Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 5

Rule 11 sanctions against conspiracy theorist lawyer
I've seen a report that the plaintiff's lawyer in Hollister has been subjected to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for frivolous conduct. Although the lawyer could have been fined, the judge let him off mildly, with a reprimand. I haven't added anything because I don't have time right now to pursue the initial report (from a political message board, not a source we can cite for something like this). JamesMLane t c 01:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here it is:  A reprimand with no fine. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for providing this link. Judge Robertson's opinion is a good read, but the part that might be most relevant to us, those of us who have invested time and effort trying to maintain a legitimate page on this fraught topic, is this:"John D. Hemenway is a lawyer and a member of the bar of this court. The dispute that he attempted to litigate here was about whether or not Barack Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” and thereby qualified under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution to be President.  Many people, perhaps as many as a couple of dozen, feel deeply about this issue. [italics added by me, a bit sheepishly]"
 * I guess that puts us in our place! :) Also interesting to note in this opinion the fact, which I had not seen mentioned elsewhere, that Mr. Hemenway is 82 years old. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem
Is that those involved in the registration of the birth did not have a crystal ball and see that Obama would become President and get all the paperwork sorted out to solve problems (g). (And with the JFK discussion the problem is that Lee Harvey Oswald did not leave a detailed manifesto of his motivation etc - and all those claimed variously to have been involved would have had as good a motive to make use of revealing his private life to manipulate him, and the payback would have been less if it had been revealed - apart from the theoretical alien base on the moon, trying to thwart the moon landing program (this being a fiction plot device not serious).)

Given that he started campaigning at the beginning of 2008, and nothing was found between then and November, while, when he was born, records management was still paper based rather than involving computers with the possibliity of manipulation thereof, the balance of proof is that he is a legitimate US citizen.

There will always be ambiguities in history, and #things not recorded or left in a scattered arrangement because they are not seen as relevant at the time#. There will always be people willing to see such absences/confusion in a negative light - and others who merely see such things as the basis for creating an interesting detective story (g). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Vaguely similar to the Apollo hoax nonsense. If NASA had known there would be these lunatics claiming they never went to the moon, they might have pre-empted the questions somehow. But then they would raise other questions. As someone was kind of suggesting earlier, we can't let our lives be dictated by the crazies. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer to the Apollo hoax nonsense is "human greed and stupidity": given the number of people involved if there had been a cover up (beyond tidying up photographs, and equivalent processes to WD-40) if there had been a hoax-coverup, "somebody or several" would have seen a way of making megabucks/getting their 15 minutes of fame by selling the story - or there would be misplaced and forgotten documents (as seems to happen regularly in other contexts).

Perhaps the "point of interest" is #which# topics generate such "arguments for conspiracies"/ attempts to apply a negative version of Occam's Razor/"create your own version of six degrees of separation - has anyone claimed that the Martian landings are fakes? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they don't, because those are current events, and such a claim would draw universal ridicule. Conspiracy theorists operate from kind of a "safety zone" where total and absolute disproof of their claims is unlikely. The Apollo hoax claims didn't gain much currency until after it was certain we weren't going back for awhile. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." JBarta (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Sometimes I'm so smart, it actually frightens me." Yup. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the correct response would have been "Wait 'til I get going!" JBarta (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Inconceivable!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is probably a similar discussion to this in the alternative universe where Obama was born three years earlier (before Hawaii became a US state) and remained there (g).

I think the most that can be said is (a) "the lack of a crystal ball syndrome"; (b) while there is some ambiguity about the situation, there is insufficient evidence for most people to start doubting Obama's qualifications; (c) while most people enjoy 'creative history and research', detective stories and suchlike, and there are some conspiracies and opportunities for discovery of large scale connections not previously suspected (as with the Icelandic volcano - date anyone?), conspiracy theories tend to involve more creativity (and in some cases more negative claims) than is generally acceptable; and (d) while there was good reason (as far as the Founding Fathers were concerned) for the Presidential nationality test, there is a case for amending the rule (but it probably could not be made retroactive (there not being a national emergency to justify it).

Are there any other countries where there is a birth-nationality requirement? (And in the EU it would be feasible for the heads of several states to contest an election to become a member of the European Parliament in a country of which they were not residents.) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The theory that Barack Obama was born 3 years earlier, before Hawaii became a state, is immaterial, because people have held the office of the Vice President that were born in U.S. Territories that later became states. Research Charles Curtis, who was the Vice President for Hoover.  He was born in Kansas about a year before the state entered the union.  Because the 12th amendment says that the requirements of the Vice President are the same for the President, that means that Charles Curtis can be used for precedent for births in territories that later became states.  This would have also allowed Barry Goldwater to assume the office.  Oh, and Al Gore proves that residents of D.C. are Natural-Born Citizens.


 * The two big questions would be would someone born on foreign soil be considered a "Natural-Born" citizen? That would have been solved if John McCain was sworn in.  My gut would say yes, but it would ultimately have to be determined there.  And would someone who was born inside a U.S. Territory have to wait for that territory to become a state before they'd be considered a U.S. Citizen?  For instance, could someone born in Puerto Rico be currently considered a Natural-Born Citizen, or would they have to wait until Puerto Rico became a state? Dunstvangeet (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A military base, where both parents are under orders and obedient to United States authority, both US citizens themselves, is rather different than the suspicion of birth records existing for Obama, under whatever name, in Mombasa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.159.15 (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Title Bias
Use of the word conspiracy in the title is an implied condemnation. When coupled with theories the overall thrust approaches purposeful marginalization of alternate viewpoints. In the end the treatment is similar in effect to parading the defendant in handcuffs and shackles before the jury.

This title is therefore not content-neutral and should be reworded. My suggestion is as follows:

Barack Obama citizenship inquiries (new section)

--Knipper (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See the last 10 or so discussions on this matter for my reasoning. It boils down to -- these are all conspiracy theories (they all hinge on some vast deception involving the hawaii dept of state, the hawaii newspapers, obama's family, and various government officials over a period of decades, hence calling them conspiracy theories is most accurate and clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In case anyone really cares about what is shaping up to be the 5th (6th? more?) straw poll on obscuring the issue with a title change, here's an archive of one of the recent failed efforts. Since nothing has changed vis a vis the way these fringe beliefs are portrayed and understood by the preponderance of reliable sources, this latest exercise seems disruptive and time wasting. The discussion is collapsed at the link. Just click "show" to read it. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it is marginalized, as it is a fringe, discredited theory. See; Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.  There is broad precedent to use this naming convention when such wording is supported by reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose any change. In view of the history of multiple recent discussions of this subject, I respectfully suggest that anyone wishing to launch yet another RfC or straw poll should notify every editor who has previously commented in favor of the current title.  Otherwise, there's a distinct aroma of trying to win through sheer persistence rather than logic, hoping that at some point the editors who favor the current title will stop watchlisting the article. JamesMLane t c 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What we have seen is modest majority of editors wishing to retain the title and a bit of a minority seeking a change. To imply some sort of underhandedness on the part of those editors is inaccurate. And for the record, if one defines "consensus" as the vast majority of a group, then it's pretty clear there is no consensus to keep the current title. As long as a very significant number of editors see the title as needing a change, then the issue will rear it's ugly head from time to time. It's not going to just go away. JBarta (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Where, exactly is the conspiracy? While there may certainly be some allegations of conspiratorial actions in regard to this, there certainly is no “conspiracy” as a whole here. CENSEI (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the subject of the article. It's about conspiracy theories, not a hypothetical conspiracy. The theories exist but the supposed conspiracies have been widely debunked. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Barack Obama citizenship challenges. Simple, accurate and neutral as air. JBarta (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the above, or Barack Obama presidential eligibility inquiries (as some acknowledge citizenship but still claim ineligibility). John Darrow (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Barack Obama presidential eligibility inquiries Besides the inaccurate "conspiracy" label, The title and the entire page are misleading about the primary argument. "Citizenship" is not the issue at hand, but rather "Natural Born Citizen", as the U.S. Constitution requires. "Citizen" and 'natural Born Citizen" are two different things, and placing emphasis just on "Citizen" is missing the entire point of all the controversy and lawsuits.  One can be a "Citizen" without being a "Natural Born Citizen", which is exactly what is being argued as to Obama's status.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.194.20 (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

← N.B. This same thing is being discussed a couple of sections up, and of course has been discussed many times in the past. Some people may have commented here, some above, and others may not weigh in again on the same matter on which they've expressed their views repeatedly. I tend to agree with JamesMLane's comment. Tvoz / talk 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Like she said. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this has turned into a !vote. Opposed and unless otherwise specified by myself, my opinion on all other current and future !votes is Opposed. This article is about a conspiracy theory as identified by reliable source and the content of this article has been linked to the conspiracy theory by reliable sources. In instances where a person is specifically called a "conspiracy theorist" or any other defining terms, that defining term is sourced to an "exceptional source" as required by WP:BLP. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose and change in title. First, Sceptre's gambit here was to agitate another round of discussion, so this round is rooted in bad faith provocateur actions, which should not be rewarded. Second, Sceptre's the one who has initiated numerous prior attempts to change, and has been rounded rebuked before. repeatedly. he should not get infinite do-overs. Finally, as demonstrated, the vast majority of the material here is CT. the Few legalese wranglings by idiotic panderers in a few states and the House can go to a 'governmental reactions to the claims' section, instead, thus reassociating them properly with the asshattery behind them. (The representatives in question have stated they're acting on the will of constituents, who apparently fell for this nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The question has to do not with whether Obama is a citizen, following his childhood in Indonesia, but that if he is a citizen, does he qualify as natural born according to the norms of that era? making him then eligible to be POTUS - regardless of the fact that he was elected. Anyone wishing an unbiased, encyclopedic view of this would necessarily approve a change in title away from something like - conspiracy theory. If anything, the fair title would be The Obama Conspiracy - or coverup. That's the pattern of behavior. The pro-Obama bias and idiotic pandering to the left shown in this discussion, and the article, is plain for all to see. And it stuns me that those controlling the content, here, think they're pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. It's an insult to anyone's intelligence to claim that those like Paglia who wonder where the original certificate might be are necessarily unreasonable 'theorists' simply for their doubts. This is something Obama himself could have cleared up very easily, instead of spending so much time and money on legal teams attempting to close and oppose efforts to look into his past. What so many see isn't a conspiracy of accusation, but of behavior. The term cover-up comes to mind, stonewalling, all the terms people used to associate with Nixon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.158.36 (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally would support a project-wide policy that the term "conspiracy theory" never be used in article titles. If you launch a serious effort to make that general change, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll support you.  Under our current use of the term, however, the subject of this article eminently qualifies. JamesMLane t c 10:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you prefer "crackpot theories", "fairy tales", "bollocks" or "utter nonsense"? Conspiracy theories is accurate and non-inflammatory, relative to the alternatives. Of course the pro-conspiracy POV pushers would prefer something more weaselly, but Wikipedia is not here for them to use as a soapbox. Jehochman Talk 13:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer simply stating the facts and letting the reader decide. We don't need to tell the reader "This theory is bollocks" any more than we need to say "This theory is a brilliant truth that's been unjustly ignored or belittled by the media."  Where you and I disagree is in your assessment of the term "conspiracy theories" as non-inflammatory.  I think it connotes disparagement.  The official U.S. government explanation for 9/11 is that it was a conspiracy -- a conspiracy among some Moslems, most Saudis -- but no one ever calls that explanation a conspiracy theory.  The term isn't used descriptively, but solely to express the opinion that the adherents are crackpots. JamesMLane t c 15:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're confusing two different ideas/terms that use the same word in them. A conspiracy in legal definitions of crime is a different beast from a conspiracy theory.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I'm well aware of the difference. In fact, that's my whole point.  If the phrase "conspiracy theory" were used in an objective way, referring to theories that allege a conspiracy in the legal sense, then it would be NPOV.  It's not used that way, though.  In practice, some theories alleging conspiracies are called conspiracy theories and some aren't.  The determining factor is whether enough Wikipedia editors want to brand a particular POV as crackpottery.  Offhand, I can't remember something being labeled a "conspiracy theory" here where I disagreed and thought it wasn't crackpottery, but I'd prefer just to drop the term project-wide. JamesMLane t c 01:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a legitimate, serious definition of "conspiracy theory", which has nothing to do with the legal sense of conspiracy (crime). The idea that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax is – objectively, factually stated – a conspiracy theory.  If you think this label and characterization is just some social construct of Wikipedia, we are as far apart as the Earth from the Moon.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a legitimate use of "conspiracy theory" and I'm not in favor of eliminating it's use project wide. (Certainly we are all big kids and can be trusted to play with matches.) Unfortunately the term is overused and has morphed from a descriptive phrase into a derogatory phrase. This fact is even made perfectly plain on Wikipedia's own article on conspiracy theories. It's my opinion that all who are keen to show all this "nonsense" as "asshattery" etc by clearly labeling it as the "conspiracy theory that it is", are doing Wikipedia a great disservice and are clearly violating the whole idea of NPOV. A neutral point of view is just that... a neutral point of view. And it's fairly plain that the point of view of quite a number of editors (including at least one administrator) is anything but neutral. JBarta (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It also points out the fallacy of the NPOV itself. It is what 'they say' it is. So the worst sort of bias is NPOV if someone says it is NPOV. There's no agreed standard. And it becomes very one-sided and politically self-serving. And people aren't fooled by it. It's so clear in an article like this, where prejudiced labelling and leading language is employed to sway the naive reader. If anything, the fair title would not be 'theory' - but rather The Obama Coverup. That brings in the established fact of his stonewalling, of his expenditure of hundreds of thousands in legal fees to fight discovery of the certificate, his Occidental records and much else. The candidate of transparency is the President of obscuration. Again, the fair and reasonable title isn't 'theory', but stonewalling. Since the Nixon era, it's a term widely used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.159.10 (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that parroting a non-neutral point of view is not itself a neutral point of view. JBarta (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WastedTimeR wrote: "If you think this label and characterization is just some social construct of Wikipedia, we are as far apart as the Earth from the Moon." Well, I don't think that, and never said that, and never said anything remotely comparable to that, so I don't really have much to add.  By the way, the label and characterization "right-wing nutjob" is also not some social construct of Wikipedia.  Does that mean it's OK to use in describing people?  It's OK for me to set up Category:Right-wing nutjobs and start adding that category to pages like Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann?  No, it's not OK, because the test isn't whether a phrase is in wide use outside Wikipedia; the test is compliance with Wikipedia policies, notably WP:NPOV. JamesMLane t c 02:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: A parallel debate, with regards to the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, is going on at the NPOV board. Abecedare (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose the title change. They are conspiracy theories, pure and simple. That's what reliable sources call them, therefore that's what we call them. The proposed title change is an attempt to lend legitimacy to this nonsense and Wikipedia policy won't stand for it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which suggests simply a political point of view, a very violation of what NPOV OUGHT to mean - but never does on wiki. The proper unbiased title for this article should be - Barack Obama: Natural Born Citizen Question. Just that simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.158.169 (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - FYI, this is an old topic, not a recent one. There is no validity to a pseudo straw poll that has been rambling on for 6 weeks now.  There's no point in "voting" at this time, really. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of primary sources
The following primary source:

is used as a reference 6 times in the article. While it is perhaps okay to use this source in conjunction with reliable sources to support statements reported by the latter; I don't think it is acceptable to report arguments from this (or other similar) documents, unless secondary sources have thought those arguments to be noteworthy enough to discuss. Therefore, I think the following statements in the articles need secondary sources, or to be removed: "People such as Alan Keyes who are questioning Obama’s birth location point to a Hawaii statute that allows births to be registered for children born out of state;"

"Keyes also alleges that block 7c of the long-form Certificate of Live Birth contains the word "country" in its label proving foreign-born children could be registered"

"Keyes counters that, prior to 1972, a birth certificate could be obtained in Hawaii based on "uncorroborated testimony of one witness, up to one year after birth.""

"According to Keyes, elections officials currently require only a presidential candidate to provide a signed statement attesting that they meet qualifications. Keyes says, "This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of when requesting a California driver's license.""

"Keyes' petition also says that "the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth"."

Note that the article not only quotes from Keye's petition, but also then synthesizes arguments against it. For example, in the following : "People such as Alan Keyes who are questioning Obama’s birth location point to a Hawaii statute that allows births to be registered for children born out of state;[42] however, that law was passed only in 1982 (21 years after Obama's birth registration) and its text does not indicate that out-of-state births will be listed with a Hawaiian place of birth.[43] Keyes also alleges that block 7c of the long-form Certificate of Live Birth contains the word "country" in its label proving foreign-born children could be registered,[42] but block 7c is the usual residence of the mother, not the location of birth (the location of birth is in block 6a, which has no "country" label).[citation needed] Obama's published short-form certificate specifically says that he was born in Honolulu.[15] Keyes counters that, prior to 1972, a birth certificate could be obtained in Hawaii based on "uncorroborated testimony of one witness, up to one year after birth."[42]"

where reference [42] is the keye's petition; [43] is Hawaii statute 338-17.8 (again a primary source; but at least a state law is less POV that a court petition, which is basically 1 man's complaint); and reference [15] is a Factcheck article that pre-dates the Keye's petition and so obviously doesn't mention it. I think we need to go through the article and remove such instances of violations of WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:Undue, which only cause unnecessary article bloat. Any comments or suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As you say, the Keyes brief is a primary source. It's a reliable source about what Keyes' arguments are, but picking through it for quotes may be original research.  I don't see any problem with keeping the Request for Writ of Mandate in a footnote, and the sentence in the text could merely say that he made a number of different arguments in a court filing.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a primary source question, but I wish to add this after one of Keyes' statements:


 * Keyes counters that, prior to 1972, a birth certificate could be obtained in Hawaii based on "uncorroborated testimony of one witness, up to one year after birth.{citation}  However, according to the Hawaii State Department of Health, the former program only applied to persons born in Hawaii who were one year old or older. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is
still that whatever the seeming ambiguity of the situation (through lack of a crystal ball), it appears that 'most American electors' thought that Obama was not disqualified by locality of birth, and so chose to vote for him.

Much of the 227 kb of this talk page seems to be veering towards the speculative/'he said, she said' reported discussion.

Perhaps the question should be - what proportion of the US population think that Obama is theoretically disqualified (rather than 'something slightly fuzzy'), and what proportion think that 'something should be done.' The result, should such persons' claims go to court, is likely to be quite different to what they imagine (as tends to be the case). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article now includes some poll results about whether people believe he's qualified. I agree with you that reliable polling information about a "what should be done" question should also be included if available.  Because this is a fringe belief, though, it understandably doesn't get as much attention from the companies that do scientific polling.  Especially on a subject like this one, I have no problem with a "he said, she said" discussion.  Per WP:NPOV, we should strive for a fair presentation of each major point of view. JamesMLane t c 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussions were at some points going towards the theoretical - and my last sentence was a reference to the law of unintended consequences.

There is/was a stronger case against John McCain being disqualified by his place of birth. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hospital
In the section on "Early Life", I think it should be mentioned that the hospital where he was born is difficult to document. See Hoover, Will. "Obama's Hawaii boyhood homes drawing gawkers", Honolulu Advertiser (2008-11-09): "the hospital where he was born is difficult to document".

Although many sources assert that President Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital, some sources say otherwise. See Guira, Bennett. “A New Face in Politics”, Charter Schools Rainbow Edition Newsletter (November 2004). See also [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/04/Sen-Barack-Obama-Democrat-of-Illinois/UPI-33901225647000/ “Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois”], United Press International (2008-11-04).

This ambiguity about the birth hospital has been fussed about by lots of conspiracy theorists and other litigants (Corsi, Berg, Marquis, et cetera), but their fuss has not been picked up by reliable secondary sources. So, we probably should not mention that fuss here in this Wikipedia article.

However, a reliable secondary source has pointed out that "the hospital where he was born is difficult to document" and some reliable sources have said he was born at the Queens hospital. So, I think that's legitimate and relevant to mention in the Early Life section. I'll give it another try, and see how it goes. The Honolulu Advertiser, the University of Hawaii, and UPI seem like reliable sources.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there are three different issues here, which we should be careful not to conflate:
 * Corsi, Berg, Marquis, etc have raised a fuss about which hospital Obama was born at. Since no reliable secondary source has picked this up, as Ferrylodge says, it is of no relevance to this article.
 * The statement, "the hospital where he was born is difficult to document" in Honolulu Advertiser does not refer to the alternate hospitals Obama could have been born at. It only talks about how HIPA (HIPAA ? §) regulations prevent Kapiolani Medical Center from confirming Obama's birth there. Our article already covers that issue (using the same reference): "A hospital spokesperson at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children says that their standard procedure is to not confirm or deny that Obama was born there, citing federal privacy laws."
 * Now the issue of which hospital in Hawaii Obama was actually born: we have an overwhelming number of sources (including Barack Obama himself )stating that he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center. On the other hand, so far we have one UPI article and a highschool newsletter (!!!) saying that he was born at Queen’s Medical Center. In my opinion, that means that the latter bit is simply undue. Even if other editors disagree on the dueness, this trivia should be included (at best, as a footnote) in Barack Obama or Early life and career of Barack Obama, since its relevance to Obama's citizenship has not been established or even mentioned in any reliable source.
 * § Side issue: I don't know what the Honolulu Advertiser reporter means by Health Information Privacy Act of 1999, since as far as I know that never became law. The governing rules are the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA, of 1996), which is what I assume the hospital spokesperson was referring to. Just curious... not an issue to debate here :)
 * Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point about the newletter. I hadn't realized it was written by high school students.  As far as the UPI article that says he was born at the Queens Hospital, it seems like there ought to be a way to work that into this article without giving undue weight to it, perhaps as a footnote in the Early Life section.  But I'll leave that to others.  I'm about conspiracied out for the time being.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, because UPI screwed up in reporting where Obama was born it should be included in this article? Seems like a bit of undue weight considering the predominance of reliable sources list him as being born at Kapiolani... --Bobblehead (rants) 00:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly - I removed that mention from the article for just that reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ferrylodge and Abecedare state that the conspiracy theorists have been fussing over the "which hospital" question but that we should omit it from the article because it hasn't been picked up by reliable sources. For the vast majority of articles, I would agree.  This article, however, is the one about the fringe conspiracy theories.  We don't need to wait until some sensible person says, "Well, ya know, there might be something to that."  We should, instead, present the subject views fairly, even if they're fringe views.


 * If something like the following is accurate, it would merit inclusion: "There is some ambiguity in the records concerning which hospital Obama was born at. Such authors as Corsi and Berg have pointed to the ambiguity as evidence that he was not actually born at any of them and that his foreign birth is being imperfectly covered up."  I'm not sufficiently steeped in this stuff to know if that's accurate; it's just the impression I get from the foregoing discussion. JamesMLane t c 02:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely obvious point, and I am being snarky by even pointing it out: the future President and his mother must have been in the same place at the same time at the moment of birth. It's a basic fact of biology. If he was born in Kenya, Ann Obama would also have been in Kenya at the time (unless of course you want to theorize that someone else was his mother.) Even if we can't prove which hospital he was born at, we still can prove that she was in Hawaii on August 4,1961. Even if we never prove she was in Hawaii, it is highly unlikely that she would have been in Kenya at the time. And, it is even more unlikely that we could ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was in Kenya. Unless someone proves otherwise, we have to assume she was somewhere in the United States. The existing evidence that he was born in Hawaii is very, very strong. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I missed this, but what is the strong proof she was in Hawaii on Aug 4 1961? JBarta (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there is that birth certificate. For all the nitpicking being done by the conspiracy theorists, it is indistinguishable from an authentic birth certificate. The State of Hawaii has explicitly said that it is authentic.  There is also that birth notice in the paper, which was based on official records.  We also know for a fact that Barack Obama Sr. was enrolled at the University of Hawaii for both the spring and fall semesters. We also know that Ann Obama was in school right up to the end of the spring semester.  Although the absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it is significant that there is no evidence whatsoever that she traveled to Kenya during the summer of 1961, or that she traveled anywhere at all outside the USA that summer. Finally, her parents were living in Honolulu at the time, and she was on good terms with them, whereas her husband had many reasons to stay away from his hometown (like, he had another wife back home, there was a civil war going on, and his relatively small fellowship wouldn't have paid for a trip back home.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Then from my perspective there is no strong proof and I didn't miss anything. JBarta (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, regarding the assertion above by TimothyHorrigan that "... there is that birth certificate", I'm moved to ask "What birth certificate?"
 * As I understand it, the document in question is not a Certificate of Birth (COB), but rather a Certificatation of Live Birth (COLB) (for some informal info about the difference between Hawaii COBs and COLBs, see here). The COLB does have a "County of Birth" field but, as I understand it, the content of that field is taken without verification from the information provided by the applicant (presumably Obama's mother). A COB, in contrast, contains more detailed information, including signatures of doctor(s) and witnesses. For some purposes, a COLB is considered insufficiently reliable, and a COB is required (there is an example of that at that just-mentioned link).
 * As I understand it, Obama's COB has not been made public. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Extremely obvious points are given no credence in conspiracy theories. But anyway, discrepancies in press accounts always occur. I've done detailed early life biographies of a dozen people here, and every single time I've run across cases where most reliable sources say something happened in year Y but one or two say it happened in Y-1 or Y+1, or most sources say someone when to one school but another says they went to a different school, or most sources spell a child's name one way but a few spell it another way. This is just natural human fallibility at play: someone at a newspaper gets told something wrong, or makes a typo when filing a story, it gets repeated in a biography that wasn't careful about fact-checking that one item, etc. I pick the one that the most sources support or that best fits the other available facts and I use that and I move on. To stop and belabor the point that one or two sources have something wrong would just derail the narrative for no gain to the reader. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In deciding which version is more likely to be true, I wouldn't always pick the one supported by the most sources. You have to look at where they got the information.  If there's an initial error in a source that happens to be widely relied upon, that error may propagate through several other sources.  In any event, for Wikipedia purposes, if there's some significant information that contradicts the general view, it's appropriate for us to let our readers know, with a phrase like "He was divorced in 1991 (although some sources say it occurred in 1992)." JamesMLane t c 16:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My "best fits the other available facts" statement was meant to handle the case where the majority sources are wrong. In other words, I try to figure out what actually happened and use that in the article.  I only use the "some say X, some say Y" formulation as a matter of last resort; it's the coward's way out ;-)  The value-add we bring as WP writers is to sort all this stuff out for readers and form a coherent narrative; otherwise, we might as well turn articles into extended link farms.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
It's bad enough that the article is titled conspiracy theories and the first line of the article repeats conspiracy theories and at other points in the article is mentioned conspiracy theories. Aside from the fact the phrase conspiracy theories is overused and is arguably inaccurate and largely inappropriate in the first place, is it really necessary to make the words conspiracy theories bold? Geez guys, is not Wikipedia's reputation bad enough? Can we at least appear to be just a little impartial? I suppose I should be thankful the BLINK tag doesn't work anymore. JBarta (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look carefully, the bolded bit is the phrase conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship, not just the expression "conspiracy theories". The phrase reflects the title of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * JBarta, I don't think this is intended to imply any editorial comment, it simply follows the WP:MOS standard at WP:BOLDTITLE: "As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence and should be in boldface".--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that it's conventional to use and bold a phrase similar to the wording of the article title if the title itself isn't suitable for use in the opening sentence of an article. That does sometimes happen for descriptive titles such as this one. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, couldn't the first sentence be: "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are questions and conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship..."? --Bobblehead (rants) 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That wording is pretty horrible, I'm afraid - it treats "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" in its entirety as a noun. When writing the first version of this article I had to go through a few attempts before I found a form of words that worked grammatically and stylistically (see ). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, after looking at other articles it would seem that the bolding in the first line is normal. And yes, it did appear to me as yet another bit of editorializing. I'll take back the outburst (about the bolding only) and will take a moment to unbunch my panties. JBarta (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have twiddled the bolding in the lead sentence a few times, but this is my first comment here.
 * Let me call attention to Wikipedia style guideline WP:LEDE and, more specifically, to WP:LEDE. Going a bit further, let me point to the article Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, which is used as an example in that Wikipedia style guideline.
 * OK, let's go back to WP:LEDE. It says, "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable". Let's look at the current lead sentence of this article:


 * As to the question, "What (or who) is the subject?", well, one guesses that it probably has something to do with questions about Barack Obama's US citizenship status.
 * As to the question "Why is this subject notable?", the answer is obvious.
 * At the risk of starting a war here, I suggest that the lead sentence of this article be changed to something like, "Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen of the United States has been questioned by some persons and organizations." The article might go on to report on arguments for and against that, of course citing supporting sources on both sides of the question. The article might also go on disparage the questioning and to denigrate the the persons and organizations which have brought the questions, also citing supporting sources. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2009

(UTC)
 * This whole article is the stupidest thing ever and should surely be deleted 166.70.240.142 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So, if somehow it was "revealed" Obama wasn't born in the USA . ..
Wouldn't it mean that Joe Biden would become President of the United States? 67.149.24.80 (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite likely, yes, though Constitutional experts debate the particulars of the chain of events in such a scenario. What's your point? Tarc (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the 25th amendment to the US Constitution says "Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. " Which confuses me immensely - it's not like John McCain would magically become President, the Democratic Party won the Presidential election, and a Democrat would still be in power. (Maybe not the policies of Obama, but still close enough to them.) 67.149.24.80 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Which confuses me immensely..." It may be confusing to you because you're looking at the issue through a partisan lens. You are assuming a single simple motive for getting at the truth, when in reality there are other motives, not the least of which is to simply lay the facts bare, whatever they may be, and let the chips fall where they may. For me personally, I would not want to seek his removal from office, nor would I have sought to see him disqualified in the first place. That said, I would prefer all the facts come out and the issue dealt with by Obama in a more forthright manner... expecially after his frequent promises of transparency and honesty. JBarta (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking at it through a partisan lens, but most of the people who seem to be "looking for the truth" are definitely anti-Obama anyway. It really seems to be code for saying that they don't want a Black man as President. 67.149.24.80 (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alan Keyes doesn't want a Black man as President?! John Darrow (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, racists and regular nutbars then. 67.149.24.80 (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, there could be a legitimate tie-in here to the article. Since at least one challenger to Obama's legitimacy — Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation — is reported here to be planning to mount legal challenges to "each and every one of Obama's actions as president", it probably is appropriate to say something about the question of whether or not Obama could be legally ousted from the Presidency if it were determined at this point that he is not in fact a natural-born citizen.  I'm not going to elaborate further, lest I be accused of indulging in OR or otherwise abusing the talk page, but can anyone find citable sources addressing this issue?  Richwales (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You will need to find a reliable source to back up any claims regarding what would happen if Obama were found to not be a natural born citizen while in office. I'm not sure you'll be able to find one though. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just in passing, re Kreep "planning to mount legal challenges to 'each and every one of Obama's actions as president'": It's really sort of amazing he (evidently) hasn't bothered to research the long-established officer de facto doctrine, which "confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient" --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I'm not a lawyer but I see that the case you cite is one in which SCOTUS held that the judges' actions were not valid de facto due to circumstances specific to that case which appear not to apply in Obama's situation. A more on-point case would probably be Norton v. Shelby County, . -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm no constitutional expert, but my understanding would be that the only way he could be removed (absent his resignation) would be for Congress to impeach him. There's no mechanism that I know of for the courts to remove a president from office. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's a case of obliviousness rather than conspiracy (despite the title of this article), then resignation would certainly be an option, I imagine.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reference one could possibly find would be speculation by a constitutional lawyer. (Hey, Obama's one!  Ask him.)  And I think all the lawyer could say would be "It depends".  As far as the Dickensian-named Kreep goes, he'll become notable if and when a court responds to one of his suits without laughing. PhGustaf (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that we (the editors of Wikipedia) are not supposed to be engaging in personal analysis here. If we can find reliable sources out there that discuss the issue of what might happen if Obama were determined not to be a natural-born citizen after all, then we can (and should) report what those sources say, in a balanced and neutral fashion.  But we can't include our own original research or synthesis in the article.  Discussion here, on the talk page, of the various possibilities may be useful if it points the way to possible sources of information, but we're not supposed to use a talk page for general rambling / debate of issues (i.e., a talk page is not a bboard or a newsgroup).


 * Legal scholars say a lot more than "it depends" all the time — read any law journal for examples. And there could very possibly be reports in the press talking about such-and-so person saying this or that (indeed, that's the kind of secondary source which is preferred in Wikipedia).  But any material in this Wikipedia article on the question at hand has got to be backed by sources, or else it'll quickly be removed per WP:OR and/or WP:SYN.  And discussion of the issue here (in the talk page) is appropriate if, and only if, it's reasonably likely to lead to appropriate material being added to the article.  Richwales (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with much of Richwales's comment, I'd say that we're not restricted to legal scholars in addressing the issue of what would happen if Obama were found (by whom?) unqualified. We can report facts about notable opinions.  It's possible that Keyes or some other prominent conspiracy theorist has said something like, "If Obama isn't qualified then his electors' votes don't count, and McCain becomes President by a vote of 173 to zero."  If so, we could report that ("He added that, if his position were accepted, then McCain should become President").  Of course, we should report such a position without adopting it. JamesMLane t c 06:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If this happens, clearly millions of Americans will immediately enlist in Michele Bachmann's New American Revolutionary Army. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And other millions would flee President Biden to the land of Bachman-Turner Overdrive.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the Electoral College casts separate ballots for Pres and VP, then if the votes for Obama were thrown out based to illegitimacy of his candidacy, one could say that John McCain won the presidential election, and Joe Biden won the vice election. I don't think that is the best result (easy to argue that people would have voted quite differently if the Dem ticket had not been Obama/Biden, and also easy to say that McCain cannot win the EC vote because he did not have a majority), and no doubt it would throw the entire country into constitutional crisis.  There is no good answer—there is no Constitutional provision for this happening.  Personally, I think it would be "best" to declare all actions of an "impostor president" null and void, and have a new election with the same candidates, but without any Democrats, as their inability to properly vet their candidates makes them suspect—incompetent at best, and criminals at worst. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. This sort of fantasy speculation really has nothing to do with the article.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A new lawsuit: Berg sues Taitz!
Berg is a plaintiff, but the first-named plaintiff is his paralegal, Lisa Liberi, so the short-form caption is Liberi v. Taitz. You can read all 80+ pages of the complaint here and some birthers' comments about it here. There are six plaintiffs and about a dozen defendants. I think it relates primarily to allegedly defamatory statements about the alleged hacking of Taitz's website and/or PayPal account... but I'm not sure. I couldn't get through the whole thing. I'll have to leave it to someone with more stamina than I to determine whether there's anything in this development that should be reflected in our article. JamesMLane t c 05:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been following it pretty closely, and I doubt that any of it would be of interest here. The fact is, none of them have been faring too well with their quests, and the resulting frustration may be what has led to much of the mud-slinging among factions. The suit itself is a poorly crafted (though probably legally justified) response to some of the more defamatory remarks that have been made. Nothing to see here. TheMaestro (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This Politico bit (which some other sites picked up on) seems to think there's some geographical significance to the factional split. Unless it's a put-on.  The readers' comments do a pretty good job of illustrating where birthers are at.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged" birth hospital
Re: this edit, if Obama alleges he was born in that hospital and others allege that he was not, in the absence of any real proof either way, why would we consider Obama's version fact and consider opposing versions allegations? (or worse) To allege means to make a claim without yet presenting any real proof. Why would we not call them BOTH allegations? (And no, the newspaper posting is not proof and neither are the gushing claims of the nurse that claims to remember the day he was born) So what are we left with? The reporting of other media sources that choose to state his birth hospital as a matter of fact? They say it so we say it, end of discussion? I guess I'm not really looking for an answer (unfortunately I know what the answers are)... maybe I'm just ranting a little. JBarta (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You, I, and everyone else knows full well why "allegedly" was slipped into the article. Let's not waste a bunch of time on the hows and the whys of the Birther Movement, it has all been done before. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well first, it's always wise to take a closer look at something that is claimed "everyone knows". That aside, my question/rant was specifically about the use/non-use of the word allege(dly) in the article. And "Birthers" are now a "Movement"? Interesting. Does that mean that more and more people are posing the same questions? If you wish to actually address the content of my question/rant, I'm all ears. If not, I'll understand. JBarta (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for ranting. Yes, you are right --- the preponderance of reliable sources say it, so we say it without equivocation. The use of allegedly gives undue weight to fringe and unreliable sourcing. --guyzero | talk 21:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But... the absence of any sort of proof is not the same as unreliable sourcing. The only leg left to stand on is that "reliable" sources say it, so we say it. I understand that is the Wikipedia way and there is merit to that. Then we get into a discussion about just how reliable and objective some of these sources actually are. (a discussion that doesn't necessarily belong here, I know) JBarta (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no controversy over Obama's place of birth, other than within the realm of a fringe group of bitter nuts. Unreliable sources claim Obama was born elsewhere. Reliable sources list his birth at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children.  What else is left to discuss here? Tarc (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly you may claim that "reliable sources" list his birth at that particular hospital. But that's all there is. There really is no evidence that could be considered proof. Actually, evidence that WOULD shed more light on the topic is being withheld, thus adding even less credibility to the stated birth place of Obama. I understand that Wikipedia guidelines suggest the parroting of sources which are deemed to be reliable... but that's hardly suffient to put an end to the matter for anyone wishing a robust examination of the issue. JBarta (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't set up a false equivalence between a fringe view held by a few and the majority view held by the vast majority, backed up by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. It's a sin against reason. By your thinking, we can toss the word "alleged" in front of every contested fact on earth. "The earth is alleged to be round." "The United states allegedly landed astronauts on the moon." "HIV allegdly causes Aids." No. "allegedly born tktktk" is not on.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You make a good point, although I take issue with the notion there is a preponderance of evidence. In reality there is little evidence and nothing that could be considered proof beyond a reasonable doubt... therefore no sin against reason. Actually, I would turn it around and suggest it's the folks who insist on dismissing the entire issue as the ravings of whack job morons are the ones sinning against reason. At any rate, absent proof, his stated birth hospital would seem to be an allegation. However, "reliable sources" state it as fact (even in the absence of proof) and Wikipedia guidlines suggest we follow the reliable sources. That's what it boils down to. JBarta (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (reply to JB after ec)I see and appreciate what you are saying, and there are spots like RSN to evaluate the sourcing (I believe we've done that a few times wrt this article, but I lose track). We can't really make the decision ourselves on whether or not adequate "proof" has been provided as that would be crossing into editor OR -- we rely on the RS's to make those evaluations. I might be misunderstanding your last comment, but I'm very skeptical that an evaluation of the reliability and objectivity of the main stream sources vs. the reliability and objectivity of the birther sources would result in any material change to this article. (Also, agreed with Tarc and Bali above.) kind regards, --guyzero | talk 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On this narrow issue (birth hospital) it's not a matter of mainstream press vs "birther sources". It's a matter that there really is no proof either way. That's the question. There are no hospital records, birth documents etc that can offer solid proof he was born in ANY particular hospital. Obama claims to have been born in a particular hospital and the most compelling documentary evidence supporting that claim are a pair of birth announcments in the local paper at the time. Considering the entire issue, that evidence is FAR from substantial proof. That there is no real documentation of his birth hospital is not a matter of favoring one source over another... it just plain doesn't exist (or rather has not been made public). And a surprising number of Wikipedia editors, along with a whole lot of other folks, are content to simply gloss over that sticky little point and boldly suggest that anyone who raises that question is simply a dimwitted lunatic. Sorry folks, it just doesn't fly. In the end, the only reason for this article to turn a blind eye and state Obama's birth hospital as an undisputed fact is that "reliable sources" have done just that. JBarta (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really the debate on the real world credibility of these views happens in the real world outside of wikipedia and is documented for us via RS's. The current consensus of that debate is exactly what is said above: there is no controversy over his birth hospital except as held by birthers, and so the use of allegedly is not neutral. Not representing fringe views as fact is certainly not the same as "turning a blind eye." --guyzero | talk 08:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes if we were "turning a blind eye" or not giving the fringe any attention at all, this article wouldn't exist.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At least concede that the birth hospital has NOT actually been established in fact and the only reason it is noted as fact in this article is to reflect the majority viewpoint of reliable sources. JBarta (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. It has been established as fact. You can claim that all of the evidence isn't good enough for your own beliefs, but that has nothing to do with this article. There is no need to disprove a negative when the positive has been proven. Of course that will never be good enough for some, but that doesn't really matter.  It just comes down to more of the "yeah, but what if..." logic that these conspiracy theories are based on.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * JBarta, I suggest you accept that consensus is against you, both on this Talk page and in the wider world.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that using "allegedly" would be POV. Furthermore, this fringe theory should not be discussed in the Barack Obama bio or other such articles.  This article, however, is devoted to the fringe theories.  Therefore, I would say that if some prominent spokesperson for the birthers has advanced the arguments made by Jbarta above about hospital records, and if we can find a citation that reliably establishes that the argument was in fact made, then we can quote it, with attribution.  Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions.  A caveat is that the opinions must be notable.  If Phil Berg or Alan Keyes or the like says this in a published source, we can quote it (with the form "Berg argued that...").  The personal opinion of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor doesn't meet that standard, though, so Jbarta's comments above aren't enough to support any change in the article. JamesMLane t c 22:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

James von Brunn
I removed the following external link added to the article a few minutes back:
 * James Von Brunn Apparently Part Of Obama "Birther" Movement by Sam Stein, The Huffington Post, June 10 2009

since I think, (1) mention of Brunn in this article is perhaps undue and certainly premature, (2) adding an EL is not the desirable way to add new information. I suggest that we wait to see if this is just passing curiosity, or if the mainstream media gives the Brunn-Birther link much importance and if the link has any larger significance in the movement. Any objections or comments ? Abecedare (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Our usual deference to the "mainstream media" is less appropriate in an article about a fringe theory. There's very little in this article that's received extensive attention in the mass media.  Brunn at this point is probably one of the best-known birthers -- more prominent than Berg or Taitz or Donofrio -- so he should be included. JamesMLane t c 01:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd pass on including this in the article at this point. Sam Stein is a decent reporter, and as he writes in this case, "a 'birther' mindset is more a symptom of extremism than a cause."  Neo-Nazi hate crimes existed long before anyone heard of Obama and will still be going on long after Obama has left the political scene.  Birthers are generally harmless paranoid nuts, not murderers.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the quote by Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center (which monitors hate groups) may be worth adding since it attests how the birther movement has spread from the relatively respectable fringe to the radical extremists. Abecedare (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with JamesMLane and Abecedare's last comment immediately above. I've added a paragraph at the end of "Campaigners" covering the radical right connection - von Brunn is mentioned, but the main thrust is to highlight the adoption of this conspiracy theory by the extreme right. See what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Formulated like this, I guess I'm okay with including it. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's reasonably phrased, and indicates a scary aspect of this whole birth certificate issue that Wikipedia readers would probably be interested to know about.  I don't think the whole birth certificate issue has been handled particularly well by the Obama organization.  It now looks like it's become a matter for the Secret Service, which is surprising and very unfortunate.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any stories that the Secret Service is concerned about birthers, other that this Politico item which is speculation not reporting. I think the Secret Service should be concerned about hate-filled violent ultrabigots ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good approach, except that I'm not comfortable calling him "the gunman involved" in the shooting. At this point he's been accused of the crime.  I've changed it to say "charged" -- plenty of time to change it later after his (inevitable) conviction. JamesMLane t c 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a fair point. I was in a rush this morning, so I overlooked that point - thanks for fixing it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, I think there is more than enough commentary in this article. That paragraph mostly just adds two more bits of pontificating. One day when I get more of an urge, I'll go through and count just how many editorial type quotes are actually in this "encyclopedia" article. JBarta (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's an exaggeration. It states two facts - the extreme right has latched on to the birth certificate conspiracy theory, and a now-infamous extreme rightist had personally published BCCT screeds online - and one bit of interpretation from a political journalist about the implications. That's not an unreasonable level of coverage of an important issue, and it's expressed pretty concisely. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then for balance, how about a "bit of interpretation from" another "political journalist"? You should have heard Rush Limbaugh yesterday, he basically took extreme issue with all those labeling the nutjob an "extreme rightist"; he said this was a transparent political ploy and rhetoric,  because he instead considers the nutjob a product of the "extreme left", on account of the nutjob's outspoken hatred for "neoconservatives", (which Rush says is really a left-wing code-word for "Jews"), in addition to the nutjob's additional belief in 9-11 Truth, (which he says is a left-wing movement), etc.  J№. HANCŐCK (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The two-dimensional left-right political spectrum is a hopeless oversimplification even for normal people. Attempting to place hate-filled crazies on it is a futile task.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The reporting of Limbaugh's opinion could be considered for inclusion in the article about the shooting. I say "considered" because not every prominent opinion can be included in that article, but all major points of view should be fairly represented.  Limbaugh's opinion, as you summarize it, has nothing to do with the subject of this article, so there's no reason to include it here.  If Limbaugh has addressed the subject of Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President, that comment might be worth including here. JamesMLane t c 17:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting... states fact? Not opinion? "Extreme" right? What does the "extreme" left think? What is the "extreme left"? At any rate, much of this is little more than hot air being blown around. The fact that more than few blatantly biased editors here are perfectly happy to help blow around that hot air is an insult to the idea of NPOV and is quite unencyclopedic. JBarta (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we know you believe in these conspiracy theories - you've made that clear often enough. Please stick to the point here. The SPLC is a reputable, high-profile organisation that specialises in the monitoring of such groups. Its views on the subject are highly notable and very obviously relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that repeating a few blowhard viewpoints, then in a paper thin attempt to be "neutral", repeating a few opposing blowhard viewpoints is nothing more than helping the hot air move around. Again, this is not very encyclopedic. I think much of the blowhard opinion all the way around can be left out of the article. Just because someone associated with a "reputable high profile" organization shoots off his mouth, that doesn't mean we ought to be simply repeating it carte blanche in an encyclopedia article. I know it's tough for some folks, but neutrality means presenting the facts in a neutral manner without favoring one position or another. That means hot air ("reputable" or otherwise) ought to be kept at an absolute minimum. JBarta (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding my 2c as the starter of the thread: I am happy with ChrisO's addition to the article. It provides the reader enough context to understand why one person's writings are being cited. The SPLC quote is both noteworthy and directly relevant; the Ben Smith quote while useful, should ideally be replaced by a more expert or official opinion. Aside: As everyone involved with this talk page knows, the topic can elicit strong emotions in some contributors. Thus it is most advisable to limit sarcasm, hyperbole and name-calling in ones comment on this page, since that makes calm discussion even more difficult. (I am sure I have been guilty of this myself.) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Above, Jbarta writes, "Interesting... states fact? Not opinion?" Yes, that's correct.  Consider two sentences:
 * (1) The birther movement has been adopted by the most noxious elements out there.
 * (2) According to Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, "the birther movement ... has been adopted by the most noxious elements out there."
 * Sentence #1 states an opinion. A Wikipedia article should not use such a sentence.
 * Sentence #2 states a fact about an opinion. It states that fact that Mark Potok adheres to the opinion embodied in Sentence #1.  Sentence #2 is therefore proper for a Wikipedia article.


 * Jbarta also writes:
 * "I know it's tough for some folks, but neutrality means presenting the facts in a neutral manner without favoring one position or another. That means hot air ('reputable' or otherwise) ought to be kept at an absolute minimum."
 * Well, Jbarta, I know it's tough for you, but your personal preference concerning the role of opinion in Wikipedia articles isn't generally shared in the community. The NPOV policy, adopted by consensus, tells us to report facts about opinions.  Neutrality means that we should present all major opinions fairly, but there's no correlation between that and your personal goal of keeping the reporting of opinions to a minimum.  If you want to change the policy, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and/or Village pump (policy). JamesMLane t c 03:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Addressing another point that Jbarta has made, they're not merely "blowhard opinions". The SPLC is an authoritative source of information on the extreme right - as Southern Poverty Law Center says, it is "internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of organizations it calls hate groups.". A statement by its spokesman on birtherism on the extreme right is obviously highly relevant and significant, since it provides important context for the question of who believes in birther conspiracy theories. is Ben Smith's view is relevant as an informed commentator who, I think I'm right in saying, has written more frequently on the birther movement than any other journalist I can think of (possibly excepting Dave Weigel) - we already cite several other pieces by Smith. His assessment provides significant context for the sentiment underlying birtherism, i.e. that Obama is supposedly an illegitimate president, a usurper, etc. Brunn himself was fairly clear about his agreement with that sentiment (see ). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When overheated opinion (regardless of where it comes from) is eagerly sought out and parroted by Wikipedia largely because a number of editors embrace some of the same overheated opinions, the article becomes a reflection of the editor's opinions rather than a cold and neutral examination of the topic. To me, slice that any way you wish, but going that route pulls away from neutral and encyclopedic and moves towards the parroting of rhetoric. (I realize I'm pissing in the wind here and yes, I'm veering into an area more suitable for some other windy Wikipedia talk page. I know I'm probably not going to change anyone's mind... but this stuff needs to be said.) JBarta (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?
Questions about Obama's eligibility for President are not conspiracy theories. They are simply questions. Please revise the title! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are not conspiracy theories - they are fringe theories, devised by the lunatic wack-job fringe with no basis in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussed ad nauseum. Move on.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of a line from Carlito's Way... "your problems aren't just going to go away." The problems (as many see them) with this article, and the issue/questions in general, are not just going to go away... JBarta (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jbarta, you're probably right. The birther conspiracy theorists are going to keep on pressing their lawsuits.  Some of them are going to keep on showing up on Wikipedia and trying to get this treated as a serious political issue.  Four years from now, Wikipedians will still be forced to devote time to maintaining this article in accordance with NPOV and other policies.  So what?  Four years from now, adolescents will be making witty additions like "This is bullshit" to some of our other political articles, and Wikipedians will be forced to devote time to maintaining those, as well.  Don't worry, we'll outlast them.  Only the most extraordinarily knowledgeable and persistent troublemakers manage to get their way through sheer perseverance and bullying. JamesMLane t c 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, these are legitimate questions. One can only label them "conspiracy theories" if there is no good evidence of the claim.  Since Obama has spent a substantial sum on lawyers to keep his documents private, when all the accusations could be easily put to rest if they were made public, an appearance of deception is hard to avoid.  Will you be here in four years to eat your words if the claims are borne out?  One has to have documentation in order to join a little league team...but none is required to be a presidential candidate, even when there are specific requirements that should be validated?  There are bills in legislatures across the country now to make verification of these constitutional requirements law—so it is not just the "wack-job fringe" that takes this seriously. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea that Obama has "spent a substantial sum on lawyers to keep his documents private?" Have you actually read this article and its references? That's simply not true.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be taken under consideration that some allegations are not noted in this article or its references because they have not been reported by what are deemed reliable sources. That Obama has spent large sums to keep a lid on this issue (whether it be to keep documents private or other efforts) is a common allegation. In addition, I've read statements by lawyers working on behalf of Obama saying they are working pro-bono. At the very least, I would tend to agree that Obama and his proxies have expended a non-trivial amount of time, money and effort to keep documentation out of the public view. It's not a great leap to suggest that within that documentation are issues that Obama deems potentially troublesome. JBarta (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you cite any examples from reliable sources of Obama expending "a non-trivial amount of time, money and effort to keep documentation out of the public view?" --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * says, "And, according to campaign finance reports, his Political Action Committee Obama for America has paid $1,066,691.90 to the Perkins Coie law firm between Oct. 16, 2008 and March 30, 2009 to fight every legal challenge requesting proof of his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have bolded the words reliable sources when I was asking for examples. That hardly qualifies as such.--Loonymonkey (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Their website lists 50 or so Arizona Newspapers Association Awards in various areas, going back to 1996 (see here). Not to be swayed by that, I've asked at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, googling for "According to Federal Election Commission records, Obama For America paid $688,316.42 to international law firm Perkins Coie between January and March 2009." produces a lot of hits. I don't know about the reliability of the sources, but they probably relate to the line which reads "Perkins Coie 688,316.42" in this FEC report. The much-repeated article which those hits turn up doesn't claim that all that money (plus an additional $378,375.52 said to have been paid between Oct. 16, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2008) was for the purpose of defending against challenges to Obama's eligibility, but it does assert that Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie -- top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America -- is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president. I notice that $688,316.42 + $378,375.52 = $1,066,691.94, so I'm guessing that the $1,066,691.90 figure mentioned by the Sonoran News comes from FEC reports of disbursements by Obama's campaign to the Perkins Coie law firm. I would also guess that, since the firm no doubt performs services other than defending against eligibility challenges, not all of that money went for that purpose. I'm not sure what the article should or should not say about all of this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the Perkins Coie article, one of their specialties is representing Democratic political campaigns and organizations, including Kerry 2004 and Al Franken 2008-2009 and the DNC in general, so it's safe to assume that they're involved in all kinds of legal work related to Obama, not just this. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interest of conspiracy-theory completeness, I'll toss in the fact that Perkins Coie has also been lawyers for . . . the Sonoran News! The webpage for Dan Barr, a Perkins partner in Phoenix, lists two successful defamation defenses:  a 1997 case brought by Cave Creek Mayor Buffenstein, and a 2006 case filed by Gary Condit. In the latter case, Condit was ordered to pay $42,000 to the paper for Perkins' legal fees.  I doubt that these tidbits is of any particular relevance to the article, but they're  entertaining, anyway.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That said, personally I would like to see more substantial proof backing up the claim that a "substantial sum is spent on lawyers to keep documents private". I keep seeing the claim, but not much to back it up. JBarta (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything that would back up the claim because, from what I've read in these (and other) reliable sources, it's simply not true. Medical records are already kept private by both federal and state law.  He wouldn't need to spend a cent to keep them that way.  This notion that he's been working to keep his birth certificate out of view is simply false.  The much more reasonable interpretation of the situation (the one which is actually supported by reliable sources) is that he ordered the release of his birth certificate to quell these rumors, but then when the conspiracy theorists complained that it wasn't good enough (and they needed to see the original hand-written forms from the day of his birth, etc, etc.) that he decided not to humor them further by dignifying it with another response (which, it is doubtful would satisfy them anyway). Politically, that was probably the correct move. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that, to me, is an absolutely absurd explanation of why orginial birth documents are being kept private. There are certainly much more probable interpretations. That said, I'll concede (as noted above) that the claim Obama (and/or his proxies) are spending substantial amounts to keep documents private hasn't been very well fleshed out, and that does tend to reduce the credibility of that particular claim. JBarta (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "the law requires"? Yes, but that boils down to "The law allows". The documents, and the information therein, may be released or suppressed at the whim of the person to which they refer.

Really? The fact that the documents are kept private because the law requires them to be kept private seems absurd to you? And yet, the notion that Obama, the state government of Hawaii and hundreds of other individuals are involved in a conspiracy to hide the details of his birth (since before he even entered politics) doesn't strike you as absurd? Okay. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The law requires them to be kept private to the general public. Obama has access to his own records and could make them public if he so chose. And a conspiracy is not necessary... just a reluctance to disclose records. Hundreds of people are not required at all... this is bogus claim thrown up by those who would discredit the questioners. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that at his birth (if he happened to be born elsewhere) it was important to Obama's mother that he be an American citizen and his birth location noted as Hawaii. No conspiracy involved, just a few efforts by his mother. As Obama started thinking about getting into politics, I have no doubt he started thinking about this issue. Believe me... he started thinking about his birth certificate issues long before we did. Again... there is no conspiracy involved... just keep any problematic documents private and watch others try to get at them. Seeing as there is basically no formal eligibility verification in place, it's not all that hard to do (as we have seen). These are not unreasonable suppositions given the circumstances. (and I realize I'm overstepping the bounds of the talk page rules, my apologies) JBarta (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Nice parody of the conspiracy theorists! I especially like the "believe me". Very droll. GB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.230.52 (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We refer to them as "conspiracy theories" because reliable sources refer to them as conspiracy theories. It is a feeble movement of a minuscule minority, and really nothing more. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:V ... "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." JBarta (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy pages do not exist in a vacuum; they all have to be adhered to. WP:RS and WP:UNDUE might be good places to start. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department"

Well there you go, there's the link right there everyone. The Hawaii Department of Health's short form is all that's needed for the State Department?? What legislation says that?? Where did the people vote this in? So apparently, you can spend millions on lawyers blocking release of your real birth certificate which actually includes the information in question, and discount lots of other things, and there's nothing wrong with that. And then try to publicly discount the theory do their best to use words like 'nutjob' and 'tinhat' and stuff, but fail to actually address the issue...funny isn't it....I mean, only nutjobs demand official certification for top jobs these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.212.253 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hawaiian government does not always accept short form - sometimes only long form is acceptable
I don't edit this article, but I thought I'd like to draw this to the attention of those of you who do. [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100451 This] article from World Net Daily has a link to this website from the government of Hawaii. The government webpage is called "Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands." It says, "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." Grundle2600 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Requiring additional verification" is not the same as "does not accept". This is why WND is the poster child for unreliable sourcing, as they grossly misinterpret, to their own ends, what the Hawaii gov't site says. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. That's a very good point. It's just that if someone wanted to quote the government website, I think they would need to cite a different source to quote it from, or else it would be original research - I think. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note also that the form is written for people trying to prove Native Hawaiian ancestry. Since neither Kansas nor Kenya are in Hawaii, this issue is moot for Obama. PhGustaf (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I've missed something, there has been no assertion that the requirements of the Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands page applied in the case under discussion. The point, as I understand it, is that for some cases (and this case under discussion is an example), a Certification of Live Birth document is considered insufficiently reliable, and the additional information contained in a Certificate of Birth document is considered much more reliable. Some people believe that demonstrating sufficiency of qualification to hold the office of President of the United States is important enough that the most reliable source available (if, in fact, a Certificate of Birth document exists in Obama's case) should be used. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen nothing to indicate that any candidate for president has ever been held to such a high standard for proof of birth prior to this. There has been no credible evidence presented to indicate that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii, or that there is any need for proof other than the Certificate of Live Birth, which has presumably been sufficient for any other candidate prior to Obama.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Boracay Bill, Do you have any basis for the statement, "a Certification of Live Birth document is considered insufficiently reliable" ? The DHHL asks for the Certificate of Original Birth since it needs, "information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth", i.e., a "Certificate of Live Birth" has more information than a "Certificate of Live Birth" (which no one has ever disputed!). The former is not considered more or less reliable than the latter by any state or federal authority or court; both are state certified documents drawn from the same database.
 * In case this distinction is still not clear, here is an analogy: my passport does not have information on whether I have passed a driving test in US or how much I paid for electricity last month, but that does not make it a less reliable document than my state issued driver's license or my electricity bill. Hope you realize the fallacy of your argument now and strike out your misunderstanding. 66.253.230.52 (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind everyone that this talk page is not the place to discuss Barack Obama, his policies, controversies, etc. It is here to discuss how to better improve the article.  If you want to discuss Obama or some theory, then please take it to one of the many forums and discuss there.  Thank you.  Brothejr (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Hawaii recently updated one of its web pages to clarify this matter. It now says: "The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth... the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth" (http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl) 72.224.136.152 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrm, that is interesting. So edits such as this  are not only unreliable, but also outdated and incorrect.  Good find. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that World Net Daily isn't a reliable source for any matters of fact, and the edit is improper because it says "point out" (implying truth). Nevertheless, this article is about the fringe theory so we can quote the fringe theorists, if the quotation or paraphrase is properly attributed.  We should say something like "Proponents have alleged that the State of Hawaii...."  I haven't restored the material, however, because I don't think it's important enough to be featured prominently.  It should be in a subsection dealing with the minutiae of the long-form versus short-form dispute. JamesMLane t c 19:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention John McCain and Title Change
Hi, this seems to be a controversial article, therefore I won't edit without discussing it first.

The fist thing I'm wondering is if it would be OK to mention that John McCain, Barack Obama's main contender in the election, was probably ineligible for the presidency because he was born on a Military Base in Panama, not in America, and according to the most common interpretation of the eligibility clause in the constitution someone must have been born in America to be eligible for the Presidency.

The second thing I have a question about is the appropriateness of the current article title. Although there are all sorts of wacko conspiracy theories regarding Obama secretly having been born in Kenya, or having changed his citizenship (All of which fit the current title very well), there are also legitimate questions about whether being born with dual citizenship makes him not a "natural born citizen." Although my interpretation is that he still qualifies as a natural born citizen there are people who honestly believe that he does not. And it is not a conspiracy theory per se, it an argument over the proper interpretation of the constitution. I would propose that either this current article is renamed so that it can accurately cover both subjects, or that we keep the conspiracy theories here and create a second article titled something like "2008 United States Presidential Election Eligibility" about the reasons why both McCain and Obama may have not been eligible to become president.

And as a third thing (this has already been discussed above to a degree), I don't think that the article emphasizes enough that even if Obama wasn't eligible to become president he has now become president and the only way to remove him is through impeachment.  Caleb Jon talk 12:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The McCain legal discussion is already handled at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and doesn't need to be dealt with here. That was based on the constitutional ramifications of McCain being born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone.  User Caleb Jon is incorrect about the "most common" interpretation being that McCain was accordingly ineligible; that was a distinct minority view in both legal and political circles.  In addition, there is also a 'birther' conspiracy theory regarding McCain, which says that he wasn't even born in the PCZ but instead in regular Panama.  That theory has purported birth certificates floating around the Internet, legal theories regarding an FDR proclamation, and all sorts of stuff like that.  That theory isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia the last I saw, because McCain didn't get elected and those birthers went away.  But this does go to show that birthers aren't "right" or "left", just believers that We Are Not Being Told The Truth.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Though to be fair, the fact that Obama is "exotic", brown and Democratic is probably not incidental to a lot of the birthers. The 9/11 truthers didn't get anything like the same traction on the left-wing of the Democratic Party as the birthers seem to have acquired on the right-wing of the Republican Party. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There were a number of McCain birthers out there, I dealt with them on several different McCain-related articles during the campaign. But the real McCain conspiracists were in relation to his Vietnam service and various slanderous theories about that.  I was reverting stuff from them all the time during the campaign.  And McCain is unexotic, white, and Republican.  The potential of some people for conspiratorial thinking knows no boundaries of race, creed or color.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly you are probably right. I really should get round to re-reading The Paranoid Style in American Politics one of these days. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sad that those requesting a copy of Obama's original long-form certificate cannot all be tarred as racists, in addition to all of the other things you've tarred them with? I'm not requesting that copy, because I think the evidence so far is sufficient.  However, the "let's see some ID" crowd is not all loony, and covering up birth records is not the best way to calm the waters.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They're not all racists, obviously, but as the Brunn case shows the conspiracy theory has acquired significant currency among the racist right. The SPLC quote recently added to the article addresses this point specifically. As for "not loony", let's not forget that the "let's see some ID" crowd's rationale for its demand is that the certificate of live birth is not equivalent to the original long-form certificate, despite the Obama team, the Democratic Party, the governor of Hawaii, Hawaii state officials and Hawaiian law all saying that it is legally and functionally equivalent. Clearly one side must be wrong. Somehow I suspect that a crowd that includes perennial candidates, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and white supremacists is less likely to be correct than the other side. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ChrisO, regarding your statement about “the Obama team, the Democratic Party, the governor of Hawaii, Hawaii state officials and Hawaiian law,” the first two obviously are not neutral. As for the governor of Hawaii, this Wikipedia article currently does not mention her, for the very good reason that she hasn’t said or done anything.  Which leaves “Hawaii state officials and Hawaiian law.”  This Wikipedia article says that Hawaii state officials responded to concerns about the original certificate by refusing to confirm what it says, and by inviting the Obama campaign to give them clearance, which has never been forthcoming.  And this Wikipedia article says nothing about Hawaii law.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)We've been through this before. If he released the different birth certificate you want, all the birthers and Rathergate wannabes would break down the pixels and the watermarks until they were convinced it was a forgery. If the hospital records you want were released they too would be dismissed as fradulent concoctions. Any witnesses would be googled until something was turned up so that they could be impuned. All conspiracy theories are defined in terms that make them unfalsifiable to their believers. The number of conspiracy theorists who ever change their minds and decide everything they believed in was wrong is very, very small. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What is wrong "Rathergate wannabes"? The National Guard documents are are ridiculous forgeries.  Can you explain why anyone should believe that the documents were not printed with Microsoft Word?MarkOller (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If Obama does anything at all, there will be people who complain. That does not mean he should sit on the Truman balconey and do nothing for 4 years.  On second thought....Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And in the end, who would blame Obama for deciding (or being advised) that he's done more than enough to convince reasonable people? The birthers would never have voted for him anyway, so it's not like he has anything to gain by appeasing them. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Plus he's got the matter well in hand at Wikipedia, so why budge? Good point.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this discussion relevant to improving this page ?
 * Does anyone really believe that they are going to change hearts and minds here by arguing their point the umpteenth+1 time ?! If yes, they are as deluded as the birthers :)
 * I am serious about 1. Abecedare (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Returning to Caleb Jon's point about mentioning the McCain issue: At present, the section on Donofrio v. Wells mentions Donofrio's position that McCain is ineligible. What about including there a parenthetical like: "(see John McCain presidential campaign, 2008)"?  That would accommodate readers of this article who want to read more about such eligibility questions, yet it wouldn't disrupt the flow of the article for everyone else. JamesMLane t c 18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Go for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Barack Obama Certification of Live Birth Hawaii contains some peculiarities. The certificate number is blacked out, even though it states at the bottom: "ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE."  The wording is even more peculiar for 1961.  The mother's race is Caucasian and the father's race is African.  The word was Negro.  In 1961, no one knew that African or Asian referred to race.MarkOller (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My goodness, you're right, that is peculiar. Everyone knows that if a 60's era birth certificate doesn't list the races as cracker and jungle bunny, then it must be fake!  Good eye, buddy! Tarc (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to wonder why a 1961 birth certificate would list a black father's race as "African" rather than "Negro". All the juvenile condescension in the world does not change this. JBarta (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing reasonable at all in any of this subject matter, hence the "conspiracy theory" title. That some, months down the road, still have their tinfoil hats firmly glued to their heads is unfortunate. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama Senior was African, as in having been born in Africa. As for the blackout, see http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg .--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably the term "Negro" was used for African-Americans rather than Africans from Africa. Or maybe the clerk at the office which issued the birth certificate was having an off-day? Not that it matters anyway... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk having an "off day" is not likely. There are of course a few possible explanations... one of which you mention above. At any rate, it's reasonable to look at it with a raised eyebrow... and that's the point... it's not nonsense and it's not "tin foil hattery"... it's a perfectly reasonable observation. JBarta (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who knows? Who cares?  Perhaps it was Hawaiian policy at the time; perhaps it was a whim of the clerk.  But it just doesn't matter.  There's no reasonable doubt about who Obama's father was.  And it doesn't matter whether the question is answered, because if it were the birthers would just find some other trivium to niggle about. PhGustaf (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And this discussion has at least taught me a new word, trivium. I will have to remember that. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Except now Andy Martin is claiming that Obama's father is Frank Marshall Davis. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The notion of endless "trivium to niggle about" is a non-argument. If a doorman questions the validity of your ID and requests further proof of your age, would you tell him no because no matter what you presented he would continue to question your identity/age? I doubt any person would actually try that argument at the door because they know such a stance would be ridiculous. JBarta (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple question: Are there any reliable sources discussing the negro vs African issue ? If so, lets add this theory to the article. If not, lets desist from using this page (again) as a forum. Frankly, by now it is easy to predict which editors will find the latest fringe theory credible; but airing personal opinions of whether these theories are reasonable or not is not the purpose of this talk page. Abecedare (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, plenty of sources discuss the negro vs African issue... unfortunately most (all) have been deemed by Wikipedians as unreliable (granted, many for good reason). Whats left are "reliable" sources that usually treat the issue with the same sort of juvenile derision that can be found here (if it's even mentioned at all). JBarta (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue would be more interesting if someone were to propose a reason why the difference between "negro" and "African" was relevant in any way. PhGustaf (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is relevant because in 1961 I believe it would have been common to list a black person's race as "Negro", not "African". It brings into question whether or not the certification he produced actually jives with his original birth certificate. At the very least this unusual race classification would cause one to wonder why? I suspect this has been discussed in "reliable" sources, but I'm sure many have glossed over it as immaterial and merely the ravings of nutty conspiracy mongers. JBarta (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jbarta, take a look at this NYT story or this NYT story, both from 1961, where "African" and "American Negro" are clearly viewed as separate things. You should be able to do similar searches through other archives of the time and see the same distinctions.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jbarta, can you give an example? I agree with PhGustaf's skepticism about whether the difference between "negro" and "African" is relevant, but if this is a prominent theme among the Birthers, then we can report it.  We don't need a reliable source asserting that it is relevant; all we need is to be confident that this idea is notable within the context of these theories. JamesMLane t c 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jbarta for clarifying that there are no reliable sources on the topic.
 * James, you are right that "all we need is to be confident that this idea is notable within the context of these theories."; and the only way to be confident is to have reliable sources noting this theory. Till such sources are found or written, there is really nothing further to discuss here. Abecedare (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) I completely agree with Abecedare. There are, frankly, so many nutty birther theories going around that we are asking for trouble if we try to document each one of them. I've just added a new subsection to the article mentioning some of the birther claims that are tackled by the OC Weekly in an article published a few days ago. We need that kind of coverage - where reliable sources specifically cite individual birther theories - rather than taking a quasi-original research approach of trying to work out what gets the birthers excited. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be so quick to assume that conspiracy theories are idiotic. Just look at the the jet crash into WTC 2 in slow motion: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.htmlMarkOller (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That blog doesn't really make the case that these conspiracy theories aren't idiotic. Quite the opposite, it actually reinforces the notion that they can be pretty mind-numbingly stupid (unless one is to believe that the footage broadcast live that day was "fakery" and the hundreds of thousands of new yorkers that witnessed it live are all "in on it.")  --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The author of that blog needs to see a psychiatrist. Seriously. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In slow motion, the crash videos are as phony as a Road Runner cartoon. This web page contains some of the videos which were purged from youtube on December 24, 2008: http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html  And we only have the media's word for it that hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers witnessed the jet crashes.  What do you expect them to say, that we are part of the conspiracy and some of us had prior knowledge?  This video deals with the youtube purge:
 * http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/january2009/012309_truth_purge.htm These are live television broadcasts made before the amnesia pandemic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw  By the way, I live in Alexandria, Virginia, and I looked at the Pentagon hours after the imaginary jet crash, and there was no wreckage.  According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, flight AA 77 from Dulles and flight AA 11 from Boston Logan airport never departed on 9/11/2001.  I know this is off topic, but you insist on portraying all unbelievers as idiots.MarkOller (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)MarkOller (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because conspiracy theorists are idiots. Go away, please - this isn't a 9/11 denial forum. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When we're reporting on fringe theories, we have to go wading through the muck where the information is. For example, WorldNetDaily is surely not a reliable source for anything.  Nevertheless, it has some prominence.  If Farah published a WND piece in which he pushed this negro-African stuff, that would be an adequate basis for us to include it.  ("Writing in WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah argued that a genuine birth certificate from 1961 would have been worded differently....")  We don't need to wait until a mainstream newspaper does a poll of birthers to see how many are persuaded by the Kenyan ambassador's statement, how many are persuaded by "negro" versus "African", how many believe dual-citizenship-precluding-eligibility, etc.  Of course, this is all theoretical unless and until Jbarta produces a specific citation that we can consider for possible inclusion. JamesMLane t c 20:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)In response to the "African" vs. "negro" silliness of Jbarta's above... The information on a birth certificate doesn't come from some hospital staff looking at the parents and determining what they are; it comes from the parent or parents providing the information to the person filling it out. A black man in 1961 would not self-identify as a "Negro". Tarc (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Recommended reading

 * Kornhaber, Spencer (2009-06-17). "Meet Orly Taitz, Queen Bee of People Obsessed With Barack Obama's Birth Certificate". OC Weekly.

I highly recommend this article for an informative and entertaining view into the birther subculture. I think it's actually the longest article on the birthers to have been published so far. There's quite a lot of useful content in there - I've been mining it for new material for this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Very interesting read. Interesting insights into the type of personalities such conspiracy theories attract, although I think most of the article's content would be more relevant to writing an Orly Taitz article (if anybody cares to do so). The bits that are directly relevant to this article are the ones that you have already added to the Various other claims section. The "Pakistan trip" and the "birth certification for foreign-born children" based rumors are useful additions; we didn't have reliable sources for these earlier. Is there anything else worth including from the OCW ? Abecedare (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding an article creation, Taitz was deemed to be a one-hit wonder even at the height of this kerfuffle.  She and the Birther cause have fallen into even deeper obscurity since then. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. We now have some material, if someone decides to create an article, but I personally don't think she has any notability outside the birther movement. Abecedare (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note the following bit in the OCW article:
 * [Taitz's] "not-so-veiled calls for armed insurrection if the legal process doesn’t eventually get Obama removed. (In February, for example, the complaint alleges she posted, “The simple fact is that we are long overdue for another Rebellion in this nation, and I heartily endorse the idea of having one again very soon, preferably starting THIS year!”)"
 * "On that last charge, Orly-watchers are nervous. “In my opinion, Orly herself is not dangerous in the sense that she would pull the trigger on the president,” says Haggard. “She is dangerous in that she attracts people who might.”"
 * It reinforces the point made by Mark Potok and Ben Smith, on how the birther movement can end up motivating some violent extremists. Should we include this, perhaps in the Commentary and criticism section ? Abecedare (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert
In response to Jbarta's edit summary comment here, yes, zingers from comedians are notable if they attract subsequent media coverage - see Jim Cramer for a case in point. This one certainly did. I've added another source (an interview with Posey) to clarify this. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Jbarta that this comedic back-and-forth is not of great importance with regards to this article (although it may be a useful addition at Bill Posey). Even the Orlando Sentinel article is focussed on how the Colbert appearance affected Posey's public image, rather than how it affected the Obama birth controversy. I think the following sentence in the OS article:
 * "He now says that he has "no reason to question" that Obama — born in Hawaii to an African father and an 18-year-old American mother — is a U.S. citizen. Initially, though, he told the Orlando Sentinel that he couldn't "swear on a stack of Bibles whether he [Obama] is or isn't [an American]."
 * is of greater relevance here, since it reflects a representative's sober views on the issue, and may be worth including. Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll add that. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I got this straight, Colbert made a quip on his comedy show about Posey, Posey responded to it and his response was picked up by the Orlando Sentinel so now the quip can be a part of an encyclopedia article? (although there seems to be no mention of Colbert in the Orlando Sentinel article) I suppose if some sort of opposing comedian made a quip the other way and it was picked up by some other media outlet, you would be happy to include that too? Personally I would say NEITHER belongs in a respectable and neutral article. And since when is Colbert's website a "reliable source"? JBarta (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a reliable source for what Colbert says. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And all the other actors in and commentators on this issue have web sites and they say things as well... are you suggesting that anytime someone opens his piehole on the matter his comments can be included here? If we go down that path we can find people who will say just about anything. At what point does a neutral encyclopedia article become collection of political blowhards (and now comedians) just pushing hot air around? (why I bother to keep making these arguments that fall on deaf ears I have no idea.) JBarta (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And this link seems to forward to another page called "Topic Galleries". JBarta (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification tag
I just removed a mistaken placed Failed verification tag from the article (diff), since I myself verified yesterday that the cited quote is in the referenced newspaper article (I have even quoted the related paragraph above). I also noticed that there are several other "not in citation given" tags in the article. Since I don't know when or by whom they were placed, can someone verify if: If, it's the former then the citation should be removed/replaced and the concerned statement corrected; if it's the latter then the wrongly placed tags should be removed instead. Abecedare (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The source has been checked and it "says something other than what is contained in the text", or
 * 2) The source is simply not accessible online now due to a deadlink.
 * Ok, looking at the article history I found that most (all?) the "not in citation" tags were added by User:Wtmitchell in this edit. I'll ask him to clarify the reason, so that we know how to proceed. Abecedare (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That was questioned on my talk page, specifically mentioning this edit, which eliminated the failed verification tag following the superscripted link to the footnote citing this supporting source, which has now become a dead link. That grew out of this earlier edit, which had added a new assertion ahead of the supporting &lt;ref>. I checked the cited supporting source, found it to be a dead link and tagged it as such and, as I had been unable to verify the new insertion said-to-be supported, inserted the fv tag following the &lt;/ref>. If you assert that the newly-inserted assertion has been verified in the cited supporting source even though it is a dead link, I would agree that the removal of the fv tag I inserted is appropriate. If support for the newly-inserted assertion has not been verified, IMHO the supporting &lt;ref> should be moved back to a point prior to the newly inserted assertion.


 * I had not thought that through when, earlier, I tagged a number of &lt;ref>'d supporting sources which I had found to be dead links. I tagged those with both dl and fv tags. I probably should have presumed that the support had been verified prior to the links becoming dead, and not inserted the fv tags following the &lt;/ref> tags in those cases. I will try to keep that in mind in future.


 * Thinking about WP:AGF, I guess I ought to assume that editors who insert new assertions prior to &lt;Ref>s to dead-link cites have personally verified that the cited sources do support the newly-inserted assertions, even though those sources are dead links. I'm a bit uncomfortable with that, though, as I've seen a number of cases where checks of newly-added assertions ahead of cited supporting sources which were verifiable online did fail verification. Wtmitchell (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been going through the tags myself and replacing links where necessary. I did notice that several of the links had been tagged mistakenly - dead links worked, and facts or quotes cited were in the referenced link. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What can I say? All of the links I tagged were dead for me when I tagged them. I checked each of the links with internet archive prior to tagging them with no joy. After having done that, I tagged them. Perhaps the dead links have come back to life -- I have not rechecked. If someone else has rechecked the links subsequent to my checks and found that the links have come back to life, my taggings should be removed. -- Wtmitchell (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note, fv is not to be used on dead links. It is only to be used when you have checked the source and found that it does not support the statement it is being used as a source on. Check out the names of the redirects for the template notinsource, not in source, and tryharder. It's a rather monumental case of bad faith to assume that the source did not say what it is asserted to have said... --Bobblehead (rants) 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree is not a substitute for  . Whether that is apropos of anything, or tells anyone anything they didn't know already, is another matter. Point being, that is the correct template, as no one had mentioned it. Anarchangel (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In most cases the editor used both the deadlink and the fv template when marking the dead links. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. That is what I did, and it was a mistake. My thinking was that the dl inside the ref shows up in the References section and is a cue to editors that the link has gone dead and perhaps an alternative link ought to be found, while the fv following the /ref appears inline in the prose and is a cue to readers that the superscripted link from which readers might infer that there is support may not lead to a footnote where support can be seen. The problem there is that support could be verified (if the link has remained dead) by finding and checking a paper copy of the cited source&mdash;that is not something which very many readers are likely to do, but it could be done. I am still doubtful about assertions inserted prior to a superscripted footnote which leads to a dead-link source; I know that WP:AGF says otherwise, but I have seen lots of cases where such inserted assertions failed verification in sources which were not dead links and were cited in Refs following inserted assertion. -- Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You really should have stopped at "You're right. That is what I did, and it was a mistake." Any issues that you have with assuming good faith are your problem and not Wikipedia's. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama Pandeism charge
I am not sure where to request this so here goes.

Conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein recently labeled Obama's true faith as Pan-deism. He critiqued a New York Times column by Gail Collins, which is why it is titled "Happy Pan-Deism Day From Gail Collins". Collins, so Finkelstein observes, noted the coincidence of Easter and Passover falling in the same week, and quotes the observation from Collins that "Americans with less religious inclinations can look forward to the upcoming Earth Day celebrations, when the president is planning to do something as yet unannounced, but undoubtedly special, and Arbor Day, when rumor has it that he will not just plant a tree, but personally reforest a large swath of the nation of Mali". Finkelstein relates that "environmentalism has essentially become a religion, and Earth Day effectively a religious holiday. Yesterday's pan-deists, who worshiped trees and brooks, have become members of various environmental groups doing much the same thing. People like Al Gore others, and perhaps the reforesting Obama, have become their latter day shamans."

So Finkelstein is saying is that Obama (and Al Gore, and other environmental group members) are pandeists. Based on his political pedigree, it's pretty clear he means that as an insult (his next comment is "These are the same people who tend to demand the strict separation of church and state. Yet they would have teachers indoctrinate children in their modern-day Church of Gaia in our public schools"). I personlly doubt that Obama or Gore is a pandeist, but is this speculation worthy of mention somewhere? 198.100.3.85 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nutty. But it's just the opinion of one person (and not someone particularly notable).  More to the point, it has no relevance to this article whatsoever. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I though there was an article on all those conspiracy theories about Obama's religion, but there's not. So this is the closest thing, that I could find. 198.100.3.85 (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It amounts to a criticism of Obama's policy concerning environmental curricula in public schools, but without troubling to determine whether Obama even has such a policy, let alone what it is. The critic says that Obama agrees on one issue (protecting nature) with unnamed people who have views on another issue (curricula) that are inconsistent with those other people's views on yet a third issue (separation of church and state).  It's not worth reporting, except perhaps in an article about Crackpot right-wing anti-environmentalism. JamesMLane t c 20:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting... hot air from the right is "crackpot" and hot air from the left is "commentary". At any rate, I agree that this particular bit of hot air has even less usefulness than the average bit of hot air that gets wedged into this article. Maybe if Finkelstein had been a comedian instead of a commentator... or, um, crackpot.... JBarta (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Or if he'd been addressing the subject of this article. Then his comment could at least be considered for inclusion. JamesMLane t c 23:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article is for nutty theories about Obama's citizenship. Nutty theories about Obama's religion belong somewhere else, like /dev/null with any luck.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see a great need for Barack Obama secret Muslim conspiracy theories... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Does This Belong on Wikipedia?
Wikipedia loses credibility if it discusses at great length unsubstantiated rumors (aka lies). This page belong on conservapedia, not wikipedia.24.0.60.105 (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Their article on it is a little different. Too bad we can't use that billboard image though.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The photo is on CP as fair use. I've uploaded a copy to WP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WND billboard image
 * I don't know how they judge fair use, but it would flunk here. The story it's in, and thus presumably the photo too, is marked "© 2009 WorldNetDaily".  Any WP editor could have taken a photo of the billboard, so a free alternative was/is obviously available.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than argue for Fair use here, I've deleted the uploaded image. I'll email WND asking them to license the image under a CC license (cc-by-sa-3.0, right?). As you say, in the meantime or failing such permission some WP editor may upload a photo he/she has taken of a billboard. I cannot do that myself because I am not located in the United States. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy is to report, objectively, on notable points of view, even those that haven't been substantiated. This article is hardly the only example; see Phlogiston theory, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc.  Our approach is not one of suppressing points of view that Wikipedians consider untenable, but rather one of reporting all sides of a dispute fairly.  You might take a look at WP:NPOV and post a comment here identifying any passage in the article that you think doesn't conform to that policy. JamesMLane t c 10:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article
Most of this article concerns litigation, why isn't this reflected in the title?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't. The article focuses on three things - the conspiracy theories and their proponents, the most notable litigation events, and the legislative responses. By my rough calculation, the first topic makes up about half the article and each of the other two topics make up about a quarter, which seems about right to me. Bear in mind that the litigation and legislative responses have been prompted by - and are therefore subordinate to - the conspiracy theories. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. My mistake.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Early life section
How is this related to the article?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It was originally a brief summary of Early life and career of Barack Obama to establish the facts about Obama's early life, in contrast to the conspiracy theories. I think it can be shortened - and I've just done so - but it's a useful lead into the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering that the article is about "conspiracy theories," shouldn't this paragraph mention that the proponents of the conspiracy theories reject the mainstream view of Obama's early life? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of that, wouldn't it be better to change the title of the section to "The Mainstream account of..." similar to the section on 9/11 conspiracy theories? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I've made that change. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That characterization sets up a false dichotomy and unsupported by any reliable source, all of which AFAIK state details about Obama's birth, parenthood and childhood as facts rather than a view. Furthermore by labeling these details "Mainstream view" we are casting doubts on their veracity in wikipedia's voice, without any source. So I am reverting the section renaming for now till sources are found and a clear consensus can be established to make such a change. Abecedare (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that "mainstream account of..." is unnecessary and cheap. Quite honestly, I would support removing that entire section from this article. JBarta (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, section titles do not need to be sourced. Secondly, this article is not about Barack Obama, it's about those who view the account of his birth to be different than what is accepted. The section title as it is, would only work if the title of the article was Barack Obama citizenship lies or False views of Barack Obama's citizenship. That is in-line with your reasoning. In your view, should the article be renamed to this to eliminate any need for "Mainstream view of..."?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me explain:
 * We use conspiracy theories rather than lies or false views in the title because reliable sources on the topic do that (although there are other labels, such as fringe theories, which are equally well supported)
 * Similarly we don't use "mainstream view" to characterize factual details about Obama's birth and childhood, because reliable sources don't do that.
 * I can provide references for both points above. Are there sources that label the details about Obama's early life "mainstream view" ? And of course section titles (just like article names) need to be backed up by sources in that editors should base their choice of titles on reliable sources on the topic; perhaps you mean that they do not need explicit citations ? Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, section titles describe the name of the section, no sources necessary. A conspiracy theorist does not believe the mainstream view. If there is no mainstream view, the conspiracy theorist is either a liar or misinformed. There has to be consistency, otherwise the whole section should be removed as it adds nothing relevant to the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think section titles (or article titles) are somehow exempt from basic wikipedia policy of WP:V ? If you can find support for that view either in policy or by wide consensus, we can continue that part of the discussion.
 * As for the relevance of the section: it provides the background and context for the theories. Such information is a standard feature in the comprehensive article I have read on the subject. For example
 * These are just two somewhat random picks (and you should read the whole articles for complete context), but you'll note that neither of these, nor any other reliable sources, presents the argument as "on-the-one-hand-...-and-on-the-other-hand-...." when discussing the fringe theories. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These are just two somewhat random picks (and you should read the whole articles for complete context), but you'll note that neither of these, nor any other reliable sources, presents the argument as "on-the-one-hand-...-and-on-the-other-hand-...." when discussing the fringe theories. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These are just two somewhat random picks (and you should read the whole articles for complete context), but you'll note that neither of these, nor any other reliable sources, presents the argument as "on-the-one-hand-...-and-on-the-other-hand-...." when discussing the fringe theories. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not disputing this fact. I am disputing the terminology. If it is a "conspiracy theory" then how can there not be a mainstream view? Like I've linked above, the 9/11 conspiracy theory article uses the terminology "mainstream view" and Holocaust denial does not even have such a section. Why should this article be any different? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, "If it is a "conspiracy theory" then how can there not be a mainstream view?": The existence of a conspiracy theory does not suddenly transform facts into "mainstream view". That is what I meant by setting up a false dichotomy in my original response. As you'll notice, neither of the above linked articles commit that fallacy. Do you have any reliable sources that follows your proposed terminology or framing ? Abecedare (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in looking. The problem you are having is with the definition of words. Mainstream is defined as a widely accepted view. Do you have any evidence that there are none that do not accept the view? If so then a mainstream view does not exist. The problem I am having is that you keep asking for references about terminoloy. We shouldn't be using words just because the words are used in a source (an extreme example of this would be a copyright violation), we should use words that have an actual meaning in the context of the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, we can drop the issue till you or someone else is willing to back the proposed framing and terminology by looking for sources. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't need sources for terminology. Do you dispute the definition of the word? Because if you do I can use the dictionary as a source. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we are going in circles and perhaps talking past each other, I'll let other editors chime in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked two valid questions that you have avoided. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The addition of mainstream view to the section title does not add any clarity for the reader and is slightly misleading, as we'd be implying mainstream vs. alternative/non-mainstream views, a false dichotomy in this instance. "Mainstream view" is frequently used to compare subjective views. Contrary to the standpoint of the birthers, Obama's (reliably sourced) early life is not a subjective set of information. thanks, --guyzero | talk 01:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So then like I said above, the name of the article should be changed to False views of Barack Obama's citizenship because your description of the proponents is not in line with conspiracy theorists if "mainstream views" do not exist. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, many of the points I've made above are being blatantly ignored. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF right? I've tried to read the conversation carefully and respond to the current direction. If there is some critical point that I've missed, maybe repeat it? The only bit I think wasn't responded to was the comparison to the 9/11 conspiracy article. My response to that is that "Mainstream views" does not belong in that article either. Anyway, if there is something critical we've missed, I apologize for the oversight and I assure you that it is an accident, so perhaps repeat it if it is important.
 * Also, your deconstruction of my view is incorrect. I precisely describe the birthers as conspiracy theorists. Treating objective, documented facts as subjective concepts to be ignored or disputed is at the heart of conspiracy theory. We should not add subjective labeling such as "mainstream views" to facts per WP:NPOV.
 * Personally, I agree with your sentiments at the start of this section... I think the Early Life section of the article doesn't add much. I think the links to the main Early Life and Ann Dunham articles should move to the Citizenship Facts section and the rest of the Early Life section should go. regards, --guyzero | talk 04:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I apologize for using "blatantly" that was a bad word choice. I agree it should be removed but there are many editors on here that want it to remain. That is why I believe it should at least be consistent with the article's title and other wikipedia articles such as the 9/11 conspiracy page. I don't think that "mainstream" has to be used strictly on a subjective concept, but that it can be used when pertaining to the belief or the lack of belief of an established fact, as in this case. The point I'm making is that this is not something as simple as an intended miscalculation that can be verified on paper or a misrepresentation of geography that can be seen with one's own eyes. The fact is "established" and the article in discussion is about those who dispute this establishment, therefore a qualifier is necessary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you support the removal of the section Early life of Barack Obama entirely from this article? JBarta (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would oppose removal of this useful information. As Abecedare pointed out, it provides context for the article.  Retitling to "False views of Barack Obama's citizenship" would be improper because that's not the standard Wikipedia practice for articles about fringe theories, and there's no reason to treat this one differently.  Furthermore, most of the false theories discussed in this article have the characteristics suggested by the term "Conspiracy theory", which can be seen as a subset of false theories in general, so the current title is more precise. JamesMLane t c 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support the removal of the section. I still believe that it doesn't make sense to have such a section that seems completely off topic. The information could be incorporated into the text where necessary. If the section remains, I think it should be renamed to "Mainstream view of..." as seen in the 9/11 Conspiracy theories page for all the reasons I mentioned above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't agree with removing this section. It's eminently on topic - it sets out up front the basic facts, the key points with which the birthers disagree. As you've already pointed out, we do something very similar for 9/11 conspiracy theories. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why should the title be any different than the one used for that article?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably best not to get hung up on the title. The most important thing is that the relevant information is there. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which could easily be incorporated into the text. In regards to the titles, a little consistency would be nice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How some other article handles facts vs. the conspiracy theories around those facts does not make "Mainstream view" applicable here. As said before, "mainstream" is commonly used within a subjective discussion (i.e. discussing art, pop culture, etc), which this is not. See mainstream. thanks, --guyzero | talk 06:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Read what I wrote above about the two types of fact.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "it can be used when pertaining to the belief or the lack of belief of an established fact" .. that's not how the word mainstream is used, despite its misuse in another article. For example, we don't say that the mainstream view is that Obama is a Democrat (a fact, though some folks question/dispute it). Qualifiers around facts decrease NPOV; we state facts plainly. regards, --guyzero | talk 18:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Obama is a Democrat" is a true fact, it's not a state of mind, it's a membership. You believe that using qualifiers takes away from NPOV. I disagree, I believe it shows an accurate and neutral view, not one where the majority "is" fact. True facts are stated plainly, believed facts require qualifiers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok! Thank you for clarifying. I think there is some fundamental differences in viewpoint here. In the context of our policies (RS/NPOV etc), the contents of the Early Life section are true facts, not "believed facts". Adding qualifiers around that stuff is undue. thanks again, --guyzero | talk 18:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But there is not enough proof for it be a "true fact" in the context of this article since it is about those who dispute the fact. Since the fact is disputed, the believed fact is the mainstream view. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That Flat-Earthers dispute the Earth's shape doesn't convert its roundness from a "fact" to a "view". You seem to be saying that the Obama bio article should say he was born in Honolulu but this article should say that most people think he was born in Honolulu.  Our article needs to give a fair presentation of the fringe view, but that doesn't mean that facts become malleable from one article to the next. JamesMLane t c 19:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not saying that the article should state that it's what "most people think." The title should simply state that it is the "Mainstream view of ..." or the "Accepted view of ..." --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the Early Life section does not describe a "view". Facts are presented plainly per RS, NPOV, BLP, etc. Your view that "there is not enough proof for it to be a 'true fact'" is an assertion that is not in agreement with the vast majority of RS's ("mainstream" and not), so qualifying these facts is WP:UNDUE. Its NPOV to cover where the article subject(s) disagree with these facts, but it is not NPOV to qualify these facts just because the article subjects disagree with them. As James mentioned, this is really no different than discussing whether we should put qualifiers (such as mainstrem, allegedly, view) around this same information in the Barack Obama article. regards, --guyzero | talk 03:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Willaim S. Saturn: To my mind, "The mainstream view is that X," "The accepted view is that X," and "Most people think X" are all pretty much indistinguishable in meaning. You also can't evade the point by putting it in a section heading without a verb; the implication is still there. JamesMLane t c 13:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)