Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama/Archive 2

Aaron Klein March 8, 2009 WorldNetDaily article
Zookeeper29 has repeatedly:


 * 1. 04:27, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Career 1992–1996)


 * 2. 05:06, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Career 1992–1996)


 * 3. 05:18, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (Undid revision 275972218 by Newross (talk))

added an inaccurate, misleading, contentious, unsourced quote:"'He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge.'" from an extremist and fringe source:
 * Aaron Klein (March 8, 2008). [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility. Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned.] WorldNetDaily.com

Neither Aaron Klein nor WorldNetDaily are WP:Reliable sources, especially for a WP:BLP, as exemplified by the inaccuracies in the quote from the above article:
 * Obama did not serve alongside Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago -- their service on its board of directors overlapped for three years from December 1999 to December 2002.
 * Obama served on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002; Ayers never served on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation.
 * Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002 and served as its founding chairman and president from 1995 to 1999 (not 1991); Ayers was one of three co-authors of Chicago's winning Annenberg Challenge grant proposal; Ayers was not "the founder" of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, was never on its board of directors, and was never the director of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (Ken Rolling was its only executive director).

Zookeeper29 then:


 * 4. 05:23, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Career 1992–1996: Added documentation reference)

deceptively added:


 * http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html (Michael Dobbs - February 19, 2008 - Obama's 'Weatherman' connection - Washingtonpost.com)

as the "source" for the inaccurate, misleading and contentious Aaron Klein WorldNetDaily quote they repeatedly added to this article.

Zookeeper29 also:


 * 5. 05:13, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Childhood through high school)

changed the photo caption of Obama's official State of Hawaii certificate of birth from: "Obama's birth certificate" to: "Certificate of Live Birth, which is not a Vault Copy Birth Certificate."

Zookeeper29 also twice:


 * 6. 05:35, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Certificate of Live Birth and Birth Certificate vs. Certification of Live Birth: Corrected Scurrilous comment about those who do not believe in Obama's birth country)


 * 7. 06:09, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (Undid revision 275975659 by 68.190.159.119 (talk) Reapplied correction to fight the PC police)

improperly edited talk page comments of another editor with whom they disagreed. Newross (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor has been warned of Obama article probation. Following the warning they have not as of now made any contentious edits other than some soapboxing, and also creating a user page that casts some concern as to their intentions here.  Anyway, the article talk page is probably not the best place to discuss user behavior.  I would just treat it as any difficult editor on an article probation page - make them aware of article probation, ask and advise them about our policies, and hope they show some willingness to edit constructively and collegially.  If not, there are forums for dealing with user behavior.  Wikidemon (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in the wake of the Aaron Klein March 8, 2009 WorldNetDaily article have not been confined to Zookeeper29's edits.

The Aaron Klein March 8, 2009 WorldNetDaily quote is a 18:27, 24 February 2009 edit by Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs).


 * The Jerusalem21 Wikipedia account was created three years ago.
 * 59 minutes after creating their Jerusalem21 Wikipedia account, Jerusalem21 created the Aaron Klein article.
 * For the next 3 years, Jerusalem21’s only edits were to the Aaron Klein article.
 * Until February 24, 2009, when Jerusalem21 made three disruptive edits within 28 minutes to Barack Obama.
 * 4 minutes after their third disruptive edit to Barack Obama, Jerusalem21 was blocked for 72 hours by an administrator.
 * The administrator said Jerusalem21 should be happy they were not blocked indefinitely based on previous complaints about their editing.

Newross (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 15:38, 16 March 2006  Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (New user (Talk | contribs | block))
 * 2) 16:37, 16 March 2006 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs)  (New page) Aaron Klein
 * 3) 39 edits by Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) to Aaron Klein
 * 4) 18:16, 24 February 2009 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs)  (added birth certificate)
 * 5) 18:27, 24 February 2009 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs)  (added ayers)
 * 6) 18:44, 24 February 2009 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs)  (readded eligibility. this is NOT a POV issue)
 * 7) 18:48, 24 February 2009 Wizardman blocked Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing)
 * 8) 18:49, 24 February 2009 Wizardman (→Blocked: new section)

Did he write a thesis paper?
If so is it public record?

I read a rant by a nut who claimed he didn't go to college and his "proof" was that Obama didn't have a thesis paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.0.253 (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Birth certificate" caption
The caption that says "Birth certificate" should be changed to "Obama's short form birth certificate was printed in 2007." Grundle2600 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

articles to watch
Could volunteers please watchlist The Queen's Medical Center and Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children, as some of this conspiracy theory crap is spilling in. Additionally, the main articles clearly list one hospital as the birthplace, where editors have been trying to place doubt regarding which hospital in these smaller, less watched articles. Your help is appreciated. -Andrew c [talk] 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yuck, going to be one of those days. Thank you, Andrew, for highlighting the additional problems.  I'll help out. Otumba (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will watchlist those too. I recommend checking the contributions of the editors responsible to see if they're hitting any other articles. Sadly it's good evidence that WND's readership are just as nutty as their writers (no surprise though, I suppose). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth location
The article states that Obama was born in Hawaii. However, the cites for this claim are BarackObama.com and a press release from Obama. Are these considered reliable sources? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to avoid first party cites and use independent third party cites. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The copy of Obama's birth certificate IS provided by a third party source--the third party being the Hawaii Department of Health. That it is displayed on Obama's website does not change that.

If you're going to quibble with that transitive argument, then you must understand that the only way to obtain a copy of someone's BC in Hawaii is through direct authorization by the person whose name is on it--barring that person's death, in which case(I believe, but am not 100% sure) the authority falls to his next-of-kin or parent. So the only way you're going to get a true copy of Obama's BC is if Obama presents it to you.

So if you don't agree that the Hawaii DoH, via transitive authority, is providing the BC, then there IS NO WAY of accessing it via an "independent" third party. So we rely on the first party source in the absence of any third party sources. The only alternative is to delegitimize the existence of the BC altogether, which is nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.162.125 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama's own grandmother, brother, and sister all say he was born in Kenya. According to the airlines, his mother was unable to fly out of Kenya because she was so far along and was ofrced to have Obama in Kenya. She then returned to Hawaii after his birth and had a certificate of birth issued. It has been reported that Hawaii did provide certificates of birth in such a manner at that time. It should also be discussed/mentioned that there are numerous legal challenges to his legitimacy as President, petitions with hundreds of thousands of requests for validation of his citizenship, and - after promising to run the most transparent administration ever - Obama refuses to produce any further evidence than the certificate of birth that has been assessed to have been 'phot-shopped'. Instead, Obama has a large legal team that continues to attempt to keep documents requested under the Freedom of Information act sealed and all records regarding his citizenship hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easyt65 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is all fringe theory nonsense, I'm afraid. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Fringe theory nonsense" that President Obama (if he is indeed Constitutionally eligible) could end in all of 5 minutes if he would simply authorize the release of the long form birth certificate. When it is so simple to clear this up, yet he refuses, the theory begins to lend itself less to conspiracy and more towards credibility.
 * If by "Grandmother", you mean Sarah Obama, his stepgrandmother, you do know that the audio tape on which that is based on has her stating repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii, right?  PatGund (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth place inclusion
ENOUGH WITH THE SWEEPING THIS UNDER THE RUG

This topic was "archived" because it became a forum. I took MY own time to clean it up so it can be discussed, and now you are trying to sweep it under the rug. NO, that is not going to happen. Below I have *clearly* and *concisely* (as concise as possible with everything involved here) presented the facts of both sides of this case. These facts have NOT been disproven beyond any reasonable doubt. Until someone shows me where these facts are incorrect, and DISCUSSES it, not just pulling the Stasi Secret Police method of hushing it away somewhere by saying "I'm archiving this"... I've said it multiple times, I AM PLAYING BY WIKIPEDIA'S RULES, and yet you folks seem unwilling to discuss this on the TALK page, per Wikipedia guidelines. You claim it has been discussed and is moot, I have just SHOWN YOU that these facts have NOT been disproven, and that they are legitimate concerns from an average, unbiased person. Calling everyone involved a "conspiracy theorist" or "kook" or whatever else is doing nobody any good. --Barwick (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's review the facts, and talk about this in a civilized manner. I am bringing forth nothing but facts, and raising the question for discussion as to the pertinence of this information.

Note: If you love or hate Barack Obama, I don't care, that's not the point of this, do not come on here and say stuff about "lefties", "conspiracy theorists", "Obama lovers", or "wackos", because we will delete your ranting. Take stuff like that to | Yahoo Answers or something.

FACTS & SUPPORTING INFO
 * Wikipedia needs to rely on information that can be verified to be factual.
 * Wikipedia cannot write an article on every single event in all of humanity, and only can discuss Notable topics or people.
 * Just because 400 people belong to the flat earth society does not mean that every reference to the earth needs to mention it may be flat.

Here are the facts that have been brought forth, are they true?
 * It is in fact possible to obtain a Hawaiian Birth Certificate while being born outside the United States.
 * A Hawaiian Long Form Birth Certificate (LFBC) can be of different types, including:
 * Original Birth Certificate - Only given at a hospital when a baby is born at that hospital.
 * Amended Birth Certificate - Can be amended to show changes such as name, parent's name, sex (in event of a Gender Change), etc.
 * Late Registration Birth Certificate - Given up to one year after birth, in event birth took place outside a hospital. Can be given based on testimony of the parents, who supply the required information.
 * A Short Form Birth Certificate (SFBC) displays most of the information shown on the LFBC.
 * A SFBC does not reveal what type of Long Form Birth Certificate a person has.
 * Therefore, it is impossible to verify what type of Long Form Birth Certificate (LFBC) Barack Obama II has, without seeing the actual LFBC.

As near as I can tell, none of the above facts are in dispute, and they don't prove anything either way.

Here is where the dispute comes in, based on the above facts:
 * A SFBC is insufficient to remove "beyond a reasonable doubt" any charges that Barack Obama II was born outside the United States.
 * An original LFBC (from the hospital Barack Obama II claims to have been born at) would be more than sufficient to prove Birth in the State of Hawaii. Question solved, other than unlikely theories about how space aliens possessed the doctor and made him sign a false Birth Certificate when Barack Obama II was really born on Mars.  We can go ahead and leave the place of Birth listed only as Hawaii.
 * Obtaining and releasing the LFBC, under Barack Obama's "Open Government" policy, would be a simple matter, and would dispel any of these questions immediately.
 * The fact that Barack Obama has not done this raises questions in some people's minds as to "why not just release it if there's nothing to hide?"
 * An amended or late registration Birth Certificate, even if it displayed Hawaii as the place of birth, could leave the question up for debate, due to the following reasons:
 * Amended or Late Registration Birth Certificates can be obtained based on the testimony of the parents.
 * There is in fact motive for Barack Obama II's parents to falsify the place of birth.
 * Barack Obama II's mother had lived in the United States as a citizen, but was a few months short of the required time that would have make Barack Obama II automatically a US Citizen regardless of his place of birth.
 * If Barack Obama II was born in the United States, he would automatically be a citizen.
 * An amended or late registration Birth Certificate could have been obtained by Barack Obama's parents within one year of his birth, and applying for a Late Registration Birth Certificate. What hospital this would show (if any) is unknown.

As evidence that this is a notable event, roughly 400,000 people have requested to see the complete (implying Long Form) Birth Certificate (see the petition hosted at, yes, the supposedly unreliable World Net Daily)[ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550 ] - Wikipedia:Reliable Sources says "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Whether you think WND is unreliable or not, it is highly unlikely that they generated 400,000 signatures on their own (and detractors would be the ones speculating in this case, and bear the burden of proof).

Done, now let's discuss this in a civilized manner. --Barwick (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to discuss. This has been hashed, rehashed, and rerehashed. Consensus has long been established against the birther conspiracies being included here. Unitanode  16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so Wikipedia is all about telling the truth by researching facts. I spend an hour and a half concisely writing them so we can discuss them, and you come back with "this has been hashed, rehashed, blah, blah..." and go on about Consensus.  I just showed via FACTS how this truly is a Notable event to mention, how it is wholly a legitimate concern via FACTS, and how it could be simply resolved via FACTS.  Why don't we discuss these FACTS instead of saying "eeeeeverybody knows that ______" because the Consensus that you say is there obviously has a large amount of people who disagree with that supposed Consensus.  Maybe that Consensus isn't there? --Barwick (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, none of those "facts" are backed up by any reliable source. Where is the direct reliable source explicitly saying exactly what your saying.  The majority of the argument above involves original research and synthesis.  We are not here to argue "facts."  We can only report what reliable sources report.  If you feel that WND is a reliable source, then please take that up with WP:RS/N.  A simple example of a reliable source would be a widely read print news paper or news organization.  Further examples/explanations, please read the RS policy.  Brothejr (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I move to speedily close this section before it gets out of hand again. Brothejr (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on my way to a few meetings right now, but I'll supply the sources when I return. Suffice to say, the majority of them are from the State of Hawaii's own website. --Barwick (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * DJ CLayworth: I'm sorry, but I've tried discussing this with you on your talk page, I've played by Wikipedia's rules, and you guys continue to ignore them yourself. I bring up a topic on the talk page for inclusion, and when it gets to the point where you can't just dismiss me, you say "oh this is irrelevant, we've talked about this issue already, 99% of people think the issue is dead".
 * To which I reply "Oh really? It seems 400,000 people (out of probably less than a few million who've seen it) have actually signed the petition requesting the full Original (Long Form) Birth Certificate, seems like less than 99% of the people think it's a dead issue.  And also, I asked you to please reference where someone has disproven what I wrote above", to which you say "you look it up".
 * I'm sorry, but YOU are the one making the accusation, it is up to YOU to prove your case, not me.


 * Finally, everyone, is what I wrote above fact or not? If you say not, show me where I went wrong.  I'll (hopefully) have more time tomorrow to add all the appropriate links for references from the State of Hawaii, etc. --Barwick (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * COLB is a valid legal document, and there's no competent evidence challenging it. It is impossible (without resorting to fraud) to be born outside of Hawaii and obtain a COLB listing the place of birth as Honolulu.  That you (or others) want to see the vault certificate does not create any factual doubt as to where Obama was born.  Thay you (or others) can't fathom why Obama ignores this issue doesn't mean he's hiding anything.    Weazie (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for discussing this, it's good when two (or twenty) heads come together, gently at least.
 * Nobody is disputing that the COLB is a valid legal document, but the fact remains that the COLB does not show the entire picture. As I have mentioned above:
 * A SFBC does not reveal what type of LFBC exists
 * The type of LFBC would resolve the issue in one of the two following ways:
 * If it is an "Original LFBC", as it must be for him to have been born at the hospital he claims to have been born at, he is most definitely telling the truth.
 * If it is ANYTHING other than an "Original LFBC", then he could not have been born in a *hospital* in Hawaii. We all know what that means.
 * It is as simple as that, those two things. THAT is why it matters, because the SFBC would be the same in either situation listed above. --Barwick (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The COLB, under Hawaiian law, derives its information from the long form. So if the COLB says Obama was born in Honolulu, the long form will also say Obama was born in Honolulu, regardless of whether Obama was born in a hospital (and most U.S. presidents were not born in hospitals, BTW).  What are you implying is that document fraud occurred, but there are no facts to support that conclusion.  You can speculate all you want about the possibility of fraud occurring, but such conjecture does not belong in an article.   Weazie (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Where other presidents were born is irrelevant. I'm not disputing that the LFBC will say "Born in Honolulu", please re-read what I am saying, if it is anything other than an Original LFBC, then by definition, he could NOT have been born in a hospital as he claimed, and he *lied* about his place of birth, period.  That is what is in contention.  So if he comes back with an amended or late registration LFBC, he was NOT born in a Hospital, which means he lied.  And right now, the SFBC is a "one-to-many equation", one input (the SFBC) leaves multiple outputs (the LFBC). --Barwick (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your "contention" is pure speculation, and not a fact. That's why it isn't in this article.   Weazie (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally, finally, from the FAQ, how is the location of his birth NOT relevant to his early life? I swear, we play by Wikipedia rules and you guys just find some back woods way to do whatever you decided to do long ago ANYHOW.  *sigh* --Barwick (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear about this. Wikipedia is not here to debate the truth of Barack Obama's birth location. The fact that you don't consider the case proved is irrelevant. For the overwhelming majority of people the cases is closed and that is what Wikipedia reports. Your posting was a clear attempt to reopen the debate about Obama's birth, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. That and anything else not related to improving the article will be removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If the article leaves out a key piece of information, and we provide that information, by definition we have improved on the article. Ignoring it doesn't make the article better. --Barwick (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. Consensus on Wikipedia is that this piece of 'information' should be omitted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable sources for any change you are advocating? Nothing should go into any article on wikipedia without reliable sourcing. WND is not a reliable source per WP:RS. It would be helpful if you would provide a SHORT description a single change you want made to the article, with the reliable sources to back up that change. Make sure you read WP:UNDUE for some guidance on how we usually treat this type of issue. Further presentation of unsourced conspiracy theories like "there is motive for the parents to falsify the place of birth" will be reverted as BLP violations.  --guyzero | talk 19:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To Back what Guyzero is saying, those sources must say exactly what you are claiming, there can be zero synthesis or original research. Also, if you are claiming that the Hawaii law allows something, you must point to the exact law, section, and line that says exactly what you mean, plus a reliable mainstream news article that is not an editorial or blog that says exactly what you are saying, to back that law interpretation. I'm striking this through this as I agree with DJ Clayworth's points down below this comment. Brothejr (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No,no,no.


 * 1) Laws themselves are primary sources, and so not allowable as references.
 * 2) The fact (if fact it be) that Hawaii does this is not relevant to the life of Barack Obama. It's like saying "many black people have been born in Kenya, clearly that indicates that Obama might have been".
 * 3) This discussion is closed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure. Wikipedia does not decide what is the truth, Wikipedia reports what reliable sources report, and that policy is one of the few policies Wikipedia has that is non-negotiable or not open to compromise. Otumba (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WND attack article.
It seems that WND's article over the additions of WP:OR over the birth certificate controversy has caused a variety of accounts to come out of the wood work to add the material to the article. Should we do something to protect this article until this blows over? I ask this after the last time WND did a specific article on the Barack Obama article and various editors rushed in to try and add a controversy/criticism section.Brothejr (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It might not be a bad idea.  WND has a history of creating "news" by changing Wikipedia entries and then writing about them.   The fact that WND jumped on it this quickly seems to suggest their involvement. PatGund (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WND had nothing to do with this. I started the edit because I enjoy spreading the truth about Obama and then sent WND an email informing them about the article. Keep up the suppression of truth you left-wing ObamaManiac Wiki-geeks, I'm sure Obama will eventually thank you for your efforts by inviting you to the white house or something cool like that. There will be no confirmation of his eligibility until the birth certificate has been seen by the public. There is no way getting around it. A computer generated certification of live birth with no specific and verifiable details such as the doctor's name and hospital's name will NEVER be sufficient. BenSpecter (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This garbage of yours was debunked at least 6 months ago. You guys are so far behind the curve, you can't even see the curve. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That isn't "garbage," carrots. It's the truth. Until Obama's genuine, original, long-form Hawaiian Birth Certificate is available for public inspection, it will be a reasonable speculation that Obama was born in Kenya, and that speculation will remain at least as good (and perhaps better) than the other speculation that he was born in Honolulu. On your side, there's that dubious Certification of Live Birth, which, even if it is genuine, doesn't carry the evidential weight that Obama-supporters say it does. You're aren't going to convince anyone through repetition. Repetition is useless. That is, it won't work. Get it? A COLB is merely prima facie evidence, which actually isn't evidence at all, but merely an assumption made by courts UNTIL any other sort of evidence comes to light. Credible testimony is one form of such evidence, and credible testimony that Obama was born in Kenya has come independently from several of Obama's African relatives and from one of Kenya's official diplomats.


 * You Obama-supporters wouldn't know what to do if you were somehow prevented from using pejorative terms: "conspiracy theorists" and "fringe thinkers" -- heh. Your side has quite the penchant for using labels as a form of argument. But it's Obama's doubters who are most likely correct. No sane person would depend on tattered and failing propaganda cover when a revelation of the facts, were they in his favor, would put an end to the necessity of depending on tattered and failing propaganda cover. Obama's doubters aren't going away. This issue will remain active until the truth is brought out. Until then, it remains a reasonable suspicion that Obama is an illegal alien currently in adverse possession of the office of US president, that he isn't a legal president, but is, rather, a criminal pretending to be a president. Jenab6 (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose you think Michelle Malkin is an Obama supporter, too. Referring to Obama as an "illegal alien" only further proves that we are accurate in describing you as conspiracy theorists and fringe thinkers.  Even if Obama was born in Kenya he would be at the very least a naturalized citizen.  You give a bad name to conservatives who want to be taken seriously, just like the 9/11 truthers did for liberals.Euphgeek (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Baseball Bugs. You see Bugs, I can repeat what you just said verbatim and it would have exactly the same effect on you as it had on me - which is nothing. You gotta at least state something that means something. Watch this Bugs... This garbage of yours was debunked at least six months ago. You guys are so far behind the curve, you can't even see the curve. See that? Completely meaningless. Empty statements like that mean nothing. Now to make a meaningful response to your meaningless statement, Bugs, I'll say this: You cannot debunk the fact that he has never released his original birth certificate which is the ONLY document that can confirm his eligibility. You cannot debunk that because it is what it is, as El Rushbo says. A computer generated print-out (COLB) is a confirmation that a birth certificate exists, and so far that's all we've seen, but it is not the original birth certificate and without that we will never know if he is constitutionally eligible. BenSpecter (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/01/obamas-birth-certificate-final-chapter-time-we-mea/

Yawn. Weazie (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of talk
Please be aware that I will be removing comments that are not focussed on improving the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we all agree on something here - EVEN IF HE WAS born somewhere other than Hawaii, it changes NOTHING about the "Early life and career of Barack Obama" (ie, the subject of the article) and as such, any discussion should simply be removed immediately and the poster referred to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories? I think that would cut down on a lot of the traffic. --B (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why you won't find a "reliable source" asking for the LFBC
Lou Dobbs, though he believes President Obama is a US Citizen, has asked for him to release his complete Long Form Birth Certificate[ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104956 ]. For doing so, he's been attacked from multiple sources, including the LA Times, has been called a "racist", etc. Why? He's a journalist reporting on something legitimate, but he's attacked. This is exactly why no "mainstream" "reliable source" will continue to run stories asking for the LFBC.

This is exactly why Wikipedia needs to allow independent sources on matters like this when their facts can be verified, as has been pointed out on here numerous times. Unless Wikipedia is afraid of being attacked by other media sources. --Barwick (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Worldnetdaily's caterwauling about poor Lou Dobbs has nothing to do with the "Early life and career of Barack Obama". Fringe sources have no place in this project, and your continued insistence on such is only going to lead to sore disappointment. Tarc (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous, seriously. First people claim "there's no reliable sources", then I bring up Lou Dobbs who's reporting on this, and they say "that has nothing to do with it!!!"  Folks, wake up, you claim to be the bastions of tolerance, quit calling people names like "conspiracy theorists" or "fringe sources".  If we were using some backwards reasoning to make our case, then there might be some merit, but come now, this is pretty straightforward... --Barwick (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * These ARE conspiracy theories, and they ARE fringe. This is very straightforward.  These ideas are far from what's commonly accepted and believed - that's fringe.  They are suggesting, if not out-right alledging, that multiple people are involved in what's happening - that's conspiracy.  And since these are just guesses, they are theories.  Or more simply, fringe conspiracy theories.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And there we go... They ARE conspiracy theorists because I say so. You are making the assertion, burden of proof is on you.  Now, using WP:RS, prove it. I'll watch for your proof. --Barwick (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, no, they "ARE conspiracy theorists" because that is how most reliable sources describe them, much the same way as they describe 9/11 truthers or faked moon landing proponents. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Barwick, please look through the source in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. Many, many of those sources describe these as "fringe" and "conspiracy theories".  I'm starting to get a sense of WP:IDHT here ... Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lou Dobbs "reporting" on these "hard questions" is not evidence of birth elsewhere than as stated in the article. Weazie (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, of course it's not, but it's evidence that not everyone agrees that it's a closed matter, and that's what Wikipedia "reports on". Even you have to admit that. --Barwick (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Literally "everyone" ? No, you're never going to find complete unanimity on any issue.  But the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do not give this fringe issue coverage.  The Wikipedia does not give equal footing to minority POVs, as you have been told several times over now. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lou Dobbs' comments are evidence of a dispute, not evidence of birth other than as stated in this article. When Dobbs holds up a Kenyan birth certificate on CNN, let's talk.  References to Dobbs' beliefs are more appropriate for the conspiracy theory page.  Weazie (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bingo - hence the existance of said conspiracy theory page. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

World Net Daily is not a reliable source and is never used as such. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's some fun stuff from the conspiracy theory article's talk page. talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories  Which is, you know, where this stuff belongs. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging with Barack Obama in Hawaii, please do not remove information
An AFD is in progress for the Barack Obama in Hawaii article. That article covers specific notable Honolulu locations and buildings related to Obama. The AFD seems to be leading to a merger and redirect to here.

Please honor this forming decision and do not delete the information merged to this article. It is improper to call for a merge and then remove the merged information. Doing that would be a delete, which is not what seems to be the result of the AFD.

I have done the merge because it is a complex process of intertwining information that most people will not be willing to do. User F203 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Material about "hospital not confirming" removed. First, see the archived discussion below and the FAQ at the top.  Second, see WP:UNDUE - no hospital is allowed to confirm the birth of anyone per HIPAA.  Statement as written strongly implies something wrong.  As my comment said, that belongs in the article for it.  Consensus here is squarely against inclusion of such theories.


 * I'll hold comment on the rest of the material - it seems a bit chatty and too much minutia, but that's just me. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Too chatty? Then have the separate Barack Obama in Hawaii article! User F203 (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at this link. Unitanode  18:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, believe me, it isn't just you. I've taken a few quick passes at it and snipped some of the more tabloid-ish material (ice cream eating, girlfriend rumors, and similar silliness).  More editing is sorely needed. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of the new Camelot image is his ice cream eating in Hawaii (shave ice, I think they call it). Maybe the merge was incorrect and it should have been merged with Honolulu as I suggested? User F203 (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A possible solution is to off-load some of the information to Makiki, Obama's old neighborhood. Massive off-loading, however, is prohibited as the AFD discussion was clearly a merge. Suggestions to merge with Honolulu were soundly defeated.User F203 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You should probably take portions of it and put it in the places where it fits best. The old neighborhood article is probably a good starting point. Unitanode  20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection proposed
Editors may wish to be aware that the Arbitration Committee is proposing that all Obama-related articles be indefinitely semi-protected (see Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Proposed decision). In view of the repeated POV-pushing that is occuring on this article from new users and IPs, I propose that it should be semi-protected for a period of at least one month - i.e. until the current Obama arbitration case has been closed - and then, if the proposal passes, it can be lengthened to an indefinite semi-protection. It will at least prevent the kind of disruption that we've seen today. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Spurious articles such as [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103810 this one] nearly ensure that semi-protection will be necessary.   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 09:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And the WND is not a RS??? Bachcell (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * worldnetdaily is about as unreliable of a source, per Wikipedia standards, as one can get. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of muslim heritage?
Obama's father was a muslim. Obama's grandfather was muslim. Obama's stepfather was muslim, and he took Barack to mosque with him. Why the total scrubbing of "muslim" from this article even if Barack claim, he himself was never a practicing Muslim?? The "why no muslim" treatment does not explain why Obama's muslim heritage in itself mut be completely scrubbed from the WP. Bachcell (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except this article is not about recording all details of Obama's family, but about Obama himself. If the religion of his father or step-father was notable to Obama (beyond the conspiracy theory secret muslim nuts), we'd cover it in more detail, but religion was not important to both fathers, so why spend valuable space in a high profile article covering it? After a single WP:BRD revert against semi-controversial content you added without reliable sourcing, I'm sad that the next step is to come here and complain of whitewashing and scrubbing. The relation of Islam to Obama (or his family members) are mentioned in all of the appropriate places. Edits such as this one, while perhaps factual, are totally WP:UNDUE as it is at best minor trivia. Please propose your edits, get consensus for them, and then make them --guyzero | talk 23:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right, guyzero. It might be reasonable to record that Obama attended mosque with his stepfather, if it were the case. However you would need a reliable source for it; several in fact, since we already have a source saying that his stepfather was "not very religious" and only went to the mosque for big community events. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The article appears as if it has been scrubbed of the word "muslim". Even these contributions leave out this word that must not be spoken, but were still reverted as "undue trivia" which require consensus or subject to immediate deletion. Even articles which purport to debunk the notion that Obama had any association with Islam record that he was registered as a muslim, his stepfather was a Muslim in a largely Muslim nation The article for Lolo Soetoro asserts he was a non-practicing Muslim, even though he sometimes took Barry with him to pray in the Mosque. If his sister says he was "not very religious" and friends said he wasn't pious, does that mean he was non-practicing?

Barack Obama has already been elected president, so this issue is more a matter of accurately guaging his claim "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim", practicing or otherwise, so it is not simply a matter of "trivia" whether or not his grand/step/parents were Muslim, enrolled him as a Muslim, or took him to Mosque to pray. The way the articles are now appear to accept there is a universal consensus that Obama's official statement is correct, well as not documenting any of the controversy, even though WP is supposed to be neutral on controversial topics and there is not as of yet any universal agreement of whether claims he was Muslim, or of Muslim heritage are correct, any more than WP can state as a matter of fact whether or not the world was created in 7 days, or creationists are in error.

The world "muslim" is completely absent from this and many related articles despite the brouhahah over assertions over this background. The fact that his father, grandfather, stepfather were Muslim, he was identified by his parents as Muslim in school registration and lived in largely Muslim nation were completely absent from this article, even if Obama himself was never a practicing Muslim. Is this "trivia", or something very significant that's been deliberately edited out of the story to follow a point of view? It treats Snopes, which appears to side with Obama as the ultimate reliable source, but any magazines or newspapers with a conservative bent is dismissed as not a RS even though the New York Times and CBS run completely false stories all the time but are "reliable". Bachcell (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

During his time in Indonesia, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, from ages 6 to 10, where classes were taught in the Indonesian language. He first attended St. Francis Assisi Catholic school for almost three years, where he was registered as the same religion of his stepfather.

Obama's 3rd grade teacher recalled that his stepfather rarely took Barack with him when he went to the mosque to pray, while his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng remembered her father as "not religious", and "never went to prayer services except for big communal events".


 * Your statement of our need to "accurately guaging(sic) his claim "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim", practicing or otherwise" sounds like WP:SOAPBOX which is absolutely the wrong way to approach WP:BLP articles. Yes, what his parents put on a school form when he was in the 3rd grade is trivia. The "TRUTH must get out there or you are all censors" agenda does not fly on Wikipedia. There is no debate on this "secret Muslim" issue outside of WP:FRINGE sources. We document that the controversy occurred in the Public Image and/or Campaign articles, but trying insinuate that there is a rational debate about this ongoing is not supported by reliable sources. thanks,  --guyzero | talk 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this a fringe source? Barker, Kim (March 25, 2007). "Obama Madrassa Myth Debunked". Chicago Tribune http://www.dc50tv.com/chi-070325obama-islam-story-archive,0,4165671.story


 * When he was at a public school for a year, he learned about Islam.


 * At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Because Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said.


 * In their first neighborhood, Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said."Sometimes Lolo went to the mosque to pray, but he rarely socialized with people," said Fermina Katarina Sinaga, Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family. "Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo."


 * Which of the facts do you dispute? Whether or not they contribute to a "myth", are they or are they not a) true and b) relevant. It is a fact that Obama was registered by his parents in both catholic and public schools as a muslim. It is a fact that both his teacher and his neighbors saw Obama accompany his father when he went to the mosque to pray. It is also a fact that Obama issued a statement that he has always been a christian and has never practiced any other faith. If these are facts, then they cannot be a fringe theory, regardless of whether they give credence to a fringe theory. The fringe theory is only that Obama is not a muslim, not whether by any definition he has never been a muslim, since it is pretty clear that at least his parents thought he was a muslim, his father gave him a muslim name, his mother married two muslim men in a row, his stepfather took him to the mosque with him for prayer, though evidently we don't have proof he actually prayed with his father. Obama has also stated that his stepfather was a non-practicing muslim, even though his stepfather went to pray in the mosque. Is it even possible that Obama's statements could be incorrect or at least only a partial truth or distortion? How could any fact that could be a direct contradiction of a public statement be "trivia"? Trivia is whether a TV show mentions Barack Obama, or whether a certain car was driven by him, not whether his parents told the school that he was a muslim when he has stated that he has never been a muslim under any definition or understanding of the term, or whether his father was practicing Islam by praying at the mosque when he told http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/726619,obamafalsani040504.article

his stepfather was a non-practicing muslim.

Given the amount of speculation and controversy over the muslim issue, why is it and how can it be made a "consensus" that no mention of speculation of his being a muslim, and no mention of even his heritage can be made? It's pretty obvious that Obama is America's first president of muslim heritage, whatever he may have personally practiced, Islam was practiced by his grandfather, father and stepfather (who told the school that he was muslim, but then his stepfather is not a RS???) No one here has or can dispute his school registration or that he walked to the mosque with his father. You can only dispute whether it is appropriate to mention that fact anywhere in the wikipedia. Could you possibly suggest someplace more appropriate where it could be placed? Bachcell (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't create a new section each time you post within the same topic.
 * "The fringe theory is only that Obama is not a muslim.." is your POV and is not shared by non-fringe reliable sources, so we won't be pushing these theories into this article per WP:BLP WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. That he "rarely" followed his stepdad to mosque and that his stepdad signed muslim on a 3rd grade form are trivia -- they are factoids that just do not matter, so including them would violate those policies listed above and do the reader a disservice.
 * It is true that conspiracy theories have circulated, which are thoroughly documented here: Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008 which is an appropriate location as it was during the primaries that these theories circulated. There is no ongoing controversy over this issue outside of weird fringy sources. --guyzero | talk 05:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace
The Obama birth dispute needs to stop. We need to state the facts and let the reader decide if he was born in Hawaii or somwhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawesome98 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. The "birth dispute" is extensively documented at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎. --guyzero | talk 16:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. The birther questions are considered fringe views by the vast majority of reliable sources.  The continuing saga of cases that are dismissed with harsher and harsher language demonstrates this as well.  As such, in this article, we cover the consensus view, which is that Obama is born in Hawaii and is a NBC of the United States.  The other article covers the various other theories.  Ravensfire (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that in the light of Jawesome98's repeated violations of article probation over a sustained period of time, I have proposed that he be banned from editing Obama-related articles under the terms of the existing article probation. See WP:AN/I for the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

School registration in Indonesia
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/ny-obama-making-2,0,6697655.story


 * Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia, despite being listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school, Strada Asisia, where he attended 1st through 3rd grades. At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Because Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said.


 * "Sometimes Lolo went to the mosque to pray, but he rarely socialized with people," said Fermina Katarina Sinaga, Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family. "Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo."

Is this not an established fact? 01:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Bachcell (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you bringing to the table that was not discussed the last time ? Tarc (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Obvious - just rehash the same arguement over and over, and hope that they'll eventually wear people down. Ravensfire (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The original source was to a Chicago Times article that was no longer active. This link can easily be confirmed. So what _is_ the objection to inclusion of this rather important fact? Bachcell (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The same that were mentioned in the section above --guyzero | talk 17:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Marquis Who's Who as a source
is used as a source several times in the article, the cite tag says that it was retrieved June 6, 2008. It appears that one must be a paying subscriber ($700?) to be able to look up entries in this collection of biographies which presents a challenge to the reader to verify the sourced text. Fortunately, in many cases this source is used alongside another source, so hopefully we can find new RS's for the other uses and phase out the use of this one. cheers, --guyzero | talk 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama Spent Part of Third Grade in Hawaii, not only in Jakarta
This article inaccurately states that "Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, from ages 6 to 10." However, it has been confirmed by the President, and with photographic evidence, that Obama spent at least part of third grade back at Noelani Elementary School. In December 2009, the Honolulu Star Bulletin published a story with a picture of Obama with former third grade Noelani classmate Scott Inoue, who confirmed that Obama was there for at least part of 1969. The article also notes that Obama signed the photograph and sent Inoue a thank you note:

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20091228_third_grade_photo_captures_obamas_grin.html

After I added this information, the article was vandalized by Newross, who called this reference to a reliable source "a uncorroborated claim based solely on a 40-yr-old recollection." As noted, the claim was confirmed by the President who signed the photograph. Furthermore, it is not the job of Wikipedia to judge the credibility of information contained in reliable sources. In this regard, it should be noted that the information regarding Obama's earlier schooling at Noelani relies on even older recollections. And beyond this, the claim that Obama was born at Kapiolani has no source at all -- although newspaper article identify the hospital, none of them attributes the identification to anybody's recollection at all. It is not attributed to Obama, to hospital personnel or confirmed by any photograph or document. According, the information regarding Obama's attendance of third grade in Noelani should be restored, and the reference to Kapiolani should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mixing fringe Birther claims that there's no proof he was born in Kapiolani along with this assertion of where he spent part of 3rd grade is not making a very compelling case. Don't resort to "if I can't get this into the article, then that must be removed" arguments. Tarc (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mixing fringe Birther claims that there's no proof he was born in Kapiolani along with this assertion of where he spent part of 3rd grade is not making a very compelling case.

The compelling case is made by the relative proofs for (1) the claim that Obama was born in Kapiolani and (2) the claim that Obama spent part of third grade at Noelani. With respect to the Kapiolani claim, you haven't (and can't) provide a single reliable source which provides substantiation or even attribution for it. With respect to the Noelani claim, there's a signed photograph from the President, a letter and an eyewitness who was there at the time and appears in the picture.

Mentioning "fringe Birther claims" isn't an argument which addresses the points I've made. My argument isn't that "this or that must be removed", but that a consistent standard must be applied to determine which facts are included in this article. Please don't clutter up the discussion page with irrelevant arguments about motives. Stick to the proof. I'll make it easy for you:

Do you dispute that the claim that Obama spent part of the third grade is contained in a reliable source (the Honolulu Star Bulletin), substantiated by an eyewitness who was there(Scott Inoue), corroborated by a photograph (picturing Inoue and Obama) which was signed by the President? Yes or no answer only.

Do you dispute that the claim that Obama was born in Kapiolani, although asserted by the Washington Post, isn't attributed to any eyewitness or other human being, and isn't corroborated by any documentary evidence. Yes or no answer only.

Failure to reply with result in the deletion of the Kapiolani claim and addition of the third grade Noelani claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ...And failure to develop WP:CONSENSUS for controversial edits - especially in high-profile articles - will result in limits on your ability to edit on Wikipedia. Frank  |  talk  08:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

location of birth - not convinced
Some people may have asked this already but why is Obama said to be born in Hawaii when we have no proof? I examined the sources provided such as 1 and found no proof, the statement from Fukino is vague and does not mean anything and the factcheck site is just some external site that does not proof anything either. Wiki should have higher standards. Also I heard the rumor that he conceils a lot of documents where the birth place is usually listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.109.189 (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably for pretty much the same reason we say Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut when we have no proof. Because that's the consensus published as fact in reliable sources, as opposed to whatever rumors you may have heard. It being a free country, you are, of course, not required to be convinced. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a good response, your reasoning is actually self contradictory, Bush looks like he's from here as much as Obama looks like he's from Africa. And I have a feeling Bush would show the document and not spend a fortune to hide it. Reliable sources? Please just list ONE such source, I need a link to a photo of the long form BC, any words will not do unless signed by reliable notary who is not an Obama fan. Finally being a free country has nothing to do with delivering true information. Anyone else than FatAmpHappyTalk can respond too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.109.189 (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

CNN has posted the birth certificate here, but it may make sense for us to include a statement about this conspiracy theory and reference the CNN poll suggesting that a quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S.  Morphh   (talk) 21:09, 06 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just read the FAQ - this makes sense, but we should link that article in some minimal way - not ignore it. False as it may be, there is this nonsense about his birth so we should link to the conspiracy on it.  Morphh   (talk) 21:18, 06 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting the birth certificate, Morph. I'm not convinced that we should link to the CNN article. Whatever they might do to generate "news" (i.e., conduct a poll) has little to do with Wikipedia's article on Obama. We are, after all, not a news medium. He was born in Honolulu, we've cited reliable sources that say so. Someone raised a query, you have answered it more than satisfactorily, IMO. Case closed. Sunray (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When I said "link to the article" in the second bit I was talking about wikilinking in some way Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. The topic is notable, or else it wouldn't have an article.  His citizenship is directly relevant to his early childhood.  Thus, this article (perhaps with just a few words) should link to that article on the particular point of his birth.  Again, I think it's a bunch of bs conspiracy theory, but reliable sources report the bs conspiracy theory, thus we should include a mention of it and link to the article on it.  I'm not going to make a fuss over it (not a big deal), just leaving my opinion an moving on.  Morphh   (talk) 3:13, 07 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this article deals with factual material about his childhood, not completely wacko conspiracy theories that arose forty years later. It would be completely off-topic and undue WP:WEIGHT to even link to it from here.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I should point out that it really didn't matter to anyone forty years ago. It only became an issue when he ran for President of the United States, for which there is a Constitutional Requirement for natural born citizenship.
 * Instead of whitewashing the issue, I think Wikipedia should tackle it head on in a matter-of-fact manner. This sort of scrubbing only reinforces the common belief that Wikipedia is run by lefties, and that only pro-ruling class propaganda is allowed.  Must I remind everyone that "Controversy" sections are quite common in Wikipedia articles.  This is a very high profile and commonly known controversy, and to pretend it doesn't exist is just plain silly.
 * As for myself, I think that the undisputed fact that his mother was a U.S. Citizen settles the whole matter. Regardless of WHERE he was born, he was born to a U.S. Citizen making him a U.S. Citizen BY BIRTH (ergo "Natural Born Citizen"). DrHenley (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)