Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 7

Limbaugh quote
Limbaugh evidently is on board with the birther movement. May be worth adding as a notable person adding fire to the flame. The quote is as follows: "Barack Obama has yet to have to prove that he's a citizen. All he has to do is show a birth certificate. He has yet to have to prove he's a citizen. I have to show them 14 different ways where the h--- I am every day of the year for three years." [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104595 ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 July 2009


 * I agree that Limbaugh is notable enough to be mentioned, but citing World Net Daily for any factual point (even a report of someone else's opinion) is pretty dubious. Furthermore, in Googling, I get the impression that Limbaugh's June 10 comment on the subject got more attention.  That comment, sourced to Limbaugh's own site, would be a better addition. JamesMLane t c 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Remember (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not find Rush Limbaugh to be credible, he is an entertainer not a journalist.--Jack Cox (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Limbaugh is not a credible source. Rush Limbaugh is open to his opinion but it is simply his opinion. He has no basis of fact in his claims and can provide no evidence to prove his claims. He is important in the conspiracy though because he inflames his listeners. Kylelovesyou (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True, Limbaugh does opinion, not straight facts... but the reason for quoting and citing him isn't for the facts but to show the reach of this movement/opinion. The fact that probably the most prominent conservative radio personality and self-proclaimed "leader of the conservative movement" is on board with this theory... well, that seems relevant to me. kitsune361  (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree Kylelovesyou (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Blog post summing up current situation
I thought this was interesting and might contain some information not already incorporated into the article. Remember (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Barack Obama info box at the top.
User:Dems on the move decided that this page did not relate to Barack Obama and decided to remove the info box at the top. When I reverted that the first time. The user claimed that "Lack of Objection = Consensus. If you object, please provide a reason" when I had reverted it just after they did it. This page is about a topic that relates to a part of Barack Obama's life. It has been mentioned in the news in connection to him. This article is part of the Obama wikiproject and is included in various navigation boxes. Thus, this article should continue to have the main Obama nav box at the top like before. I am bringing this up here. Please do not remove the box before discussing it here and then gaining consensus here first. Brothejr (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. This is about a group of people that do not believe Obama is a legitimate president. Just like Obama's photo is inappropriate here (but his birth certificate is) neither is the navigation box. Dems on the move (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least, the template has to contain the article itself. Dems on the move (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. The infobox provides top-level articles about different aspects of Obama's life, career, etc., and serves as a navigational aid. It's common among many article families to have a similar infobox. -- Good Damon 23:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (multi ec)I agree that the box must stay. More generally, I suggest that consensus is an active rather than a passive construct, and that lack of objection does not imply consensus.  PhGustaf (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with GoodDamon. These people are fruitcakes, but their fruitcakery is part of Wikipedia's comprehensive coverage of subjects relating to Obama. The box helps the reader find relevant information. JamesMLane t c 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Claim that Obama's 1980 draft registration was forged in 2008.
This claims that in 2008, a Selective Service registration was forged to make it look as if Obama had registered in 1980. Perhaps it should be cited in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is a self-published blog, falling below the reliability level of even World Net Daily, difficult as that may be to imagine. More to the point, it doesn't relate to eligibility for the Presidency.  Obama was required to register if he was a citizen, whether natural-born, naturalized, or in some third in-between category that exists only in the constitutional jurisprudence of the birthers.  I don't know what the law was then, but, under current law, registration is also required of green-card holders and undocumented (illegal) aliens.  See Selective Service System.  Therefore, whether he registered sheds no light on the citizenship issues. JamesMLane t c 02:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I gotta admit - saying this was below even WND had me laughing hard. Good one!  Quite agree though - personal blogs, especially of this nature, fall far, far short of the WP:RS requirements.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The editing "suggestions" by this user become more disruptive by the day. Now we're having to actually take time to discuss partisan blogs as sources, ones that have nothing to even do with the subject of the article? Tarc (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Grundle surely knows by now that that sort of stuff won't fly. But there is meat, sort of, there:  The reference gives the lie to the notion that the problem will go away if the right new documents are produced.  If they were, they'd just be subject to the same specious nitpickery given his draft card, and probably assertions that his doctor didn't graduate med school. PhGustaf (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * considering that there has been no effort to Obama and his peopel to verify either the card of the certificate beyond reasonable doubt, its not as if these people are exactly being paranoid. they were simply aksing a legiimte question that Mr Obama has thus far refused to give a satisfactory answer. tats not being a conspiracy theorist, thats just being logically skeptical of a politician User:Smith Jones 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no, it is beyond "reasonable" doubt, it's just not beyond "birther" doubt. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed FAQ questions and answers
Perhaps it is time this article has an FAQ section, like the main Obama one does? Tarc (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Might not be a bad idea. The Early Life talk page has a FAQ just for the citizenship.  Adding a faq here for "fringe" and "conspiracy theories" might help some.  I've got a feeling that we'd only be using it as a reference to the reverts related to those two things.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree an FAQ might not be a bad idea. Though certain users would still ignore it and repost the same things over and over and over again, at the very least we would have an area we can point/refer to.   Brothejr (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A FAQ is a courtesy to readers. As proposed, we're not talking about a FAQ here. We're talking about a set of half baked "micro rules" just for this talk page that some editors can point to as some sort of justification that supports their position (in this case the retention of an arguably bad title). In this instance, a "FAQ" would be a POV pushing tool... little more. JBarta (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What it would be is a reflection of consensus. That you are on the wrong side of it doesn't make a FAQ a "POV pushing tool". Tarc (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heaven forbid I'm ever on the "wrong side" of anything. What would the neighbors think? At any rate, this FAQ would NOT be a reflection of anything more than a particular point of view (not so sure about actual consensus... it's a weak consensus at best) and would be edited and re-edited as much as anything else in this article. It would create problems rather than solve them (not that there is a problem to be solved) and as envisioned, would be more a statement of position by certain editors rather than a benevolent FAQ. JBarta (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the FAQ as currently written is not helpful, but a well-written faq that refers to the policies that we are repeating when this subject frequently comes up might save everyone some time. --guyzero | talk 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear... it's not time that anyone wishes to save... it's a desire to suggest that certain positions are beyond dispute and deemed "correct" by some cosmic definition. That no matter how many editors pipe up and suggest particular wording is inaccurate, other editors can point to a particular "FAQ" and proclaim, "it is written, it is resolved, it reflects the higher truth, now be gone". This won't save anyone's time. In fact disputes over the wording of so-called FAQs and their answers will simply ADD to the contentiousness. JBarta (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on an initial draft. Probably could be two questions (combine 2 and 3), but these seem to be the most common area here.

Q1: Why is this called a "Conspiracy Theory" and not a "Controversy"? A1: (still nailing down the wording on this - this work thing keeps interrupting me!)

Q2: Is this considered a fringe theory? A2: Yes. The consesus mainstream view is that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. Many sources also call these beliefs fringe theories. According to WP:Fringe, a fringe theory is one that departs significantly from the mainstream view, and specifically include conspiracy theories. There have been multiple questions posted at the fringe theories noticeboard about this question. It is consistently called a fringe theory.

Q3: Why is the phrase "fringe activists" used instead of "activists"? A3: The consensus (see above) is that these theories are considered fringe, thus the description is accurate. Note that the full phrase used in this article is "fringe activists, pundits and political opponents". Some have expressed only a desire for information; implying without suggesting anything else.

Thoughts? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * since when was consensus estalbished? This FAW presents a misleading view of prior discusions and this discussion has not even yet been terminated in favor of the verifiable information. as far as I can tell, this current discussion began earlier today. to imply that this brief railroad job is "Consensus" is a violation of the meaning and spirit of consensus and the purpose of consensual intellecting debate and reasoning disbelief User:Smith Jones 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than try to post some of the many discussions on this, let me point you to the archives, to the WP:ANI archives and to the WP:FTN archives. Sorry you've missed 'em, but all of these questions have been brought up, discussed, re-discussed and sent back through for more.  Time after time, the consensus view is that these are accurately described as fringe conspiracy theories.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that user:Dems on the move already posted a FAQ that covers the two major points with the same answers. I'm striking through my suggestions here as moot.  Thanks for putting that up! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am troubled by the answer to the second question in the FAQ: "few prominent people are willing to admit to believing the theory, it is legitimate to call the believers "fringe". ... which seems to be arguing that we are calling them fringe because they are fringe. That is not the reason we using the terms "fringe" and "conspiracy theory" in the article! The only reason is that we are following reliable third-party sources on the subject; see this 7 month old compilation, there are many more sources now including the NBC newscast yesterday. Also, in answering the first question, it would also be useful to link to the RFC and (one of the many) earlier discussions on the topic, where consensus was established and repeated reaffirmed. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the edit that removed the FAQ link. I like Abecedare's idea about liking the to the RFC (easily found in the archives), and will add that. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In fact, it wouldn't hurt to link to as many of the other prior discussions as we can find.  Jbarta is right that consensus isn't cast in stone and can be changed, but it's incumbent on those joining the debate for the first time to get up to speed on what's already been said. JamesMLane t c 18:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On the surface it might seem that a benevolent FAQ seeking to point folks to previous discussions might be a fine idea. In practice however, I think it would degrade into yet another area for disagreement (as it has already). JBarta (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have combined and reworded the earlier Q1 and Q2 to specifically refer to wikipedia policies WP:RS, WP:V and WP:Consensus and linked to 4 earlier discussions on the topic. Reason for combining: I think the question should be worded broadly, instead of referring to each specific instance in which the terms conspiracy theory/fringe is used in the article, else we will just open ourselves to wikilawyering over each use. Feel free to tweak my wording etc. Abecedare (talk 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree combining the questions is much simpler. Great edits, thank you Abecedare.
 * I think this edit by Dems on the move preloads the FAQ to be (my paraphrase) "consensus can change, but its unlikely unless dramatic new sources appear." That is untrue, as consensus can change even with the current sources. I prefer the earlier (imo, more neutral) wording, which helps folks find policy pages on how wikipedia works to help them better participate in the discussion. --guyzero | talk 18:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on Q2 and have restored the earlier simpler wording. But lets not spend too much time on this inside baseball, since the FAQ is not even seen by our regular readers, and its exact wording will be immaterial to the conspiracists anyway. Abecedare (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In the FAQ: Reliable sources vs Many reliable sources
Many reliable sources use "conspiracy theory" & "fringe" and many do not. "Many" is simply more accurate than implying that ALL reliable sources treat the issue in that fashion (although granted, more are doing just that as time progresses). There is nothing "weasly" about it. JBarta (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example... "People like milk" vs "Many people like milk". Which is more accurate? Of course, the closer one gets towards universality, the more justification there is in implying that ALL people like a particular something (for example: "People like to be clean"). The point is, when it comes to the use of disparaging (and arguably inaccurate) language such as "conspiracy theory", reliable sources are far from universal. Far enough to use a quantifier that attempts to more accurately reflect the wording that sources actually use or don't use.JBarta (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have yet to see a reliable source that treats this as a legitimate controversy, and find the many weasely akin to saying "Many sources say man landed on the moon in 1969". But as I said above this meta-debate about the exact wording of a FAQ is pretty lame, so I'll yield the floor to others. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If "many" wouldn't appear as a qualifier for similar material in the article, then it shouldn't be used in the FAQ, either. JBarta needs to understand that the creation of the FAQ isn't an invitation to carryover the same arguments from the talk page to that page. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, a source treating this issue as an illegitimate issue is not the same as a source specifically using or not using the phrase "conspiracy theory" or "fringe". Like you, I tire of this stuff as well. Personally, I'd prefer to leave much of the characterization of this issue out of the article completely and let the reader decide for himself if it's legitimate or not. I'd rather write an article that claims some believe the moon is made of cheese and coldly present the facts instead of moving heaven and earth to loudly show why such a notion is ridiculous and building an article full of pundits, and a comedian, and now a FAQ that seek to prop up the idea that it is without question just a bunch of nonsense. JBarta (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not completely liking the wording of the current FAQ, I'll concede that at this juncture it's generally informative and not the POV pushing tool I had envisioned. JBarta (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a bit of an edit war for one sentence in the answer to the second question. "Note that unless new references in reliable sources claim that the theories are mainstream and no longer fringe, it is unlikely that a change in concensus would form.}} "  I think that the idea is to try to head off folks from rehashing the discussion without anything changing.  I'm agreeing with both sides on this - it's a good idea, but I don't really like the current phrasing.  What about using "Repeating past arguements is unlikely to produce any changes."?  A bit of a compromise, but I think it might help reduce the more repetative arguements.  There's been a lot of those discussions already! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Let's let WP policy pages determine policy... not our little FAQ. If someone wants to know how and when concensus might change, point them to the appropriate policy pages rather than trying to head them off at the pass in a FAQ answer. JBarta (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the number of times the same arguements are trotted out and dismissed, something needs to be there to try to cut down on endless arguing over the same point. Which is kinda what we're doing here ... (ack!  irony!)  Trying to focus people effort on the article, not on rehashing old arguements is very much WP policy. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dems continues to revert his preferred language into the FAQ  . This is not neutral language. FAQs should be totally devoid of POV. Saying that change is "unlikely" is not true per WP:CRYSTAL and unnecessary poisoning the well. His edit summaries say we're trying to "discouraging discussions", which is not the objective. We never discourage good faith discussions. I'm hopeful that Dems will self-revert and come here to discuss. --guyzero | talk 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I give up. After a while I truly tire of this. JBarta is leaving the Obama conspiracy theory playground for a while. And don't worry, I won't let the door hit me in the ass on my way out. Happy trails. JBarta (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CHRYSTAL applies to covering future events in the article space, not guidelines in a FAQ. Dems on the move (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As for "poisoning the well", the entire purpose of the FAQ is to reduce the likelihood that someone would open up the discussion again. The language I have inserted is in line with that purpose. Dems on the move (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edits to the FAQ are just as bad as the Birthers who attack this article, honestly. It has been reverted, again.  Please stop. Tarc (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally attacking me will not help your case. You need to give specific reasons why you do not like my edits. Dems on the move (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the converse is true that you need to justify a material change to the FAQ. Again, the issue is that saying (paraphrase) "WP:CCC is unlikely to change" is not something we can know for certain, and saying it poisons the well against good faith discussion. --guyzero | talk 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is personally attacking you; your poor edits are being criticized. There is a bit of a difference.  The tone of your FAQ wording is verging on uncivil and is, still, quite preachy.   You need to step back and take a breath or two here. Tarc (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit comment calling me "Fringe leftism" is unacceptable. I will take a time out from the FAQ for a day or two, but rest assured, I'll be back. Dems on the move (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a characterization of the material you were edit-warring into the FAQ. Learn the difference and grow some thicker skin, please.
 * Sheesh - both of you, kick back and relax for a bit over this. You're both at or close to 3RR, and there's no reason to risk a block over a handful of words.  Maybe look at what is trying to be said, because I think you're both looking for the same meaning. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally am a leftist (whether "fringe" or not I won't venture to guess), and I see no reason for the FAQ to predict that consensus won't change. It serves its purpose if it conveys the information that this subject has come up before, directs the new reader to the prior discussions, and summarizes the conclusions. JamesMLane t c 04:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * i agree, but isnt the FAQ inherently POV-biased?? it ias asuming that consensus has been reached even thoguh that is in contestion right at this current debate. maybe we should hold off on implementation until we (well, you) can come to a great understanding of what WP:CONSENSUS has meant?? you are the ones disagreeing with the majority by insisting that weve agreed to calling them fringe conspiracy freaks User:Smith Jones 00:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's NPOV. The consensus on this is quite clear - go look through the archives and the sources linked in those discussions.  The FAQ has the major discussions on this nicely linked as well.  These are conspiracy theories, and they are fringe ideas.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * i looked at the archives, and it seems that there were man points raised by User:Jbarta that are being set aside. however, i do now feel that many people agree that "fringe" is agreeable re: reliable sources, so i dont mind that this be included in the FAQ. Can I make a recommendation: can we CAP the number of times we call the birthers "fringe" at 3 in the body of the article (except for in direct quotes from sources). i dont want to create this into some kind of leftwing attack sight User:Smith Jones 01:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article describes the activists as fringe only once.  The other three uses of fringe are all in quotes talking about this.  Just yanking them out doesn't make much sense to me.  I think they'd need to be replaced with quotes along a similar view, or rework those sections to avoid putting undue weight.


 * First quote is at the end of the Campaigners and proponents section - "The penetration of the birther mythology into the violent fringe has to be a worry for the Secret Service" That's a totally different use of fringe than in the header, I think.  Nobody would think that someone believing in a particular theory (say, Rush Limbaugh) would be in the violent fringe.  The paragraph is about the more violent extremes, as it mentions James Von Brunn (Holocaust Museum shooter) and his posts about this topic.  I think this quote fits in well with that paragraph, and helps to highlight the point the paragraph is making.


 * Second quote is in the Legislative initiatives and responses section, a couple of paragraphs into the State section. This is from political commentators - "aimed at advancing the claims of the fringe movement".  This is clearly the same meaning as the header.  There's not a lot pro or con in this section.  Might be a good place to find a replacement quote expressing a view against the bill.


 * The third quote is from the same section, just a few paragraphs farther down. The paragraph is about a bill from a Florida congressman and is from a paper in his district who says that the bill "stems from fringe opponents of President Barack Obama".  Also the same usage as the header.  It's a direct response to the bill, and from a paper local to the sponsor of the bill, so I think it's pretty relevant.  Apparently the bill stirred up a fair amount of comments from other local politicians/papers.  It also mentions the support the bill has gotten.  Overall, seems pretty balanced.


 * That all said, there's a fair number of quotes with somewhat pejorative terms in them from both sides. "Goofy", "Communist", "rapid Truther", full line from Medved, and that's just the first half of the article.  This is about conspiracy theorists, some of which believe in some pretty far out theories about this.  When you start asking mainstream sources about this, you tend to get some harsh quotes.  Look at some of the Tax Protester articles - having their arguments described as "frivolous" is rather upsetting to them, but it's also how they are described by most authoritative sources.  It's the same here - even when a source wants to see the full birth certificate, there's often comments to disparage the more extreme theorists.  Going through the court case section, several of them were dismissed as frivolous - pretty harsh from a judge.


 * Maybe replace the second quote, but it would have to be replaced, not just deleted, to remain balanced. Honestly, "fringe" is probably one of the gentler words describing the theorists, and some of the harshest language is coming from conservative, right-wing sources.Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think this is much ado about nothing; "fringe" is a more or less NPOV way of describing this issue, see WP:FRINGE. To call it anything else is giving the theories unwarranted promotion. Tony Kao (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

New "Political Impact" section
I've added a new section to the article, "Political impact", replacing the "notable public protests" section that had been added earlier and bringing together a number of themes that have been simmering for a while. What do people think? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed your good faith edits, because it duplicates with the section Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories. Dems on the move (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. Where is the duplication? I moved the section down to sit above the legislative initiatives one to provide some much-needed context. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You really should read the section that I referenced. It discusses the proposed legislation that you wrote about. Dems on the move (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the section that I added? It contains one line which mentions the legislative initiatives and links to the subsequent section. None of the remainder of the content has appeared anywhere else in the article. If you insist that it is duplicative, I'd like you to tell me exactly which lines are duplicating what. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I'll work Limbaugh back into the "campaigners" section (which I've retitled "campaigners and proponents" for accuracy). He's not campaigning for it in the same way as, say, Orly Taitz, but he's clearly a proponent. But you mustn't use WorldNetDaily as a source, since that has been discussed and rejected ad nauseum in this discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I read your edits a little more carefully. Although you have a little new information, the majority of your 3rd paragraph belongs in the section Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories please make the necessary changes to avoid duplication. As for Limbaugh, you are absolutely correct. Please improve the article. Dems on the move (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong there. The "political impact" section is meant specifically to be an overview of the various impacts of birtherism on mainstream politics - protests, congressmen being heckled, right-wing organizations using it for fund-raising, legislative actions, etc. The "legislative initiatives" section is a summary of activity in one specific sphere, namely legislatures. Only one line in that paragraph covers the legislative initiatives (and then only as a lead-in to the following section) - the rest of it consists of political analyses of the effect of the birther movement in general (NOT the legislators) on mainstream Republican politics. It would be off-topic for a section dedicated specifically to the legislative side of things. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't think your 3rd paragraph belongs in the "Legislative initiatives and responses", that's fine. I'll take some time off, come back later, and propose a way to reword your 3rd paragraph so that it would better fit in the "Legislative initiatives and responses" section.
 * Thank you for your contributions, and please accept my apologies for the mini-edit war. I admit that I did not read your edits very carefully. Dems on the move (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good section (in fact a similar idea occurred to me earlier), and other than adding a few more references, rearrange a few wordings and updating it as time goes on I see no reason for any major changes. Tony Kao (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice work. Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal Defense Fees
I have not verified, but the rumor mills have it Obama, or his party has spent nearly $US 1 Million of legal fees fighting all these suits. Should this be included? If this is true, why waste all that money on lawyers when the issue could be closed with the disclosure of a normal Certificate of Birth? Trentc (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that figure comes from looking at the campaign's financial reporting and adding up all legal fees, for whatever purpose. Obviously (well, it's obvious to people who aren't birthers, at any rate), lawyers did other things.  The best-funded campaign in history must have had significant FEC compliance costs.  As a practicing lawyer, I offer my semi-educated wild guess that Obama's legal fees on birther suits wouldn't approach a million.  (Many of the cases are brought against state officials and the state attorney general's office would probably do the heavy lifting.)  In any event, there's really nothing substantive to include in the article unless and until this goes beyond what you correctly describe as rumor mills.


 * As for your second point, I've seen plenty of birther posts on Free Republic demanding to see a host of other documents. For example, some argue that Obama, while a child, lost U.S. citizenship, so they want records of adoption by his stepfather, school records in Indonesia, college records that might conceivably show his applying as a foreign exchange student, etc.  Furthermore, there is no set of records that would stop some birthers from arguing that he was ineligible because entitled to dual citizenship at birth, or because he became Indonesian, or whatever.  Finally, the birthers have by now become so heavily invested in this crusade that many would decry as a skilled forgery any document that he produced.


 * There's also the intriguing theory that Obama is engaged in a rope-a-dope. You say he's spent a million?  Well, he can afford it.  For that million (or whatever small portion of that amount actually relates to these suits), he keeps right-wingers devoting a significant portion of their time and energy to a wild-goose chase.  They're excitedly exchanging birther theories instead of trying to sabotage health-care reform.  I've seen this speculation mentioned by bloggers, but at this stage it's also not worth including in the article. JamesMLane t c 12:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Snip, per WP:TALK. It's in the history if you're really looking for it. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 11:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets remember that this talk page is not a forum for discussing rumors and empty speculations. This discussion should perhaps be archived or removed; at a minimum it shouldn't be continued on this article talk page unless there are specific suggestions for adding information to the article and accompanying reliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's not a forum, but it's inevitable that discussions of improving the article will segue into forum-type posts to some extent. With regard to the comments by Smith Jones about alleged abuse of taxpayer money, obviously nothing of the sort could go in the article without a citation.  On a similar subject, some reliable source (maybe the Anchorage Daily News) did a computation of the actual cost to the government of Alaska of the ethics complaints against Sarah Palin (not surprisingly, it was far less than what she claimed).  If we find comparable information for the birther suits, we could include it.  The problem is that there are so many different jurisdictions involved that it would be very hard for anyone to come up with a defensible figure. JamesMLane t c 05:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Change adding quote by Posey reverted
I just reverted a change by user:Suaiden, and wanted to see what other folks thought. Two problems I had - first, an inaccurate (and WP:OR) edit summary; second, the quote didn't add much and, because it came from Posey's blog, ran into some issues with WP:SELFPUB as it comments on third parties.

Here's the quote: "Why’d I do this? Well, for a number of reasons and the more and more I get called names by leftwing activists, partisan hacks and political operatives for doing it, the more and more I think I did the right thing. First, it’s easy to call people names. This week, I’ve been called some pretty nasty things. That’s fine. But none of these tolerant people actually want to discuss the issue at hand… whether or not a presidential candidate should have to file these documents with the government."

Suaiden's change didn't remove anything, it just added that quote. The summary already covers his motivations, and this quote doesn't add anything to the article.

I reverted Another change by Suaiden that I'd like for folks to review as the material is unsourced and OR. There's also an article for that. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the first point, I agree with you that the quotation adds nothing. On the second point, we don't need a whole paragraph about McCain, but we should find a way to give more prominence to the wikilink to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008.  Right now it's sort of buried in the discussion of the Donofrio case.  That's a bad placement because the wikilink could be of interest to some readers who skip over the subsections on particular lawsuits. JamesMLane t c 22:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Code Title 8 Subsection 1401
According to U.S. Law, President Obama would have been a U.S. citizen at birth irregardless of what nation he was born in per ...

Thus as long as one of his parents (his Mother in this case) was a U.S. citizen (which she was) and had lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years, 2 of which after the age of 14 (which she did, as she lived in the U.S. all of the first 18 years of her life before giving birth to Barack at 19) then Barack Obama would be a citizen at birth regardless if he was born in Kenya or Hawaii. For the record, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence leaves little doubt that he was indeed born in Hawaii, but as this code displays, it wouldn't even matter. As a result, I would posit that this information should be included in the article. Objections? Comments? Agreements? Red thoreau (talk)RT 10:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As of the time of Obama's birth, the law was different. One requirement then was that the U.S. citizen parent have lived in the U.S. for at least five years after the age of 14.  I think the consensus among legal experts is that the subsequent statutory change, shortening the required time to the current wording you quote, was not retroactive.  (This illustrates one reason for the policy of WP:NOR.  Especially in a technical area like the law, we don't want to rely on the work of someone whose only qualification in the field is that he or she is willing to edit Wikipedia.  Applying that principle here, we would not include this information unless some reliable source has confirmed that this was the law in effect in 1961.)


 * You've also made a slight but crucial factual error. You state that Obama's mother gave birth to him at 19.  If that were so, then he would indeed have qualified for citizenship, without regard to the place of his birth, even under the law then in effect.  In fact, however, she was only 18. JamesMLane t c 14:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * James is right. See this blog post by Eugene Volokh for legal analysis. This is already mentioned in the Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii section of the article. Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1961 long form certificate was destroyed in 2001, but then it was viewed in 2008?
KSWB NBC TV said that government officials viewed Obama's 1961 long form birth certificate in 2008.

mediabistro.com says that CNN president Jon Klein said the document was destroyed in 2001.

Perhaps the article should mention both of these things.

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that, in or about 2001, Hawaii digitized its recordkeeping. The paper documents that had been carrying the information were scanned into an electronic file.  The paper documents were then destroyed.  Obviously, however, the information can still be viewed.  I don't see anything in how Hawaii keeps its records that merits inclusion in our article.  It's not as if anyone is contending that some information available in 1961 is now lost.  For example, the birthers often talk about wanting to know the name of the attending physician.  If that name was on the paper that was kept until 2001, it's now on the pdf or whatever other file format is used.  That an inquirer would go to a terminal rather than a filing cabinet is of no importance. JamesMLane t c 04:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Grundle, read that first source a bit more carefully. It doesn't say what you think it does - you're assuming something that isn't there.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Proofs against time travel no (x) - the relevant persons weren't told to keep all relevant paperwork (in triplicate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reworking sentence in Political impact
I'm trying to rework a sentence (yup a single sentence - I know, sad, but when it gets in my head ...) in the Political impact section, and I haven't really come up with something I completely like.
 * Original - "Democratic commentators have criticized the reluctance of some Republicans to reject the birth certificate campaigners,
 * Interim 1 - "Democratic commentators have criticized the reluctance of some Republicans to reject the birth certificate claims,
 * Current - "Democratic commentators have criticized the reluctance of some Republicans to reject the birth certificate supporters"

From the looking at the phrasing of the original paragraph and sentance, and the source, I believe that the point is about the people making the claims, not the actual claims. I agree with Dems thought that the word campaigners seems awkward there. I'm not totally thrilled with the current version I put in late last night, but haven't yet come up with something I really like. I'm thinking about this: It seems to capture the point in the quote, without ambiguity. Thoughts? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposed - "Democratic commentators have criticized the reluctance of some Republicans to reject the supporters of the birth certificate issue, "
 * It's not about the rejection of the people, it's about the rejection of the ideas.
 * So how 'bout "Democratic commentators have criticized the reluctance of some Republicans to reject the birth certificate conspiracy theories"? After all, this is the title of the article. Dems on the move (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on - do you really think there would be a People who believe in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article? This article is about both the beliefs and (in general) those who support them.


 * Can't agree with your suggestion. Simply, that's not what the source or the quote is about.  Look at the quote - "Republican officials are reluctant to denounce the birthers for fear of alienating an energetic part of their party's base"  It's not saying "denouce the birthers claims", it's saying "denouce the birthers".  How can you have the line that uses the quote refer to something the quote doesn't?  It is about rejecting the people with that belief, not just the belief.  Read the source - the lines around that particular quote are also about the people, not just the belief.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to use the quote, then use the quote. But if you want to rephrase by substituting the word 'denounce' with the word 'reject' then it is a rejection of the theory, not rejection of the people. To reject a person has an entirely different meaning than to denounce a person. Dems on the move (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, yes, I can envision an article titled List of people who believe in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Dems on the move (talk)


 * Suggest rewording the phrase accounting for the new sources that are commenting on the issue of what stance mainstream conservatives should be taking:, which might present a more complete accounting of that view(s). regards, --guyzero | talk 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the revision - for this, Dems on the move.  Pondering something similar, but what I was thinking was wordier (and clunkier).  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Related note that NPR/OnPoint had a program on the birther movement today. Guest Michael Medved (conservative commentator) had some commentary with regards to the need for mainstream Republicans to reject the birthers.
 * http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/07/the-fury-of-the-birthers ... thanks, --guyzero | talk 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

the bad science of birth certificate "analysis"
If there's ever a return of the blather about how the birth certificate was faked, How not to do image analysis and How not to do image analysis II should be of use. Although they are self-published, we have evidence that the author knows his stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New Assertion from Hawaii II
There's something of a bombshell today -- Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, who was pointed to in the past as having side-stepped the issue of Obama's birth and citizenship, said today, "I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen." I have added this information, and its citation to the Honolulu Advertiser, to the article. (And I do not know the source of the spelling error in the President's first name -- but perhaps that will spill over into birther mythology like Elvis's middle name.) --TheMaestro (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And today the editorial board of the National Review dropped a payload onto the Birther movement; Born in the U.S.A.. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the article about Fukino's statement. It also says "The U.S. House on Monday unanimously approved a resolution recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii becoming the 50th state. A clause was included that reads: 'Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.'"Kylelovesyou (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's believable beyond any reasonable doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. This suggests that his unwillingness to release the orginal 1961 long form is for some other reason. Perhaps he doesn't want anyone to know that the doctor who delivered him was Ron Paul? Grundle2600 (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no longer any such thing as a "long form" for Hawaii birth records, which you would know if you read the article. As for the doctor, it doesn't matter if it was Ron Paul or RuPaul, the conspirators are running out of legs to stand on here. Tarc (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we spin off the birther stuff into it's own article?
It's really getting a lot of coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * not really. the birther questionations are basically the entire concep of citizenship conspiracy theories. to remove them from this article is to remove all mentions of Barack OBama from the Barack Obama article User:Smith Jones 21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article would still summarize the issue. It's just that it's gone beyond what can be included here per WP:UNDUE.  It's starting to effect a lot of republican house reps as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You lost me. Can you please quote the sentences in WP:UNDUE which you think this article violates? Dems on the move (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

-
 * this article is princiapllya bout the birther theories. it belongs here just as much as Barack Obama belongs in Barack Obama. there are too many content forks even under WP:UNDUE for obama already User:Smith Jones 22:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Smith Jones and Dems on the move, this article is largely about the theories put forth by birthers. It's not UNDUE to present conspiracy theories and fringe ideas as such when that's how most sources refer to them.  If a theory comes across as really, really odd, and that's how it's described by RS, then that's how Wikipedia should describe it as well.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Peregrine, I'm also mystified. What would you move and what would you leave here?  The only specific point you mention is Republican House Reps, a few of whom are mentioned because of actions they've taken with regard to this issue.  I don't see a problem with that.  Do you mean that it's affecting them in the sense that they look like fools to any sensible person who reads an accurate account of their actions?  Obviously, some readers will consider them fools and others will consider them heroes.  Nothing in that is a basis for a separate article. JamesMLane t c 23:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I was thinking about an article on the movement, beyond just what they think about Obama and it being incorrect.  As I look closer, this article, and some others like Michael Castle do a pretty good job of describing it.  A very large article could be written on them, and because of the amount of info, it could unbalance an article titled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" since it isn't really about Obama, other than they can kinda rally against him.  But, I'm feeling too lazy to start such an article right now, so never mind. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

God and Obama protester
The image of the protester in the "Commentary and criticism" section needs to either be explained, or removed because I think it somewhat obfuscates the messages of the group as a whole. Call it the "diet version" of singling out Frank Chu at any demonstration in the Bay Area. Is he implying that neither God nor Obama is a valid authority? If anything, he seems to be parodying the birther movement by saying that none of them (perhaps presumed to be religious conservatives) have ever questioned God's birth status. Is any of this making sense (or, for that matter, not making sense) to anyone? NeutronTaste (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what is it about the image that you find objectionable? The image depicts a protester who makes the claim that Obama does not have a birth certificate, and I suppose takes a secondary jab at Obama by saying that Obama is so the anti-God that the only thing he has in common with God is that neither one of them (according to the protester) has a birth certificate.
 * So what do you find objectionable?
 * Dems on the move (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's actually a joke that was used/is being used by various birthers. Limbaugh's used it, as have others.  I know I've read it in several sources, and thought it was in the article somewhere.  Couldn't find it, so it may have been removed or my memory being, well, slightly disorganized.  I'll see if I can find a source for the phrase (which should be one of the source already used in the article).  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that it seems like this guy is saying "you can't invalidate Obama's presidency on the birth certificate issue any more than you can invalidate God's." He certainly appears to be a parodist of the movement. Maybe he's an antitheist "Birther", but that's doubtful.NeutronTaste (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's actually a joke used by birthers, as bizarre as that sounds. "You know what God and Obama have in common?  No birth certificate!"  Yeah, it sounds pretty lame to me.  Here's a link to one of the sources that I remembered, with Limbaugh using the joke.   Ravensfire2002 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks for the clarification. This had me really confused, and yes - that is quite literally and without joking, one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Oh yeah, and the worst joke in fucking history. NeutronTaste (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * the please assume WP:AGF User:Smith Jones

certificate questions vs citizenship questions
so I think there are a lot of semi-valid reasons why people would want to see the long-form, that have nothing to do with those citizenship theories... like middle name, father, whatever. There is a much higher chance that there is some irregularity between the two docs in that regard, than in location of birth. Regardless, I think it needs to be more clear that some of these issues have no bearing on the citizenship questions... like Mohamed as middle name, that has political consequences entirely seperate than where he was born. It's almost boringly normal to try and find childhood dirt in politics, including birth certificate. Any good oppo researcher would desperately want to see any candidate's long-form. So I guess at some point, we need to make clear not all "birth-certificate-ers" are "birthers" in the conspiracy-sense. Some are just opponents looking for background... 66.220.124.56 (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe they call that "distinction without a difference". Tarc (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Shelby
I think this section is non-notable: ''In February 2009, a local Alabama newspaper reported that at a town hall meeting Senator Richard Shelby was asked if there was any truth to the rumors that Obama was not a natural born citizen. According to the paper, Shelby responded that "Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate".[62] A Shelby spokesperson denied the story, but the newspaper stood by the story.''

It would be better to substitute a paragraph describing the level of support for the theory among Republican congressmen.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree.
 * He indicated he believes in the conspiracy theory
 * He then not only back-paddled, but contradicted the printed version.
 * Dems on the move (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It may belong in his own article but is too detailed for this one. But why do you think that the level of support among other Republicans should be ignored?  This has been mentioned in several places.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You lost me. What makes you think that I "think that the level of support among other Republicans should be ignored"?
 * Being the highest Republican official to outright say that he thinks that the conspiracy theories are valid (he hasn't seen the birth certificate), I cannot see how this would not belong in the article.
 * Dems on the move (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shelby's reaction to a fringe theory is not important enough to include in the Shelby bio. On the other hand, even such a quasi-endorsement from a high-ranking elected official is significant in the context of the birther movement, so it does belong in this article. JamesMLane t c 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If Shelby, then also Inhofe?
If Shelby's comments are deemed worthy of inclusion, what about the always-quotable Senator James Mountain Inhofe of Oklahoma? As reported in the July 28 Tulsa World, he said: "I believe those people who are concerned about his birth certificate, about whether he is a citizen and qualified I encourage them to do that," the Oklahoma Republican said of a group pursuing the issue. and further: "'I don't discourage them from going ahead and pursuing that,' Inhofe said. 'That is something that in my heart I don't feel I can do anything about, but I can do something about, and I hope in your story that you will mention, the three things that I can affect and will affect.' asked if he personally thinks there is a chance President Obama is not qualified by birth to be the president, Inhofe said: 'You know I have never gone through and read all the stuff on that so I don't know. I just haven't taken that one on.'" and in a further statement from his staff: "If there are legal experts who have concerns, I would encourage them to continue looking into it. Unless and until additional information is provided, I will continue to focus on issues related to preventing President Obama's liberal agenda from changing the face of America. Jim Myers, "Inhofe weighs in on Obama birth site: He encourages those with questions, but he's focused on other issues", Tulsa World, July 28, 2009. The World thought enough of this to devote an editorial to the matter today (July 29), in which they say "Oklahoma's senior senator, Jim Inhofe, might not have thrown gasoline on the whacky theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States but neither did he try to douse the flames." "The 'birthers': Don't encourage them, senator", Tulsa World'', July 29, 2009.

I'm don't currently have a strong opinion as to whether either of these senators' ruminations belong in the article. But I do suggest that if one does, probably both do.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and insert it. You do not need permission. Dems on the move (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming?
Has using "birther" as part of the page title been considered? Some googling seems to suggest it's become the most popular term to use for the movement. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * birther and birthers redirect to this article, and that does count in Google's rankings, although I suppose if the article's title itself contained the word it would be weighed even higher.
 * Propose a title.
 * Dems on the move (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or, as a better alternative, don't propose a title change until you've read the prior threads about what the title should be. If you display no familiarity with the main points that have already been discussed, then it's likely that any proposal for change will be coldly received. JamesMLane t c 06:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "birthers" might be a bit too much of a pejorative to pass NPOV as an article title here. Just as truthers is a redirect, I think that that is sufficient here. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking to birther sites
An editor recently removed an external link to a birther site, citing that it violates WP:RS. Given that this is an article about birthers, would it not make sense to link to their site? I cannot see anything in WP:RS saying that external links have to be reliable. All I can see is that only reliable sources can be sourced for text in articles. Nothing about linking to non-reliable sources as an external link. In my opinion, linking to birther sites is consistent with WP:LINKS Any thoughts? Dems on the move (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * i agree. it smacks of censorship which is a mistake in polticail articles since it can bei itnerpereted non positivel. Smith Jones 00:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that www.marchreport.com is a suitable link for this article because:
 * It is not a reputable factual source on the subject (like factcheck); nor is it
 * A prominent birther website as attested by secondary references (like WND, which is oft mentioned in reliable sources on the subject)
 * Considering LINKS, we should avoid questionable websites like this one, even as external links. Abecedare (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, just looking at WP:ELNO, marchreport hits more than a few of those. It certainly fails the "neutral and accurate" guideline!  We've got WND's gallery, I don't see how adding another gallery of similar articles offers much value to the article.  External Links is NOT a collection of everything that might be related to the article, but isn't used as a source.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, as said above, it fails WP:EL. --guyzero | talk 03:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As the editor who has removed this 2 times thus far (and won't again per 3RR), I obviously don't find this personal blog to be credible, notable, or reliable. I am all for sites displaying an alternative view, and am ok with the inclusion of World Net Dailys compilation; however this obscure blog in my view does not meet Wiki standards.   Red thoreau'  (talk)RT 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Requiring that the external link be factual would disqualify linking to all birther sites, because it's a conspiracy theory (i.e. not facts). However, so long that we link to some birther sites, I'm OK with it. As mentioned above, we don't need to link to all $15 sites (to borrow the words from Robert Gibbs). Dems on the move (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the criteria of neutrality and reliability don't apply here. Bio articles of politicians routinely link to their campaign websites -- clearly nonneutral and not clearly reliable (to say the least).  By analogy, this article, intended to inform the reader about a particular political POV, can link to external sites that promote that POV.


 * The question is whether adding this particular link adds significantly to the article. I'd say leave it out unless and until someone can make the case that there's important information at that link that's not available at any of the other links we include. JamesMLane t c 06:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily External link
Now the link to WorldNetDaily's complete coverage of the subject has been removed. From this discussion it appeared that most users were OK with it. It also seems to meet WP:ELMAYBE #4. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Two sources suggesting that "birthers" have a good point
Here are a couple recent opinion pieces  that take a professional and mostly mature approach to the matter suggesting that Obama ought to release his records. Possibly editors may see fit to include some of this material in the article. JBarta (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strike 1 and strike 2, as OpEds are not reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * since when??? Smith Jones 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since forever. Read WP:RS.  Opinion pieces are to be used as sources only for the opinions of their authors, not as a reference for anything. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Carol Swain is a Professor of Political Science and a Professor of Law at the Vanderbilt University Law School. I would suggest her opinions on the issue are at least as "reliable" as some of the of the other opinions and commentators who have found their way into this article. JBarta (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. The only thing Swain's press release means is that she can be included in the group of known Birthers. From a legal standpoint, there is no difference between the COLB and the long form birth certificate and frankly, I'm a little disappointed that a Professor of Law doesn't understand this. Remind me not to send my kids to Vanderbilt.;)--Bobblehead (rants) 23:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * are you plimplgint athy ou implying that you know the law more than a noted law professor at one of the if not THE most important law academies in the world??? That may be true, but fortunatel what we think and what we believe and our own prejudices are not matter. What we face here is that we are in WP:V, searching for verifiability not truth. unless you have a source tha tbacks your own position, then Professor Vanderbilts opinion must take precedence with recards to inclusion!! Smith Jones 23:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be a little more careful with your spelling. The default editor gives you helpful red underlines.  Usually I can make your meaning out, but "plimplgint athy ou" keeps me from understanding your point. PhGustaf (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

From context: "are you plimplgint athy ou ...." = "Are you implying that you ...." Dems on the move (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * i apologize what I meant, but my editor has no helpful red underlines and it never has, depsite the mistaken misapprehensions of many people. However, I do think that you should revuew WP:V, specifically the fact that we are not loking for WP:TRUTH but instead searching for what is verifiable in notable, reliable sources and has significant weiaght. Smith Jones 23:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A little off the topic, but regarding the red lines, if you would use Mozilla Firefox instead of Internet Explorer, then you will get the helpful red lines that PhGustaf is talking about. Dems on the move (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless Prof. Swain's views have received widespread attention or she has some specific expertise then they are not notable, and should not be included. BTW no evidence will persuade the birthers.  Read The Paranoid Style in American Politics.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What The Four Deuces said. While it is true that COLBs have different legal significance from state to state, the one common thing is that while they may be shorter than the long form, they do accurately reflect the information on the long form for what they do provide. From the perspective of what would be required to prove citizenship, Hawai'i's COLB is sufficient because it includes the birth location. All that being said, at this point Obama could provide the long form and the Birther's still wouldn't believe him. They'd just change tactics to say that even though he released his long form, the time difference from when they started requesting the long form and when it was provided was the time Obama and his conspirators needed to create a forgery. As for Wikipedia's policies, please read the last paragraph of WP:SPS. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that Prof. Carol Swain's press release didn't mention that she is a regular contributor to Lou Dobbs Tonight, as her other profiles invariably do, ,. I would have thought that a need for full disclosure in this case, where she defends Lou Dobbs, would have been obvious. Abecedare (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * She's also a regular columnist for the Huffington Post. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle ground position - a third point of view
This new article from National Review says that, yes, Obama was born in Hawaii, but also suggests that the reason that Obama doesn't want to release his long form birth certificate is because it contains information that contradicts things that Obama has said in the past, such as adoption, his real name, and foreign citizenship. It also cites, with links, how some of the stuff that Obama said in his autobiographies is false. It also suggests that the reason that Obama doesn't want to release his school records and passport is because those things also contain information that contradicts things that he has said in the past. The writer thinks the birthers are silly to believe that Obama was not born in the U.S., but he is also glad that their conspiracy theory has caused other issues about Obama to be addressed. He also criticizes the mainstream media for ignoring these other issues about Obama, while simultaneously trying to dig up as much dirt about Sarah Palin as possible. Anyway, the writer's point is that there are more than just two positions on this issue - there is a third position in the middle too. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one writer's mewling because he didn't like the direction the NR editorial board is taking. To paraphrase Dubya, "either you're with us or with the Birthers". Tarc (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and all conjecture as well. I usually give NRO some respect, but there is not much difference between publishing unproven birther theories as there is in advancing the theory that he must've been adopted and became an Indonesian citizen, practiced Islam, etc., all within this weird synthesized fantasy world. He is trying to give himself some credibility by saying he's too smart to believe in this birther stuff, and then use that credibility as an excuse to print a bunch of made up stuff and corroborate it with additional made up stuff and conjecture. Not worth the bits its printed on. --guyzero | talk 05:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, look at the Andrew C. McCarthy article. The NR headline describes him as a contributing editor, meaning he's writing opinion type pieces.  Those are good to describe what that person believes, but that's about it.  This isn't a middle ground, it's just another conspiracy theory.  As others have said, once the natural-born thing was pretty much destroyed, it's on to something else!  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How could anything on Obama's birth certificate, or in Hawaii's files relating to his birth, possibly contradict what he's said about foreign citizenship? His entitlement to British citizenship was based on UK law; Hawaii wouldn't be in a position to give a definitive ruling about his status. JamesMLane t c 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing contradictory, as Fukino's statement reflects the majority legal opinion, i.e., born in the United States confers natural-born citizenship (regardless of a dual nationality that existed at birth). Fukino is in no more of a "position" to say the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to privacy, but she would nonetheless be correct.    Weazie (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what specific thing on the 1961 form could contradict what Obama has said. However, there must be some reason why he opposes releasing it to the public. I do believe that he was born in Hawaii. At the same time, I am curious about why he won't release the 1961 form. Just because one person wrote that article doesn't mean that lots of other people couldn't agree with his point of view. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Undoubtably, others share your "curiousity." There are several benign possible reasons why Obama does not release these records; the talk page, however, is not the place to have such a discussion.  (And "curiousity," for some, is a passive method to express disapproval, e.g., "I'm not saying the moon landing didn't happen; I just have some questions about the evidence that you say proves that it did.")  Weazie (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rethinking "fringe" and "conspiracy theories"
Given the new section that user:ChrisO added today (thank you Chris) showing that 28% of Republicans believe in the theories and that 30% are not confident enough to reject the theories, I can NO LONGER SUPPORT the use of "fringe" and "conspiracy theories" in the article. The movement has now gone mainstream Republican. Dems on the move (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the lopsided level of ignorance on this issue, how is it not a conspiracy theory? --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per policy, we follow the RS's and not our views on poll results in determining the content of the articles. The 3rd party analysis cited in section use verbiage such as "fringe" --guyzero | talk 22:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mainstream Republican != mainstream America, thogh. I see no merit to this suggestion. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like 47% of USAians believe in young earth creationism. Their number does not outweigh the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources that assert a much older earth; by wiki standards they match WP:FRINGE.  By the wiki definition, it's quite possible that a majority opinion could be "fringe". PhGustaf (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guyzero. We can only report what the reliable sources say.  Currently they label this a conspiracy theory and fringe.  I also would like to remind people that this is not the place to debate whether this has gone mainstream or not.  If the reliable sources say this has become main stream and notable, then we will report it as such, not before.  Brothejr (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I trust that you all have seen this volte-face. (As I contemplate the remarkably large US fringe, I'm somehow reminded of the woman on a phone-in program at the start of a Python sketch: I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!) -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is beginning to encroach on this topic. We are on extremely shaky ground here. Just because RS's used to say that this movement is on the fringe does not mean that it is still on the fringe. If in the next two weeks I do not see an RS that says that this movement is still on the fringe I will bring it up again. Dems on the move (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They still say fringe; nothing has changed, and nothing will change in the next 2 weeks. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are 7 sources calling the birther movement fringe and or conspiracy theories in the last day or two:
 * AFP
 * Washington Post
 * NPR
 * Washington Post
 * CBS (affiliate)
 * Wall Street Journal
 * Politico
 * There are dozens more over the last week. So can we give this debate a rest for say a month at least ? Abecedare (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good piece of research Abecedare
 * Tarc, unless you have some special skills which I don't have, I would not go into conjecturing what the future may bring. If you do have those special skills, why are you here? go make some serious $$$$ on Wall Street.
 * Dems on the move (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea, because sarcasm is always helpful. There's nothing special about the usage of common sense.  Back In January the Birther Movement was a sensation in fringe right-wing circles but garnered scant mention in reliable sources, and what little it did garner was to note the fringy, tinfoil, conspiracy theory nature of said Movement.  6 months later, the nature of the Birther Movement is still...wait for it...a right-wing fringe sensation that only gets noted by reliable sources for its fringy nature.  Common sense would tell one that if nothing has changed in half a year, then barring some sensational, earth-shattering bombshell of new information nothing is going to change in the next half-year either, let along two weeks. Tarc (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

←Nothing has changed - still fringe, still conspiracy theory. The title of the article is still correct. Tvoz / talk 06:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the latest poll, note that in November 2008 10% of those surveyed by Ohio State University believed that Obama was foreign born; in the Research 2000 poll of July 2009, the figure was 11%. Also, the number of Republicans supporting the conspiracy theory was roughly the same - a third - in the Orange County Register poll of November 2008 and the new poll. That's remarkably consistent, considering the amount of coverage that birtherism has had in recent weeks. Although Democrats are naturally using the poll to portray birtherism as gaining converts among the Republicans, its consistency with earlier surveys actually shows that the birthers have not actually gained much more support than they had last November. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz
Since the potential creation of this article was discussed on this talk page, editors here may be interested in the 2nd AFD nomination. Note: I am not recommended editors to !vote one way or another; I myself am conflicted and will perhaps add my 2c later. Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As someone who would like to rescue certain weak-minded friends from birther hysteria, I would like to see the Orly Taitz article reinstated. If she's an attorney, why does dhre she practise dentistry and real estate agentry for a living? Her followers cab easily find the "good news" about what a great person she is. I need a place to find the other side of her story. 76.3.159.175 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no article on Orly Taitz??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.121.120.73 (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think their should be a page for Orly Taitz at this point, as the above poster mentioned she does have (what seems to be) a dubious record as a supposed dentist/lawyer/real estate agent. If I recall correctly her license to practice law was revoked a couple years ago... I think it would be important to include a page on her since she seems to be somewhat of a figurehead in this "birther" movement and having plain-view data of her history might educate people as to her credibility. Tunafizzle (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledging that this has gone through two AFD's, I was also surprised that Orly Taitz wasn't a separate article. I was reading a movie review on Salon.com (of "Beeswax") that contained a gratuitous mention of Taitz. I knew who she was, of course -- but don't really know a lot about her other than what I've heard piecemeal in the media. Dentist? Lawyer? What school (if any) did she go to? What country is she from? I mean...who is this (if you'll excuse me) utter and complete nutjob?

So I hopped over to Wikipedia to have a look -- and was redirected here. This is a useful article about the controversy generally, but I really wanted to know about the person. If she's notable enough for Salon.com to be mentioning her in articles unrelated to the Birther "controvery," then she's probably notable under WP guidelines. The counter-argument I keep hearing is that she is not notable outside of her participation in the Birther movement. That's a good argument in some contexts: if, say, someone is not well-known, but the thing they participate in is. (For example, a backup singer isn't notable just because the band is.) In that context, the only thing you would be able to say about the person (based on reliable sources) is "he's a backup singer in X band." But with Taitz there's far more you can say -- and far more I'd like to learn. (Such as what I mentioned above...did this person actually attend law school? Jon Stewart mentioned that she's a dentist/lawyer...what's the deal with that?)  I'd be surprised if there aren't reliable sources reporting on that sort of information.

Besides, the "she's a part of X" argument can easily be taken too far. For example, Mick Jagger would not have become notable except that he was a musician in the Rolling Stones. That's what made him famous. But we wouldn't redirect to the Rolling Stones -- people want to know about the person, he's been written about independently by reliable sources, and he's therefore indepedently notable.

All in, look, I'd rather Taitz shrivel up and disappear. But since she exists, has name recognition, appears on national television, and is apparently now rather famous...she's probably notable. So it's odd that we don't have an article about her. --TheOtherBob 16:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is either a real document or a great forgery.
Unlike the short form certification of live birth that was printed by a computer in 2007, [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764 this] document really does look like something that was made in the 1960s. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your point? Barack cannot turn the clock back to the 60's and get a certificate that was printed in the 60's. I don't think even birthers make the claim that the certificate he produced is illegitimate because it was printed in 2008 rather than in the 60's. Dems on the move (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop wasting our time Grundle. You know full well that WND is not a reliable source and there isn't any point in discussing anything that they have "published."  --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this document isn't coming from WND - it's coming from Orly Taitz. WND often sensationalizes things, but they don't out and out invent photoshopped documents.  I don't think there's any question whatsoever it's fake - for crying out loud, two blocks for signatures have typed names, not signatures.  But just because WND posts it on their website doesn't mean they created it.  Orly Taitz's website is http://orlytaitzesq.com/ - I looked there to see if they make any claims about where they got the document from, but they don't. --B (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Malware warning. Before following B's link to Taitz's website, you should be aware of this warning: "The Orly Taitz website is currently compromised. It contains a hidden iframe that links to a Chinese malware site (security-alerts.cn.) I strongly suggest that you disable all JavaScript before visiting. The exploit was NOT detected by Norton AntiVirus 2009 nor AVG (both with current definitions)! It's fresh, folks. Beware!"  This is from Free Republic, an intensely pro-birther website that would have no interest in falsely warning people away from Taitz's site.  I have no expertise in these matters and merely pass on the warning FWIW. JamesMLane t c 13:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the fact that it's easily revealed to be a forgery. The "security paper" background has text in Afrikaans claiming it to be a fraud, and text embedded in the file says:


 * NOTICE: This image is a work of parody and political commentary. It is not a genuine government document. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. A certified copy of his birth record is freely available online. If you thought this was Obama's real birth certificate, a "smoking gun" proving he's not a natural-born citizen, then congratulations. You are an idiot. I made this from scratch. It is completely fake, and no document from Kenya or the United Kingdom resembles it.


 * Obama's president, and will be for the next 3 1/2 to 7 1/2 years. Get used to it.


 * Nothing to see here, folks.--TheMaestro (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you trolling here? Trentc (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, neither the WND image or the one from orlytaitzesq.com has such exif info. I googled the text and found it in reference to this photoshopped birth certificate, which is a completely different one from the one we are discussing. --B (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * B is correct. My mistake. --TheMaestro (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, nobody will ever find a reliable source that says this is anything other than a laughably obvious forgery and it isn't in any way notable, so inclusion in the article isn't going to happen. Given that, there is nothing left to discuss on this subject, and we're heading into discussion forum territory, so let's close this discussion and move on.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that it's an obvious forgery. But this article is about conspiracy theories that everyone agrees are whacky.  There will probably come a point where the MSM takes note of this fake birth certificate at which time it will be an appropriate topic for inclusion. --B (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends, if its just to make fun of it for pretty such an obvious fake, maybe not. If it's for hoaxing the birthers, still maybe not (although pretty funny!).  What might get interesting is if Taitz uses it in a court cases and a judge takes her to task for including it.  When you try to claim something in true and factual, and there's more than a few holes in that story, judges don't take a kind view.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a different forgery this time, but still has been debunked already, since Kenya was not a Republic until December 64, and this purports to be a copy made in Feb 64, when it was still a Dominion... furthermore, Mombasa was still Zanzibarian when Obama was born. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.20.31 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Dems on the move, you said, "Barack cannot turn the clock back to the 60's and get a certificate that was printed in the 60's." Yes he can. CNN president Jon Klein was mistaken when he said that it had been destroyed. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Source of that statement? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Source Grundle2600 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, did you look at the date of that? That's from November 2008, and quite a few people did think the original BC existed.  How about something a bit more recent? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it says "have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures". If those policies and procedures are to maintain only a digital copy (or just a database with the appropriate data), then a simple query "select * from birth_data where bc_number = 12345;" would be enough to say the same thing.  If we don't have something that says "I have seen the paper copy of the BC on file", it's hard to draw the inference that a paper copy exists given the push to digitally store data. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, if World Net Daily is not a reliable source, then why is it cited in this article? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, it is not a reliable source. In limited circumstances, it can be used as a reliable source, particularly when stating opinion.  For this, it's anything but reliable.  Far too many question have been raised already, and WND only uses innuendo.  WND simply does not meet the requirements of a reliable source.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

70.105.20.31, that's an excellent observation. Thanks for pointing it out. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Look what I found! Seems like he released his | long form birth certificate.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This thread on Democratic Underground includes instructions for creating your own fake Kenyan birth certificate. The example given proves that Prince Charles was born in Kenya.  Maybe we could do one for Jimbo. JamesMLane t c 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the codename that is winning out for this is "Project Birther Control". Lulz. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh heh heh. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you compare closely the PDF file available from the Democratic Underground and the certificate on Orly Taitz's website you will notice they are different documents. Look at minor details like spacing and alignment of letters, positions of dots, etc. This doesn't prove the authenticity of the Orly Taitz document, although it does show that the two are different, and in all likelihood the PDF file is nothing more than a mockup of the Taitz document. Such could be done to mimic nearly ANY official document. JBarta (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a very obvious fake due to one very simple fact; the year of birth is 1961. The Republic of Kenya didn't exist prior to 1963 - it was the UK's Dominion of Kenya. 24.2.235.143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I'd say it's a fake, but probably not for that reason. It purports to have  been issued in 1964, confirming a birth that occurred in Mombasa in 1961.  It's plausible that someone might, in 1964, need proof of a 1961 birth, and that the document issued in 1964 (based on an examination of the records from 1961) would indicate the date of its issuance.  It's likely that Kenya, an independent country in 1964, would be using a form that reflected its independence.  Having shaken off colonialism, the Kenyans wouldn't want to issue any forms that identified their land as a British colony.


 * There's an argument that Kenya became independent in 1963 but wasn't declared a Republic until December 1964. There's a response that they were using "Republic of Kenya" even before December.  At this point, I know of no reliable source for any of this.


 * The main point is the provenance. We have Orly Taitz, a fierce partisan, proffering the document and, according to World Net Daily, alleging that she received it from an anonymous source.  Taitz might be scamming us and the court.  More realistically, her source might be scamming her.  There's just no affirmative reason to believe this document is genuine, even before we get into the negative reasons about "Republic of Kenya" and a registration on a Saturday and the like.  More to the point for Wikipedia, there's no reliable source asserting that it's genuine. JamesMLane t c 22:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"This is either a real document or a great forgery."

Or neither. TimSPC (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Information Available on Hawaii Original Birth Certificates
The article is somewhat misleading. The following information is shown on original Hawaii birth certificates.

File number Child's name Sex Single/Twin/Triplet and born 1st/2nd/3rd Birth date and hour Place of birth Island Name of hospital or institution, address Outside city limits? Usual residence of mother? Island County, State, or foreign country Street address of mother. Outside city limits? Mailing address of mother. Farm or plantation? Full name of father. Race of father. Age of father. Birthplace of father. Usual occupation of father. Kind of business or industry, Full maiden name of mother. Race of mother. Age of mother. Birthplace of mother. Type of occupation outside the home during pregnancy. Date last worked. Signature of parent and date. Signature of attendant (M.D., D.O., Midwife, Other) and date. Date accepted by local registrar, Signature of registrar, and date.

Could the article at least acknowledge that some of this information is not available on the form that was released? Doctor Search (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Doc, you might want to supply us with WP:RS's or check on WP:OR. Anything else is just senseless.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I understand the need for a reliable source.  Do you agree that an Internet Archive Wayback Machine recovery of http://web.archive.org/web/20050405040843/www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html would be considered reliable.  Doctor Search (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this information as of today, or as of Obama's birth? That's just one question that indicates why we have the WP:NOR rule.  Find a citation in which an argument along these lines is made by a prominent spokesperson.  We can report facts about opinions, including opinions held by birthers, but we do not go out and try to dig up facts to make the case for or against Obama's eligibility. JamesMLane t c 08:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as 'many people' outside the US (and even within it) are likely to see it:

The documentation provided by the Hawaiian authorities (who appear to be 'the competent authorities) clearly indicate that Obama was born there. Various competent authorities have confirmed that this is the case.

John McCaine was born in Panama, clearly being outside the United States, whether or not to American parents capable of granting nationality by patriality.

If the 'birthers and friends' assert that McCain was competent to run for the presidency, then, by definition, Obama is also so competent.

So #what exactly# is their problem? That he was not the Republican candidate for the 2008 election? Or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe (without bothering to look up the facts) that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, which was extraterritorial US. But can we please agree not to discuss that non-issue in the discussion page for the article on this non-issue?


 * Their exact problem is a matter discussed all over the place; a good example is this new piece by Gary Younge. If you'd like to join that discussion, feel free to do so -- but not this page, as it's for discussion of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The questions are, perhaps
 * What would the birthers get in the unlikely case of being able to mount a challenge they would immediately face a tu quoque argument about #a candidate definitely born outside US territory# and a constitutional crisis?
 * #Why# do the birthers want to believe that Obama is an illegitimate president?

Comments on these might be appropriate for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * first of all,they dont WANT to believe it, but they havelegtiitmate concerns.
 * second of all, this isnt a forum for you to bash your favorite political targets. this is for improving the article. please stay on task Smith Jones 00:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a reliable source (BBC News) that explains that The document released by the Obama camp was a Certification of Live Birth, freshly created in 2007 by Hawaiian officials at the request of the Obama campaign, based on Hawaii's computerised records, not the original hand-written long-form "Certificate of Live Birth", created by the hospital at the time of Mr Obama's birth.

A Certificate of Live Birth contains more information, including the hospital name, and the name of the attending physician. And it is misleading to exclude that information from the article. Doctor Search (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters vs Lou Dobbs

 * (FYI) Media Matters vs Lou Dobbs: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907310039, http://dobbsconspiracy.com/ , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjBA5H4RBHA - 89.2.241.2 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

BERG v. OBAMA et al
SEE http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/19/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.170.21 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

True or false: Obama spent almost a million dollars on lawyers...
This is from canadafreepress.com, which seems to be a legitimate source. It claims that Obama is "alleged to have spent nearly a million dollars on lawyers to keep his birth and other public records secret." It says those other records include:

1. Occidental College records—Not released 2. Columbia College records—Not released 3. Columbia Thesis paper—“Not available” 4. Harvard College records—Not released 5. Selective Service Registration—Not released 6. Medical records—Not released 7. Illinois State Senate schedule—“Not available” 8. Law practice client list—Not released 9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate—Not released 10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth—Not released 11. Harvard Law Review articles published—None 12. University of Chicago scholarly articles—None

If it's true that he has spent nearly a million dollars on this, it should be mentioned in the article. If it's not true, then of course it shouldn't be.

Is it true or not?

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Canadafreepress.com is just another rightwing website. The web page (which sports an array of right-wing ads) touts the author's latest book, which gets two reviews at amazon.com. One of these is utterly incomprehensible but the other earnestly praises the book for its criticism of the Bush regime as caving in to the forces of globalism, environmentalism, etc. So the author's just another wingnut columnist, it would seem.


 * If you want to ask questions about The Truth, please do so in another website. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See the previous topic about this, conveniently located on this very talk page. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, both of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Denialism" category
On the one hand, it seems obvious given the evidence that the conspiracy theories in question are spurious and unfounded. On the other hand, it would seem to me that the category "denialism" is POV. Thoughts? - Chardish (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Presidents?
There should be some mention of the previous birther controversy about Chester Arthur being born in Canada, and the complaint over Herbert Hoover having never lived in the U.S. for fourteen years in a row. See: -- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Claims that the Certificate of live birth is meaningless
I just watched the highly comical exchange between David Shuster and Orly Taitz on MSNBC and wanted to get the story behind her assertion that no proof, other than the word of one parent, was needed to obtain a COLB in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth. The article as written notes the birther claims that foreign-born children could acquire a COLB and that "the information in such a certificate only has to be based on the testimony of one parent." The article then states that both claims were refuted in an OC Weekly article which states, "The law allowing foreign-born children to obtain Hawaiian COLBs didn’t exist until 20 years after Obama was born." However, I don't see any refutation there to the second claim that only the word of one parent was required to obtain a COLB. That seems to be an entirely separate issue from the one claiming known foreign-born children could obtain a COLB. Should a second source directly refuting the 'one parent' claim be provided, or am I missing something? — divus 04:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Repetitious quote
Please, someone note that a long quote by Marc Ambinder appears TWICE in the article, and take one of the quotes out. They are quite close together. Geneven (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 13:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.221.111 (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN?
I hesitate to even bring this up, but the article currently states "Notable advocates of the view that Obama may not be eligible for the Presidency include Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney and 9/11 conspiracy theorist;" and then cites the following source. The source has nothing to Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Don't we need another source tying a)Berg is an Obama citizenship conspiracy theorist to b)Berg is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Otherwise, isn't this a case of synthesis? If it is WP:SYS, we can add this cite to the statement which does make the connection. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect there might've been appropriate cites in place, but the article has been fluctuating a bit lately so it may have been lost. Regarding your proposed edit: Looks good to me.. Go for it! thanks, --guyzero | talk 19:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WND
Worldnetdaily apparently doesn't understand how Wikipedia, works - [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103810 ] but even more distressing is the fact that that garbage was allowed to remain in the Obama article for so long. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The right-wing screed that they're cackling about was first inserted at 4:45pm and was removed at 6:33pm. That's not too surprising, given that it was in one of the daughter articles (Early life and career of Barack Obama).  They get less attention.  Such garbage wouldn't have lasted nearly so long in the main Obama bio. JamesMLane t c 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Heck, I wouldn't be all that surprised if they were the ones who quietly changed it, took the screen shots, and then waited for someone to inevitably come along to remove it. Brothejr (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Between stuff like this and the jerusalem21 deal, you gotta just love WNDs bending reality to fit the message: "Wikipedia page vandalized and then later fixed!!! Proof of !!" Yeah, "journalism". --guyzero | talk 21:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

why is the 'conspiracy' not mentionned in the main B.O. document?
A recent survey shows about half of the republicans believe that Obama may not be a US citizen (many want to see the proof, the long form BC), why is the issue then pushed in a separate article? Is it fair that an issue representing literally millions and millions of people is an orphan article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Millions of right-thinking Americans believe all sorts of bunkum (Creationism, whatever), and the bunkum gets its little place in Wikipedia; but thanks to "WP:RS" and the rest, Wikipedia is reality-based. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com is a blog, not usually a reliable source
I noticed that this article cites Examiner.com a couple times so I am posting this notice. Examiner.com is a blog. Generally speaking, it is not a reliable source. Examiner.com can only be used as a self-published source if the author is an established expert on the topic whose work in the relevent field has been published by a reliable third-party publication. Even then, caution should be exercised.

For more information, please see the following discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard:


 * Examiner.com = paid blogging no editorial oversight (archived)


 * Request to reopen discussion on Examiner.com (archived)


 * Examiner.com (archived)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

racism ?
Isn't the reaction, of a country, that still has a huge problem with racism. I'm unsure there would be this level of activity of Obama was a white man, with a father from say England? Isn't Hilary Clinton's heritage also British? Sorry, to me (a white man by the way), it's just a racist section of the countries reaction to a black man gaining power. They can't change the fact he's democratically elected, so claim he is inellgible. A lot of conservative politics is based on "we're right". Whether the general public agree with it or not. The entire McCain campaign was dominated by smear, and race questions. Activists releasing smears into the media (as in claiming he's a muslim) This to me is just an extension of that. Conservative politics is always based on fanaticism of it's voters. People who are willing to smear, leak and attack rival politicians, for their right wing leaders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although your argument may have merit, see the policy WP:NOT. This page is solely for discussing how to improve the current article.   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 14:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we getting to Godwin's Law point? There should, perhaps, be a mention in the article as to #why# a certain fraction of the US population wishes to believe that Obama is ineligible, rather than 'merely a list of people who think he is' (and some of whom would still so believe even if all the documentation was provided in triplicate and there was a heavenly message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * IFF you have reliable sources for a psychopathology of the birthers, please specify these sources. As long as you don't, there's nothing to be said in the article about the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PRECISELY. our job isnt to diagnose the subjects of articles as "fringe theorists" or "racists" or any of the leftist buzzwords use to put down all debate. Our job is to record what reliable sources sa youb the subject according ot their weight. Your overrealizence on biased misinterpretaitons of other peoples motives is not truly free. Smith Jones 16:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This subject is mentioned under Birthers. As an encyclopedia we have to wait until this movement has been properly studied before adding more analysis.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some blogs, such as DailyKos have conjectured that racism is the point of "Birthism", but we need better sources than that. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have however already the comments of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which is considered a reliable source, in the Birthers section. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically - these people exist in sufficient numbers for WP to have an article upon the subject. They may well be acting from a variety of motives (political, racial... etc: and a comment of racism is #not necessarily# a 'leftist buzzword' - how else would eg the BNP be described?), and, given the persistence and extent of the belief, a level of discussion in the article on the subject. Perhaps there should be a 'WP wishlist of original research to be done and appropriately published so that it can be summarised on the appropriate article pages.' (g) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats not how it works. we dont generated stuff that we want to include in the article. thats no different than sourcing something from another page in the wikipedia, which is against the rule. Smith Jones 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory
I am a upset that Wikipedia calls it "Conspiracy theories." These are legitimate questions. (Ex: His Grandmother said she was there when he was born in Mombasa.) I am not a "conspiracy theorist" and I am offended that Wikipedia thinks I am. I propose we change the name of the article to something more eneutral such as "Barack Obama citizenship controversy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legokid (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at this page and the archives to this page to see the reasoning behind the article naming (in short, reliable sources call this topic conspiracy theories, we follow reliable sources per policy.) If you'd like to discuss renaming it, please do so from a WP policy perspective. thanks, --guyzero | talk 04:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, quoting Topic_creation: The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. Using that rationale, Barack Obama birth certificate controversy would be neutral and in line with what interested readers would be likely to search for. Of course, that's a little too neutral for some. My goodness, how can we convey the wackiness of the subject matter with a neutral title like that? Regarding the "reliable sources" angle, I've noticed that as time progresses, a higher percentage of reliable sources seem to use quite unprofessional and disparaging language when commenting, um, I mean reporting on this issue. Unfortunately, if Wikipedia aspires to the low standard of parroting highly strung talking heads out there, then the title may be right on and we can all be proud of ourselves. JBarta (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And one more thing... one can read past discussions in the archives and ALSO find plenty of sound reasoning for and editors in support of changing the title to something a little more appropriate. JBarta (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I got to ask what round of discussions on trying to change the name of this page this is? I have completely forgotten how many times people try to bring up changing the title of this article, yet consensus is to keep it? Again, the title fits the article and topic, it is reflected in the sources, and is searchable in the search engines.  Brothejr (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the vast majority of RS continue to label them conspiracy theories. To change the name would shift the POV to the extremist minority. Tony Kao (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the so-called "consensus" to keep the current title has never been as solid as some would wish to believe. The title has been problematic and non-neutral from the beginning and will likely continue to be a source of discontent. JBarta (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please accept consensus, as it is clear. Random drive by complaints that restart this topic do not make the consensus any less "solid". As I said on 7/12/09, please seek DR at RSN, BLPN, NPOVN, or RFC, as having the same discussion here, with the same conclusion, every couple weeks is not moving anything forward. --guyzero | talk 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The word "controversy" is neutral and NPOV. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is heavily POV. I don't consider myself to be a "conspiracy theorist," but at the same time, I wonder why Obama is not willing to release the original long form birth certificate that was created in 1961, and which includes the name of the doctor who delivered him. Until I get to see that document, I am not willing to take sides on this issue. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because there is no real "controversy" going on and because of that it makes it a "conspiracy theory" like the moon landing. If there is a "real" controversy [BTW, that would be all over the news, left, right and middle] it would be already known. If they [the administration] were and are so good in cover-up even before Obama was elected [strange, isn't it?] then you can't believe not even one word no matter who is in charge. So should we stick to the rules and write about the known facts made public by the media, not only the biased one but also the independent one, or should we disobey any Wiki-rule and make the "conspiracy" our main dish (and focus)? I'd say "nay".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "conspiracy theory" is not POV when the subject at hand requires a conspiracy to have occurred for the theory to be true. For Obama to have not been born in Hawaii, multiple newspapers (those issuing contemporaneous birth announcements) and multiple employees in the state records department would have all needed to conspire to produce false evidence. That's a conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.244.213 (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The above poster said, "For Obama to have not been born in Hawaii, multiple newspapers (those issuing contemporaneous birth announcements) and multiple employees in the state records department would have all needed to conspire to produce false evidence. That's a conspiracy." That's a conspiracy, but the premise is shaky. Multiple newspapers in Hawaii received identical birth reports weekly from the Department of Health, according to a story published in one of the Hawaii papers. So no one at a newspaper would have to be part of any conspiracy at all for multiple notices to be published. They just took the information that the Department of Health gave them. How many employees at the Department of Health would be needed to create a Certificate of Live Birth from an official, blank form and see to it that it was recorded with all the others, I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosseyn1 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would anybody back in 1961 feel the need to falsify a birth certificate (that was sent to the newspapers) about Barack Obama? Nobody knew back then that he would become President. This isn't a controversy, this is pure conspiracy theory that's even more far-fetched than moon-landing conspiracy theories.99.150.200.56 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That whole business of "how could anyone know he would run for president 47 years later" is a canard. It's inventing a conspiracy theory then blasting it as ludicrous. Folks questioning Obama's birth location/circumstances have put forth a few reasonable (and non-conspiratorial) possibilities to explain the existance of the birth announcements... none of which have anything to do with running for president 47 years later. A U.S. birth is useful for reasons other than running for president. JBarta (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Orly Taitz, Barack Obama was born in Kenya, but his parents didn't want to pay any fees for bringing him into the country and changing his citizenship, so Stanley Obama had her parents, then living in Hawaii, salt the birth notices in the paper so that the family could claim he was born in Hawaii and avoid the fees. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD for the Birther category
Feel free to weigh in at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 July 31. While not a fan of the birther movement in any sense, I think classifying people by specific belief such as this is not appropriate for the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your objection is. Can you please be more explicit? Are you saying that the term "Birther" is derogatory? If so, it is a term you have yourself used in your comment. Do you have a better, more recognized term to suggest? You go on to say that "classifying people by specific belief such as this is not appropriate for Wikipedia". Does this mean that there should not be articles on "Jews", "Catholics", or "Republicans" because these terms "classify by specific beliefs"? Wm. M. 75.111.38.55 (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As per WP:Categories, "They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc". -Falcon8765 (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Kenyan birth certificate
I've removed this section that was recently added to the article, as it was based entirely on blog sources. If it's covered by the mainstream media (i.e. reliable sources) we should cover it; otherwise, no. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the Orange County Register considered a sufficiently reliable source? http://www.ocregister.com/articles/taitz-document-president-2517230-copy-obama —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markomalley (talk • contribs) 08:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a local newspaper, but it is a newspaper (and it seems that there's a local angle to this story). Looks OK to me as a reference for the existence of an allegation that such a birth certificate exists (NB not for the existence of such a birth certificate). -- Hoary (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'd hate to go through the hassle and then get it immediately pulled down. --Markomalley (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember, if the article says there is an allegation that there is a birth certificate, any entry using that uses that reference, must say that. Any sort of syntheses of the source will be removed. (And this is an extremely fine line that means the addition must be written exactly as it is written in the article.)  Brothejr (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Will this work? "An Orange County attorney, Orly Taitz, filed a motion in federal court on 1 August 2009 to get a document which purports to be a certified copy of Barrack Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate authenticated. Progressive Groups, including Media Matters for America, immediately refuted the authenticity of the document, stating that Kenya did not become a republic until 10 months after the date printed on the alleged copy." (OC Register citation for the first sentence; MM Blog citation (referenced in OC Register) for the second sentence). Appreciate the feedback so I don't waste time.--Markomalley (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lots of press are covering the scam. I love this one, Australian press interviewed the victim, David Bomford http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2646009.htm 70.105.20.31 (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Markomalley, we shouldn't say that Media Matters refuted the claim. That would constitute an assertion by us that the people at Media Matters, with a well-established reputation for careful fact-checking, were right, and that several right-wing Obama-bashers were wrong.  Per WP:NPOV, we can't make that call.  Just say that Media Matters disputed the authenticity.  Also, if we're going to cover this latest hoax -- ah, pardon me, this latest alleged hoax -- then we should mention the Australian birth certificate that the hoaxer used as a template.  Here's a source for that information: . JamesMLane t c 14:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It will be interesting to see if the Birthers created the fraud or if somebody else created it to dupe them. I tend to think the latter, as I don't think any of those rednecks are intelligent enough to use e-mail, much less properly photoshop a document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.114.231 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone checked whether there was someone of a similar name born in Kenya at the time? (The Winston Churchill the politician and Winston Churchill the novelist scenario.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Birth of someone with a similar name -- very unlikely, but not impossible. Birth of someone with a similar name whose birth information, by coincidence, also appears on page 5733 of Book 44B of the registry?  Forget about it.  One of these was faked based on the other.  On Free Republic, of course, they're convinced that the Australian one is the forgery, created to discredit this stupendous discovery of the Muslim usurper's real birth certificate. JamesMLane t c 15:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the Bomford connection. They took an Australian birth certificate, changed it from Dominion of Australia to Republic of Kenya? There weren't any Kenyan certificated available? Why choose the Bomford one? And where's the pic of the original? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A Bomford family member had set up a genealogy website, which happened to include an image of the birth certificate of a Bomford who was approximately Obama's age. As a result, that form was available online as a template for creating the fake.  It probably would have been a lot more work to get a Kenyan form.  (If you know of a genuine Kenyan form online, please email me the link.  I'd be very interested in seeing it.)  When this connection was discovered, the Bomford genealogy site crashed under the huge influx of traffic; last I heard, it was showing only a message politely telling you to go away.  Before that happened, however, the image had been copied.  The site where I found it is no longer available to unregistered members of the public, but there are probably other copies out there somewhere. JamesMLane t c 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Washington Independent page with the original Bomford BC is also crashed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bomford BC is still available here: http://images.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/04/australia_certificate/storylarge01.jpg and http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/04/australia_certificate/index.html at Salon's website. --JamesAM (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, James. BTW, Mombasa was not a part of Kenya at the time of Obama's birth, it was part of Zanzibar.  And Coast Province was Coast District at the time.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Kenyan birth certificate?
… probably: http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/ — is this thing just a huge hoax? If so, it definitely worked. At least this would explain, why there are variants of the alleged BC on the internet, e.g. one saying "EF Lavender" or "GF Lavender", the other "KF Lavender". Or they simply used the original one by Taitz (or rather Bomford) to program this generator. Definitely a great joke! :) —85.178.69.104 (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Without a doubt the origin came from this person on freeblogger: http://fearlessblogging.com/post/view/3037. He pointed to an exact duplicate of the picture that went around the web, but at a dramatically higher resolution (2MB vice 468kb). See here: http://www.upload.mn/view/5ro4tlhvqps1xm7v65lw.jpg. He then shows how he disposed of the evidence in other high res photos (links at the fearlessblogging site). H/T to Washington Independent (cited in article).--Markomalley (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

college records hidden as well
Can we mention, in the main B.O. article, or in the 'conspiracy' article, that Obama is hiding bunch of other documents as well, typically college records and in general all documents where the country of birth is shown. Maybe it's faster to list the documents that have NOT been removed, ie documents Obama team has agreed to show to public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.133 (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because there are no reliable sources that make this claim, likely because its false. --guyzero | talk 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is some slight connection between the college records and the topic of this article. Some of the birthers argue that "All Obama has to do is release a birth certificate and this will all go away."  Others, however, have said that courts should order the release of all marriage and divorce records from both of his mother's marriages, all his school records (pre-college, college, law school), his client list as a lawyer, etc.  At least one post on Free Republic, a website crammed with birthers, said that even if he released a birth certificate that refuted all the birther claims, that would still be advantageous: "The thing to remember is this. If we get him to release it and he proves us wrong, we will have still won by forcing his hand. That gives us the opening to go after other documents." (from www dot freerepublic dot com/focus/f-news/2305279/posts (see post #5))


 * Unless some prominent birthers openly admit this agenda, however, or there's more public discussion of it, I don't think it merits inclusion in the article. JamesMLane t c 06:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See this Salon dot com article. The section entitled Myth #8 includes demands for University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles, Harvard Law Review articles, Harvard Law School records, Columbia University records, Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament", and Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received --Markomalley (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The demands have been made by one "Gary Kreep". 'Nuff said? -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gary G. Kreep Esq., 932 D Street #2, Ramona, CA 92065. Alan Keyes' attorney with his birther lawsuit. Source: Ramona Bar Association Roster. (I looked before I leapt...even with a WP:RS ;-) )--Markomalley (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Noting the change in policy regarding birth certificates in Hawaii
I made a few minor edits regarding a change in the birth certificate policy in Hawaii. Prior to June 2009, the Dept of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) required people to present the Certificate of Live Birth. They would not accept a Certification of Live Birth because it was too easily forged and required them to do additional checking. An investigative report was able to pinpoint the change in policy occurred sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009. RonCram (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An "investigative" report from a blog founded by Joseph Farah (http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2) who is at the heart of the conspirary theory ? Sorry, but that's not a reliable source. Also, what the Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands may or may not request hardly seems relevant here, I don't believe Obama is an applicant, and that's certainly not the subject. Equendil Talk 11:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hawaiian Home Lands Program is available to those with "a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian" -- in other words, people of majority Hawaiian ancestry. The Certification of Live Birth, currently the only form of birth certificate being issued in Hawaii, contains no information about the ethnicity of one's parents. For this reason, the Certificate of Live Birth has been preferred. However, people who don't have Certificates of Live Birth are no longer able to get them, and so the DHHL has to do additional research in order to establish eligibility. The prior version of the DHHL web page was not explicit about the fact that Certificates of Live Birth are no longer available, so it was revised in June to clarify the situation. There was no change of policy, and of course the whole issue is irrelevant to the question of presidential eligibility. --TheMaestro (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the second largest daily newspaper in Hawaii, published thisarticle which says, "Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero said he would introduce legislation next year to have birth certificates declared public records. Espero (D, Ewa-Honouliuli-Ewa Beach) said the Obama fuss has raised questions about public and private records and says it would be in the state's interest to have open public record of births. 'It would be important for relatives and even neighbors,' Espero said." That's relevant and notable, and it's a reliable source, so it should be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with Obama? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obama has repeagtedly alleged to be born in Hawaii Smith Jones 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet! Fire up the identity theft engines, everyone. Easy access to steal the identity of anyone born in Hawai'i is on the way. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL @ Bobblehead! too bad the "president" wouldnt technically qualifiy anymore illinois Smith Jones 23:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alleged? Smith Jones, do you know what that means?  And Bobblehead, that was exactly my first reaction on hearing this.  You want to change your identity?  Find somebody who was born in Hawaii, claim to be them, get the information needed from the state, and voila.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * are you saying that hes not claiming to be born in Hawaii? if so, then we should change the name of this article to citizenship FACTS. lol not really Smith Jones 00:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotefarming
Don't do it. Filling articles up w/ quotes from random newspeople or congresscritters breaks up the flow of the article, makes POV difficult to manage (have to find dueling quotes), and causes the tone to become uneven. If something is particularly pithy or the speaker comes from a particular authority on the subject, go ahead and toss a quote in, but multi-sentence quotes which can be easily integrated into the text have to go. Protonk (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * However, with a removal that big, you should discuss each quote and why it should be removed. Also, instead of dashing most quote, why not integrate them as the majority of them do fit into the section and can be read easily. Brothejr (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't feel the need to discuss each and every removal. If that's how you folks want to run your articles around here, be my guest, but it sounds like a recipe for a headache. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, dokey. This revert puts us square on the "discuss" portion of the BRD cycle. I feel that my changes aren't broadly transformative to the POV of the article, that they improve the flow (for reasons posted above) and that they can be supported by either side of this business. I see that this change specifically could generate some consternation and I'm more than happy to put that on the back burner (though a big quote shouldn't be leading the section, IMO). If I don't see some discussion here I'll assume that silence implies consent and go back to improving the article. Protonk (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a classic display of WP:OWN by Brothejr. It just represents the problem with all Obama pages these days. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We were following the WP:BRD cycle until you jumped in and accused me of owning the article. I am happy to discuss the changes as long as we discuss the changes.  Brothejr (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. the onus is on you. You reverted the changes. Tell us what is wrong with them. there were (i think) 5 changes. do you have a problem with all 5? Just some? Protonk (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The move seemed pretty non-controversial. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The response will be, "you made the change, so it is your responsibility to defend it and gain consensus." --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised. :| Oh well.  I should just signal now that I have zero intention to jaw about edits just because someone wants them talked about. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I always planned on discussing this before User talk:William S. Saturn jumped in. I am trying to assume good faith here.  This quote:  sums up the section quite nicely.  Whether it is necessary to be in block quotes is debatable and it could be worked into the section. The Rachel Maddow quote change looks fine.   The PolitiFact.com quote should stay in it's majority as it does sum up what is going on and is a reputable.  Whether it should be in block quotes is again debated and not a sticking point.  I agree with the Camille Paglia quote condensation.  We also should keep the Fox New's quote, however we could drop one and still carry the same sense as before.  Brothejr (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Now we are getting somewhere.  The top quote change I can leave at the wayside.  I see that lots of discussion is going on above about it so I won't interject.  The fox news quote bit seems really superfluous to me.  Hannity quoted (effectively) the Army guy's laywers who said that the case represents a de facto admission of obama's ineligibility.  The quote didn't seem to be 'criticism' in any fundamental sense, just recitation of that guy's viewpoint.  We can condense it into prose, but it would look like "So and so's lawyers asserted that the dismissal represented a vindication of their client's factual claims".  Apart from being legally inaccurate (his case was dismissed because the army obviated his standing and the army canceled his deployment orders because they probably didn't want a vocal critic running a combat unit), they are duplicative in that section.  The politifact quote represents content that can be in the article but doesn't include anything that can't be condensed or translated.  Meaning that the quote only shows that politifact asserts a lack of evidence in support of the birther position.  What part of it needs to remain quoted? Protonk (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here how I think the politifact quote should go: "Anything's possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what's reasonable has to take over. There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact's conclusion that the candidate's name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn't authentic."
 * Removing the first and last sentence of the quote should slim it down a bit. Plus, could we include it in the paragraph without the blockquotes? I see what you mean with the Hannity quotes and there is no real way to condense them without making a false statement.  Brothejr (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me. I'd prefer that we get rid of the quote entirely, but I'm not worked up about it. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I tend to be an anti-quote person, and tend to think we should not pick and choose which quotations to use unless the quotation itself is shown to be noteworthy by being discussed in a third party reliable neutral source. With that in mind, I would support removing as few or as many of these as everyone else deems reasonable, in favor of mentions or summaries.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur in part with Wikidemon. I prefer to keep quotes to a minimum and only the most notable one's should stay.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote bomb gives undue weight to the author, who edits a blog at a source that claims itself to be "The flagship of the Left". Quotes should be integrated into the prose, and such a partisan sniping comment is only notable if reported by a reliable third party source. Just my two cents.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On a controversial subject, I tend to be pro-quotation. Our obligation is to present all significant points of view fairly, and verbatim quotation is often the best way to do that.  As to the format, I'm not sure what Die4Dixie means by a "quote bomb".  I suspect it means simply a block quotation, in line with this ES by Protonk: "that doesn't need to be blockquoted. integrate it into the text or show why it is a singularly important quote or viewpoint."  The response is that we don't put unimportant quotes inline and reserve block quotations for the really important ones or for those we want to emphasize.  It is, rather, simply a matter of length.  Long quotations are best presented as indented blocks.  (In legal writing, the standard is that a quotation should be indented if it's more than 50 words or more than two sentences.  Wikipedia doesn't follow such strict numerical guidelines but the basic idea is the same.)  JamesMLane t c 04:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Our job is to summarize and concatenate.  We build the encyclopedia from sourcing.  We shouldn't source things out to quotes.  Where something is especially pithy, it should be quoted, but otherwise, what is the point?  I'm also cool to your interpretation of NPOV.  Our job is not to emulate the 'opinions on the shape of earth differ' journalism practiced in the states.  We present an inferior article to the reader by offering a non-exhaustive list (and it will always be non-exhaustive) of quotes or opinions from various and sundry windbags.  And even if we accept that quoting 'important' things is valuable, what is so singularly important about the quotes which have been removed?  The nation one is provocative, that's for sure, but the Hannity, politfact, and Maddow quotes are pretty run of the mill.  How do we highlight quotes when our criticism section along presents a half dozen or so quotes to the reader, almost a third of the readable text in that section.  And, even if we accept all that, the article is 116kb of text and needs to be shortened significantly.  A great place to do that is where it will impact our editors' work least: blockquotes. Protonk (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a case of "opinions on the shape of earth differ". In general, we don't need to give equal weight to mainstream views and fringe theories, but this article is about a fringe theory.  The controversy is properly covered here in a way that wouldn't be appropriate for the Barack Obama bio.  Nor is "non-exhaustive" a fatal flaw.  You could eliminate all quotations and you'd still find most encyclopedia articles to be non-exhaustive on what they do cover.


 * As to specifics: Maddow links the birthers to other resentments against Obama, which is valuable and should stay. I agree with your shortening of the PolitiFact quotation.  On Paglia, I'm on the fence as to whether the full version of her quotation adds enough to merit inclusion.  The Hannity quotation is longer than needed but instead of dumping it entirely I would keep: "Major Cook and his lawyer expressed joy at this outcome and took it as an admission on the part of the military that the president is not in fact a legitimate citizen by birth" pending inclusion of a better source for the Cook/Taitz spin.  The "News Hounds" quotation could be paraphrased to save space (something like "Hannity was criticized for not reporting that Cook, as a volunteer, could have had his orders revoked by going through a pro forma administrative process," with a citation).


 * I would leave in the full quotation from Bill Posey. The language that someone deleted was "but would not be drawn on whether or not he believed Obama was a citizen of the United States, saying that 'I can't swear on a stack of Bibles whether he is or isn't'".  It's notable that a Congressman went even that far in the direction of the birthers.  He'd probably be willing to be drawn in on whether we landed on the Moon or whether the Earth is round, but accords this fringe theory more deference. JamesMLane t c 17:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To jump around a bit, let's look at this quote from Roy Blunt, "|What I don’t know is why the President can’t produce a birth certificate. I don’t know anybody else that can’t produce one. And I think that’s a legitimate question. No health records, no birth certificate". This quote is the bulk of the content in the Roy Blunt subsection and is preceded only by a discussion of who asked the question and is followed only by a bizzare denial from a spokesperson (bizarre on his part, not on ours for including it).  Nothing is added over simply saying that, when prompted, Roy Blunt asked questions about the president's documentation and a spokesperson later qualified those remarks.  For the Maddow quote, there isn't much said that can't be summarized by an editor.  She, like Hannity, is a newscaster/opinion-person (is there a name for what folks like them do?).  There isn't a particular reason her opinion on the birthers should be salient.  I don't bring the Blunt quote up to ignore the points you make above but instead to offer it up as emblematic of the rest of the quotes on this page and most quote heavy pages.  A good user essay outlines the problems w/ having too many quotes stand in for prose.


 * To respond to the above, the 'opinions on the shape of earth differ' point is still valid (because I said so, right? :P). I'm not saying that the quotes necessarily grant equal weight to fringe ideas and mainstream ideas (which unfortunately my idiom suggested).  What I'm saying is that structurally, the use of quotes engenders a tit-for-tat strategy on pages like this.  We can neutrally word prose continuously while we have to bring quotes in (for the most part) one by one.  It makes balancing the article more difficult because the best way to balance out a Maddow quote (just for example) is to add a Hannity quote.  Now instead of adding 1 quote, we have two, each with it's own tonal distinction from the rest of the article and its own supporting claims/counterclaims. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to see the same problems I have seen on this article. I would have much perfered this dynamic, but I didn´t think that improving the article needed this much talk, and the ones who reverted you and me aren´t even participating. Try changing the article, and someone will revert who has avoided the whole process. That´s why I found myself incapable of assuming good faith. Seems like you have taken an interest in the most egregious problems with the article, and I thank you for it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)