could we please get back to improving this article? — Becksguy (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs. The proposal to amend the Constitution so that Ah-nuld could be President is mentioned in Natural born citizen of the United States, which is where it belongs. JamesMLane t c 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it really a conspiracy theory?

A major problem with this article is that it purports, maybe unwillingly, that there is a conspiracy. Looking at the article, there seems to be a challenge to Obama's citizenship, but not really among the lines of conspiracy theory. The only ones who think it's a conspiracy are relative (to other conspiracy theorists) nutjobs and highly partisan publications or people. Hell, looking at the "citizenship facts, rumours, and claims", the only person seeming to do any conspiracy theorising is Phillip Berg, who we can write off right now as a nutjob. Maybe we can get the undue weight problem to "fixable" levels by renaming the article, possibly to something like "Challenges to Barack Obama's presidential eligibility". And yes, I know it's been discussed before, but it wouldn't hurt. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's any conspiracy here, it's an alleged conspiracy to challenge eligibility, rather than an alleged conspiracy to misrepresent eligibility. Better to leave "conspiracy" out of the title. I don't think even Berg has asserted that Hawaii officials have engaged in any conspiracy or illegal activity here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It does fit the conspiracy theory genre, though, because it's alleged that various authorities are hiding something from the public. That's a core tenet of all conspiracy theories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jerome Corsi alleged that the governor of Hawaii "sealed" Obama's birth records. Others have alleged that the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health chose her words to hide that the "original birth certificate" they have on file is not actually a Hawaiian one. Michael Savage: "We're getting ready for the Communist takeover of America with a noncitizen at the helm." There's the idea that factcheck.org is a front for William Ayers, or otherwise in Obama's Machiavellian thrall. The Keyes suit claims forgery, even after the State of Hawaii said otherwise, which would imply a conspiracy between Obama and Hawaii.

Seems like we've got plenty of conspiracy theories here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

First appearances are everything, though. When we say "conspiracy theory", we get the image of the Freemasons or the Illuminati. This isn't near that; the title at the moment blows it up a bit. There are two clear legal reasons why the Hawaii DOH haven't released it: doctor-patient confidentiality, and the US equivalent of the UK's Data Protection Act (if it exists). The nutjobs, being nutjobs, equate this to illegal conspiracy. It's really not. There is no probable underlying conspiracy at all. And really, would you believe Alan Keyes? He's still pissed off after getting whipped in 2004. The same for Michael Savage, who is just trying to instigate more Red Scare most sane people left behind after the McCarthy hearings. Seriously, we don't need to give the nutjobs the pleasure. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory doesn't require an actual conspiracy, just the allegation of one. The term came into vogue in connection with the JFK assassination, and nobody claimed the masons or the illuminati did it, although I don't know how they got overlooked, as nearly every other group you can think of was blamed at some point (the Russians, the Cubans, the Mafia, extreme leftists, extreme rightists, the FBI, the CIA, and even LBJ himself). There are various 9/11 conspiracy theories, without a shred of evidence that there was an actual conspiracy. The alleged hiding of information by someone(s) in authority is what defines a conspiracy theory. The presumed purpose of wikipedia is to educate. If someone wants to know about this stuff, they should be able to come here and get the lowdown on it, including the debunking of the allegations, so that they know the whole score. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Who's alleging this as a conspiracy specifically? Keyes? Berg? Savage? They wouldn't pass RS even for a conspiracy theory article. And generally, conspiracy theories tend to be a lot harder to specifically disprove than this. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this a bunch of times. Ferrylodge used to hold up Donofrio as an example of someone we were "smearing" by titling this article as we do. Now look at Donofrio's blog entry where he describes his perilous journey to the Supreme Court, shadowed by evil operatives of nameless powers that be. Case closed. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if Donofrio's paranoid, they might still be out to get him. Oh, and as far as Alan Keyes is concerned, the one he should really be irritated with is the original Republican challenger in 2004, Jack Ryan, who got himself into a pickle thanks to a sleazy lifestyle along with the apparent lack of a spine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have no objection to having a section of this article titled "conspiracy theories." WTR could even discuss Donofrio's latest blog entry there. But the point is that there are lots of aspects of this thing that do not involve conspiracy-theorizing. (Also, please note that the courts were delighted to open up Jack Ryan's sealed child-custody records "in the public interest" in contrast to the courts' attitude with this thing. I don't think they should have.)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets challenge those of you who have in the past asked for reliable sources on the Obama topic. Is there a reliable source that calls is a conspiracy theory? If not, I ask that the article name be changed.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To what? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles use the term "conspiracy theory" without having a reliable source asserting a conspiracy. I would support changing the title of this article, but only as part of a general policy of changing all such titles.

It's illuminating that Bugs, in an earlier comment, wrote, "There are various 9/11 conspiracy theories, without a shred of evidence that there was an actual conspiracy." Of course, the official U.S. government explanation of 9/11 -- that members of al-Qaeda conspired to commit the attacks, and that 19 of the conspirators died in the attempt -- is a conspiracy theory. The difference is that the term "conspiracy theory" isn't used to mean "a theory involving a conspiracy". It's used to mean "this is whackjob fruitcake tinfoilhattery, don't take it seriously". That's why the U.S. government's conspiracy theory is never called a conspiracy theory. Given that interpretation, the term is pretty much inherently POV and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that battle's been lost. It's now standard to apply the term to any fringe viewpoint (i.e. one held by only a small minority) that alleges some sort of misdeed, deception, or concealment. When that standard changes on a project-wide basis, the title of this article will be one of those changed. JamesMLane t c 04:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be a point to make at WP:WTA. While some conspiracy theories are undeniably conspiracy theories in the strictest sense (e.g. JFK), it is true that the current, non-neutral, definition is "whackjob fruitcake tinfoilhattery". Sceptre ^(talk) 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Everybody, not just WP, uses the phrase "conspiracy theory" in a different meaning and flavor and sense than the criminal legal code uses the term "conspiracy". Wasted Time R (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Something which is upsetting about our current culture, is that such terms verge away from what they're supposed to mean and become a term for derision. Kind of like how some people will accuse you of rape if you touch them, or like how a teacher who is a little bit strict is a fascist. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasted, when I said that Wikipedia uses the term that way, I didn't mean to imply that only Wikipedia uses the term that way. You're certainly correct that the usage is common. My point is that we should observe the NPOV principle, even though most people don't. JamesMLane t c 04:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This title issue has been discussed at long length in the past, see Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 1#RfC: Is the phrase "conspiracy theories" accurate for the article title? and Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 2#Rename article: Barack Obama citizenship challenges and fringe theories for example. There's no need to reopen it, as nothing has changed since then. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it now seems that consensus may change. What source says that there is a conspiracy?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll see a slew of them at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 2#Conspiracy theory ? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, I also saw a "slew" of citations that don't call it a conspiracy theory. How many exactly is a slew anyway?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you saw a handful (5). I saw a slew (25). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I could go and get some more citations, but I have a job and a family, so I don't really have the kind of time to go around and track down more sources, although we all know that they are out there.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There may be no need to reopen the matter, but there's no harm in doing so either. Sticking to an old consensus doesn't do people any favours. If we can get a more accurate title, then that's good. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory exists today regardless of the particular conspiratorial-or-not details of what happened back in 1961. Take this birther piece from today, picked more or less at random: "... most of US media is in the hands of a few members of US oligarchy that find Obama convenient for their purposes and refuse to report on his total illegitimacy for presidency." That's a conspiracy theory. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

By sources, he meant "reliable sources", not ultra-conservative bile which thinks that the Democrats are ushering in Soviet Communism. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a reliable source for what they think, as it's their own words. They, of course, won't use the term "conspiracy theory". Conspiracy theorists hate being called conspiracy theorists. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipeida doesn't document any conspiracy theory, they document notable conspiracy theories which have permeated through to the masses. 9/11, Illuminati, JFK, Apollo 11, Freemasons. That sort of thing. Now, the challenges to Obama's eligibility are notable, and we'd do well to cover them in some capacity. The underlying "conspiracy theory" isn't, though. The theory that the Hawaiian state government buried Obama's birth records isn't known to that many people outside the crackpots and the axe-grinders. Most, if not all, of these people who are challenging Obama's citizenship are seeking transparency and aren't really tinfoil hats. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Then what should the new title be? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion would be to call the article Barak Obama Citizenship Lawsuits, or something in that neighborhood.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like "Challenges to Barack Obama's presidential eligibility". Sceptre ^(talk) 05:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds too POV in the other direction--Jojhutton (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's close to what its previous title was. How about "Barack Obama citizenship"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to note in the title that there are (legal) challenges. We need to get this President's articles right, after we made a balls-up of the last president. Current title has FRINGE/UNDUE problems, "Obama citizenship" is semi-quasi-coatracking. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Sceptre, that's nonsense. This isn't about transparency and never has been. Bear in mind that Obama has already released his short-form birth certificate in the name of transparency. The law requires that it be an accurate summary of his long-form certificate and treats it as its equivalent for official purposes - you can use it to get a passport, for instance. This whole business is driven by the unsubstantiated belief that the long-form certificate contradicts the short-form version and that Obama is refusing to release it because it will show him to be ineligible for the presidency. That is the underlying conspiracy theory. It's just another version of the right-wing meme that Obama's background makes him un-American, just like the "secret Muslim" rumour. You can bet that if the long-form certificate was ever released it would immediately be declared a forgery by the conspiracy theorists, just as they did with the short-form certificate. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, ChrisO, I think you're incorrect there. If the original is released, and it shows a home birth or something like that attested to by one single person, then the notion is that it really doesn't prove very much, since one single person can attest to just about anything. Don't get me wrong: I think the chance that the original would say something like that is infinitesimally small. I'm just saying that no contradiction between the two forms would be necessary in order to cast doubt on eligibility.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, this discussion is a waste of time - it's all been discussed before. The facts haven't changed since then, and in fact coverage just in the last few days has reiterated the point. You want examples? "Yes, people may say, you're just chasing some conspiracy theory. It's a simple act on his part to just [release his birth certificate], and we're done — move on." [22] You want other sources? "Democratic legislators suggest the whole thing is an unfounded conspiracy theory." [23] "House Conspiracy Theorists Strike Back at Unbelievers." [24] Just stick a fork in this misguided effort and be done, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You can quote as many articles as you wish, while there are about just as many articles that don't use the word conspiracy. As there seems to be mixed signal from the sources, why we just, oh...I don't know...follow wikipedia policy on NPOV. Calling it a conspiracy when there is none is not wiki-right.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We're not calling it a "conspiracy", we're calling it a "conspiracy theory". A whole different thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any viable alternative to the current title. It sums up each different attempts to suggest that Obama is not a natural born citizen and also there is a variety of sources that call it a conspiracy theory or some derivation there of. I also need to point out that it is on the shoulders of the person creating this section or suggesting a title change to provide the reliable sources. Finally continually bringing this up and up again, plastering tags all over the article, nominating and renominating the article for deletion is simply a form of disruption to make a point. Brothejr (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that John McCain was born in Panama the same argument could theoretically have been applied to him.

There will always be discussions such as this where there is "a measure of ambiguity" - and some people will go looking for problems (and in a negative light) or interpret things in a partisan way. Such "discussions about ambiguities" when they become sufficiently notable are valid topics for Wikipedia (and if at a lower level, merely noting in the text or on the talk page - as markers for investigation etc.

Whether the US Constitution should be amended to allow non-native born citizens (whether or not of long residence) is not within Wikipedia's remit - though "noting that such discussion exists" is. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And, given the lenght of this talk page (135k+ at the moment), the topic is probably notable enough to justify an article or at least a subsection of the main article. (g) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Truly, if it really was a non-issue, there wouldn't be so much to argue about. JBarta (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In the real world, it is a complete non-issue. The Internet and Wikipedia attract a different crowd. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, its the same world and the same arguments, you just don't get to ignore them here.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, every day at work or in the supermarket I hear people saying, "The economy's terrible, I'm barely hanging on to my job, my 401k is trashed, there won't be peace in the Middle East for a thousand years, Slumdog Millionaire makes me glad I don't live in India, I hope A-Rod doesn't break the home run record, but what really bugs me is that Obama has never released his long-form birth certificate!" Wasted Time R (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What I hear at the store and elsewhere all too often is, "Oh, there's a recession on, I've got to cut back on my spending." Hence doing their part to further the recession. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The JFK assassination is not front-page news either, but the conspiracy theories are still out there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That the length of a talk page is somehow indicative of the importance/notability of the subject matter is perhaps the most ridiculous notion put forth thus far. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So....What is the question again? I thought that we were discussing the title of the article being too POV. The conversation has shifted a bit. can we please stay on task.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes the article is about conspiracy theories. The reliable sources provided by ChrisO above show that clearly. And here is another one from Salon: Barack Obama was, without question, born in the U.S., and he is eligible to be president, but experts on conspiracy theories say that won't ever matter to those who believe otherwise. [25]. And yet another from The Tennessean: "Yes, people may say, you’re just chasing some conspiracy theory,” he said. [26].

For easy reference, here is a blockquoted list, from this talk page archive, originally posted by Abecedare on 29 December 2008, as mentioned above by Wasted Time R: (There may be duplicates from above entries)

Here are some sources that use the term conspiracy theory (or some variant) in reference to this issue. The links include news items and editorials/columns published by mainstream periodicals:

• Philadelphia Inquirer/ Associated press
• Washington Post
• Le mars Daily Sentinel (T.J. Templeton)
• Honolulu Star-Bulletin
• The Tribune Star
• The Daily Sentinel
• Washington Times (Michele Malkin)
• Times Record news
• Salon
• Salon
• News Press
• Chicago Tribune
• LA Times
• Star Tribune
• Rocky Mountain News
• St. Petersburg Times
• Time Union
• Slate
• The Week
• Memphis Commercial Appeal
• Newsmax (Ronald Kessler)
• The Virginian-Pilot
• The Examiner
• New york magazine
• The Atlantic (Mark Ambinder blog)
• The Spectator

I think all the above are way more than sufficient to support the current title. And to repeat, conspiracy theories do not have to be true, they just have to verifably exist and be notable to be reported on here. And yes, the article also reports on other challenges to his eligibility but they seem to be based on the theories. Lets move on to something else as nothing significant has changed since the previous threads. — Becksguy (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and like I said before, you can quote as many articles as you like, but with competing sources not calling it a conspiracy, it is best to report the story nuetrally. The title is NOT nuetral. It needs to change.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That there are sources that do not use the term conspiracy theory (CT), or variants, does not support that there aren't CTs. One would need to find reliable sources that specifically refute the existence of the CTs to support an opposing viewpoint. We report that there are those that claim the birth certificate is a fake, as well as those with the expressed opposing viewpoint that it is real and valid, per neutrality policy, in proportion the their prominence and with RS. To say that Hawaii State officials, Obama and his family members, various fact checkers, the opposing political party, whoever did the background check (presumably the FBI), the mainstream press, the Supreme Court, and even most of the opposing press, are all conspiring to hide or ignore Obama's real birth certificate, birth circumstances, or Constitutional eligibility is the essence of a CT and fits the classic CT model. It's like the CT in which it's claimed that there was a conspiracy, including the government, to plant demolition charges to bring down the WTC buildings during 9-11. Granted this article is not entirely about these Obama CTs, but much of it is and much of the rest flows from them. The title may not be perfect, but others have problems also, one way or another. — Becksguy (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. In a nutshell, if you think this isn't a CT, find a reliable source that says "this isn't a CT". Ideally, find a tertiary source - e.g. a review of media coverage of this issue and see how they describe the coverage that secondary sources have provided. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I think the evidence is now sufficient that this stuff does, indeed, qualify and meet the wikipedia standard, to be called a collection of conspiracy theories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Becksguy and Sheffield Steel have described the situation perfectly. Kudos. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's not entirely about a conspiracy theory, there are two ways to fix it: remove the stuff that isn't conspiracy theorising (as far as I can see, there are two camps of the people arguing for release: the conspiracy theorists (Keyes, Berg), and people in a vain quest for "transparency" (e.g. the handful of state legislators).); or rename the article to encompass neither and/or both. I'd prefer the latter, because the former would do more harm than good. "Conspiracy theories and legal challenges regarding Barack Obama's citizenship" wouldn't be that bad; the article is half about the theory, and half about the ensuing court battles. I'm just trying to find something that's better than the current title which is, while technically correct, isn't really the best title. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll support "Conspiracy theories and legal challenges regarding Barack Obama's citizenship."Ferrylodge (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fairly wordy, but if that's consensus, then so be it. Keep in mind, though, that the legal challenges are based on the notion that the government is hiding something, so the bottom line is that all of it stems from conspiracy theories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The government can theoretically hide something without it being a conspiracy. For example, data protection laws could prohibit the release of the birth certificate in the absence of a compelling legal reason to. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The above suggestion implies that the conspiracy theorists and the legal challengers are disjoint, when in practice they are pretty much the same. Think about the claim here: After a two year long campaign and upwards of a billion dollars spent and massive media coverage and intense political competition, the country managed to elect someone president who was never eligible in the first place, and only a small handful of powerless people have noticed this. That's a conspiracy theory any way you cut it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking an example out of the article: Glen Cascada and company. They actually appear to be on the "dude, just release it and shut them up" crowd and not conspiract theorists at all. At the same time, the stated purpose of the Donofrio lawsuit doesn't seem like conspiracy theorising to me; that seems like a request to have the definition of "natural-born citizen" defined rather than tinfoil hattery (and to be honest, he's actually right about Roger Calero). Sceptre ^(talk) 02:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, read Donofrio's travelling tale if you think he isn't into conspiracies. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Being into conspiracy theories doesn't automatically mean that he believes in this conspiracy, but I will be willing to concede on this point. You still haven't explained about the Tennessee legislators, though. Lumping them in with conspiracy theorists is a huge BLP problem. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Helen Chenoweth was a U.S. congresswoman who believed in black helicopters. Getting elected to office doesn't preclude being a fool. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We need proof that they subscribe to the conspiracy theory, not proof that they don't. I've got a strong suspicion that the fact they're Republicans is influencing this discussion, although being a Democrat doesn't preclude being a fool either (e.g. Rod Blagojevich). Sceptre ^(talk) 14:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to look at how many times I've reverted McCain birthplace conspiracy theories out of the Coco Solo article. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

←Nothing has changed my opinion: "conspiracy theories" is still the correct title for this article. The so-called "legal challenges" are all predicated on conspiracy promulgated by the family, and/or his group of advisors, and/or the DNC, and/or the government. This would include the Supreme Court, apparently, as the Chief Justice did swear him in. (But then maybe that's why he stumbled over the oath in the first place - not wanting to legitimate this illegitimate President, and then the re-swearing in WITHOUT AUDIO or Bible, probably meaning the second swearing-in wasn't legitimate either.) Tvoz/talk 02:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, if a state legislator supports legislation to require that presidential candidates produce better proof of eligibility, that does not necessarily make the state legislator a conspiracy theorist. And people who seek to achieve the same result via the courts are not necessarily conspiracy theorists either, IMO. And if any of those people want to only establish a higher threshold of eligibility proof for a candidate who has a foreign parent, then that seems reasonable too. There are conspiracy theorists involved here, but not all of the people involved are conspiracy theorists.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And relaying their constituents' questions and/or issues (i.e. the Ohio state rep) isn't conspiracy theorising either; in fact, that's pretty much in the job description. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If she is doing it at the behest of people who doubt the authenticity of Obama's eligibility (i.e. Ohio conspiracy theorists) then her legislation doesn't suddenly give credibility to those doubts. --guyzero | talk 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't make her a conspiracy theorist, and thus she shouldn't be implied to subscribe to the belief. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And continuing to use a phrase in the title that does not match the subject matter is POV.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an element of conspiracy theorising with this subject (if such a conspiracy theory exists, and I'm edging towards that being true). But yes, you do have a point. The conspiracy theories are only half the article. We should reflect the other half in the title. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, I know you provided a few examples in conversation above, but can you please list specifically all of the concepts in this article that are part of this "other half"? --guyzero | talk 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, half of the article is strictly about the conspiracy theory at hand. The other half, the legal challenges and the legislators' response, may or may not be inspired by the conspiracy theory. As far as the cases and legislative responses are, without evidence one way or the other that they believe in the conspiracy theory or, obversely, that they want a higher standard of proof applied, either viewpoint is valid in real life. As regards to how Wikipedia works, we should give all living individuals the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence. I could say that Donofrio, while being a bit of a tinfoil hat in general, actually filed this wanting the courts to clarify the natural-born-citizenship law (in a case of the boy who cried wolf); and that Keyes and Martin are just assholes with a grudge against Obama. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If I find some foolish state legislator somewhere who believes in 9/11 'inside job' rubbish, or relays a constituents' belief in same, does that mean we have to change the title of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, we can't pack everything into an article title. You suggest "Conspiracy theories and legal challenges regarding Barack Obama's citizenship". Well, by that logic, we should go whole hog: "Conspiracy theories, legal challenges, lobbying of Congress, legislative initiatives, and media coverage regarding Barack Obama's citizenship". After all, along with the lawsuits, we have the proposed bills; as for lobbying, the people at Free Republic hoped that one Senator and one Representative would challenge Obama's electoral votes, the way the Bush electors from Ohio were challenged in 2004. Thus, the conspiracy theories resulted in all those things happening. We have to leave some of the details for the text of the article, not the title. JamesMLane t c 08:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure we can. That's 114 characters smaller than the limit for titles (255 bytes). This fetish for shorter and less descriptive titles is really perplexing. And the point is that it's plausible that people such as Donofrio don't subscribe to this theory. We can't make a judgement one way or the other; Wikipedia does not judge people. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Donofrio: "On Nov. 3, 2008, I went to SCOTUS to file my application for an emergency stay of the national election. ... I felt that my life was in danger because I knew that if I could get my case filed before 4:30PM, there was a chance, a remote but genuine chance, that if the SCOTUS rules were followed, my case could stop the general election. ... I had previously felt the evil operate against my case in the NJ Appellate Division where I experienced sabotage I never thought possible. I felt the full force and power of the cult as it tried to stop my case from having proper procedural ground to move on to SCOTUS. ... In the days leading up to Nov. 3, 2008, my cell phone and that of a family member were subjected to treachery that only somebody with serious power could have accomplished. Because of the dual attacks upon my sanity, I came to Washington D.C. with fear in my heart, but I was not about to stop. Nothing short of a bullet was going to stop me from filing that application on Nov. 3, 2008." And so on. If this isn't Grade A Paranoid Conspiracy Theory 101, I don't know what is. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, he's a bit paranoid. That doesn't automatically mean he believes in this conspiracy theory, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theories" of this title refer not just to what may have happened in 1961, but also to what has happened in 2007-2009. It's not just that Obama is ineligible to become president, but The Powers That Be have decided that He of the evil cult Must Be President and will do whatever it takes to make sure that brave patriotic Americans who Discover The Truth will be marginalized, or if necessary, Eliminated. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

How did you piece that together from this discussion? Is all too much to ask that we stay on the topic please?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not fond of the title. "Legal challenges to Obama's presidency" would be more suitable. Nowhere has any of the plaintiffs suggested a "Conspiracy" although indirectly, the Keyes lawsuit infers that the State of Hawaii is complicit in producing a forgery. Abraxas72 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the title represents a pretty biased view. Either "legal challenges" or "allegations" would be much more appropriate and neutral. Ejnogarb (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If he really weren't a citizen, it would take a conspiracy to hide the fact. PhGustaf (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

...and an undisputanely one but don't count on those "birthers" [newest addition in the article [27]] to just accept it and give in.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)