Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Kudos and school essay

I am very pleased with this page since it gives a place for information about Barack Obama as a person, not just a candidate. I added an item on his third grade essay which had been deleted from the main article last month. Please note that the item is about the actual essay, not about Senator Clinton's making it a mini-issue in the campaign. It seems to be well sourced by the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune, who interviewed his teacher. I think it is also something that gives an insight into Obama as a person, and will certainly be mentioned in his future biographies. Borock (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Registered by his family as a Muslim"

It's true that the registration form at the Catholic school young Barry Obama attended for three years listed him as a Muslim. But the Chicago Tribune story which has the most detail about the school notes that:

The enrollment form from the Catholic school, which has been cited as evidence that Obama was a Muslim in Indonesia, also was rife with errors. It listed Obama as an Indonesian, listed his previous school incorrectly and failed to list his mother, Ann, at all.

Should we note something in the article about this? Does saying "registered by his family as a Muslim" give too much credit to the accuracy of the enrollment form? Is there another wording which could indicate what the enrollment form said, while also recognizing that it wasn't terribly accurate otherwise? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It could be listed that it had a number of errors, but I don't think the Muslim bit was in error per se. In other reports that I've seen, Indonesia had 5 official religions at the time (Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, and either Hindu or Judiasm) and it was required to select one. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably Hindu, since most of the inhabitants of Bali are Hindu. I don't doubt that Lolo Soetoro was at least nominally Muslim, and I don't doubt that he registered Barack as a Muslim. I guess I'm just wondering whether there's some way for us to indicate that the registration seems not to have been done with a great deal of care. On the other hand, I don't want to give undue weight to this registration form. Hmm. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Was Obama ever baptised, and if so when? PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

New article on college years

AP has a new article on Obama's younger years. Nothing major here, but could flesh out some less well-known times. Here's the article [1]. Remember (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition request

Include: Born out of wedlock by his parents, his mother conceived him, then later married. Barack Obama was mainly raised by his mother's parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is blocked?

I dont understand why this is blocked and why despite the caption of libellous material, it is deemed as 'essential' in this biography 2 things: - That he was once 'registered muslim' - That he took cocaine and marihuana Obviously the first thing is quite irrelevant and the second quite 'libellous material'. This is biased. As a european who wont vote however i find quite insulting the 'subtle bias' of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.16.127 (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. Obama was registered as a muslim in third and fourth grade while attending Catholic school in Indonesia and Obama has admitted to drug use in his autobiography.. Not much libelous there, I'm afraid. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the people who read this are simpletons but i can read between lines. The choice of news is what makes this article biased. There are things that are relevant and there are things that nobody cares except if you want to create a lbelous article. in the sense those are 2 very difficult issues for an american voter to swallow. Just why dont you ad an 'osama' error as i see sometimes on fox international... This is biased. As a european who wont vote however i find quite insulting the 'subtle bias' of this article. But the last paragraph explains it all. It seems it is fundamental to end the article considering the friendship of this man with a palestinian. Of the hundreds of friends i assuem he has, this is it seems the fundamental way to end his young life. That he is very good friends with a palestinian. It is obvious what type of anti-obama partisan has written this article but i wonder what kind of objectivity has this wikipedia for someone to lock in that info as 'relevant'. As i cannot edit i hope any editor who has common sense to take away that last paragraph and the one on drugs if you dont want this to look... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.16.127 (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.16.127 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on the "He knows a Palestinian" paragraph. That definitely shouldn't be in this article.. Campaign issues should be in the campaign article, not here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of siblings

If I remember correctly, Obama has seven half-siblings. This should be mentioned. 76.1.146.244 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It is there in a footnote - doesn't merit more in this article because it has nothing to with his early life or career - he had nothing to do with them, didn't meet until he was an adult. It is also mentioned in the main biography. Tvoz/talk 06:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of ACORN

Per talk:Barack Obama#Mention of ACORN there's apparently considerable interest in including some mention of Obama's relationship with ACORN. I've suggested we should start here, perhaps using this source for something in the "College and early career" section about Obama continuing his community organizing work through training "future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons". Another source would seem to be [2]. Looking around, I'm surprised [3] is not currently used as a reference in this article. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Chicago Magazine piece has a complete history of Obama's involvement with Project VOTE! (rather than ACORN). It seems appropriate to expand the paragraph to encompass Obama's work with the project, and it's relationship with ACORN. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Still not a word on ACORN? Whats up? Telecine Guy 06:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC) [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

University of Chicago Law School

I've been trying to expand the paragraph about Obama's time as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, but people keep deleting the following:

He published no legal scholarship, which is unusual for a professor at that school.

This information was important enough to include in the lead paragraph in an NYT article on this subject, so I think it belongs in a short summary of his career there. If people have issues with the statement, which is factually true and has a citation to a very well regarded source, they should qualify it or explain it, not use them as an excuse to censor it from the article. I've tried to keep it NPOV.Equaaldoors (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This not really a notable item, and certainly it doesn't make a lot of sense just stuck in there like that. Also, the original research describing the lack of a legal scholarship as "unusual" is inappropriate. I have reworded it, removed the OR and joined it to the previous sentence so that it doesn't look like it was just shoved in there. Also, I removed the wikilink that was added to the completely non-notable law firm (that had no article). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's actually pretty notable, since B.O. has mentioned his position in the campaign to strengthen his résumé. It's not OR, either, since it's been published in the NYT. Trust me, it's unusual not to do a lot of research when your a prof. at any public university. I read the story when it was first published, and let me say that I know the type of prof. he is. I've dealt with them too often. They're never in their office. They don't prepare a real syllabus or real lectures. They come in to class and ask a bunch of questions of the students to fill up class time. It's a fall-back job for them. They make more money consulting or writing books. What Equaaldoors wrote is just scratching the surface of the story. He could have added a lot more.--Welcome Home Cover 56 (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The characterization "unusual" et al is not in the source. It is original research. The version I wrote gets around this problem by quoting the source directly. Please self-revert you last edit immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I have reverted on your behalf, as original research violates WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it says so in the first paragraph: "While most colleagues published by the pound, he never completed a single work of legal scholarship."--Welcome Home Cover 56 (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Scjessy, can you explain exactly how you came to the conclusion that the "unusual" statement is OR? I consider it a fairly obvious paraphrase of the sentence Welcome Home Cover cited from the ref's first paragraph, but you're not the first to call it OR. Equaaldoors (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's true "colleagues" at the University of Chicago Law School:

1. adjunct Lecturers with other full-time jobs
2. Senior Lecturers while pursuing "high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching"

do not "publish by the pound."

• Kantor, Jodi (July 30, 2008). Teaching law, testing ideas, Obama stood slightly apart. The New York Times, p. 1:

  The young law professor stood apart in too many ways to count.

In 2,300-word article that begins with the above sentence, it is absolutely unacceptable to selectively and misleadingly quote, out of context, only the following inaccurate 16-word sentence:

While most colleagues published by the pound, he never completed a single work of legal scholarship.

After serving as president of the Harvard Law Review,

During his 1 year fellowship and 4 years teaching 1 class per year as an adjunct Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Obama:

1. wrote and published his first book, Dreams from My Father
2. worked full-time for six months as executive director of Illinois Project Vote
3. worked full-time for three years as an associate at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland (writing briefs instead of "legal scholarship")
4. served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, the Joyce Foundation, and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge
5. ran for the Illinois Senate

During his 8 years teaching 3 classes per year as a Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Obama:

1. served in the Illinois Senate for eight years (writing laws instead of "legal scholarship")
2. served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, the Joyce Foundation, and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge
3. successfully ran for three terms in the Illinois Senate, unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Representative, successfully ran for U.S. Senate

• University of Chicago Law School (March 27, 2008). Statement regarding Barack Obama.:

  The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."
  
  From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

• Miller, Joe (March 28, 2008). Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor? FactCheck.org:

  As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation's top legal theorists.

The other six faculty with the title "Senior Lecturer of Law" listed in the University of Chicago Law School catalog were:

1. Frank H. Easterbrook, A.B., J.D., Chief Judge (2006– ) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
2. Douglas H. Ginsburg, B.S., J.D., Chief Judge (1993–2000) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; 1987 Reagan nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. Dennis J. Hutchinson, A.B., B.A., M.A., LL.M., William Rainey Harper Professor in and Associate Dean of the College.
4. Richard A. Posner, A.B., LL.B., LL.D, Chief Judge (1993–2000) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
5. Andrew M. Rosenfield, A.B., A.M., J.D, Chairman and CEO of UNext, an internet education firm that he founded in 1998. Prior to forming UNext, Mr. Rosenfield was President and Chairman of Lexecon Inc., a firm that he co-founded in 1977 with Richard A. Posner (former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) and William M. Landes.[11][12]
6. Diane P. Wood,, A.B., J.D, Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Some of Obama's six colleagues may have published "legal scholarship" at some time in their careers, but published little or no "legal scholarship" while Senior Lecturers because of their "high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching" (or "legal scholarship")—the four full-time appeals court judges instead writing opinions, the full-time undergraduate college full professor and dean instead writing "academic scholarship," and the full-time internet education CEO instead writing business plans and earning money for the university.

Newross (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything you just wrote is irrelevant. "Unlike most faculty members, he published no legal scholarship" is the passage you removed from the entry. It is still an accurate statement regardless whether you consider them to be his colleagues. Further, even if your original research did relate to the issue, I doubt its accuracy. In order to become a full professor, you have to do research, and most of the lecturers I am familiar with do research to attain that goal. If you believe that the NYT made a factual error, contact them and if they issue a correction to the story, I would be happy to remove the passage.--Welcome Home Cover 56 (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please get consensus on this page before re-adding misleading, contentious material to a WP:BLP.Newross (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read and respect the WP:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. Please do not remove[13] other editor's talk page comments.Newross (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A few Things things:

1. No reason has been given to delete the "no scholarship" statement, and no one as taken issue with it by itself. The bogus OR justification only cited the "unusual" statement (ignoring the fact that the accusation of OR was wrong, since an equivalent statement appeared in the cite). Newross's essay above is justification for qualifying the it, not deleting it, and again it only touches on the "unusual" aspect.
2. For the time being, I'm going to re-add the "no scholarship" statement with Rick Block's qualifications/explanations and without any reference to other faculty or this being unusual. No one has taken issue with that statement (even though it's been there all along), it's true, and it has a citation to a reliable source per wikipedia's standards, so there seems to be consensus that there's nothing wrong with it (Newross even accepted it as he criticized the other one).
3. Continue to argue about "unusual" statement, as I think there's justification for it remaining, but it's were real the here controversy lies.Equaaldoors (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Trinity United Church Missing from this article

One thing that seems to be totally missing from this article is Obama's membership in Trinity United Church of Christ. It featured very prominently earlier in his campaign, and it and it's pastor were a big influence on him up until they became a campaign scandal (to the extent that common themes of his like the "audacity of hope" originated there and he wrote about it in his books).

It's strange, to say the least, that the only mention this gets is a summary in the main article about the scandal, and it's totally absent here. -Equaaldoors (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Students Union?

I've read elsewhere that BHO was a member or leader of the Black Students Union at Columbia. Is this correct? Also, was he on scholarship at Occidental and Columbia. Both are expensive, elite, private schools.68.111.71.197 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama at Occidental

There is an informative, nice DVD by Huell Howser about Barack's days at Occidental College [14]. Interviews his political science professor, shows his three student dorm room, even shows a college chapbook that published two early Obama poems written while he was a student there. This is not an advertisement, I'm not affiliated with the makers of that DVD. A is putting the smack down (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Short Form" Birth Certificate

There seems to be doubt that the birth certificate presented in this article is a "short form birth certificate". It has been deleted citing the wiki policy of original research. Evidence that this particular document is of the short form variety has been presented at factcheck.org here. In fact Obama's own official website describes the document as os the "short form" variety here. Glen Twenty (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The above editor has been making edits to a number of Obama article both to insert "short form", and to revert into the article information about lawsuits challenging Obama's citizenship / eligibility to be President. This is all very WP:FRINGE stuff. In common parlance and by sources, this is considered a "birth certificate." Wikipedia really isn't the place to follow this tabloid stuff. Wikidemon (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's own website declaring the document of the "short form" variety hardly falls into the realm of "tabloid". factcheck.org satisfies WP:V as well. This is an important distinction to make as it is the subject of numerous lawsuits. Remember Wikipedia is about providing information, not suppressing it. Glen Twenty (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a personal blog entry on the Obama site, not an official blog entry. The difference is pretty clear. Besides, this is totally irrelevant. A short-form birth certificate is perfectly sufficient evidence of time and place of birth. It is glaringly obvious that the motivation for adding this detail is to add credence to a retarded, go-nowhere lawsuit. There is nothing more nauseating that the twitching corpse of a sore loser, as personified by the likes of Berg, Keyes, and the social conservatives. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If as you say a "short-form birth certificate is perfectly sufficient evidence of time and place of birth" then your desire reduce the information level of the wikipedia is disturbing. Remember we are here to provide as much relevant detail as possible. You have deleted the phrase "short form" because you claimed it was original research, yet you have not addressed the verifibility provided by factcheck.org. Are you claiming that this factcheck.org is not a WP:RS? Glen Twenty (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should you tell me to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? Are you claiming I have slighted you in some way? I suppose that could be true if you were allying yourself with the crackpots who bought these silly lawsuits. If that were true then that would make your edits agenda-based, would it not? It would prove that your edits were to suit a personal agenda, rather than for the good of Wikipedia. Your insistence on specifying the type of birth certificate, despite it being the standard document for virtually everyone, indicates editing for an agenda. Perhaps you should read WP:NPOV. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no doubt that it's a short-form birth certificate, but what would be the purpose of including this extraneous information? As you say, we are here to include as much relevant detail as possible. That the birth certificate is short-form is an irrelevant detail. The caption "Obama's birth certificate" contains all the relevant information for that image. --The Bruce (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So in answer to the question, factcheck.org is a reliable source and the claim that calling the the document "short form" original research has now been debunked. Glen Twenty (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan Trip

Obama's trip to Pakistan during his college years has been deleted citing that is "too much detail". I contend it is relevant and the New York Times reference satisfies WP:RS. I have placed the paragraph here so we can work on making it better for the article.

During these college years Obama visited Pakistan in 1981, on the way back from Indonesia, where his mother and half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, were living. He spent “about three weeks” there, staying in Karachi with the family of a college friend, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo

I plan to create an article on the friend Obama stayed with as he seems to pass WP:N Glen Twenty (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't notable at all. I spent three weeks at my father's house in France, and that isn't notable either. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but the New York Times did not write a WP:V article about your trip, and you yourself do not have your own wikipedia article, rendering you non notable. Glen Twenty (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But the NYT writes about everything, because they are trying to attract readers. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and Obama's trip to Pakistan is not notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly notable because Barack Obama himself would highlight during the campaign this Pakistan trip as a reason as to why he has more foriegn policy experience than either John McCain or Sarah Palin.

"I knew what Sunni and Shia was before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,”

No one denies that this trip occurred and it seems to me like you are trying to suppress this event under the policy of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Remember Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, we are here to present all WP:V information in a WP:NPOV way, not to sweep things under the rug.

It also needs to said that your edit summary in this edit, violate WP:AGF and possibly WP:CIVIL. Glen Twenty (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you are editing in what appears to be bad faith, my summary was quite apt. Please don't quote policy to 5-year Wikipedia veterans like me, especially when you appear to be having difficulty comprehending them. The Pakistan trip is trivial, and not worthy of mention. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

validity of birth certificate shown is dubious

Several independent experts have declared it to be a fake--204.78.0.199 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The internet is rife with kooks spouting fringe conspiracy theories. We don't give such things any weight in biographical articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't dismiss so easily. There has been a forensic analysis done of it and made public that makes a very good detailed argument for it being a forgery, and there is currently a lawsuit by a former state deputy attorney general to force an original to be produced. That is enough to say the authenticity is being challenged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.34.247.9 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you're completely mistaken. There is no question about the validity of the birth certificate (you could call the state agency in Hawaii to verify it if you were so inclined). Crank lawsuits get filed against politicians all the time and in fact the same guy that initiated this lawsuit also sued Bush and Cheney saying they were "secretly planned 9/11." Needless to say, we're not going to add that information to their biographies either because we don't add crackpot conspiracy theories to biographies of living people. End of story. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above conversation is interesting. If it is just conspiracy theorists who are making claims about his citizenship, then why is the birth certificate in the article in the first place? I've never seen another one in a biography, but there is one here. The only reason I can see is as a counter to the citizenship claims made by the conspiracy theorists. So, in essence, whoever posted the birth certificate (and whoever endorses its remaining here) has already opened the door the the entire issue of his citizenship by arguing for it. Logically, the counter-argument to the posted birth certificate must be included or the birth certificate must go. QuilaBird (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No. There is no logic in the airing of fringe theories, however you try to spin it. The birth certificate is cited in this article (and the parent biography) as a reference for his full name, suffix, and place of birth. This is by no means unusual in BLP-related articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The "independent experts" in question are two nameless, faceless, internet "experts" going by the names of "TechDude" and "Polarik". There has been no credible evidence to support their claims of forgery. -- PatGund (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

First, the only reason that birth certificate was produced by the campaign was to head off allegations concerning his citizenship. It's very source is rooted in the issue. Second, I looked though all of the primary candidates and past living presidents and other recent political notables. Many of them are not known by their legal names in name order such as Willard Romney. Some have far more complicated names than Obama that could use a reference, such as Rudolph William Louis Giuliani. McCain even has a non-normal birth place for a candidate (Panama) that could use some documentary help by your logic. A birth certificate was not deemed necessary for any of those articles. Yet somehow this one, a man already known by his legal name and born in a US state (no, I don't believe them either), requires it? I'm not buying this attempt to whitewash the airing of only one side of an issue. Also, the issue is in the "Natural-born citizen" article, apparently appropriate, or have Obama supporters not gone over to cleanse that article yet?75.178.47.53 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a way to somehow mention this birth certificate "issue" without insinuating that it bears any legitimacy? If you look closely, all the kooky conspiracy theories still buzzing on the net about his BC are a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense, or debunked nonsense--HOWEVER, with that being said, it is still all over the internet. Just check FreeRepublic.com. It's a fringe theory, yes, but given that there's so much noise over the matter, isn't the noise worth mentioning?

Could you possibly say, parenthetically, "(for alleged controversies over the veracity of this information, see: "Barack Obama BC controversy")" That way the subject is mentioned, but doesn't hijack the article, and is neither legitimized nor delegitimized--something like that. If it were just one loon talking about it I'd be all for its omission. But instead we've got a broad population of internet loons filling up cyberspace with this stuff--when enough loons make enough noise, perhaps it's worth mentioning the existence of the loons, even if it'd be silly to legitimize their looniness. My two cents at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.162.125 (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FactCheck.org & FightTheSmears.com: Obama's dual citizenship

This information is taken from Obama's own website Fight the Smears (see bottom of the page) and the original source, which is more elaborate, namely Fact Check.

I think it should be mentioned in the article that Barack Obama had dual citizenship twice in his life, as documented on the above websites. By birth (Ius sanguinis) Obama automatically had citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies according to the British Nationality Act, since Kenya was still a British colony and his father therefore a UK citizen, and allegiance to the Crown and subjection under British jurisdiction was by law extended upon every child of a male UK citizen, independent of birthplace. This British citizenship of Obama was automatically augmented with US citizenship due to his birthplace on US soil (Jus soli), according to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and United States Code 8.1401a. After two years Kenya became independent, and Obama's British-US citizenship was automatically transformed into a Kenyan-US citizenship. The Kenyan citizenship then expired, when he was 21 years old (August 4, 1982), because Obama "neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor swore an oath of allegiance to Kenya". I think that this is important biographical information and should be included either in the main article or the article on his early life.

Sidenote: Here user Chaser has argued that the above information is too inconsequential for inclusion in the main Obama article. Therefore it is submitted here for your consideration. —85.179.138.156 (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The information is inconsequential. The fact of Obama's US citizenship is not (and has never been) in dispute, despite attempts by fringe theorists (rapidly becoming a pseudonym for disgruntled Republicans) to claim otherwise by spreading lies. Repeating this information here would give undue weight to the fringe theory. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I was not talking about fringe theories. I was not doubting his US citizenship. I was not referring to people who do. I was only mentioning biographical facts, plain and simple, i.a. from his OWN website, namely his dual citizenships. But if you don't think it should be included in the article, I'm fine with that. —85.179.141.190 (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding. The Obama site discusses these details in order to refute the silly fringe theories, so covering them here is only fanning the "fringe flames". Without the fringe theory, the biographical facts lack significance or notability, and therefore should be excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama having dual citizenship in the past is not a "fringe theory" it is a well known fact. Landon1980 (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

But it is not a relevant or important fact. As I mentioned earlier, the only possible reason for mentioning it is to add weight to the fringe theories that rely on it. It's an undue weight issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as it can be sourced with reliable third-party sources it can be added, you do not decide what is important or not. You need to read undue weight, that would be putting it in the lead, the content could be put in the appropriate place. They are facts about his early life so here is the article it belongs in. As for the other edit you reverted, I can find several sources for the mother's heritage so we need to mention both or none. Landon1980 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The additional information about Obama Senior's ethnic heritage is useful and relevant. Please stop deleting it. Also, please stop agenda-based editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If the father's heritage is useful and relevant so is the mother's, they are biological equals. Either list both their heritages or neither. Please try and assume good faith, the only agenda I have is the sentence be neutral. Landon1980 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have removed relevant, interesting and well-referenced information. You are edit-warring. Please self-revert immediately and consider adding to the article rather than just deleting chunks with poor justification. The father's heritage is unusual and noteworthy, whereas the mother's heritage is unremarkable. Don't forget that Obama wrote a book called "Dreams of my father" that discussed his father's ethnicity and heritage. No such book for his mother. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It takes two editors to engage in an edit war, if I'm edit warring so are you. The mother's heritage is just as relevant as the father's. We need to add her heritage with a reference or leave out both. Thousands of sources can be found for the mother's heritage. This is an article about his early life, the mother's heritage is just as important. Landon1980 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You are the one edit warring - you deleted some relevant information and then deleted the restoration of this information twice. All I did was restore what was, essentially, your acts of vandalism. Now you are trying to justify your ill-advised actions by repeating the same statement over and over again. Obama senior's ethnicity and heritage were considered so important by Obama that he wrote a book about it. It also forms the basis of many of the fringe theories attacking Obama's eligibility for the presidency. There is nothing remarkable or controversial about the heritage of Obama's mother, which is why it isn't given more than the necessary coverage in this article. Your failure to see the clear difference in importance between the heritage of the two individuals is self-evident, and your ignorance in this matter has caused you to edit war - just like you have done before. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid making personal attacks. We are both at two reverts, so If one is edit warring so is the other. If my edits are vandalism go ahead and revert me, reverting vandalism is an exception to the 3 revert rule. That sentence is about Obama's parents, not Obama. Whether he wrote a book or not is completely irrelevant. I'd be willing to bet that when the majority of sources go into detail about Obama's parents they mention the ethnicity of both, not just the father. So we should do the same thing. I'll ask you again to please stop making personal attacks. Also stop edit warring with me on my talk page, I made no further reverts after you gave me the warning yet you reinstated it. Editor's are allowed to remove templated warnings from their own talk page, as long as it is not a block notice or request to be unblocked they can remove anything they want. Would you like to request a third opinion? Landon1980 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't need a third opinion. You are simply wrong about this, particularly the wild claim that the fact that Obama wrote a book featuring his father's ethnicity is "completely irrelevant." Your false claims about personal attacks are getting old, and your failure to understand 3RR is your problem. Please remember that this article is under probation, so it doesn't take 3 reversions on your part to break the rules. My 2 reversions simply repaired the damage you did, so there is no comparison to your behavior you can reasonably make. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

When determining whether or not to mention the ethnicity of the mother the book is irrelevant. All that matters is the sources, not Obama's opinion, you need to understand that. You clearly do not understand what personal attacks are, calling a person an asshole, ignorant, etc. are all personal attacks. All those terms attack the contributor and not the content. Please read WP:NPA. Exacty the article is on probation so your 2 reversions are just as bad as my 2 reversions. Wow what a doubly standard, if my edits are vandalism why exactly have you not reverted. Look at how the media covers this issue, they mention the ethnicity of both parents when mentioned one. Just because you don't think his mother's ethnicity is irrelevant doesn't mean it is irrelevant. You clearly have a strong POV about this and wish to downplay the fact his mother was white. It's just common sense to mention the heritage of both parents if you are going to mention one. Landon1980 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

When did I call anyone an "asshole"? I have never used that term. Also, "ignorant" means lacking in knowledge, which you clearly are. Please take your agenda-based editing elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I know what ignorant means, and "a-hole" means asshole does it not? Saying I lack in knowledge is a direct insult to me and has nothing to do with the content. Is your argument seriously that since Obama has not written a book about his mother's heritage it cannot be mentioned when his father's is mentioned? The only agenda I have is the sentence conform to WP:NPOV. Obama's opinion is completely irrelevant, saying his mother's heritage is unimportant to him is original research on your part. Please see WP:V and WP:RS the mother's heritage is mentioned in tons of sources. I have at least been respectful to you throughout this, you on the other hand continue to patronize me and throw insults around. We need to concentrate on the content at hand, not the other editor. Landon1980 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Natural-born citizen

I think the fact of his being born a Natural-born citizen of the United States should be mentioned in the article. As it is this is not clear to many people, including those in other countries who are interested but know nothing about US law. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try adding something and see what happens. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that it was removed. I still think this is important information which people are interested in.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Like Tvoz (who removed it), I think it is superfluous information (since it can be surmised from his birthplace and parentage). There is no doubt whatsoever that Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen, so it seems unnecessary to include this information when it has not been deemed necessary on the dozens of other articles about presidents or vice presidents. Indeed, including this information without appending similar information to all those other articles would subtly suggest there is some doubt that he is a natural-born citizen, which is obviously not the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any informed, sincere person questions that President Obama is a natural born US citizen. But they do need information to be informed. Sincere we can't do anything about. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this section when I made the edit, or would have commented here. But Scjessey precisely expressed my reasoning, especially his last sentence, better than I would have. Tvoz/talk 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

West

I recently edited this article to mention the attending physician when Obama was born, and to mention some other stuff. The other stuff has since been qualified,[15] and I'll do the same regarding the physician (Rodney West). The source for the info has since been quoted as saying: "I don't know in what capacity [West] knew about this particular birth....[West] never said to me, 'I delivered a baby.’”[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87233]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack spent the first year of his life in Seattle

As reported in HistoryLink.org (highly reputable web site for essays on Washington State history), on Feb. 10, 2009, Barack Obama spent most of the first year of his life in Seattle, Washington. He moved from Hawaii to Seattle with his mother a few weeks after he was born. During most of their time in Seattle they lived in a small, 500 square-foot apartment at the southwest corner of the first floor, in unit #2 of the Villa Ria Apartments, at 516 13th Avenue East in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. The unit was rented to "Mrs. Anna Obama," and her phone number was EAst 3-3348. (The Villa Ria Apartments, which consisted of a Victorian house converted into ten rental units, were torn down in 1985.) Mrs. Mary Toutonghi, who lived with her husband Joseph in apt. #10, on the basement floor, babysat Barack during the Winter quarter of 1962, while his mother was attending night classes. (Both Anna Obama and Joseph Toutonghi are listed at this address in the Seattle Polk City Directory of 1961-62). Barack's mother was also enrolled in the University of Washington during the Autumn 1961 and Spring 1962 quarters, declaring her major to be History. Various friends/classmates of Ann Dunham's from her days at Mercer Island High School remember visiting with her and her baby son in the Seattle area, as well as visiting them at their Capitol Hill apartment, during the period from Sept. 1961 to July 1962. It is unclear exactly when Barack and his mother returned to Hawaii. The reference for the HistoryLink.org article, "Barack Obama moves to Seattle in August or early September 1961," written by Phil Dougherty, is:

The current Wikipedia article on "The Early Life and Career of Barack Obama" states only: "She [Barack's mother] may have subsequently enrolled at the University of Washington and lived in Seattle as a single mother with her son." This is lame. If the editors of this restricted article don't want to include details, they can simply change the sentence to read: "She subsequently enrolled at the University of Washington and lived in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle as a single mother with her son."

Canopus44 (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed on Talk: Ann Dunham - let's keep it in one place please. Tvoz/talk 07:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I put a note here only because I think that folks who are interested in this page might also want to weigh in on these issues, particularly the issue of where Barack lived and how he was cared for during the first year of his life. If those who are interested in this page are fine with discussing it in Talk: Ann Dunham rather than here, I'll go along with that. I only care that it gets discussed by all who are interested, not where it gets discussed.

Canopus44 (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - no criticism of your posting it here intended. I just wanted to consolidate any discussion. Tvoz/talk 00:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've scratched the "may have" in the sentence which begins, "She may have subsequently enrolled...", pertaining to Ann at the Univ. of Washington, and Ann & Barack living in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle, so it's consistent with what's now stated in the "Ann Dunham" article.

Canopus44 (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Birth place

• THIS SECTION IS UNDERGOING A COMPLETE EDIT BY BARWICK AS OF 7/14/09 11:04 EDT, THE ORIGINAL IS BEING MOVED TO THE ARCHIVES*
• Please do not edit this section until archival/editing is complete*

--Barwick (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, enough with the revert war, this is getting old. The below information is completely factual, it is in fact possible to obtain a Hawaiian Birth Certificate while still being born outside the United States. It has happened in the case of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen (father of "Modern China"):

Reference typewritten version of the "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth" here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Reference the Certificate here: http://www.sunyatsenhawaii.org/english/visits/fifth/fifth02.html

Reference the application here: http://www.sunyatsenhawaii.org/english/visits/fifth/fifth03.html

Reference the copy of Hawaiian birth here: http://www.sunyatsenhawaii.org/english/visits/fifth/fifth06.html

More information for reference from same source: http://www.sunyatsenhawaii.org/english/visits/fifth/index.html

Reference the Wikipedia article on the same man Sun Yat-sen

An original copy of the long form 1961 birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II would serve as sufficient evidence to prove Hawaiian birth

My proposed edit was, and still is:

was born on August 4, 1961... add the text "in either"

Then, after the text referencing FightTheSmears (which I should also note is far from an umbiased source, it being President Obama's own webpage), add the following text:

or Mombasa, Kenya,

This is a simple matter, as I said above, it is in fact possible to obtain a Hawaiian Birth Certificate while still being born outside the United States.

Honestly, though I disagree with 99.9% of the man's policies, I wouldn't have a problem amending the Constitution to allow President Obama to remain President. Though if it comes out that he lied about his birth, it would cast serious doubts about how well he can be trusted at all, if he blatantly lied to avoid a Constitutional provision (the need for that provision may or may not be up for debate, but still if a lie was exposed, that would be the problem).

However, the fact that he has refused to release the actual original long form certificate (even to a closed court of unbiased sources, which would come back with a unanimous vote either way), casts doubt on the legitimacy of the documents provided. It would take no more than a 30 second phone call from one of President Obama's staff to order its release to a 9 judge panel in Washington DC, who would come back unanimous one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that all that is based on original research, syntheses, and would be a BLP violation. Also, due to the level of allegations, there needs to be a verifiable reliable sources that explicitly says those allegations. Brothejr (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

These sources on Sun Yat-sen were all taken directly from *already referenced* wikipedia sources. Is there a problem with them as well? There wasn't a problem with those sources before, until it is now being used to cast dispute on exactly what the meaning of of Barack Obama's short form birth certificate is. --Barwick (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Words cannot describe how much damage I feel Obama's policies are doing to this country, but regardless of that, ZERO mainstream sources give any credence to the notion that he was born outside of this country. It's fringe thinking and has no place on Wikipedia. "Some guy 100 years ago got a fake Hawaiian birth certificate" is not evidence of anything. There is an article on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and maybe a link to it from the footnote would be ok, but giving credence to the "theory" here is not appropriate. --B (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we use tertiary sources. Those are sources like CNN/MSNBC/Fox News/Washington Times/New York Times/AP/etc. Simply put, we are not a repository of original thought, nor do we use any syntheses to back something up. A good example would be this: 2 + 2 = 4. We know it equals four, how ever on Wikipedia we cannot just say it equals 4 because that would be syntheses and original research. We would need a reliable source to back up the sum of 4. This means in this case we will need a news article from a reliable source that explicitly says those allegations in the same context as you are implying. If you are in question if a source is a reliable source, then there is a reliable source noticeboard. Brothejr (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To B, if we did include a footnote, and I am not advocating for or against such a note, then we would need to figure out where one could go without implying more weight then it already has by the mainstream. The other issue, would be proponents of the theory would use the footnote to imply more weight to the theory and that issue also needs to be discussed. Finally, there would have to be a very clear consensus to include such foot note. Brothejr (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be discussed in the text at all because it's outside the scope of this article. Whether he was born here or in Kenya, his "early life and career" is what it is. If anything, it could go at the end of footnote #1. Footnote #1 already has a letter from a Hawaiian official about it, so the "controversy" is introduced there to a degree. We could just add to the end of the footnote "For more information, see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" and leave it at that. Debating about where he was born is completely outside the scope of this article. --B (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea of just adding, for more information see..... to the foot note. I think that easily could work without lending anymore more weight to the issue. Brothejr (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so let me get this straight so I know in my head: We're *not* disputing those sources I referenced from Wikipedia about Sun Yat-sen, correct? Those sources are in fact reliable sources? And the fact that no "mainstream sources" give any credence to this argument doesn't prove it's correct (Just because A implies B, B does not necessarily imply A). Besides, I could give an hour-long lecture on direct evidence of bias in the mainstream media in favor of Barack Obama over both Hillary Clinton, and especially over former President George W. Bush.

My primary contention is, it *is* entirely possible to receive the Short Form Birth Certificate, and still be born outside Hawaii (or the entire US). Just because nobody else is saying it doesn't change the fact that a Short Form Birth Certificate is not solid evidence of being born in Hawaii. However, as I noted, not only would a copy of the full, original long form certificate clear this up, but there is no conceivable reason for President Obama NOT to release this original certificate, unless there is something to hide. --Barwick (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, there has to be a reliable source that backs that up. Whether you think it is correct or not is immaterial without a reliable reference that backs it up. That means it needs to explicitly say exactly what you are wanting to put in. Whether mainstream media is biased for or against the subject is neither here nor there and this is not the place to debate that. Nor, is Wikipedia the place to debate the subject itself. If you want to debate the subject or mainstream media, then there are countless forums you can go and debate it. Brothejr (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not "entirely possible" (without resorting to document fraud) "to receive the Short Form Birth Certificate, and still be born outside Hawaii (or the entire US)" that lists the place of birth as Honolulu. The COLB is a legally valid document that has not been challenged by competent evidence. "Simply" releasing the long form would not end these "hard questions"[16]. And your lack of imagination as to why Obama does not cater to your whims is not proof that there's anythig to hide. Weazie (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, falsifying the place of birth on a COLB is fraud. However, identifying such a falsification as fraud is not the same thing as proving that it didn't happen. We who believe that Obama was born outside the US have asserted all along that there was a certain amount of fraud attaching to Obama, and this certainly seems to be a prime sample of it. How might false birthplace information be placed a Hawaiian COLB? Where did that birthplace (mis)information come from in this case? Was the information verified, and, if so, how? Could Stanley Ann Dunham have made a false statement regarding her son's place of birth, so that her son would have the benefits of US citizenship, benefits to which he wasn't technically legally entitled to receive? Could a state official have neglected to check her statement before entering it on his ledger (I don't suppose it would have been computerized back then)? Again, Obama's genuine, original, long-form "vault" Birth Certificate would supply the definitive answer. Jenab6 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The long form birth certificate would show as either an original (if he was born in Hawaii at a hospital as is claimed), as a Late Registration Birth Certificate, OR as an Amended Birth Certificate [17]. If it was an original, born at a hospital (specifically, the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children, THE hospital he claims to have been born at), then the likelihood of that being forged by a doctor, the city/county reigstrars, etc, would be low. However, for the the other two to be falsified, would only require false statements on the part of his father and mother, and they had *plenty* of reason to do so if in fact he was born outside the United States. His mother had not lived in the United States long enough (by a few months) for her son to automatically become a citizen upon birth if he was born outside the US. However, if he was born in the United States, then he automatically became a citizen.

In short, the long form of an ORIGINAL birth certificate would be very unlikely to be a forgery, and we can put this whole thing behind us. However, if the long form was an Amended or Late Birth Certificate, there is ample motive for his parents to falsify the place of birth. HOWEVER however, ultimately, if the long form was an Amended or Late, and shows in Hawaii, it's going to be incredibly difficult if not impossible to prove birth outside the United States. From all the evidence that is shown here, this is the most likely scenario, which would politically hurt President Obama because an Amended or Late Birth Certificate casts doubt to his story (why wouldn't he have an original from the hospital, like he claims).

On the topic of sources, what do you define as a reliable source? How does a source become reliable? Does the New York Times become unreliable when one of its writers is discovered to have lied? Does President Obama's own website (Fight The Smears) become unreliable because it is biased in his favor? Does FactCheck or Snopes become reliable or unreliable because they fail to mention the fact that a perfectly valid appearing Short Form could show false information if the original Long Form was falsified or altered, which would be shown by bringing the original long form out for a neutral panel to review? --Barwick (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You are very long on conjecture, and very short on facts to support your conjecture. You can speculate all you want about forgery, or amended/late birth certificates, but there's simply no competent evidence that Obama was born elsewhere, or that his COLB is a fake (or relies upon false information). Weazie (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• When are people going to realize that WND is the National Enquirer of political news, slanted toward hit pieces on Democrats and liberals? I would not be a bit surprised if WND employees themselves are the ones on here putting "Kenya" into the Obama articles, and then writing a story about it. Unitanode 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is World Net Daily referenced in this edit?--Barwick (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Barwick, to answer your question above, the problem is that it is a original synthesis. "Some guy with a short form birth certificate was not really born in Hawaii" and "Obama has a short form birth certificate" are facts. You are concluding (making a synthesis that is not supported by reliable secondary sources) that Obama might not have been born in Hawaii. If a respected journalistic source (WND is not) questioned whether he was born in Hawaii, that's one thing, but as of right now, it's just a fringe movement. --B (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of "reliable sources", what of the case in the Federal District Court in Pennsylvania, Berg v. Obama, where the court specifically ordered the long form birth certificate be handed over within 72 hours from its original ruling? See the entry for September 29th at the superscripted hyperlink [18], then see the same hyperlink's entry for October 24th, where the same court, with no new evidence, overturned its own ruling upon the Federal Election Commission's motion to dismiss. Why? Also, why would Obama even spend any money (just shy of a million dollars) to defend this case, rather than just hand it over? I mean, come on guys, when I'm saying "something's fishy here", I might as well be telling you the sky is blue, because you can see it with your own two eyes plain as day. Just admit that reputable sources HAVE reported on this topic, and that unless a valid *original* long form birth certificate is given, the question may always remain in doubt, but worthy of mention. I can guarantee you, you will NOT find a mainstream (according to Wikipedia, "reputable") source that will bring these points up. With Barack Obama being the president, and his actions with the Automobile Industry, breaking up companies, selling their secured assets and giving them to unsecured creditors, effectively firing CEO's of private companies, etc, you will NOT find a single "mainstream" source reporting these things, lest they want to put a bullet in their own head. That should NOT prevent Wikipedia from reporting on it. --Barwick (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it should
— Ω (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you do one of two things:

1) You write the entire basis for the information under the references section (not a good way)

2) You make brief mention of the controversy in the main article (as has been proposed), and reference another Wikipedia article that specifically mentions the controversy. In this way, the controversy, which has logical merit, is brought to light, and an entire other article can discuss things the "mainstream media" isn't willing to discuss. --Barwick (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the 29 September reference for Berg v Obama, the document in question is a proposed court order from Philip Berg. It is common practice for attorneys seeking certain types of orders to prepare and include a order ready for the judge to sign. HOWEVER, the order is invalid unless the order is signed by the judge. Judge Surrick did not sign Berg's proposed order, therefore it was never a court order, and the court did not overturn its own ruling.PatGund (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the "shy of a million dollars" claim, various amounts ranging from $500,000 to $1.8 million have been claimed as the money that President Obama has supposedly spent to "protect" these records. However, there's no credible evidence, (or indeed any evidence) to support this claim. Most of the cases have been against state and federal officers, and therefore defense was paid by the taxpayers at that level. In the one case we have any evidence of costs, Keyes v Bowen, the lawyers for Obama have stated they were working pro bono, and court costs were awarded against Keyes in the amount of $1500 total. PatGund (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

While the existence of the "controversy" is a fact, that does not prove there's a factual basis for the controversy. That some believe the moon is make of cheese does not mean every article referencing the moon must duly note the cheesy controversy. Weazie (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line: If reliable sources say Obama was not born in Hawaii, we report it. If they don't, we don't. So far, the evidence is to the latter. Otumba (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

By "reliable sources," don't you mean the "rich corporate mass media"? Don't they have their own agenda, causes for which they'd mislead us if they thought could get away with it? It's amusing to watch Obama-supporters here at Wikipedia insisting their opponents document their every statement, while freely using pejorative terms like "fringe thinking" and "conspiracy theory" as if these claims needed only their say-so in order to be "reliable."

Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, in August 1961. That's not "fringe thinking," that's what Obama's grandmother is on record as having said, speaking as an eyewitness to Obama's birth. Why would she lie? She wasn't seeking a reward. She was just proud of her famous relative and wanted the reporters she talked with to know of his roots.

Why would Obama's paternal uncle tell the same lie? Why would the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter Ogego, also tell the same lie? Why would Kenya's government arrest and deport reporters whose only "offense" was to express their intention to examine any birth records that Obama might have in that country? Why would Kenya's government issue a gag order against Obama's African kinfolk, forbidding them from again speaking about Obama to reporters?

All this is evidence, testimonial and circumstantial, above and beyond Obama's persistent and expensive cover-up of his long-form Birth Certificate and other documents, that Obama lied when he claimed he was born in Hawaii. And unlike his African relatives, Obama had an obvious motive to lie. He wanted to win the election and become the POTUS. Now that he is POTUS, he's afraid of being caught in his lies, which might put him into prison. So he must keep the lies going. He must suborn whomever he can to assist him in preserving his lies. And among those whomevers might be those who support Obama here at Wikipedia by calling truth-tellers "conspiracy theorists" and deleting everything that calls Obama's US citizenship claims into question.

Obama supporters here at Wikipedia use phrases such as "neutral point of view" and "reliable sources" as fig leaves and smoke screens. Clearly, the most plausible interpretation of all the data is that Obama is an illegal alien whose actual legal status within the US government is that of a Usurper or a Pretender to the office of US head-of-state. It is dishonest to refer to that interpretation as a "conspiracy theory" believed only by "fringe thinkers." Jenab6 (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama's grandmother DID NOT SAY that he was born in Kenya. She was speaking through several translators. [19] has a partial transcript. One of the translators says, "Yes. She says, 'Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.'" But later on, they clarify that it was a misunderstanding, and they say in no uncertain terms that he was born in Hawaii. As for why Kenyan dictators kick out American reporters, you'll have to ask them. Most of the world's muslims don't particularly like us for some odd reason. I'm a conservative Republican - I voted for Mike Huckabee in the 2008 primary and for Alan Keyes in the 2000 primary - but this birth certificate thing is utter nonsense. --UserB (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Obama's grandmother DID SAY that he was born in Kenya. She herself was in Kenya, was present at Obama's birth, and therefore baby Obama was also in Kenya. She (or one of Obama's other relatives) identified the Coast Provincial Hospital [20] in Mombasa as being where Obama was born. Obama's more English-fluent paternal uncle has also confirmed Obama's Kenyan birth. And so has Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego, who said that Obama's Kenyan birth was well-known in Kenya. Your raising of doubt about what Obama's grandmother said is a false revision of translation. Now, it's certainly possible that Obama's African relatives might have backpedaled after their government made its displeasure toward their earlier frankness with reporters known. It's possible that Obama's African relatives have revised themselves lest they suffer punishment. But what ought to be accepted is what they said first, when their minds were easy on the subject of where Obama was born. Jenab6 (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Close this?

Nobody is posting anything that is in anyway related to improving the article anymore. It's devolving into a forum for promoting or refuting birther nonsense. I would suggest that a non-involved editor close the discussion. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth place inclusion

This was closed and archived by an admin already twice before under WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM policies please do not re open
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's review the facts, and talk about this in a civilized manner. I am bringing forth nothing but facts, and raising the question for discussion as to the pertinence of this information. Note: If you love or hate Barack Obama, I don't care, that's not the point of this, do not come on here and say stuff about "lefties", "conspiracy theorists", "Obama lovers", or "wackos", because we will delete your ranting. Take stuff like that to | Yahoo Answers or something. Wikipedia needs to rely on information that can be verified to be factual. Wikipedia cannot write an article on every single event in all of humanity, and only can discuss [[WP::NN|Notable]] topics or people. Just because 400 people belong to the flat earth society does not mean that every reference to the earth needs to mention it may be flat. Here are the facts that have been brought forth, are they true? It is in fact possible to obtain a Hawaiian Birth Certificate while being born outside the United States. A Hawaiian Long Form Birth Certificate (LFBC) can be of different types, including: Original Birth Certificate - Only given at a hospital when a baby is born at that hospital. Amended Birth Certificate - Can be amended to show changes such as name, parent's name, sex (in event of a Gender Change), etc. Late Registration Birth Certificate - Given up to one year after birth, in event birth took place outside a hospital. Can be given based on testimony of the parents, who supply the required information. A Short Form Birth Certificate (SFBC) displays most of the information shown on the LFBC. A SFBC does not reveal what type of Long Form Birth Certificate a person has. Therefore, it is impossible to verify what type of Long Form Birth Certificate (LFBC) Barack Obama II has, without seeing the actual LFBC. As near as I can tell, none of the above facts are in dispute, and they don't prove anything either way. Here is where the dispute comes in, based on the above facts: A SFBC is insufficient to remove "beyond a reasonable doubt" any charges that Barack Obama II was born outside the United States. An original LFBC (from the hospital Barack Obama II claims to have been born at) would be more than sufficient to prove Birth in the State of Hawaii. Question solved, other than unlikely theories about how space aliens possessed the doctor and made him sign a false Birth Certificate when Barack Obama II was really born on Mars. We can go ahead and leave the place of Birth listed only as Hawaii. Obtaining and releasing the LFBC, under Barack Obama's "Open Government" policy, would be a simple matter, and would dispel any of these questions immediately. The fact that Barack Obama has not done this raises questions in some people's minds as to "why not just release it if there's nothing to hide?" An amended or late registration Birth Certificate, even if it displayed Hawaii as the place of birth, could leave the question up for debate, due to the following reasons: Amended or Late Registration Birth Certificates can be obtained based on the testimony of the parents. There is in fact motive for Barack Obama II's parents to falsify the place of birth. Barack Obama II's mother had lived in the United States as a citizen, but was a few months short of the required time that would have make Barack Obama II automatically a US Citizen regardless of his place of birth. If Barack Obama II was born in the United States, he would automatically be a citizen. An amended or late registration Birth Certificate could have been obtained by Barack Obama's parents within one year of his birth, and applying for a Late Registration Birth Certificate. What hospital this would show (if any) is unknown. As evidence that this is a notable event, roughly 400,000 people have requested to see the complete (implying Long Form) Birth Certificate (see the petition hosted at, yes, the supposedly unreliable World Net Daily)[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550] - Wikipedia:Reliable Sources says "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Whether you think WND is unreliable or not, it is highly unlikely that they generated 400,000 signatures on their own (and detractors would be the ones speculating in this case, and bear the burden of proof). Done, now let's discuss this in a civilized manner. --Barwick (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC) There is nothing to discuss. This has been hashed, rehashed, and rerehashed. Consensus has long been established against the birther conspiracies being included here. Unitanode 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Ok, so Wikipedia is all about telling the truth by researching facts. I spend an hour and a half concisely writing them so we can discuss them, and you come back with "this has been hashed, rehashed, blah, blah..." and go on about Consensus. I just showed via FACTS how this truly is a Notable event to mention, how it is wholly a legitimate concern via FACTS, and how it could be simply resolved via FACTS. Why don't we discuss these FACTS instead of saying "eeeeeverybody knows that ______" because the Consensus that you say is there obviously has a large amount of people who disagree with that supposed Consensus. Maybe that Consensus isn't there? --Barwick (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The thing is, none of those "facts" are backed up by any reliable source. Where is the direct reliable source explicitly saying exactly what your saying. The majority of the argument above involves original research and synthesis. We are not here to argue "facts." We can only report what reliable sources report. If you feel that WND is a reliable source, then please take that up with WP:RS/N. A simple example of a reliable source would be a widely read print news paper or news organization. Further examples/explanations, please read the RS policy. Brothejr (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I move to speedily close this section before it gets out of hand again. Brothejr (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I'm on my way to a few meetings right now, but I'll supply the sources when I return. Suffice to say, the majority of them are from the State of Hawaii's own website. --Barwick (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC) DJ CLayworth: I'm sorry, but I've tried discussing this with you on your talk page, I've played by Wikipedia's rules, and you guys continue to ignore them yourself. I bring up a topic on the talk page for inclusion, and when it gets to the point where you can't just dismiss me, you say "oh this is irrelevant, we've talked about this issue already, 99% of people think the issue is dead". To which I reply "Oh really? It seems 400,000 people (out of probably less than a few million who've seen it) have actually signed the petition requesting the full Original (Long Form) Birth Certificate, seems like less than 99% of the people think it's a dead issue. And also, I asked you to please reference where someone has disproven what I wrote above", to which you say "you look it up". I'm sorry, but YOU are the one making the accusation, it is up to YOU to prove your case, not me. Finally, everyone, is what I wrote above fact or not? If you say not, show me where I went wrong. I'll (hopefully) have more time tomorrow to add all the appropriate links for references from the State of Hawaii, etc. --Barwick (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Finally, finally, from the FAQ, how is the location of his birth NOT relevant to his early life? I swear, we play by Wikipedia rules and you guys just find some back woods way to do whatever you decided to do long ago ANYHOW. *sigh* --Barwick (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)