Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 1

Keyes v. Bowen and name of this Wikipedia article
All the cases in lower courts were dismissed on technicalities. They were dismissed because the courts indicated the person didn't have standing to bring the case, but Alan Keyes does. The case goes beyond conspiracy theories (which that in itself has a negative and biased connotation) and thus deserves its own individual article separate from this one. I'm more than willing to engage in further discussion if it is deemed appropriate to move that section. But, I rather not spend my time putting a lot of energy into an article only for it to be dismissed as a result of extreme political bias...which has become rampant on wikipedia. If you support my idea, please respond here. thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with the majority view that the cases are frivolous, but I do agree that a more NPOV name should be sought. How about "Barack Obama citizenship challenges"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but I hope some more people will respond to my original idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The title was discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard. As mainstream sources do describe the issue as one of conspiracy theories (see e.g. ), and the matter is fundamentally about Obama being purportedly responsible for a conspiracy to represent himself as eligible, it was generally felt that "conspiracy theories" was appropriate (compare 9/11 conspiracy theories). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some do, some don't. I think at this point it's quite ignorant/naive to dismiss the entire investigation of Obama as conspiracy theories when there is some (not a whole lot) of legitimate arguments.  Your comparison of this to the 9/11 conspiracies is kind of insulting..Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the crux of the article now is not just about the theories, but about the litigation that has resulted from them. I think this may warrant reconsideration of the title. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You put your finger on it - that's the crux of the article now, not the crux as it probably will be in the very near future. There's more weight on the litigation simply because litigation-related material has been systematically merged in from other articles. The theories themselves are covered fairly lightly. There is room for expansion there, and I anticipate that editors will seek to add quite a lot more to that section. It's not impossible that the litigation section might in due course have to be split off if the article as a whole becomes too long (it's currently around 30 Kb). I would suggest leaving the title alone for a few days and seeing how the article develops. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Donofrio lawsuit does not seem to have involved any conspiracy. Donofrio was not among those who claimed Obama might have been born in Kenya. See Orr, Jimmy. “Whew… Obama can still be President - Supreme Court declines case”, The Vote Blog, Christian Science Monitor (2008-12-08).  Thus, Donofrio did not suggest that Obama was misrepresenting himself.  That seems to be very clear, and so I would not support keeping the title as-is even temporarily.  BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, I thought Donofrio's lawsuit was frivolous.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Newyorkbrad that 'Barack Obama citizenship challenges' might be a more appropriate title, given that the article as written focuses on the litigation rather than the conspiracy theories more generally. ('Barack Obama ineligibility allegations' is another possibility, but a bit clunkier.) I don't think titles like that necessarily imply the challenges have any validity. Terraxos (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would instead suggest "Barack Obama eligibility challenges". As I read Donofrio's lawsuit, he did not challenge that Obama is a "citizen" but only that he's a "natural born citizen".  But, the title "Barack Obama citizenship challenges" would certainly be better than the present title.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse that proposal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What about "Barack Obama citizenship questions"?... or "citzenship issues"? To suggest the issues are conspiracy theories or "fringe" detracts from the legitimacy of questions posed. Of course some would argue "that's the point... they are not legitimate, now shut up and go away". I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia policies to determine where legitimate becomes illegitimate and vice versa. But to me, there's enough legitimacy in the issue to treat it thoughtfully, seriously and objectively. Jbarta (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Or even "Barack Obama citizenship controversy". Jbarta (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't find any of the challenges to be compelling, the use of "conspiracy theories" is problematic at best. While the concerns may be fringe theories shared by a majority of Americans, the term conspiracy theory is inappropriate. I would support "Barack Obama citizenship challenges", which provides a factual description of the article, without making any presuppositions in the title. Alansohn (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The main alternative seems to be "Barack Obama citizenship challenges." There seems to be a consensus for that.  Anyone have any further input about it?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes,I object to this change - it seems to give legitimacy to what is, despite the best efforts by some here, still fringe conspiracy nonsense. The current title is fine. Tvoz / talk 00:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Tvoz, a huge percentage of the press has been about the Donofrio case. What conspiracy was Donofrio alleging?  He was simply saying that Obama was born in Hawaii with dual citizenship, which he said contradicted the Natural-born citizen clause.  He wasn't alleging any conspiracy or wrongdoing or dishonesty on Obama's part, was he?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I also object to any change. The only notability these things have, en masse, are as a fringe/conspiracy meme. These things have even made it on to snopes.com and their urban legend debunking pages. Even though Donofrio isn't challenging a 'conspiracy', the only notability of his lawsuit is that given by the blogosphere, WND, and other conspiracy theorists. Priyanath talk 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, a closer inspection of one of those snopes.com articles you mention reveals that it contains a fairly significant inaccuracy... claiming that Omama made an image of his 1961 birth certificate available on the internet. Inaccuracies like this only perpetuate the common myth that Obama HAS in fact released his original birth certificate, when in reality he has not... and that's what much of the fuss is about. Jbarta (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Snopes isn't a reliable source, so it's not surprising. They do give a good idea of what reasonable people are thinking about various frauds, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories. The fact that Obama has released a certified, legal version of his birth certificate is enough for the courts, and for reasonable people. Priyanath talk 23:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll meet you most of the way on that last statement and say it's enough for most reasonable people. Jbarta (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also objecting to changing the title. While the individual Donofrio case may not have been completely about a conspiracy theory, when you put them all together and look at the big picture they all look like conspiracy theories.  Also changing the title seems to be an attempt to legitimize fringe theories which have been repeatedly debunked by a variety of reliable sources.  Brothejr (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Donofrio was implicitly claiming a conspiracy as well, that all the legal scholars and politicians and media were wilfully ignoring the obvious fact that Obama's father's British subjectude (or whatever it was) made his son ineligible to be president. In other words, for the entire nation to go through a massive two-year election with saturation media coverage and a billion dollars spent, only to discover that the winner was ineligible all along, clearly requires a conspiracy.  So the title is appropriate.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Well, thanks for the input everyone. I guess we'll keep the title as-is. Though I'm a bit skeptical about the idea that everyone with a frivolous legal argument is a conspiracy theorist.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, then, for Donofrio's lawsuit also. Conspiracy theories all. Priyanath talk 01:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Each of these lawsuits might -- repeat, might -- have reflected conspiracy theories from people pushing POV in filing these suits. Calling the article "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" is pushing POV on Wikipedia's part. I disagree with every one of these suits, but it's clear that labeling the theories of those we disagree with as "conspiracy theories" reflects poor scholarship on our part, if not a rather clear bias. The term is appropriate in Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, where the issue is that the involvement of anyone other than Oswald would mean a conspiracy. As ludicrous as these suits may appear to be, they are not conspiracy theories. The use of "conspiracy theory" violates WP:NPOV. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Al. The problem with this article is not all of the mentioned cases fall strictly into the "conspiracy theory" closet.  This article was created to essentially house all the cases challenging Obama's presidency, but in doing so we failed to differentiate between what constituted conspiracy and an actual merited challenge.  Obviously 80% of the people on this article are pro-Obama, so sealing the deal on this discussion based on such a concentrated and partisan group of users seems rather ignorant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * These are, in fact, theories of conspiracy. If the "short form" birth certificate doesn't accurately reflect the original one, then multiple state officials of Hawaii are implicated in perpetrating a falsehood.  If Obama was really born in Kenya, then he, his family, his advisors, his biographers, etc. have all been concealing this ever since.  And so on.  The title is accurate.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Donofrio made neither of those claims. Additionally, the present article says that a "spokeswoman for Hawaii’s department of health asserted that state law does not allow her department to confirm vital records."  So, if the certificates are not entirely consistent, that would not contradict anything the Hawaii officials are now saying.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think quite a few people ARE in all probablity perpetuating a falsehood. The justification being very similar to the justification shown in these disscussion boards... "he has complied with the law and produced a birth certificate that will suffice in court... anything is else is either irrelevant and/or nobody's business". Anyone can be honest... but to be honest when being honest is most difficult, that can be a problem. And I think that's what we see here... for a person who simply wishes the birth certificate issue would go away, being honest about it is difficult. Jbarta (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia
There seems to be a lot of Indonesia-related nonsense out there which is not really currently covered by this article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See my point above - the theories are covered quite lightly at the moment, there's plenty of room for expansion there. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just want to say, despite my belief this article will inevitably deteriorate under the weight of the crazies, that it looks great at this point in time. Don't know who all did the work, but very nice job.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's generally a good job. Well done ChrisO.  The title does still need some work, as described above.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The title can be easily and accurately fixed by replacing the word "conspiracy" with "nutjob". Wasted Time R (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it, WTR.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper announcement
The Weigel article (ref 2) says that an announcement of Obama's birth can be found in a 1961 Hawaii newspaper. That seems like pretty much a clincher if true, so I would think it deserves a mention. Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a paragraph about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly appears to be compelling evidence that he was in fact born in Hawaii, but it doesn't clear up the issue of Obama's original and still unavailable birth certificate. It seems to me that something about it is troubling to Obama or it would have been produced long ago. It's easy to simply claim the original birth certificate is irrelevant or a private document and therefore nobody's business, but it doesn't satisfy the curiosity of those who wonder what is it about that orginal birth certificate that has Obama keeping it under wraps. And those who wonder, despite fervent claims to the contary, are not all "wackos". Jbarta (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Theoretically, it's possible that Obama could have been born abroad, but registered as a home birth in Hawaii, either before or after he and his mother returned to Hawaii. If that extremely unlikely event happened, then the state would have sent the birth notice to the newspapers automatically.  Only one catch: there is not the slightest bit of solid evidence for this theory.  But I agree it is odd for Obama to not release the original 1961 form.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Obama team clearly enjoys watching bloggers' and WP editors' heads crack and leak oil. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. Have some fun with this, WTR, I am.  It's kind of fun to implement all of the usual Wikipedia policies on a subject this bizarre.  And don't worry, Obama will be inaugurated on January 20.  And he might even be a great president.  Here's hoping.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The subject doesn't strike me as bizarre. Actually, it seems pretty simple. Obama has chosen to make his original birth certificate unavailable and some people want to know why. At it's core it's not much more complicated than that. Jbarta (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree he should release the form, but I don't expect we'd learn much from it.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The simple fact that it is being kept under wraps tells me the contents (if the document exists at all) would prove a little surprising and quite an armful of trouble for Obama. If all of a sudden it were released and everything were in order, I would be quite surprised. And that's not the ramblings of a nut... that's just common sense. Jbarta (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Why would Obama waste $1 million of campaign money to prevent the release of his original and authentic birth certificate.  I'm sorry, but simply believing what the head of some hospital in Obama's home state says is absolutely and utterly ignorant.  Obama is seeking the highest office on this planet, and leaving something so simple and easy to prove to chance, is...well, absurd.  Lest you forget, the media practically demanded McCain prove his birthright beyond any doubt, it seems fair we give Obama the same treatment.  Dismissing this complaint as conspiracy theorist mumbo jumbo makes me believe people no longer feel the need to scrutinize politicians, even in the simplest of matters.  I know, how dare I criticize our perfect President-elect, what am I, an evil crazy neocon fundi nutjob? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably. ;-) The head of the state department of health is a high-level public official, btw, not just "the head of some hospital in Obama's home state". See for a biog. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It would seem to me, that the issue with the Hawaii Dept of Health Director is not her integrity exactly, but the interesting wording of her statement on the matter. She doesn't precisely say that they actually have Obama's original birth certificate. She says it's "on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." To me that could very easily mean that the data is in their computer and nothing more. I think reasonable people would agree that's not too much of a stretch. Again, if the original birth document exists and is in order, why not simply produce it? Jbarta (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read the rest of that one-page document you link to above, you'd have the answer. State law prohibits the release of a live birth certificate.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, SheffieldSteel, the present Wikipedia article quotes state officials as saying: "If someone from Obama's campaign gave us permission in person and presented some kind of verification that he or she was Obama's designee, we could release the vital record."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, considering that the Obama campaign is over, perhaps that is not going to happen. On the other hand, if a court case ever gets passed the "laughed-out-of" stage, perhaps a long-form birth certificate will be produced. But, speaking as someone who has had to produce one in the past, even a long-form birth certificate is not necessarily an original document, so it will probably not satisfy the true believers.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, there will always be skeptics and loons. Donofrio, for example, would remain skeptical of Obama's eligibility, seeing as how he did not challenge the birth location.  However, from what I have read, the vast majority of current skeptics are simply asking for the long-form to be released, so I think that releasing it would defuse a great deal of the controversy/lunacy.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It won't do any good. If it was released for examination, it would generate claims that it is faked. Nobody in their right mind would allow the actual original long form birth certificate into the hands of the lunatic fringe, so they will never be satisfied. Also, it is worth pointing out that there is no "controversy" - it is not controversial that Obama hasn't produced his long form birth certificate, since the short form is more than sufficient evidence - and there is no conspiracy either - only claims of conspiracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an aside: Skepticism is not the same thing as "dismissing the preponderance of evidence in favor of a completely unsupported theory." This note just part of my little crusade to reclaim the term from the tin-hats.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It really bothers me how smart, intelligent, informed people manage to rationalize and justify Obama's resistant in releasing his original birth certificate. Just considering his familial history it seems more than reasonable that the President-elect should prove his birthright BEYOND a doubt. the questions being asked are legitimate, thoughtful, and yes, kind of crazy, but dismissing the skepticism as fundamentalist lunacy is the ultimate form of ignorance.  Why would Obama spend over 1 million in campaign funds to prevent the release, why?  Why is it such a big deal?  He's in Hawaii, right now on vacation.  He could go over to the hospital he was allegedly born in, pay the $25, and release it to the public.  He had no issue exposing himself in his wonderful autobiography, so I can't see why this would be a problem. Naturally some people will continue to believe Obama was born in another country regardless of evidence introduced, but people will also continue to deny the holocaust, accept 9/11 conspiracy theories, and support the belief that America is collectively responsible for x issue.  Citing crazies unwillingness to accept facts as a reason for Obama to not answer reasonable questions is downright absurd. I know, on this Earth, wonderful selfless people like Barack Obama don't lie.  Of course.  : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

More sources
Another couple of sources for consideration:

Also, the wikipedia article does not seem to mention Obama's birth announcements in Honolulu Advertiser and in Honolulu Star-Bulletin in Aug, 1961. See:

66.253.202.164 (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The birth announcements are already fully covered in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That as quick! They weren't in there when I started composing my post. Cheers. 66.253.202.164 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I used the same time machine that Obama used to plant the notices in the newspapers. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A blog with a good summary and analysis of the birth announcement and birth certificate issues:

Sorry, blogs are not usable as reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Printed on June 6, 2007
Any objection to adding "printed on June 6, 2007" after "Certification of Live Birth" in the first paragraph? It would make immediately clear that this is a recently printed document. Jbarta (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I once had an old, crumpled copy of my birth certificate. It had creases all over the place, so many that some of the letters were a tiny bit obscured. This copy itself was a fax page of an older photocopy. I lost my passport. That fax of the copied non-original birth certificate stating that i was born in new york plus an expired drivers license were enough to get a new passport from the US embassy. In Kuala Lumpur. Shocking, I know. But, BY ALL MEANS add a sentence that it was "recently printed." Seems like a clincher. This article was created specifically for you. Happy editing.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm curious, why do you prefer "recently printed" over the exact date when the date is so explicity available right on the document? Jbarta (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jbarta, you're right. Date it, use a timestamp if you can find one (if the time stamp has seconds, use those too). See if you can find out the chain of custody from the printer to the fax machine to the secretary in obama's office who received the fax to the guy who digitized it and put it on the website. Print their names and investigate their backgrounds. Start stubs for them... see if there are any "worrisome" patterns in their past political donations, those of their spouses, or of their dogs. Expand stubs. If all of this information isn't made available to you and fast (the people have questions!) write something like "troublingly, details of the handling of this document have been withheld, raising doubts as to whether the original was altered or replaced and making it possible -- nay likely -- that Obama is not a US citizen, the Free Republic investigative journalism rapid-response team reported."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bali Ultimate that you can add that it was "recently printed."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heaven's knows, the fact that it was printed on June 6, 2007, is valuable information that has to be documented in the article. Heh. OMG, it's not the original? That proves that it's a fake! *sigh* I couldn't even tell you where my original birth certificate is (Not even sure where the copies I've gotten over the years are). --Bobblehead (rants) 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's some other stuff in this article that's not exactly valuable information. A little more wouldn't hurt.  But I would draw the line at including an image of your birth certificate, Bobblehead, if you find it.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How is the date it was printed relevant? Whenever a copy is requested it carries that date at the time it was produced. This is the same with all certified copies of birth certificates (long or short form) and has no bearing or significance to what the certificate is for. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The date when the short-form was originally produced seems relevant. Before June 6, 2007 there was not any short form.  On June 6, 2007 the short form was produced.  On various dates after June 6, 2007 the short form was copied.  As Bali ultimate indicated, it would be okay to just add that it was "recently printed."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How is it relevant? What difference does it make? Is it in the interests of Wikipedia to include non-relevant, personal information in articles? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The date is relevant to the "conspiracy theory" because for accuracy's sake, it's important to clarify that the birth certificate that was released is not Obama's actual original birth certificate (as is likely assumed by those not as familiar with the issue as ourselves). Ignoring pertinant and potentially embarrasing facts does not make them just go away. Jbarta (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay... Color me curious.. How is releasing a certified copy of his certificate of live birth embarrassing to Obama? Let me tell you.. I live in constant fear that someone will find out that the next time I need to replace my driver's license I will have to order a copy of my birth certificate from my birth state. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To my thinking, the biggest clue that it would likely be embarrasing to Obama is the fact that despite the controversy, it's being stubbornly kept under wraps. As far as what exactly could possibly be there that is embarrasing or troubling, I couldn't say for sure. Theories have been presented of course, the most likely being that it may show he was not actually born in Honolulu. I'm sorry to say that I'm not well versed in the specifics of those varied theories. What I am familiar with however is that his original birth certificate is being withheld. I for one would like to know why. Is that too much to ask? Jbarta (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A more important question I think is... let's suppose it IS shown that Obama is inelligible to become President. Then what? That could be messy. As a supporter of Obama I find this situation to be monumetally troubling, the potential ramifications etremely disturbing and of course a very large part of me wishes to do what so many others have done... sweep it under the rug and just dismiss it as nonsense. Approached honestly, it's a tough issue. Jbarta (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the constitution covers this issue.. If the President is unable to fulfill the duties of his post, then the Vice President becomes President. Problem solved. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * comment ...adds bobblehead to my plot file. sigh.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added the date it was printed to the article: See how long that lasts.. Ferrylodge, June 6, 2007 was when the copy of the short form Obama received from Hawai'i was printed. It does not mean that a short form birth certificate for Obama did not exist before that date. Every time a copy of a birth certificate is created by the state it is stamped with the date of that printing. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already removed it. That date carries no significance, so including it is unnecessary (and against WP:BLP) -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Scjessey, as sad as it may seem, part of the conspiracy theory is that the date stamp on the birth certificate being almost exactly 1 year before it was released on the smears website is part of the conspiracy theory mythos. I believe the theory goes "OMG!!! It's so fake they got the year wrong!!!" --Bobblehead (rants) 21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bobblehead: It's clear now, and it pains me to say this, that scjessey is part of the plot. Why else would he be using silly policies to suppress The Truth?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree with Bali ultimate. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously it is because Scjessey is a plant of the Obama administration or worse, the World government. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just don't want to see Wikipedia being used by fringe theorists as a way to legitimize their obviously very silly notions. What is being conveniently ignored is that reliable sources (not WorldNet Daily) are writing about the fringe theorists themselves, not the legitimacy of Obama for the presidency. By ratcheting up the level of detail in this article, such as with this argument over the date, certain editors are going way beyond what is being reported by reliable sources into the realm of synthesis, thus legitimizing the activities of the lunatic fringe. This article, which shouldn't even really exist, will become a rallying point for all these fringetards. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not original research or synthesis. FactCheck.org wrote: "The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign."  It's just typical, bland information that Joe Friday would expect us to provide him with.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theory itself is notable (lots of reliable sources documenting the crazies), so I'm not sure how it can be prevented from having an article. The article includes an entire section about the more notable people that are pushing the conspiracy theory forward and some of the other nuttery they believe in. If you have concerns about this article being used to legitimized their conspiracy theory, then perhaps you could add content that will better disprove their theories? --Bobblehead (rants) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (after ec) - Wait a second. FactCheck.org is being used to provide detailed information in the manner of a primary source, rather as a piece of investigative journalism in the manner of a secondary source. FactCheck.org is not an opinion source, and therefore it shouldn't be misused as such. There is no reason to report each and every detail (such as the date) when the reference is sufficient. My contention is that these details are being used to legitimize the fringe theories, which Wikipedia should not be doing. Find a reliable source that states why the date is important, and I could be persuaded to think differently. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, the Factcheck piece not only is exactly like investigative journalism; it is investigative journalism. Nothing whatsoever wrong with that.  Can we please focus on bigger things?  The FactCheck quote above already explains why the date is important: "because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign."  Can we please move on instead of bogging down on this?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)The Factcheck piece also includes a bulletted list of why the conspiracy theorists think the short form is a forgery. One of those bullets is: "The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008." To which Factcheck provided the answer that Ferrylodge quoted above. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is important to the conspiracy theorists, it should be included in the "Birth certificate rumors and claims" section, with context and explanation. But not without context and in the lead. Priyanath talk 22:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already there.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally - a reasonable point of view. Priyanath is correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Why they think the short form birth certificate is a forgery isn't actually in the article. The FactCheck article would be an excellent source for the claims and the counter-evidence. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (after ec) - It still doesn't explain why the date is significant. You are essentially synthesizing a reason by remarking about the time between when the copy was created and when it was released. That presupposes the copy was produced in anticipation of answering the fringe theorists, when it may have been produced for some completely different reason. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, the date is important to the conspiracy theorists because when Obama's campaign put up the scanned copy of the short form, the date bled through from the backside of the document where it was stamped. The conspiracy theorists incorrectly made the assumption that because the date that bled through was June 6, 2007 and not June 6, 2008 (approximately when the image was released on the site) that the document was a forgery. For whatever reason it didn't cross their minds that perhaps Obama had requested a copy of his birth certificate prior to them jumping to the conclusion that he wasn't actually born in Hawai'i. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Whenever a document is discussed, it's appropriate to say when the document was produced.  We do it, every scholarly article worth its salt does it, and that's what FactCheck.org did.  No huge mystery.  Here's what they said: "We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and 'all the records we could get our hands on' according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship."  I don't see anything there about the date being particularly important to conspiracy theorists.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Read further up in the article, Ferrylodge:

Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are: The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal. It isn't signed. No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version. In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters. The certificate number is blacked out. The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008. The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth." The "2007" that is bleading through from the back is from the date stamp of the certification. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC) I heard the original is in red ink, which everyone knows makes a birth invalid.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think FactCheck mentioned the date of the document, for the reason they provided: "because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign." Refuting some nonsense about the time lag from 2007 to 2008 may have been a factor, but not much of one.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're both saying the same thing, Ferrylodge. The explanation for the 2007 that is seen on the front of the document is that the date is when Hawai'i officials produced it for the campaign. So it's a two-for explanation. The 2007 bleed through isn't proof of forgery, just proof of when the state released the document to Obama's campaign. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Printed on June 6, 2007 - a different approach
Seeing as this article is currently titled using the words "citizenship conspiracy", and the fact that the birth certificate and its printing in 2007 figures prominently in arguments pertaining to that conspiracy, and since that date is plainly available and not disputed, I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the date of that certificates' printing be made at first mention of that certificate. The objective is not to pick and choose facts according to our liking, the objective is to accurately convey all known facts and present the "conspiracy" honestly. And while placing the date further down in the article is honest, I think placing it at first mention of the birth certificate is MORE honest given it's importance in the conspiracy we're trying to accurately describe. Another important consideration is the fact that most people, when they hear "birth certificate" automatically assume it is a photocopy of the actual birth certificate drawn up at birth. Unless this distinction is plainly presented early on, the issue is again not presented honestly. Jbarta (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, because the context and reason for the date are all-important, and are apparently part of the 'case' made by some of those pushing this thing along. No need to have it in the lead, absent context. And the lead, as a summary of the article, is not the place to present the context, and the arguments for and against the birth certificate 'conspiracy'. Priyanath talk 23:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a strong point, but I'm a little unclear what you mean by "absent context". Can you explain? Jbarta (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, wait, the whole above section was about including the date in the lead? In that case, Priyanath is absolutely correct. The print date is not necessary for the lead. It is just another detail in the "forgery" meme and is better covered in the body of the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The date is not exactly needed for any "forgery" issue. That was a sorry distraction. I think it IS important however to immediately draw the distinction between a birth certificate that was drawn last year from a computer database and an original birth certificate created at birth. Without drawing that distinction early on, most readers may simply assume that there is only one form of birth certificate. And since the distinction is important in describing the "consiracy"... Jbarta (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Absent context" means that the date, by itself, without the background story of why the date is so important to some people, is irrelevent. For the lead. There is no reason for it, except in the context of 'oh, this was printed recently' or 'oh, this was printed a year before it was presented on their website' or whatever new conspiracy-meme-of-the-day. Along with an explanation of why the date is irrelevant. All of that can go in the "Birth certificate rumors and claims" section. But the date of the document, by itself, is irrelevant otherwise, i.e., "absent context." Priyanath talk 23:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you support the wording "recently printed" next to the first mention of the birth certificate? Something like "Obama campaign also released a recently printed official copy of the candidate's Certification of Live Birth which summarizes" ?? Jbarta (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't get the feeling that the date of the printing of the short form was important in the "short form vs. long form" debate, but rather that the short form is not the long form document and thus, not the "original". From a legal standpoint, the short form document is a certified document that the long form exists and the information presented on the document matches the information on the long form... So if the short form says he was born in Honolulu, the long form will also say that he was born in Honolulu. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If the released short form simply contains the information on the original long form, why would Obama choose to keep the long form under wraps? To me, that's biggest clue that something is probably not right. And while I'm not familiar with details and can't substantiate it, I tend to believe that there is a good chance that occasionally what is on the short form is not exactly what is on the long form. It would take some investigation into birth certificate practices of the time and place. Jbarta (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick check of the Hawaii Dept of Health web site has a little on ammended birth certificates. Jbarta (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Why would Obama choose to keep the long form under wraps"? That should be obvious to anyone with any claim to be a conspiracy theorist... it is a red herring!... It creates a "conspiracy" for people focus on... one that will distract us and keep us from discovering the real conspiracy.  The real conspiracy, of course, being that Obama is . Tell the world!! Blueboar (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Retitle
Several users have proposed a more neutral title for this article. It is clear some sections (not all) don't necessarily define conspiracy theory, so it is my opinion that we revise the title to something more neutral: Barack Obama citizenship challenges as proposed by Ferrylodge. Or perhaps "Criticisms of Barack Obama's citizenship"....I don't know. I just feel that the current title doesn't properly represent the majority of the article. I can't seem to compare this article with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Whether you disagree with this, people post your questions/opinions/suggestions here. Those who support the retitle, please kindly end your post with "I endorse." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is already under discussion at the top of the page - here - I don't see the need for repeating the arguments. Tvoz / talk 03:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ah, didn't notice the updates. last time i checked there wasn't much of a discussion.  sorry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's ok. Tvoz / talk 20:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse. I'd like to see "Barack Obama citzenship challenges" or "citizenship controversy". I believe it's more of a controversy than a conspiracy theory. Especially in light of what little actual evidence has been provided to refute some of the basic questions. Seems to me there is an attempt by many to avoid and dismiss the issue as nothing more than the ravings of a few fringe lunatics. One might disagree with Alan Keyes and possibly he swerves on the slightly wacky side from time to time, but I would hardly characterize him as either fringe or lunatic. And if I recall, one of the court cases was not exactly "laughed out of court". It was rejected because the court said the only one who can access Obama's original birth certificate is Obama himself. These are not the makings of a conspiracy theory like the Apollo moon landing hoax or that the Jesuits poisoned William Henry Harrison. Jbarta (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The current title is entirely appropriate. When I was researching this from scratch, it became clear that there is no mainstream controversy. Mainstream newspapers and other media outlets are unanimous about the issue, as are major blogs on both left and right. I've been unable to find any mainstream politicians - Republican or Democrat - supporting the claims. Most of the media coverage over the past few months has been driven by the litigation, rather than the merits (or otherwise) of the claims. When you look at who is actually making the claims, the people involved appear to be confined to (a) a number of well-known nutjobs - Keyes, Martin etc; (b) a limited number of conservative talk-show hosts; (c) some fringe websites; and that's it. This entire business is being driven from the fringes, and the views they are propagating not only meet all the criteria of a conspiracy theory, they've repeatedly and explicitly been described as such by multiple reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris, let's assume for the sake of argument that the people involved are confined to (a) a number of well-known nutjobs - Keyes, Martin etc; (b) a limited number of conservative talk-show hosts; (c) some fringe websites. Let's further assume that they are totally outside the mainstream.  None of that is relevant to whether they are alleging a conspiracy.  Alleging a conspiracy means accusing people of getting together to purposely commit wrongdoing.  Please show me where in [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550 this petition] signed by 180,000 people (myself not included) there is any accusation that Obama is conspiring with anyone to commit wrongdoing.  It's just a request for more proof of citizenship.  And people like Donofrio are happy to assume that Obama was born in Hawaii, so what is the conspiracy that Donofrio is alleging?Ferrylodge (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While I'm not opposed to a rename in principle, I am concerned that any new title might mis-represent the nature or standing of these claims. If multiple reliable sources are describing them as conspiracy theories, it's probably not a good idea to apply a different term of our own devising.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not of our own devising. For example, see "President Alien, and Other Tales From the Fringe".  Additionally, there are a few reliable sources that refer to a "conspiracy" of wingnuts on this issue, but that is very different from wingnuts who themselves are alleging a conspiracy.  Let's keep our wingnuts straight here, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A controversy is something where there are reliable sources in dispute. Here, the great preponderance of reliable sources, perhaps even a unanimity of reliable sources, state that the "theory" is completely false. Wikipedia is not for generating new knowledge. The idea that Obama was not born in the US has no basis in fact. It is a fringe view, not a controversy. Jehochman Talk 14:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Anything involving the word "controversy" would be grossly inaccurate, in any case. There is no controversy over Obama's citizenship. A more accurate title would be "Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories", since not all of the fringetards allege a conspiracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough of them do allege a conspiracy that I think the title is appropriate... but I would accept "Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories" as a compromise alternative. Definitely not "controversy" as I agree that there is no controversy. Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories" is an acceptable alternative, though the current title is best, IMO. Priyanath talk 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, the existing title is best. "Fringe" would be ok, except that it is less immediately understood, in my opinion, by the public than "conspiracy theories" which is a well-known meme.  So I'd stay with it as it is. Also, per Bobblehead below, preponderance of sources call it thus. Tvoz / talk 20:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thousands of Wikipedia articles have the word "fringe" in the title. It's a perfectly understandable monosyllabic word.  If accuracy of the title is less important than whether the title is immediately understood by the public, then perhaps we should have a title like "Food."  Short, understandable, and totally inaccurate.


 * If the word "fringe" is so complex, I hope the Washington Post will stop using it. See "President Alien, and Other Tales From the Fringe".Ferrylodge (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) I would support Scjessey's suggestion ("Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories") as a big improvement over the present title.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would leave it as is as per Tvoz's concerns above.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinion pieces need to be identified as such
See RS: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed collumns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

An advantage (or disadvantage) of slapping the "conspiracy" label on this article
FYI, this article is now on the template for conspiracy theories. Also, check out "What links here".Ferrylodge (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Like a hand in a glove. Priyanath talk 06:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When you apply for a driver's license, or a bank account, or a job, you often have to present various forms of ID. For the most powerful job in the world, asking for the original birth certificate does not seem excessive or paranoid or conspiratorial.  Sure, there are elements of conspiracy-theory here, but tarring the whole shabang with that label seems very wrong in my view.  Are most of these people very nutty?  Very much so.  Fringy?  Plenty of that too.  But are they making accusations of a conspiracy on Obama's part?  It seems more to me like Wikipedia editors are accusing them of conspiracy.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ferry - He has satisfied everyone in a position to to verify his eligiblity that he is indeed eligible. No other president has been asked to go to door to door to the homes of thousands of crazy citizens and show them his original birth certificate (which, of course, they will find problems with and make new "demands"). Why on earth should there be some special standard for this man never applied to any other president? Oh, because "there are questions." And why are there questions? Because they popped into the heads of crazy people with internet connections, in the absence of ANY evidence to support their insanity. What crap. Anyone can ask a question, and it's good practice for any public figure not to address the frivolous crazy ones more than neccessary. He's satisfied the electoral registrars of the US, his republican opponent, the party that nominated him and he will get a stamp of approval on his eligiblity from the Supreme Court the day they swear him in. The crazies fact-free assertions have found their rightful home and they aren't "owed" anything (accept addition to the conspiracy theory template; nice work).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a conspiracy theory because it requres belief in the falsity of both the birth certificate and the birth announcement, either of which, if they could be validated, would suffice to prove citizenship by virtue of having been born on U.S. soil. This in turn requires belief in the existence of a vast conspiracy to falsify these, stretching over decades and including members of multiple organizations. Not all conspiracy theories are false; just occasionally, one turns out to be true. But the vast majority are not only false, but unfalsifiable: the true believer just adds anyone with evidence of, or arguments demonstrating, their falsehood or untenability to their list of members of the conspiracy.


 * For example, in this case, even if the original full-form birth certificate were to be publicly presented and validated by officials and forensic examiners in the presence of impartial observers, true believers can be expected to counter this with claims that it was either forged so well as to pass any conceivable examination, and/or that the forensic scientists, officials and observers that validated it are all also members of the conspiracy... -- The Anome (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "conspiracy" best, "fringe" ok other wordins above like "issues" (what nonesense) not ok.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also fair to call this a conspiracy theory because a preponderance of reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Tvoz / talk 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I would support "Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories" as a much better title. And I disagree with Bobblehead that a preponderence of reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory.  There are too many variations on the theory to make such a blanket statement, and moreover the vast majority of those "reliable sources" are actually opinion pieces and editorials rather than news or other purportedly objective statements.  People who merely think more ID should be presented by presidential candidates are not conspiracy theorists.  People who believe that the "Natural Born Citizen Clause" of the Constitution does not encompass children of foreigners are not conspiracy theorists.  People who think that original birth certificates are usually more accurate than summaries printed 45 years later are not conspiracy theorists. Et cetera, et cetera.  There are indeed many conspiracy theorists involved in this thing, but we shouldn't over-generalize.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also in looking at the template you can see how incredibly undue this article is, or atleast it's title.  Grsz  11  22:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what you think the WP:UNDUE issue is? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel looking at this affair that the retitling of this article is just an attempt to legitimize all the different theories. Sooner or later this article will be renamed for something more supportive of all the theories to give them more undue weight.  I prefer the conspiracy title as it was more appropriate to the article.  Brothejr (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit: Um, may I ask why the articles were renamed when there is no apparent consensus over the change?  Brothejr (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer the clear wording "conspiracy theories". None of the sources call them "fringe theories".  That's just Wikipedia-speak, and somewhere here we have a policy about not being self-referential.  The preponderance of reliable sources precisely and correctly label these theories as conspiracy theories.  I am going to move the article back to its proper title right now.  Please don't edit war over this or else I'll get an admin to start issuing pagebans under the Obama article probation. Jehochman Talk 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the word "fringe" is not merely Wikipedia-speak. Thousands of Wikipedia articles have the word "fringe" in their title.  It's a common English word (even in Connecticut), and not merely Wikipedia jargon.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Jehochman here. And stuff like claims that the birth announcement just shows how far in advance plans were laid... dougweller (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the birth announcement, the present Wikipedia article says: "A birth notice for Barack Obama was published in two local newspapers in August 1961. Such notices were sent to newspapers routinely by the Hawaii Department of Health." The present article also says: "WND contends that 'Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii....'"


 * Additionally, neither the Donofrio lawsuit, nor the Wrotnowski lawsuit that SCOTUS will dismiss today, contend that he was born outside Hawaii. There are no reliable sources that contend that Denofrio or Wrotnowski are accusing Obama of any conspiracy.  Zero.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I endorse your move. No other consensus evolved and I was honestly surprised about the first move.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Justmeherenow is notorious for page moves, quite frankly. Also not a fan of "Show preview", it would seem. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse restoration of correct, consensus name.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't endorse this "consensus" name. There is no consensus for this existing name. I just approved of the restoration of the original because the page was moved without consensus. I still think using "fringe" instead of "conspiracy" is more appropriate, since the use of the latter introduces the suggestion that there is actually something to these wack-job fringe theories, which of course there isn't. Certainly further discussion is worthwhile. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I mispell something again?
 * Since everybody apparently is looking at me I feel I should say something. OK how's this? No real malice aforethought; was wikisurfing and, after remembering something Ferrylodge had said, made an itsy- NOW -I-see-is-unwelcome change in your article's title. Sorry. To self → And hmm maybe this "'Fringe'-is-self-referential-Wiki-speak" contention is valid!    Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply …  17:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz
This case is being considered by SCOTUS today - the relevant section of the article will need to be updated accordingly when the case's disposition is announced.

Also, it looks like an Oklahoma Republican legislator may become the first mainstream politician to jump on board the conspiracy theory bandwagon. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He's using innuendo to launch a political attack. He has not asserted that Obama isn't a citizen.  Jehochman Talk 17:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * An Ohio Republican is doing something similar. I've added a section on legislative action covering these - it's quite possible there'll be more to come, since there seems to be a lot of lobbying going on at the moment. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I changed the lead to indicate none of these cases actually was heard by the court before I saw this section. I assumed it was reffering to Donofrio, I've been out of the loop for a few days. Anyway, sorry if I stepped on your toes, please feel free to change it back if they do hear this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for birth hospital
I see that there are two sources listed showing that Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu. Both sources, washingtonpost.com and starbulletin.com state he was born there. I'm wondering where they got their information. How is that treated in Wikipedia? Is it simply assumed that because both publications are respectable whatever information they report is simply accepted? Let's suppose for a moment that they simply printed that information because that's what Obama has claimed and they didn't see fit to check it further. Wouldn't that be a bit iof a conflict of interest? What would it take to acceptably challenge that information in this Wikipedia article? Jbarta (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's assumed that reliable sources are reliable, unless there is strong reason for doubt. Trying to judge the raw evidence supporting a source would take us very rapidly into the realm of Original Research, where we don't want to go.  What it would take to challenge the information would be equally strong sources that say something different. Looie496 (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jbarta, you seriously need to take off the tinfoil hat here. You're starting to see conspiracies under every rock here. That being said, it's likely the reporters did get their information from Obama and/or his campaign. Minor factoids like birth hospital are generally not fact checked beyond confirming their accuracy with the person in question. I'm not sure what Hawai'i's privacy laws are, but chances are Kapi'olani Medical Center would not have been able to confirm that Obama was or was not born there if the reporters had contacted them. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would counter your argument by saying that as it pertains to this issue, which hospital he was born in is not a "minor factoid". Especially considering that the location of his birth has been disputed and that it may affect his eligibility to be President. A little more looking into the matter reveals to me that the possible basis for the claim that he was born at that particular hospital is a statement by his sister in 2008 claiming such, and nothing else (at least that I can find). Do you find it an unreasonable stretch to suggest that his sister might be incorrect and that further verification would be reasonable? Jbarta (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The respective heads of Hawaii Department of Health and vital statistics have also publicly stated the document is genuine. There are only bloggers and other anonymous internet persons claiming to have evidence of forgery. WP:V, and WP:RS are the relevant policies here, and they have both been satisfied. Here's yet another ref: Of course this could be another well respected news organization that is just making shit up because they love Barak Obama and have no interest in journalism, if that happens to be your take on this... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To everyone but the fringe theorists where Obama was born is not in doubt (Well, the city. Most people don't care what hospital). ;) As far as Maya not knowing exactly what hospital her brother was born in, I point you toward Maya being nine years younger than Obama and having been born in a different country than him. Your brother's birth hospital is not exactly something that's high on a person's list of things to know. I know what city my brother was born in and I think I know what hospital he was born in, but that's primarily because I know what hospital I was born in and I'm assuming my brother was born in the same hospital I was born in.;) Chances are Maya gave the wrong hospital the first time she was asked, was corrected after the fact, and then proceeded to give the correct hospital from that point on. All in all, time to stop reading World Net Daily. :) --Bobblehead (rants) 03:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hospital cannot confirm or deny
The article states that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center and lists 2 news sources also stating this. Yet the hospital itself states that it cannot confirm or deny that Obama was born there due to privacy concerns. I understand that this fact is noted several paragraphs down, but the section titled "Early life of Barack Obama" simply states he was born in that hospital and the impression is left that's all there is to the issue. Is it unreasonable to expand that line to reflect the fact that the hospital itself has not confirmed or denied his birth there? Is the statement of the hospital itself considered a reliable source weighty enough to be listed alongside the 2 news sources and in the same location? Jbarta (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The fact the the hospital cannot break its confidentiality agreement has no bearing on the truth of where Obama was born, and the two reliable sources are more than sufficient for Wikipedia to state this as a fact. That section is supposed to provide a background of factual information to juxtapose with the fringe theories described afterward. We mustn't allow the fringe nonsense to infect the facts, or the article will simply because an extension of the fringe theory. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is only three days old and it's already long enough that we need to consider archiving it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is small potatoes. You should've seen the talk page at Sarah Palin a few weeks ago.  We were archiving every hour!  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My edits
The numerous watchers of this page may have noticed that I recently made a series of edits to the article (overall diff). While some of them simply formatted citations and consolidated duplicate references; others corrected factual errors in the article and made the article content match the reference. I have tried to leave informative edit summaries, but if anyone has specific questions about any particular changes, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks okay to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Question
There are already links to Natural-born citizen and Early life and career of Barack Obama. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about what Obama's critics are saying, nor do I want to learn more about them. Where on WP can I find the simple facts about Obama's birth as a natural born citizen? Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Answering my own question after a quick search: Natural-born citizen is helpful. Early life and career of Barack Obama did not address the topic at all. I made a suggestion on its talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, one of the issues is that his dual-citizenship at birth affects his status as a natural born citizen. This is a basis of at least one of the lawsuits. After sifting through some of this stuff myself (as a curious layman, nothing more) I've come to the conclusion that while exotic circumstances of birth may arguably affect one's status as "natural born", Obama's specific circumstance of having dual citizenship at birth almost certainly does not affect his status as natural born. Some would argue it has zero effect on his status as natural born, but my own take is that while qualifications for citizenship are pretty firmly established, the issue of natural-born citizenship is a little murkier. It's been argued that SCOTUS ought to visit the issue in general and attempt to clarify things a little, but given the highly political nature of the subject (especially now), I suppose it's probably wise that courts eagerly turn it away. After all... regarding Obama, if it has any merit at all it's a really thin technicality more than anything else. At any rate, there are two very interesting law review papers mentioned above that have gone into this natural born issue. You'll find links to them somewhere above. I'd also like to work some of this into the article, but have met resistance. The argument being (paraphrasing) "everyone knows what the law is and there's no reason to make the case that everything is as we've always known it to be" (or something like that). Jbarta (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jbarta, all other issues aside. Take a look at your contribution log. Look at the contribution log of other people who are involved on this talkpage/article. Then step away for a while. As you know, i strongly disagree with you. I doubt you'll be able to convince me (and perhaps others like me). But I'm certain your chances of convincing others will be greater after having stepped away for a little while.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding, as a US citizen educated in US schools, has always been that a child of a US citizen or a person born in the US is a natural born citizen. That is born with the right to be a US citizen. I was greatly surprised when this was questioned in Obama's case. (Other words: He is a US citizen because of his birth. No one denys this. How can he not be a natural born citizen?)Steve Dufour (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, we have a winner. If one of your parents is a US national at your time of birth (like Obama's mother) you're eligible to be president, no matter where you were born. If you were born on US soil (after dredd scott was superceded) you are likewise eligible to be president, no matter what nationality or planet one or both or neither of your parents came from (unless they were accredited diplomats of a foreign mission... hmm, maybe that's it? Obama's daddy was a spy for the Kenyans with a diplomatic cover... I demand Kenya hand over all its spy files RIGHT NOW! (If they don't we'll "know" they're "hiding" something.) In all seriousness, for Obama to not be eligible one of two things must be true: 1. His mother was not a US National. 2. He was not born on US soil. Per the law, all the stuff about the nationality of the father is irrelevant.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't you mean to say both have to be true? Steve Dufour (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. If i left that impression, i badly screwed up. "Either/or both" is the key phrase. So we're crystal clear: If one or both of Obama's parents were US nationals at the time of his birth, he's eligible. If Obama was born on US soil and neither of his parents were US nationals, he's eligible. If Obama was born on US soil AND one or both of his parents were US nationals he's eligible... If Obama was NOT born on US soil and NEITHER of his parents were US nationals at the time of his birth THEN he's not eligible. So the conspiracy requires believe in two far-fetched, completely unsupported and untrue things: That he wasn't born in Hawaii; and that his mother wasn't American. Hope that's clear. There are no tecnhnicalities.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, this particular element of the issue is about technicalities. Personally I think Obama is as much American as anyone else and in a practical (and almost certainly legal) sense as much a natural born citizen as anyone else. Actually, I would go so far as to say that his circumstances growing up are arguably a benefit to the mindset of a person becoming President. Personally, I'm not arguing that he's not one of us in any way. However, there are those who have exploited these questions and technicalities in an attempt to challenge his eligibility. Sure, there are political motives. Others claim it as a noble attempt to protect the integrity of the Constitution. Whatever the motives, it's a technicality at best. (and some would say entirely baseless so why bring it up in the first place) I suppose we could also get into the claims of Indonesian citizenship in his youth. If that works out the way his challengers say it did, then it may add another technicality to the pot of his potential ineligibility. (And I'm not sure "educated in US schools" has an bearing on the issue.) Jbarta (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also good to note that Obama has done very little substantially to put some of these issues to rest. I would argue that if he were more forthcoming, more messy technicalities or outright misrepresentations might come to light and then he'd have a harder time simply turning away from them. He's behaving in a smart and pragmatic way. In the greater scheme of things I suppose he doesn't have much of a choice. Jbarta (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What does this discussion have to do with improving the quality of this article? It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to decide if Obama meets the requirements of a natural-born citizen. If you want to discuss the merits of the arguments of the people questioning whether Obama meets the qualifications to be President may I suggest you do so on one of the many discussion boards that are already doing so at this time. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've considered that as this is getting into discussion of the issue rather than discussion of the article per se. My response is that this discussion is the hashing out and examination of issues with the direct purpose of either improving or renaming the article. Seeing that how these issues are thought of and considered by editors has a direct bearing on the quality of article, I think there is benefit to the discussion. And keeping it all in one place rather than scattered elsewhere is also highly beneficial. At the very least, let's be happy that discussion has taken a decidely more serious and specific tone. Jbarta (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The point I am trying to make is that WP needs to explain the information that Jbarta and Bali ultimate have explained here for us, either in this or in some other article. The thing about "US schools" was about me not President Obama, to show that my understanding of the topic is mainstream American. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, there are already several links to Natural-born citizen and a link to Obama's early life and career article. Natural-born citizen covers the qualifications one needs for being a natural-born citizen and Obama's early life and career article covers his birth in Hawai'i and his American mother. Therefore, problem solved.--Bobblehead (rants) 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is the phrase "conspiracy theories" accurate for the article title?
Is the wording "conspiracy theories" accurate for the article title or would one of the proposed alternatives be more accurate and appropriate? Please review the discussion and alternate titles above. I would suggest Yes "conspiracy theories" is accurate and should remain, or No, the phrase is not accurate and one of the proposed alternatives should be chosen. If you have an opinion on an alternative, feel free to specify. Jbarta (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Note: Some of the previous article title discussion has been archived.) Jbarta (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the wording "conspiracy theories" accurate for the article title?

 * Yes, present title is fine. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, "conspiracy theories" does not accurately reflect the issues based on reasons spelled out above. (I don't know if it's appropriate to comment on my own RfC, but since WP:RFC didn't say one way or another, I figured I'd throw in my vote.) Jbarta (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, As strange as this sounds to me, per Scjessey's sound reasoning above: "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims".Die4Dixie (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - The claims fit the core concept of a conspiracy theory, namely that there's a conspiracy to hide the truth of the matter. However, it might be a bit "pointy". "Ineligibility claims" is probably more neutral, but it also lends a false air of legitimacy to this stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is it Wikipedia's purpose to remain neutral, or to attempt adding/detracting "legitimacy" to a subject as editors may see fit? Jbarta (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It has to do with the "undue weight" concept for fringe theories. Neutral point of view does not mean being blind to reality. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I read WP:UNDUE as a control on the proportion of topics to be addressed, not that Wikipedia editors should decide which topics are "legitimate" or suitable for derision. So I read it to mean that while a case could be made to limit these minority viewpoints in an article about Obama, I do NOT read WP:UNDUE as license to editors to assign their own notions as to the "legitimacy" of a topic. In other words, atheism may make up a minority of religious views and should be given weight in that proportion, but it's NOT the duty of Wikipedia editors to make the judgement that aetheists are crackpots because that's their personal view. Even if a large number of people write in their news columns that atheist's are wacko's, it's possible to find just as many journalists that address the issue responsibly and I believe Wikipedia should follow that example. Jbarta (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you aren't suggesting atheists are wackos? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I could find reliable sources suggesting that... and it *is* a "fringe" view... and we certainly want to keep these aetheist "religitards" from mucking up respectable religion pages, right? Of course not, I'm being sarcastic. Actually, I'm an aetheist myself. I don't mind if my neighbor thinks I'm nuts because of it, but I would be disappointed to see the world's largest encyclopedia make that judgement. Jbarta (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, as has been discussed earlier, the present title is accurate and appropriate. Tvoz / talk 07:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may, could I ask if you believe that the various claims and challenges documented in in the article add up to a "conspiracy theory" as it is defined in Wikipedia? Jbarta (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Jbarta's claims to the contrary are unpersuasive. The bottom line with these claims is that there is an allegation of wrongdoing, at the minimum by Obama himself, in representing himself as eligible for the presidency and that Obama is covering up this "fact" ("why won't he produce his birth certificate?"). This isn't about neutral parties attempting to test a proposition for the public benefit - it's being driven by people who are convinced that Obama has sought to conceal his "true status" in a conspiracy of silence. As such, I think "conspiracy theories" is entirely the right term for this topic. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If a number of people suggest that there was a pattern of lies or misinformation concerning the events at Abu Ghraib or policies at Guantanamo Bay and they bring suit looking for more information or make charges of malfeasance, would those plaintiffs and challengers be considered "conspiracy theorists"? And when the challenged simply avoid the issue or say (paraphrasing) "what we say is the truth, just be happy with what we give you" does that mean that challengers should just accept it and move on? I would say not. I would say that those in a position of responsibility should be held to account... even if we happen to like them. Jbarta (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes these conspiracy theories have probably even less credibility or mainstream acceptance then September 11th or JFK ones. And guess what those articles are called? 9/11 conspiracy theories & Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what is wrong with this processDie4Dixie (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those meet the definition of "conspiracy theory". This issue does not. That's the whole point. If someone suggests that McCain had not done enough to show he meets Presidential eligibility and various claims are put forth describing why he may not be eligible and atempted to hide that fact, it that a conspiracy theory? "Conspiracy theory" here is an attempt at derision and a show of non-support... nothing more. Jbarta (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No - There is only one "conspiracy theory", and even that isn't as widely covered as the slightly-less-ridiculous citizenship-related lawsuits. It is clear that all the fringe theories concern the eligibility of Barack Obama for the presidency, so it makes perfect sense for the title to be "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims" (which covers both the lawsuits and the perceived conspiracy, and is well supported by reliable sources). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The main thrust of this article is to document the various legal challenges seeking to prove that Obama is not eligible for the presidency. In contrast, the article barely touches on the "conspiracy theories" - probably because reliable sources covering them are few and far between. I believe the existing title is both inaccurate and non-neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Claims" might be OK, as it also carries a little bit of appropriate skepticism but is not quite so pointy. "Legal challenges" gives undue weight and credibility. There is one concern I have about "conspiracy theory" here. It's not that these things aren't conspiracy theories, because they are, as I see it. However, have the media used this term? Or are we just using it ourselves based on our viewpoint? In short, is it "original research" to use the term "conspiracy theory"? The term obviously works with the JFK and 9/11 stuff, as the media not only used it, but the term was practically invented for the many (and contradictory) JFK stories. But have the media used the term in connection with the Obama stories? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a few reliable sources that make use of the term "conspiracy theory", but there is by no means a preponderance. Most sources discuss the legal claims specifically, rather than the more nebulous claim of a conspiracy. That's why I feel so strongly that the existing title is inaccurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is NOT inaccurate. These claims allege that someone is hiding something. That's a conspiracy theory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * *yes keep it "conspiracy theories." All of these theories rest on the assumption that there is a wide-spread, well-coordinated effort to suppress The Truth, spanning continents, various government agencies and private actors. That is, they are conspiracy theories. As for claims, unless preceeded by "false" that's a bad title.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (after ec) - And that is synthesis. You need actual reliable sources that specifically describe these as conspiracy theories. And that still doesn't get around the fact that most of the article is about the court cases, none of which claim any sort of conspiracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's the point I'm making. These items are conspiracy theories. They allege that information is being hidden, one way or another. However, if the media generally don't call them conspiracy theories, then it's questionable whether wikipedia should. That's why I say "claims" is probably the safer term, "safer" under wikipedia standards, that is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Yes. (It would be accurate if it is rephrased to indicate that there are others, e.g. "Obama ineligibility claims and conspiracy theories".) There should be a section of the article devoted to conspiracy theories, but there is much more here than conspiracy theories.  The only conspiracy theory here is that the publicized short-form certificate on Obama's web site was forged.  But many of the people described in this article do not subscribe to that position.  Donofrio doesn't.  Worldnetdaily doesn't.  Wrotnowski doesn't.  Camille Paglia doesn't.  Et cetera.  Smearing them with the "conspiracy" label is grossly inaccurate and unfair.  A person who simply thinks Obama ought to disclose his original birth certificate is not a conspiracy theorist.  A person who thinks that there ought to be stronger enforcement of the constitutional eligibility requirements is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist.  A person who agrees with the minority instead of the majority in the Wong Kim Ark case is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist.  A person who thinks that Ann Dunham merely registered her child in Hawaii after birth in Kenya to avoid the hassle of naturalization is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist (note that Hawaii officials would have done nothing wrong in this scenario).  I could go on and on.  What all those people are is FRINGE or FANCIFUL or NUTJOBS or a SMALL MINORITY, but they are not CONSPIRACISTS.  Can't we denigrate them accurately instead of inaccurately, please?  Many reliable sources denigrate them without using the word "conspiracy", and when they do use the word conspiracy, they are almost always referring narrowly to the few people who say that the birth certificate was forged.  Additionally, even those who suspect that Obama may be hiding something are not necessarily "conspiracy" theorists; look it up in the dictionary (when you get carded buying alcohol, does that make the person doing it a "conspiracy theorist"?).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Nutjob" may be factually correct, but might fail NPOV rules. As I found out through long and bitter experience with the Apollo hoax page, conspiracy theorists don't like being called conspiracy theorists. The issue of his birth certificate arises from a conspiracy theory, and those who call for its release (which is not required nor even normally done), because of allegations that the Hawaiian government has somehow provided misleading information, are subscribing to a conspiracy theory. Getting carded at a bar or liquor store has nothing to do with conspiracy theories; it has totally to do with the bar or liquor store trying to avoid the risk of liability for selling alcohol to minors. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bugs, do you really want to take the position that disliking the "conspiracy theorist" label is evidence of being a conspiracy theorist? I've said repeatedly that I am 99% sure Obama is eligible.  The Hawaii government will provide certificates with minimal evidence: "The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era."  The fact that they may have issued a birth certificate to someone not actually born there does not indicate any wrongdoing on the part of state officials, much less a "conspiracy" among them.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue was originally raised by conspiracy theorists. Buying into a conspiracy theory is part of the process of expanding the conspiracy theory. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. We should always question things. I do consider "conspiracy theory" to be a somewhat pejorative term, but some conspiracy theorists are really offended by it, as per my experience with the Apollo hoax page. And I'll freely admit I was once a conspiracy theorist as regards the JFK assassination, and I don't consider it insulting, as it was fair to raise the questions. In recent years I have become convinced that Oswald not only took part in it (which I never doubted from day one), but also that it is very possible that he acted alone. The conspiracy theories arose in large part because of the close-to-the-vest attitude taken by both the U.S. Government (who wanted to counter the immediate assumption on the part of many Americans that Cuba and/or USSR were behind it) and by the Kennedy clan (who, in retrospect, had plenty of stuff to hide). Similarly, the complainants about the birth certificate, etc., are arguing that refusing to release the original is evidence of a continued coverup. That's a conspiracy theory. It's good to raise questions. The problem is when the questioning goes off the deep end. An example would be that if they did release the original and then the complainants would claim it was forged also. Hence they "win", no matter what. I say again that these claims do qualify as conspiracy theories. That doesn't mean the article title is appropriate, though, simply because of the shortage of verifiable usage of the term for these cases. "Claims" would be more neutral. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only some of the complainants about the birth certificate are arguing that refusing to release the original is evidence of a continued coverup. If you go read Donofrio's brief, he specifically compliments Obama for not releasing the original, given that no court has asked him to do so.  And some of the complainants just say Obama is being uncooperative rather than deliberately covering anything up.  This is from the Donofrio brief: "As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama's birth certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point out that Senator Obama has not  been presented with a genuine legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility to submit or to bend his integrity.  And for that, he certainly deserves respect. Appellant believes that if Senator Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put this issue behind him forever." Ferrylodge (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The arguments, by some, that Obama is being "uncooperative" compare to the arguments by some of the moon hoaxsters that NASA is being "uncooperative" in that they won't spend money trying to prove that the moon landings occurred. Donofrio makes the proper legal statement, i.e. that Obama is under no legal obligation to "prove" anything unless the courts tell him to. Donofrio is obviously treading on eggs here, trying to avoid sounding like a conspiracy theorist. I go back to what I consider the obvious: If there were really an issue here, the GOP would be all over it. But they haven't been. So either they don't think it's an issue, or they secretly wanted Obama to win so they could blame the recession on the Democrats (and if you think that's a conspiracy theory, consider that Limbaugh is already labeling the current recession the Democratic recession - despite the fact that the seeds for it were sown in the Reagan administration). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you live with "Obama ineligibility conspiracy theories and claims"? That leaves it ambiguous whether the word "conspiracy" modifies "claims".  And not to digress or anything, but the seeds of this recession were sown in the Johnson administration.  Johnson semi-privatized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to finance the Vietnam War.  He should have either entirely privatized them, or not privatized them at all.  He created a monster that had implicit federal financial backing, but still had the ability to spend gobs of money lobbying Congress.  This was a financial monster waiting to wreak havoc, and it finally did.  There were other factors too, of course.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, a title like that would almost certainly make it impossible to find, other than being linkable from the Obama articles umbrella. "Obama ineligibility claims" would work for me. And why stop with LBJ? According to Limbaugh, this is all FDR's fault. One funny thing, though - in the 1890s, J.P. Morgan bailed out the U.S. Government. I guess it's finally payback time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really is FDR's fault, if you want to know the truth .Die4Dixie (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We were running a surplus in the 90s. The GOP-led Congress decided that deficits didn't matter after all, so here we are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then "Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and claims"?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the claim very often made that "if there were anything to it, Clinton or McCain would have been all over it". If this talk page is any clue, you can see what would have resulted had either campaign pursued the issue. I believe it's very plausible that both campaigns made the decision to stay away from it because some of the arguments are thin and unpopular, getting into it would be more trouble than it's worth and more bang for buck could be had elsewhere. I don't see it as an acknowlegement there's "nothing to it". Jbarta (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue was raised in Congress as regards McCain, and was settled properly. Had anyone raised it with Obama, it could likewise have been settled long ago. Since no one took it on, it must have been thought to be less credible than the concerns about McCain. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Or else the GOP is generally more concerned about possibly violating the Constitution. Or else the Obama issue has more evidentiary aspects than the McCain matter.  Or else....Ferrylodge (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Violating the Constitution how? By asking someone to prove he's eligible to be President? Not hardly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand the question. Anyhow, take Hillary.  She's arguably barred by the emoluments clause from serving as Secretary of State.  But the Dems aren't seeking a Senate resolution on that.  Contrast Orin Hatch who actually turned down nomination to SCOTUS for that same exact reason.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe she's going to turn the salary over to charity??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Legislators who know they'll be ineligible to fill positions if they raise the salaries, will be inclined to not raise the salaries. That purpose would be defeated (or so the argument goes) if the salary difference could merely be refunded to the Treasury.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

← Look. Not all the lawsuits allege a conspiracy, correct? And not all the conspiracy theorists have filed lawsuits, correct? But all the lawsuits and theories concern Obama's eligibility to be POTUS, correct? Therefore, it makes sense for the title to be "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims". It is a more accurate title, and it doesn't increase the scope of the article to allow all the other nutjob stuff around to get thrown in there as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that your proposal is better than the current title and more accurately reflects the issues presented in the article. Jbarta (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty good title. Less pointy, not too wordy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Baseball_Bugs, are you thus prepared to change your Yes to a No? Jbarta (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because the question asks whether it's accurate. I still say it is accurate. However, I think the proposed new title is better, i.e. more in line with policy. So maybe you need to ask a new question. Although I think the part just after the ← above does just that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get buried under questions, but I would suggest that if you believe a better title omits the phrase "conspiracy theories", then it's safe to say the the current title is not accurate or appropriate in your view. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just offering my own analysis of your statements. Jbarta (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Accurate" and "appropriate" are two different questions. The current title is accurate, but may not be appropriate. The revised idea is both accurate and appropriate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the part about "citizenship" is more problematic, because it's not his citizenship that's at issue, it's his "natural born citizen" status, or lack thereof. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the lawsuits are based on the underlying claim that Obama's citizenship is not as stated by Obama and his campaign. They all assert or assume wrongdoing and fraud on Obama's part in representing him as ineligible for the presidency. They all assert or assume that there are many parties to this supposed conspiracy to conceal Obama's "true" origins - Obama himself, the campaign, the DNC, state governors, secretaries of state, electors and so on. The bottom line is that you can't draw a line between the nutjobs and the supposedly sane litigators, because they're all following the same essentially nutty assumption that Obama's biography has been falsified. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my argument. However, lacking sources to name them "nutjobs", we can't use that in the title. And "conspiracy theory" is apparently not in wide usage either, so it's questionable as a title. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree that suggestions Obama may be hiding something, or that legal challenges to his eligibility are by definition "nutty". That is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on the issue (and challengers), and a first line of rebuttal in lieu of more substantive argument. Point-counterpoint can be made, but accusations of nuttiness are a first line of defense, not a reasoned argument of the claims. Jbarta (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Suggestions Obama may be hiding something" are conspiracy theorizing, by definition. The conspiracy being theorized is that Obama is "hiding something"; that's the starting point from which all the other conspiracy theories - birth certificate, place of birth, citizenship etc - are being derived. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But "conspiracy" implies 2 or more people working together to hide something, and that is not the case with everything in this article. One lawsuit simply attempts to get Obama to present his long form birth certificate. Perhaps there is an implication of a conspiracy there, but it is not for Wikipedia to say so without a reliable source to back it up. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestions Obama may be hiding something" are conspiracy theorizing, by definition -- I disagree. With this statement you have substantially expanded the definition of "conspiracy theory" and show (IMO) that you see little or no distinction between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory". By your definition, anyone accusing others of hiding something is a "conspiracy theorist". As an experiment, substitute another name and see if it make sense to you... Suggestions Bush may be hiding something are conspiracy theorizing, by definition. See what I mean? Jbarta (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, when prosecutors charge someone with conspiracy to commit this that or another thing, are they by definition "conspiracy theorists" or have they simply made an accusation? Jbarta (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
 * No, prosecutors are not conspiracy theorists. We had a debate on that same question on the moon hoax page. A conspiracy charge is based on evidence against an accused criminal. A conspiracy theory is an alternative to an official (i.e. governmental) explanation. The official story is that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1960 and/or that he maintained his U.S. citizenship. The alternative story is that he wasn't and/or that he didn't. A conspiracy theory is based on someone's interpretation of something, running counter to the official story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I must admit, that's an interesting argument. I'll have to think about that. (Hopefully I won't hurt myself in the process ;-) At the same time, only some aspects of this issue deal with things that run contary to "the official story". Some are simply questions about definitions or process. Jbarta (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I'm hearing right, what you're saying is that there may be no actual "official story" as such, at least not an overt official story - just an underlying assumption. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little uncomfortable with the phrase "official story". Essentially what we have is a number of claims and legal challenges that all claim in one way or another Obama is either not legally eligible to be President, or that he should provide more proof that he *is* eligible. I'm not sure we can then extrapolate that Obama is eligible and challenges to the contrary are unfounded is the "official story". To me, that's a bit of a stretch. Especially in light of what little has actually been done to prove Obama's eligibility and the questions that have remained unanswered. Sure, legal challenges have gained no traction, but that's not because he mounted a good rebuttal... just that the challenge didn't hit him because the judges didn't want to create a shitstorm, um, uh, I mean didn't see any merit to the challenge. Again, "official story" rings a little hollow in this instance. Jbarta (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, above I misspoke. The challenges were mostly denied due to lack of standing, not lack of merit. Bit of a difference there. Jbarta (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - no more to add to the statements above supporting the present title. dougweller (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - clearly conspiracy theory is the right term here. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Conspiracy theory is the right term.  LotLE × talk  21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes: there appears to be no evidence of "claims" that rise above the level of a conspiracy theory. HrafnTalkStalk 06:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, current title is accurate. Per my prior comments on this page, this article is titled appropriately and reflects what reliable sources say. Jehochman Talk 06:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - as per other editors above. Brothejr (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is accurate and no better title was suggested.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. There has been a fairly convincing case made here that "conspiracy theories" is "accurate"; however the reason that I think brought it up and the reason that it won't die has not been addressed yet... it still sounds weird, and even to somebody familiar with the news stories it sounds loaded. There's a great list further up the page that lists articles which use "conspiracy theory", but barely any (if any at all) use this in the form of a title. Most go for either "challenges" or some variant, "rumors" or some variant or something simply about Obama's citizenship, if trying to describe the situation in the title at all. I would like to see either Barack Obama citizenship challenges as the title, or perhaps preferably: Citizenship of Barack Obama. These seem equally accurate, equally precise about identifying the subject but both keeping to much more common language used about the subject. Consider that Flat Earthism is often described as a conspiracy theory, but nobody would suggest calling it the "Flat Earth conspiracy theories". Bigbluefish (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Title change proposal
To change the title to "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims"...
 * Yes - er... obviously. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, equally obviously - as I've said above, all the "ineligibility claims" are based on a premise that Obama's biography has been falsified or misrepresented by Obama himself, his campaign, the DNC and many other parties. Ergo, a classic conspiracy theory. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between person A falsifying a statement and person B failing to determine if that statement is true. Part of the issue is that various entities (DNC, various SoS's etc) did little or nothing to verify that Obama statements and claims were true, nor will they offer specifics regarding what they actually did to verify Obama's eligibility. At least one of the legal challenges charge just that... little or no checking of eligibility. That's a claim of lack of proper action, oversight and discharge of duties, not a suggestion of a conspiracy. Jbarta (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Few reliable sources support the term "conspiracy theory", and the proposed new title does not preclude the documentation of a conspiracy theory anyway - it just attempts to be more neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - While I agree these are conspiracy theories, that's our judgment more so than it being citable, and that's the problem. There's another problem, in that the current title implies there's an issue of his actual citizenship. I don't think that's really at issue. As far as I know, it's his eligibility that's at issue. So the proposed title is better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - I would prefer to add "and conspiracy theories" at the end of the title, but I could live with the title as proposed. Adding those three words would clearly indicate that there are some very sketchy people and ideas involved in this thing (as ChrisO mentioned), while still embracing the people who aren't so sketchy.  For example, Donofrio and Wrotnowski did not assert that Obama's biography has been falsified or misrepresented by Obama himself, his campaign, the DNC and many other parties (ditto people who simply think that candidates generally should provide copies of their original birth certificates, or at least candidates with a non-citizen parent).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. While it may not be my first choice as an alternative, and I do have a couple mild reservations concerning the proposal, I believe it's more accurate and a more appropriate title for the article than what is current. I give it my support. Jbarta (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, don't change title, but redirect is OK. LotLE × talk  21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, as just said in RfC, don't change title. Tvoz / talk 21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. These are by definition 'Conspiracy Theories' and should be labeled as such.  Precedent includes 9/11 conspiracy theories & Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.  Unbiased media sources are willing to describe these ideas as conspiracy theories, and there are plenty of legitimate citations.  Changing the title gives undue weight and validation to theorists, who are in a slim minority.  Would you change the article Sexual predator to Nontraditional sexual activist or some such nonsense at the behest of pedophiles?  -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC
 * Also, I agree with this logic as well as ChrisO's above.  Tvoz / talk 21:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't help but wonder if there is any logic put forth by those seeking a title change that you do agree with? Do you find any opinions in common? Jbarta (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your question, I have often agreed with Scjessey on issues, but I disagree with him on this one. The phrase "conspiracy theory" correctly characterizes what these fringe claims are, and taking it out, in my opinion, legitimizes them in a way that is not neutral. I see these claims as inherently conspiracy claims, as involving at least Obama and his advisors who certainly have had this raised to them, and perhaps his prescient family members 40+ years in advance, the Hawaiian government and a host of others.  I am more persuaded by the arguments on the side of retaining the current title. Tvoz / talk 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really answer my question (very well done however... maybe you should be in politics :-). Let me ask you something more specific: Would you agree that at least two of the legal challenges have nothing whatsoever to do with a conspiracy theory and instead deal with the process of determining presidential eligibility and the definition of natural born citizen? Can you climb aboard on those two points? Jbarta (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I posted a reply to this, but it's not showing up here - the short response is, no, I am afraid I can't agree. These all are "conspiracy theories" - fringe theories - with an implication that Obama, his advisors, lawyers, supporters, staff, family, the DNC, etc etc have together (read: conspiracy) perpetrated a hoax on the American people pretending he is eligible for the Presidency when they have surely heard the overwhelming evidence that he was born somewhere else, or gave up his citizenship, or held dual or triple citizenship, or was the son of someone entirely other than the person named on his birth certificate and in the 1961 newspapers,  or maybe was born in a completely different year before statehood and then had his birth certificate altered to an acceptable year, or perhaps is an alien altogether who took over Barack Obama's body... but wait, the Constitution doesn't say that being human is an eligibility requirement, does it?  Paul is dead, and so is this argument as far as I'm concerned.  Saying it over and over again doesn't make it valid, and choosing an article title that legitimizes this garbage is not something I would agree to.  Tvoz / talk 06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would simply comment that (IMO) you are first taking the position that it's all nonsense and working your thinking, logic and arguments backwards from that in an effort to support your predetermined conclusion. If however, you approach it objectively, and with no prejudice or preconceived ideas, it's not difficult to coldly examine the various issues and arguments and see that it's not entirely nonsense by any stretch of the imagination and largely does not add up to "conspiracy theory". Jbarta (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You make the point that keeping "conspiracy theories" in the title is partly an attempt to invalidate the theorists... a complete misuse of WP:UNDUE (IMO). And using your "sexual predator" analogy, I would say that if you are describing an 19 yr old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old, then the phrase sexual predator would be inaccurate and attempts to label him as such are inappropriate. In that case, "underage sex" would be more appropriate, although there would be those arguing that calling it something other than "sexual predator" only serves to legitimize the actions of that 19 year old. Like I said earlier take the same circumstances and make the subject someone minor or unpopular and it would then be referred to more accurately as "challenges" and "claims". Jbarta (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that by using the word 'undue' I was citing WP:UNDUE, which I don't think it applicable here. But WP:NAME says to Use the most easily recognized name, which is hard to determine except by consensus.  Speaking personally, the current title is almost exactly what I'd search for if I was looking for this topic.  Things might be different if I believed the conspiracy, but since it's pretty clear from media coverage that most don't, the current title is more universal than a title referring to 'citizenship claims'. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting position. For the sake of argument, would you say that choosing a popular name is more important than choosing an accurate name? Let's suppose we could agree that A is more popular or well known or common yet B was more accurate and descriptive. Would you interpret Wikipedia guidelines as preferring A or B? And could you point specifically to the guideline and section you would use (if any) to justify that interpretation? Jbarta (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not "popular" - the criterion is what would be the most likely phrase for readers to search on. I agree with Hemidemi that Obama conspiracy theories is more likely than Obama presidential ineligibility claims as a search term. Tvoz / talk 06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as an example, I tried to think of a commonly used word that is not entirely accurate for what it really is. Luckily my first guess works out well... "silverware" is what most people (AFAIK) call their knife, fork and spoon. Yet the Wikipedia title for that is "cutlery". Does anyone say "Where is your cutlery drawer?" Silverware is more common yet cutlery is more accurate (?). The article is titled "cutlery". Jbarta (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, actually I grew up with the word "cutlery", so yes, I have a cutlery drawer. Silverware is, well, the "good" silver.  But my mother was Canadian, so perhaps that explains it. Tvoz / talk 06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No I support "conpiracy theories" as the appropriate title.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Might be some editors who do not understand the reason, but it is bordering on WP:IDONTKNOW IMHO.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No The current title is supported by both logic and reliable sources. The proposed title would only serve to legitimize what are decidedly fringe opinions, something no reliable source has yet done.  Again, WP:NPOV does not mean that we represent minority or fringe opinions as being equal to majority  or mainstream opinions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * From WP:NPOV:


 * "content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias"


 * "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively"


 * "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints"


 * When an editor attempts to either legitimize or delegitimize a topic according to his beliefs, that is adding in personal bias and is a complete perversion of neutral point of view IMO. It's not for YOU to determine legitimacy. It's the editor's job to present the facts in an unbiased way and use the most accurate descriptor possible. If you really believe that "conspiracy theories" is an accurate description of the issue, then that's one thing and I will only suggest you have a weak argument. If however, you claim to add neutrality by deciding what is a legitimate or respectable issue according to your own personal views, then I would say you're dead wrong and should read WP:NPOV again. I would suggest that every notable topic and view is "legitimate" and should be described accurately.


 * And for the record, while one will find reliable sources that use the phrase "conspiracy theories", one will also find reliable sources that do not. So I would argue that's pretty much a wash. Jbarta (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "legitimize what are decidedly fringe opinions, something no reliable source has yet done" -- I would disagree. There are plenty of reliable sources that use fairly neutral language when reporting on this issue. Granted, the urge to insert editorial comments into news articles is irresistable for some journalists, but many news articles are in fact fairly neutral. I would also suggest that many articles claiming "conspiracy theories" and "lunatic fringe", etc are more commentary than actual reporting. In that vein, I would suggest that "Wikipedia is not a soap box/Opinion pieces" should be kept in the back of one's mind. Jbarta (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes (per Scjessey and others). We should just say what they are, not use the title to characterize them.  Even if they are conspiracy theories it sounds like a cheap shot to say so in the title.  Other fringe / conspiracy theory articles are a mixed bag - for example, Flat earth, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Abduction phenomenon, 9/11 Truth Movement, Zionist Occupation Government, Christian Patriot movement, etc.  Generally, the fact that these are fringe theories is obvious, and stated in the lead, but not always made clear in the title.  The article sounds more neutral, and therefore credible, if it does not seem to advocate in the title against the subject of the article.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No... the current title (Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories) is the correct title. And furthermore, polling is evil. (someone had to say it). Blueboar (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, what you mean when you say "polling is evil"? Can you explain it in a way that a novice like me would understand? Jbarta (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lots of info is at WP:VOTE (and see its "See also" section).Ferrylodge (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No: there appears to be no evidence of "claims" that rise above the level of a conspiracy theory. HrafnTalkStalk 06:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't change title. These "claims of ineligibility" are widely reported as conspiracy theories. Jehochman Talk 06:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And they are also widely NOT reported as conspiracy theories. I would go so far as to say that while the claims and arguments may be often criticized in news reports, the characterization of them as "conspiracy theories" is arguably a lesser view in reputable sources. And where one does find that phrase often is in commentary rather than reporting. Your position holds little water. Jbarta (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No no as per Jehochman and others. Brothejr (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No I don't like having "conspiracy theories" in article titles as a matter of style, but I don't want the title changed to anything that lends this nonsense even a scintilla of credibility. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I'm quite blown away by so many flagrant violations of NPOV. Wikipedia is not your blog. Wikipedia is not your position paper. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a collection of knowledge and facts whose main precept is neutrality. Jbarta (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, as started in previous section. All of these claims either explicitly or implicitly rely upon the assumption that the country's political, legal, and media elites are completely and willfully ignoring the truth that Obama is not eligible to become president, and thus a great constitutional fraud is about to take place.  Check out the rhetoric in [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82640 this Alan Keyes column]: if this goes through, it's the end of the constitutional republic as we know it, and we're on the road to tyranny and soon we'll be no better than the USSR, Red China, and North Korea.  And Keyes is the most known and "respectable" of all these characters!  The title of the article is accurate.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Alan Keyes and some of the others have a way of shooting off their mouth and saying rather ridiculous things. There's plenty of that on both sides. When he's not carrying on like a buffoon he's actually very intelligent and thoughtful. At any rate, I think it's good to get past rhetoric and hyperbole and examine the substance as objectively as possible. Jbarta (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And for the record, I don't think this issue damages the Consitution any more than the myriad of other damages it has suffered over the years and Obama won't be a usurper (in a practical sense). However, I do believe a very good case can be made that he may be ineligible on technicalities... and as a general rule, maybe we ought not be so eager to ignore so many technicalitites... especially where the Constitution is concerned. Jbarta (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * the country's political, legal, and media elites are completely and willfully ignoring the truth that Obama is not eligible to become president, I would alter that to millions of people are willfully ignoring the possibility that Obama may not be eligible for the presidency. Jbarta (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No When Jbarta says that "a very good case can be made that he may be ineligible on technicalities," that seems to include the possibility that Obama may be unaware of his own ineligibility. But the vast majority of ineligibility writings that I have read take the position that he knows that he is ineligible and is making efforts to conceal the truth. He could not do this entirely on his own, so to me the existence of a conspiracy is implied in the overwhelming bulk of the claims. TheMaestro (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that Obama knows his situation completely. I'm surprised you arrived at that. And yes, if things are not as advertised, certainly there may be other people who know for sure. Without a doubt his mother would have known. His grandmother would have probably have known. Close friends and relatives may know. But the idea that it requires great numbers of people to hide details that may be contained in documents sealed from public view is incorrect. Also, keep in mind the Hawaii Dept of Health said they have his "birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures". That's an interesting way to put it. To me all that says is they have his birth certificate... nothing more. Technically only Obama would have to misrepresent the truth and no one in the dept of health has conspired (they just don't confirm or deny anything). No one has to do much of anything... especially if there is no legal challenge compelling any action. Also, if I recall, there have been other documents that might shed some light on these things but Obama has chosen to keep those hidden as well. (I'm not sure specifically what those requested documents were... that's a gap in my knowledge of the matter... although some sort of school admission documents come to mind... don't quote me though) Add to that, there is virtually no checking by various organizations (DNC, FEC, SoS, etc) of any of this. So the notion that all this has been thoroughly checked by anyone is just plain not true. Without anything to compel him otherwise, Obama can just sit on the truth (assuming I'm not crazy and there is a truth for him to sit on) almost no one else is required. If I'm wrong on any of the facts here, by all means let me know. Jbarta (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it, is it possible that there may be something regarding Obama's history that he really is unaware of? I suppose it's possible, but it would take a level of speculation that I'm not entirely comforable discussing with any seriousness, and Obama being the extremely smart and (probably) curious person he is, would have drilled to the truth long ago at the first hint something might not be as advertised. Jbarta (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

←This has been an interesting discussion. I proposed the title because I believe that using the term "conspiracy theories" represents a non-neutral, and not entirely accurate description. Additionally, I believe that "claims" addresses the concerns of those who think the proposed title in some way legitimizes any of the lawsuits and fringe theories. Finally, I want a title that seeks to narrow the scope of the article so that other fringe theory crap doesn't creep in (there is an attempt to shoehorn the "Obama is a Muslim" stuff into the public image article, for example). It is my firm belief that article titles should not seek to characterize the subject of an article, however ridiculous it may be. Incidentally, I would still rather see this article deleted, as I think it does more to legitimize the wack-job theories than the article's title ever will. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that such an intense effort to delete or delegitimize the issue is pretty good evidence that there is actually some substance to it. This is not something that trancends physics or ignores a preponderance of evidence. This is a discussion that many folks simply don't wish to have. To many it's minor thing and we should label it nutty or just ignore it and talk about something else. Instead of viewing it as an examination of an issue, it's viewed as an attack and the first instinct is to mount a defense. The most common defense being the whole thing is garbage. That's not much of an argument. At any rate, Obama will survive, the Constitution will survive, the country will survive and Wikipedia will survive. All will survive in spite of us because even with all the messiness... they are all still the best thing going. Jbarta (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why then are you making so much effort to promote the issue? Step back and let the RFC run its course.  There is such a thing as posting too much.  At some point excessive posting turns into argumentum ad nauseum, a common disruptive editing technique. Jehochman Talk 16:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree and yes it has occurred to me that I'm being too persistant and argumentative. Even in my normal life I need to learn when to shut the hell up and give it a break already. For what it's worth, I'm not wishing to be disruptive, and if I've given that impression or crossed the line, I sincerely apologize. Jbarta (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. (Already commented above so I spare my keys.)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep "conspiracy theories" in title but tweak title
In the spirit of compromise, and in the spirit of not letting this issue drag too much into 2009, can we please agree on "Barack Obama citizenship challenges and conspiracy theories"? I think this would be a big improvement in the title, and I have it on good authority that I'm not alone. Can others live with this? I won't bother going into all the concerns and reasons since they're already spelled out above.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC) *Support (at this point, decided that views on this can wait). kind of. 1st choice -- no change. 2nd choice -- "tktkt conspiracy theories and citizenship challenges." 3rd choice -- your proposal. I guess my statement of support amounts to "don't want it changed, but if it must be changed to move forward, then i can live with this one."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see any citizenship challenges. Such things would be supported by actual evidence and have at least a glimmer of hope of being taken seriously.  If any such things appear, we can look at the title.  For now, everything in the article is essentially in the realm of conspiracy theories.  Let's not add  weasel words or "teach the controversy".  Let's stick to the facts. There is a need to seek consensus.  That does not mean we have to compromise with extreme views. We do not achieve WP:NPOV through tug of war. Jehochman Talk 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, respectfully, I do not feel like you have really engaged those with whom you disagree. You have not acknowledged that many of the people described in this article do not subscribe to the position that there was forgery here. You have not explained how Donofrio's lawsuit was a conspiracy theory, given that he accepts Obama was born in the USA. Worldnetdaily and Wrotnowski likewise do not assert that there was any forgery. Camille Paglia doesn't assert forgery. You have not mentioned any of these people.  You have not explained why a person who thinks that there ought to be stronger enforcement of the constitutional eligibility requirements is necessarily a conspiracy theorist, or why a person who agrees with the minority instead of the majority in the Wong Kim Ark case is necessarily a conspiracy theorist.  Additionally, every person who is asserting that Obama is conspiring to hide the truth is "challenging" his citizenship.  I do not understand how you can see no citizenship challenge here, or why you choose to label everyone who perceives a citizenship "challenge" as an extremist.  Isn't there a very important difference between saying that conspiracy theorists are involved here, versus saying that every single person who has the slightest interest in seeing Obama's original birth certificate is a conspiracy theorist?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jehochman does bring up a good point. I don't believe any of the legal challenges are claiming that Obama is not currently a citizen of the US, just that he is not a natural-born citizen, so is not eligible to be President. Granted, that does indicate that even if just "conspiracy theories" is kept in the title of the article, then the current article may need to be renamed to "Barack Obama natural-born citizenship conspiracy theories". --Bobblehead (rants) 00:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a conspiracy theory about natural-born citizenship, then that is a type of citizenship conspiracy theory. No need to clutter up the title with details.  Also, I don't think that's what Jehochman was trying to say.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. This proposal acknowledges conspiratorial elements and aims more towards accuracy and less towards derision. It's better than the current title.Jbarta (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not. What, will every thread here always be yet another repetition of the same rejected RfC for renaming.  I suppose at some point, the proponents of the "gentle" name hope to wear out sensible editors, then declare "consensus" for a (repeatedly rejected) change! Enough already, stop the repeated duplicitous "polls".  LotLE × talk  21:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Until now, there has not been any poll about a proposal to keep "conspiracy theories" in the title but modify the title. Regarding duplicitousness, see WP:AGF.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Enough already. I have posted to WP:AN for an uninvolved administrator to review this situation.  There is an RFC immediately above.  Why are proponents of a name change arguing endlessly when there is clearly no consensus for a change? Jehochman Talk 21:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Until now, there has not been any poll about a proposal to keep "conspiracy theories" in the title but modify the title. Also, as described above, I do not feel that you have answered anyone with whom you disagree.  I hope that answers your question.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also not a consensus for keeping the title as it is. I for one see some value in trying to engage those who disagree with me and see if we can find some common points of agreement and maybe actually achieve a consensus on the title. (Admittedly I'm not very good at it.) I also agree that for the moment we're going nowhere fast and I'm not entirely sure how to proceed. In supporting this latest compromise title, I was merely attempting to contribute to a consensus by compromising. I have my opinions and I have my arguments, but I'm also reasonable and flexible. As far as wearing anyone down, I think that's a misinterpretation. That's not the intent. However, if one really wishes to jump into a contentious subject, then you had better be prepared to engage with some pretty sharp arguments and be prepared for disagreement. I would suggest that oppositions to a title change (when offered) have very often been general in scope, weak and non-neutral. At least that's my view. Jbarta (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jbarta, when there is no consensus to make a change, then the default is to keep the current state. At some point the discussion has to stop for a period of time so the different sides can take a breather. At this point I'm seeing 5+ different discussions on whether the name of this article should be changed from the current one, to a different one and none of those discussions have resulted in a consensus that involves a change to the article's name, so the default is for the current name to remain. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * when there is no consensus to make a change, then the default is to keep the current state. -- I understand that, and I've considered that. However, I'm taking the position that the article has been misnamed from the start.


 * I wasn't part of the discussion when the article was created or named. Actually, like most people, I had a cursory understanding of the issue and thought there was nothing to it... until I started looking a little closer and seeing that there really were some legitimate questions. I was also pretty surprised how the issue was being treated by various news outlets and anyone commenting on the issue. To me the vigorous attempt to label any questioners as frustrated wackos was pretty bizarre.


 * At any rate, like any good frustrated wacko, I started sifting through the facts and the arguments trying to separate substance from rhetoric, reality from hyperbole. Soon I learned about this Wikipedia article, and reading through it, I saw that it too was a little light on facts and heavy on bias... so I decided to jump in.


 * Anyhow, fast forward to today. While the article has definitely gotten better (thanks to the efforts of many excellent editors), I believe the title is still wrong and from what I see in Wikipedia policies (namely Ignore All Rules and Use Common Sense, I feel justified not only in arguing for a better title, but arguing that it was badly named from the beginning. According to that line of reasoning, what the article is named now carries little or no weight. Jbarta (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Using IAR and UCS won't get you very far, Jbarta.;) Well, it'll only get you blocked. IAR is generally only to be used in non-disruptive situations, so if you were to use it in this one, chances are it'll be deemed disruptive. Also, regardless of the relative merits of keeping this article where it is, it is currently named what it is and until a consensus is established to rename it, then here it shall be left. Grinding down you opposition through never letting a discussion go on hiatus is not an acceptable method in finding consensus. My suggestion would be to let the discussion go for now. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your advice. And I'm aware that I've been pushing hard... maybe a little too hard for some (I'm even starting to annoy *myself*). That said, I'm still going to chime in where and and when I feel appropriate, make my arguments as I see fit and let the chips fall where they may. You might, however, take comfort in the fact that I've made many of my arguments at least two or three times and some of them don't need to be made again. Jbarta (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For reasons given repeatedly, and well-articulated by Jehochman above. Tvoz / talk 21:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed title seems to promote the idea there are sensible challenges by sensible people and then there are also some conspiracy theory challenges.  There aren't any of the first.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That certainly was not the intent.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - if anything that is even worse than the existing title. The conspiracy/lawsuits all concern Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency. If you must insist on the non-neutral label of "conspiracy theories", perhaps it should be the equally unwieldy Barack Obama presidential ineligibility conspiracy theories -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd say just plain "Barack Obama citzenship challenges" is the simplest, most accurate and is neutral as dirt. Gosh it's lonely in my world. Jbarta (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I mentioned below that for most people the really important information they want is the truth about Obama's status. They don't really care about the details about the challengers.  What if WP had an article on "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories" but no article on the Federal Reserve? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: the conjunction ("and") implies that there are "Barack Obama citizenship challenges" that are not "conspiracy theories". HrafnTalkStalk 02:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. (Already commented above so I spare my keys.)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of "conspiracy theories" altogether (a suggestion)
I don't think most people come to this article to read about conspiracy theories. What they want is accurate information on President Elect Obama's natural born citizenship status. So why not call the article that: "Barack Obama's natural born citizenship status"? Steve Dufour (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me, but the consensus above seems to be to keep "conspiracy theories" in the title. If you can accomplish your objective while keeping "conspiracy theories" in the title, then we can consider it, but for now it seems to be settled that "conspiracy theories" will remain in the title.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a way to "get rid of conspiracy theories altogether" and still keep them in the title. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we could first give the correct information (or make that "mainstream consensus") and then have a section on conspiracy theories and allegations. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem I see with this view is that, absent the conspiracy theories, there is no issue about Barack Obama's citizenship that has any notability at all. Would we have an article on 'Geroge W. Bush's natural born citizenship status'? Unless and until any of these issues find a court or a reputable legal scholar to take them seriously, they are most accurately represented as "conspiracy theories". HrafnTalkStalk 01:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case the mainstream view, that there is no problem, is more important than the fringe views. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it, it might be appropriate to replace "conspiracy theories" in the title with something more formal such as "legal pseudoscholarship" or similar. HrafnTalkStalk 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be an improvement. Another issue is that "conspiracy theories" implies a certain kind of, how shall I say I am not an expert, mental state. In this case what seems to be happening is outright attacks and slanders, although they may seem to take the form of conspiracy theories. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the word you are after is "paranoia". As far as I can ascertain, there isn't any claim about Obama's citizenship within this topic that doesn't rely upon some unsubstantiated claim of some sort of a 'conspiracy' to either suppress and/or fake evidence. The label would appear to be entirely accurate, if perhaps a tad informal. 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Me thinks denial is the term being sought. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That works too. But still the facts about what is being denied are more important that the denials. What if WP had an article on Apollo 11 denial but not one on Apollo 11 itself?Steve Dufour (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We do have an article that's the opposite of this one. It's called Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think these claims are being made because of mental disorders? The expression "conspiracy theory" might imply that they are. Of course in law a "conspiracy" is any two or more people getting together to do something bad. (I'm not a lawyer either.) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What 'I think' doesn't matter. The claims that are the focus of this article would appear to meet the definition in conspiracy theory. While 'Clinical psychology' is one of the possible 'Psychological origins' listed in the 'Study of conspiracism' in that article, it is not the only one. To argue that this should not be labelled a 'conspiracy theory' because this may imply, as a consequence, that those making them are disordered would appear to be argumentum ad consequentiam -- a logical fallacy. HrafnTalkStalk 17:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that individually, each element of the article can be defined as a conspiracy theory, or that the entire issue in general (the various challenges and claims taken together) are in totality a conspiracy theory? Jbarta (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the main underlying rationale for anyone using the phrase "conspiracy theories" to describe this issue is an attempt to make the whole thing seem unworthy or nutty. When you peel away to the core, that's what it is. Nothing more. And the question is, do we at Wikipedia want operate that way? Or do we have a higher purpose that rises above the gutter fighting and name calling below? Simple as that. Jbarta (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's obviously incorrect. There are clearly conspiracy theorists involved in this thing.  It would clearly be a conspiracy if Obama, the DNC, his family, and Hawaii state officials all got together to lie about his past and forge a phony short-form birth certificate.  Some nuts believe that such a conspiracy has occurred, so there's nothing at all wrong with this article using the term "conspiracy theory".  It fits like a glove.  On the other hand, there are many people involved in this thing who are not conspiracy theorists; they mostly have a fringe point of view, and there's nothing wrong with describing it as a "fringe" point of view.  Additionally, there are simply people who would be interested in seeing Obama's original birth certificate which is obviously better evidence of birth than a laser-generated abstract produced forty years later.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If an aspect of the issue can be accurately described as "conspiracy theory", then that can be correctly noted within the article. The issue has several aspects, most of which are in no way a theory of conspiracy. (You have argued this correctly yourself.) In that the entire issue has been slapped with the label conspiracy theory for purposes of derision, I am most definitely correct. Jbarta (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree with that last sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. (Already commented above so I spare my keys.) No further comment.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move to Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories
I suggest that this article be moved to Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories. Although most of the theories described by this article are conspiracy theories, some, as has been said above, are not. However, all of them can be characterized as fringe theories, on the basis that none of them are accepted by any significant number of uninvolved mainstream observers. -- The Anome (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose this and more, endless straw polls on this matter. Every single one of the permutations of the false, ridiculous belief that Obama is not eligible for the presidency rests on one vast conspiracy or another.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read the previous arguments carefully, you'll see that the notion of "vast conspiracy" is not necessary and is merely a straw man created by detractors. A little bit of fudging the truth, a little bit of denial, a little bit of looking the other way and a little bit of not answering some tougher questions is all that's needed. A perfectly reasonable proposition and it happens all the time. Jbarta (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it all with great care and don't remotely share your conclusions. It aint a straw man, it aint denial, and it aint a "little bit of not answering tough questions." I don't like at all being characterized in this way. Don't do it again. The belief that this man, with a confirmed US citizen mother and a confirmed US birth place, is not a natural born US citizen is classic, conspiratorial nuttery. I understand you have a different opinion. But don't tell me again i haven't thought about this (speaking of straw men).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are questions posed concerning how presidential candidates are certified eligible a "conspiracy theory"? Is the suggestion that it's odd that Obama has gone to great lengths to conceal his orginial birth certicicate somehow nutty? Is suggesting that a (arguably weak) question about natural born citizenship is part of a vast conspiracy? We'll agree to disagree and I'll still call "vast conspiracy" a straw man. And it's unfortunate that you find that characterization upsetting. Be assured that it's not my intent to insult you personally... just refute your statements. Jbarta (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What i take exception to is being told when i've come to different conclusions than someone else that "i haven't read carefully." No. I read carefully and reached a conclusion. Now as for you, a challenge: Which of the theories do you see as most likely/plausible as to why he's not an American citizen by birth? Lay it out in 2 sentences. Then we'll examine what other things one might have to concurrently believe for this to be true. Then we'll see if that fits the "conspiracy theory" rubrik.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For me personally, the most glaring clue that something is probably not right (or at minimum a nasty can of worms), is that Obama has concealed his original birth documents and (AFAIR) other potentially revealing documents as well. Jbarta (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You've made no argument here. Let me clarify what your position amounts to - Question: "On what basis should Obama be legally compelled to release a private record that no previous candidate for this office has been forced to release?" Answer: "His refusal to release this private record voluntarily creates the need to compel him to do so, because his refusal raises grave doubts as to the true nature of his citizenship status." There's another classic logical fallacy here (since you recently misapplied the term straw-man, bonus points are available for correctly naming which one this represents.) Again, I invite you to explain on what basis his eligiblity to be president should be doubted. (Reminder: Reiterating that his "refusal" to allow losers like Berg, Keyes et al to paw through his records is "troubling" isn't logically convincing. There has to be some "real" reason, i.e. "secretly born in Kenya" "secretly renounced citizenship," "mother secretly Polish" "secretely a Martian" etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me approach it this way if I might. Considering there are eligibility requirements to be President, would we assume there is some mechanism in place to verify that eligibility? Jbarta (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's better I suppose, but fringe theory isn't entirely accurate. Leaves a bit of a sci-fi aftertaste. I think it's possible to have an article that contains some fringe and some conspiracy theory without having to put that in the title. Especially when the main purpose of putting it in the title is to discredit the theories, questions and issues in the article. Jbarta (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * support That's an excellent suggestion. Those who are "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" ought to reconsider.  This suggestion improves accuracy while in no way legitimazing these fringe theories.  It is also supported by article titles in reliable sources.  See "President Alien, and Other Tales From the Fringe" in the Washington Post.  Also see "Change They Can Litigate: The fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president" in Slate.  The notion that the word "fringe" is difficult for people to understand, or implies some "science" connotation is rebutted by these reliable sources and many more.  See Fringe theatre and Lunatic fringe, for examples of other Wikipedia article titles.   I would also be happy with a title that says "Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories and conspiracy theories."  Many of the people mentioned in this Wikipedia article do not espouse conspiracy theories about Obama (e.g. Donofrio, Wrontowski, and Paglia).  Also, WorldNetDaily does not assert that there was any forgery.  People who merely want to see better proof are not conspiracy theorists.  I personally am 99% sure Obama is eligible, but I wouldn't mind seeing the original certificate myself.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrotnowski believes that Omaba's birth certificate is a forgery.
 * Donofrio believes that the Supreme Court Justices are "wussies", who "lacked the courage to do their job", "purposely fumbled" and rejected his case on extraneous grounds, and not because it was legally unworthy. He also believes the US supreme court is never going to uphold the constitution, are a "blasphemy to justice" (?), "have no honor" etc. And of course the media is "transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from 'The One Corporation - your source for everything…' "
 * Sure, sound like conspiracy theorists to me ... 66.253.202.164 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is true that some of the challengers have made some pretty outlandish statements. I would call that more hyperbole than conspiracy theory and would also suggest there has been LOTS of that on both sides of the issue. Jbarta (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Ferrylodge has cited Donofrio, and Wrotnowski as voices of (relative) sanity on this issue and has repeatedly asserted that Wrotnowski does not challenge the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. I was just pointing out (with reference) that that is factually incorrect.
 * And no, calling Obama's birth certificate a forgery (in Connecticut Supreme Court, no less!) is not a matter of hyperbole. 66.253.202.164 (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at what Wrotnowski filed in court? It can be downloaded here.  I don't see any allegation of forgery there.  He challenged the authenticity of Obama's original, unreleased certificate, and asked for it to be released.  As far as I can tell, he did not challenge the short-form that Obama has released, much less called it a forgery.  In the court papers, Wrotnowski referred to "Obama’s missing birth certificate" and asked that he "produce" it, and Wrotnowski suggested that Obama may not have a valid original certificate, "whether by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, or ignorance on his part."  I don't see an accusation of forgery there.  As far as Donofrio's remarks on his blog, it sounds like the typical dissatisfied plaintiff to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are linking to the US Supreme court filing, while I (and the reference I presented) am talking about the Connecticut Supreme Court case, a month earlier. And I don't know how "challenged the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate" can be interpreted to mean "birth certificate is missing".
 * I agree with you Donofrio. After his appeals were rejected (as was expected by every law expert) he chooses to believe it reflected deliberate malfeasance on the part of "wussy" Supreme Court justices, aided by the biased media. Pretty typical of fringe/conspiracy theorists.66.253.202.164 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, Donofrio was rude, and his legal theories were fringey. But cert rejections very often result in griping that the justices cowardly ducked whatever allegedly momentous issue was in the request for cert.  That does not make the gripers into "conspiracy theorists".  I have no problem characterizing them as rude or fringey.  As for Wrotnowski, the New York Post article that you cite does not mention anything about forgery.  It says, “The plaintiff, Cort Wrotnowski, challenged the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.”  That article doesn't distinguish between the unreleased long form and the released short form.  My understanding from the SCOTUS docs is that he challenged the authenticity of Obama's original, unreleased certificate, and asked for it to be released.  In the court papers, Wrotnowski suggested that Obama may not have a valid original certificate, "whether by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, or ignorance on his part."  Challenging authenticity of the unreleased long-form does not imply that Hawaii officials conspired in any way to do anything.  Obama's Mom may have simply registered him after returning to the U.S. (to avoid the hassle of naturalization) which would make the document inauthentic.  Again, I don't see a conspiracy theorist here.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By law he doesn't have the obligation to release his long-form birth certificate or even the short-form (which he did made public) just because some guy or some people are "demanding" it. It is his [Obama's] choice to expose his privacy or not like it is anybody's choice to reveal any private documents (or not) unless demanded by law. As an example (and I keep it as simple as possible), if you would "challenge" my American citizenship I would just ignore you since it is none of your business. On the other hand, when I buy a gun in my home state, I have to show that I'm a "class A" citizen (which means I was born American) by law and so I do. As far as I know there is a press release from Obama (or his lawyers) that he would release his long-form if a legally binding instance would ask for it. That didn't happen yet and it is one in a million that it will. Why? Because politicians in general (as they are human) might kick in when it comes to conspiracies (and in most cases we won't ever know) but usually don't go into conspiracy theories. Why? Because they know they don't have a case. Why? Because the known facts are overwhelming the (unknown to be determent) wishful thinking facts. There is just no (proper) way to escape reality.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's part of a greater question and is reflected in some of these challenges. How far does a candidate have to go "prove" these things, what are the procedures by which such things are vetted, who is responsible, who has standing to compel, where are these lines drawn, etc. Unfortunately, the current political climate and contentiousness of the issue at this time makes it hard to consider these questions. Jbarta (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't draw the lines; The law does.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you give me an idea where such laws concerning the eligibility verification of presidential candidates can be found? Do these laws describe the process? What's involved? Who is involved? Considering that Obama wasn't even required to put forth a certification of birth, would you agree these "laws" are a little spotty and deserve at least a closer look? Seriously, how far should a candidate be required to go in order to verify his status as natural born citizen? You say the law draws the line. What laws and where have they drawn the line? Jbarta (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fire up google and try to find that info yourself, Jbarta. This is not the place to find answers to your questions about what was or was not done to verify Obama's eligibility. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Those weren't really questions looking for information... they were questions posed to demonstrate that various eligibility determination procedures are thin to non-existent. Neither you, I or anyone else would find much with a Google search. Jbarta (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I have presented references, which everyone is free to read. JBarta sees it as hyperbole, you see it as rude, and I see it as fringe/conspiracy theorizing - "everyone is entitled to his own opinion." Other than that, I don't wish to speculate further on what Wrotnowski may have thought or meant, what Hawaii officials or Obama's mother may have done etc. 66.253.202.164 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Incidentally, even in the scenario you sketch, the certificate could be possibly invalid, but it would still be authentic. Nice try though. ;-)


 * My own thinking is that while there have probably been shenanigans surrounding the birth certificate issue on a few different levels, I don't see any actual "forgery" of the recently released certification of birth. That's my personal view. And at this time, loud outlandish charges using the word "forgery" seem to me as being not very well thought out and at best an inaccurate interpretation of whatever "photoshopping" may have been detected. Is it part of a "conspiracy theory"? I suppose this element could be argued either way, but I see it more as a thin and (probably) mistaken accusation of "forgery". Jbarta (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose this and all the subsequent polls to rename. Enough already. Move on. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I love it! You're opposing things that may be suggested in 2010!Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, kind of a variant on WP:SALT. But by 2010 the argument may be over the name of Barack Obama presidential actions nutcase perpetual legal motion machine, if the guy mentioned here (I forget which one) goes through with his plan to sue Obama every time he takes a presidential action on the grounds he isn't constitutionally president.  Only in America. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kreep. His name is Kreep.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you were joking until I looked at the article. Sometimes truth is better than fiction!  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe what WTR is saying is he opposes all the subsequent, useless, tendentious, boring, repetitive, and disruptive polls that have been conducted on this topic - I've supplied the adjectives, so don't ascribe them to him.  I also oppose this new version: "fringe" was (if I recall correctly and I am not willing to waste the time to go back and look for it) tossed out a while ago as editors felt it was less immediately clear than "conspiracy theories".  This really has gone on too long, and if people stop replying I strongly suggest that no one take it as agreement with the new flavor of the hour.  Many editors have weighed in that the current title of this article is the right one, until and unless something major changes - which no one, not even the most ardent speakers here as far as I've seen - expects.  So yes, it is a prediction that if this continues, the people who have already said no will continue to say no. And if  anyone here is still arguing about Obama's eligibility for the Presidency  in 2010 they ought to have their heads examined for tin foil traces.  It is time to stop and move on to something else.  Tvoz / talk 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do recall that you in particular advanced the argument that Wikipedia readers would not understand what the word "fringe" means. What a fascinating and revealing argument that was.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not being equipped with total recall, and truly not willing to delve into the archives on this, I don't recall the details or what you're referring to, so I don't get the joke - or whatever that comment was supposed to be. Oh well, my loss I'm sure.  Happy new year. Tvoz / talk 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)  (But my recollection must not be that far off, seeing as "fringe" is not here and "conspiracy" is.) Tvoz / talk 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now kids... play nice ;-) Jbarta (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have no idea. Tvoz / talk 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea, whatsoever. And see here ("'Fringe' would be ok, except that it is less immediately understood, in my opinion, by the public....")Ferrylodge (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A point that at least two editors, Jehochman  and The Magnificent Clean-keeper,  pretty much agreed with at the time.  I don't know why you find that argument "revealing" but I sure am glad I fascinated you.  And congratulations, you got me to go into the archives.  I'm done - enough of this. Zie gezunt. Tvoz / talk 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do have a bit of an idea... you two leave trails ;-) Jbarta (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tvoz, you say above until and unless something major changes. What might change that would cause you to rethink your position on the article title? Jbarta (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemidemisemiquaver (talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. (Already commented above so I spare my keys.)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on these renaming discussions
It is clear to me now that there is an unwillingness on the part of several Wikipedians to have a reasonable conversation about this matter. Personal views about what these claims represent have infected rational thought and reverence for Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I agree that, for the most part, these claims concern a conspiracy theory; however, not all of them do and there is most definitely not a preponderance of reliable sources stating that they are (whatever people seem to claim). I cannot stress more strongly that using "conspiracy theories" (or some variation thereof) in the title is non-neutral. Whether or not it is appropriate rests entirely on whether or not most reliable sources describe all of these claims as being part of a conspiracy theory, and the fact of the matter is they do not. I must say that I am extremely disappointed with a number of my fellow Wikipedians, and I am surprised at their display of unthinking stubbornness in this matter. It is clear that there is no consensus for a name change, but it is also clear that this lack of consensus is based on ugly bias from Wikipedians I never imagined would do such a thing. What a damn shame. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The ironic thing is that WP is feeding the conspiracy theories by taking such a hard line against them. It will be considered part of the "cover up" which is always a part of any good conspiracy. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * People who disagree with you exhibit "ugly bias," "unthinking stubborness" are "unwilling to have a reasonable conversation" and are quite simply wrong. Shame indeed.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You fail to see my point. What we have here is disturbingly similar to renaming Mujahideen to "Terrorists" - while it is true that some of the mujahideen could be regarded as terrorists, this is not true of all of them. The current title of this article unfairly (and non-neutrally) labels everything and everyone when more subtlety is called for. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with you in that. Unfortunately there are enough people with other notions to make any sensible progress on a title change impossible within the context of how things get done in Wikipedia. Personally I tire of hearing myself argue and get nowhere. Like many other institutions, Wikipedia has its flaws, but in the end, the overwhelming good that results far outshadows anything we may think is bad. It is what it is. Jbarta (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll claim partial responsibility for this in pushing so hard. Unfortunately, as discussions become more intense, positions become more intractable and people "dig in". I don't know what the solution is. Ben Franklin was good at this. He could, over time, with gentle persuasion convince those around him of his preferred course. He also said "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." So, not all blame can be laid at the feet of those we disagree with. The result belongs to all of us. Jbarta (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm relatively agnostic on the title of this article as it is currently structured. As several have said, the article contains content that covers conspiracy theories and content that does not. None of the suggested titles jump out to me as intuitively right, so I'm not arguing for or against any of them, including the current one. However, it doesn't appear that there is going to be consensus to change the title anytime soon, so maybe everyone might be better off to declare no consensus and move on. And end this time and resource drain, at least for now. — Becksguy (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)