Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-15/Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama

Requesting closure of this case
This account, and a couple of others, have been reopen discussions that have long since reached consensus. I view this Mediation case as little more than an attempt to end-run the consensus that has been reached. As such, I request a speedy closure of this case, or simply removal of my name from it. I have no interest in hashing and rehashing the same issues. Unitanode 21:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Won't close -- we owe it to the requester to explain our reasoning from MedCab's perspective. But I'll remove you from the list of named parties. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode's reply is exactly what I am talking about. "long since reached consensus". That's all these people do, they say "we've reached consensus" and that's supposed to mean that the issue is closed. You see, I could come here and say "we've reached consensus on the fact that the moon is made of green cheese", but that doesn't mean we've reached consensus.

As near as I can tell, it's not the medcab's job to explain what these folks are claiming. I know what they're claiming, I'm trying to explain to a third party (that is supposed to remain neutral, despite "admins" or "editors" being involved on one side or the other) that they are incorrect in their claims that "there's consensus". I've presented facts to show this, and *nobody* on the other side of this case has shown where these facts are wrong. Period. --Barwick (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is, as Xavexgoem has pointed out, those "facts" of yours needs verified reliable sources to back up each and every one and that there cannot be any synthesis to back up those "facts." The issue is that Wikipedia is not here to prove or disprove anything.  It can and does only report exactly what the sources say.  If you feel that those "facts" are true and relevant, then you will need sources for each and everyone saying exactly what you are saying with no original research or or synthesis of facts.  If you can find very reliable sources that say exactly these "facts" then we can discuss it.  However, as of right now no RS has published any of these "facts" as facts.  Finally, it is up to you to provide the sources and do the leg work.  Brothejr (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, might I point out, reliable sources are not primary sources. A primary source is a state web page/law.  A reliable source is like a news paper article or some type of article that has gone through an editorial process before it was published. Also note: blogs, editorials, or opinion pieces are not considered reliable sources other for the author's opinion on the subject.  Brothejr (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, putting "facts" in scare quotes ain't exactly helpin' your cause with folks ;-)
 * Don't worry about preempting any concerns, though. All issues can be dealt with one step at a time, and it's hard to present everything (reliability, primary/secondary, synthesis etc.,etc.) in a few paragraphs, particularly before they come up here. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I and others are trying to assume good faith, however there is absolutely nothing new here that has not be rehashed hundreds of times before (You can look at the archives Talk:Barack Obama, Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎, and Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama and see the same arguments and facts brought up over and over again. Heck, the reason this flared up again and the main reason this editor is pushing this is World News Daily, who ran an set of articles to pressure Wikipedia to change it's Obama articles to reflect this conspiracy. Simply put this is not a new argument and if there was something to these facts then it would have made major headlines by now.  The most these folks can do is to point to the laws/regulation and give their interpretation.  While humoring them and assuming good faith is paramount, this has been wearing thin and sadly this will case end up the exact same way as the other times.  Finally to get any of us, including the ones named in this mediation, to discuss this any further would take some major revelation that has been aired by some very respectable reliable source (I.E. NY Times, Washington Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc) and has made headlines across the U.S.  Nothing less will get us to discuss this any further.  Brothejr (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lack of AGF is understandable in any of these situations. I'm not chiding you, but I want to remind you that there are really only two possibilities in this case (and most cases, besides):
 * An editor is deliberately misinterpreting policy for malicious ends (bad faith)
 * An editor is not understanding of policy - IAR above all, I'd argue - which can appear malicious (lack of clue)
 * During any mediation, a mediator will always go with the latter option; we're trained (or are training) to teach others how things work here. That includes tests as to whether the first option may be true (which leads to exhaustion, and the case can be taken to RfC/U or ArbCom). Make no mistake, though: mediation is not about compromising policy in any way. I have a very thin area to work in (within NPOV, V, and NOR), which is as it should be. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC) This was all kind of an aside, I'm just saying there's not much need to worry.

If anything, what has lately appeared in reliable sources are squashing Barwick's point-of-view even further, i.e. Hawaii again declares Obama birth certificate real. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We've all seen the vital records, that's what a short form birth certificate is. Did she say what type of LFBC exists?  No.  I'm not claiming the LFBC won't say "Hawaii", if the SFBC wasn't a forgery (which I don't think it was), then the LFBC HAS to say Hawaii.  What is in question is what type of LFBC it is, which will have verifiable evidence beyond "a politician in Hawaii said".  That's hearsay.  If politicians all of a sudden started saying the moon was made of Bleu cheese instead of Green Cheese, and everybody reported on it saying it's true, but the average person said "you all are  bunch of idiots", would that mean the moon is made of Bleu Cheese?  No, because other existing verifiable evidence says otherwise. --Barwick (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no longer any such thing as a "long form" in Hawaii, as the conspiracy article notes. When records are requested, the "short form" is what is used.  What you sees is what you gets. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a different discussion. If you want to talk about this as a forum, I'm fine with that... just to air things out. I don't recommend it though.
 * Barwick, it is clear that you are implying that the LFBC wouldn't say Hawaii if it exists. This is an insistence upon the truth, and in an article where the subject is ancillary. This thread belies this... which is fine, but I need to know what it is you want placed in the article before we can proceed. Right now the discussion has been on what the truth of the matter is, and not how the article should be constructed. I think that's probably a better place to start than with the sources. It just occurred to me we're kind of approaching this from an off-wiki perspective. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All's I want is for the article to change the current sentence "Barack Obama, the current President of the United States, was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, in the state of Hawaii[1] to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr." to simply add the words "or Mombasa, Kenya" after the phrase "in the state of Hawaii". So the new sentence would read "Barack Obama, the current President of the United States, was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, in the state of Hawaii[1], or Mombasa, Kenya, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr." --Barwick (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I am happy to finally see a concrete statement as to what you want, but since that is a WP:FRINGE point of view, unsupported by reliable sources, that will not be happening. This is a pretty black and white situation. Tarc (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sorry. The chances of this happening are next to nil. There are good reasons for this, and not just because the community has a consensus against it. The main point here is unverifiable within reliable sources. The controversy can be talked about, but supposing that he was actually born in Kenya is like a snowball rolling towards hell. If it were otherwise an uphill battle, I'd help you out. But this won't happen. I can't mediate an impossible situation, although I understand your concerns. If you wish to ask why this won't happen (barring a reliable secondary source - the MSM, for instance), please ask. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)