Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

The Hutchinson News?

While the editorial opinion of The Hutchinson News (a local newspaper in a Kansas city of 41,000 (2000 census)) is mildly interesting, and possibly comforting to those opposed to these theories, it doesn't seem particularly notable. It seems to set a precedent – slippery slope, if you will – for inclusion of comments by any small-town paper in the country, something which would probably not improve the article. I'm going to revert for now, but would welcome additional comments on the issue, either pro or con. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree that in general editorials in small town newspapers are not very noteworthy, I disagree regarding this particular case. In this case, there is a fairly well established newspaper who endorsed a candidate, and then took the highly unusual step of un-endorsing the candidate based on only one fact: that he's a birther, a fact that they did not know at the time they made the endorsement. I think this does merit inclusion as to the present how birthers are viewed in society at large. I support re-including this paragraph. It is well balanced and presented from a neutral point of view. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New York Magazine ran a story on this here which followed up on the Hutchinson News story and which somewhat clarified whether and to what extent Mann is a "birther" (whatever the heck a "birther" might be -- that term doesn't seem to have a firm definition). That story quotes Mann as saying, in part, "I'm disappointed and mystified by the Hutchinson News' decision to withdraw their endorsement over what is clearly a misunderstanding of my position."

On a related note, an AP story about an Obama-birth-related issue in another Kansas race is posted here on the website of KWCH-TV, here on the Kansas City Star website, and probably elsewhere. That story mentions the furor over Mann. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Being reported in the New York Magazine certainly refutes the notion that the story is not notable. Added back to article. Victor Victoria (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

relevancy is still not clear. This article isn't a random collection of information. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific than "relevancy is still not clear"? The original argument against inclusion was that the Hutchinson News is a small town news paper. The same cannot be said about the New York Magazine which covered the un-endorsement. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevancy is the pertinence of a given fact to the subject of the article. In this case the article is about conspiracy theories surrounding the birth and citizenship of Obama. That a local politician loses a local newspaper's endorsement for subscribing to the theory is not clearly relevant to the theory itself. If we have an article on Catholicism, we wouldn't necessarily add to that article the fact that a certain person was excluded from political office because they are Catholic. There has to be some way in which that fact elucidates the subject, and it also has to meet WP:WEIGHT concerns. This one seems marginal on both counts, not obviously fit for the article but not obviously unfit either. It's up to the person proposing to add something to establish consensus for it, and in this case to demonstrate its relevance and weight. I can't argue a negative, I just haven't seen a whole lot to connect it. If there were some commentary that this is an important instance of a phenomenon of Republican candidates embracing birther theories, or affects the public conception of birthers, if the guy got elected to congress or lost the election because of his statements, or whatever, that would be more on point. Also, right now it's in the commentary and criticism section, where it doesn't seem to belong, because it's not commentary or criticism of the birther movement. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You have completely lost me with the statement "right now it's in the commentary and criticism section, where it doesn't seem to belong, because it's not commentary or criticism of the birther movement." I think the unusual step of an un-endorsement based only on the fact that a candidate is a birther speakes volumes as to how the birthers are perceived.
You also lost me as to what "WP:Weight concerns" have not been met. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Wikidemon. The loss of endorsement does nothing to contribute to the topic of the conspiracy theories regarding Pres. Obama, ie the various conspiracies and their refutation. I would suggest removal of the content. JackOL31 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Our article properly emphasizes the content of these theories, but information about how they are viewed in society is also part of the story. An un-endorsement specifically attributable to one issue is pretty rare, and shows that there is a significant backlash to the birther movement. The analogy to Catholicism fails because, with a church that is many centuries old and has won the adherence of hundreds of millions of people, there's much more to talk about, and an incident showing the reaction of others isn't important enough to make the cut. That's why we have a separate article on Anti-Catholicism. We don't need a separate article on anti-birtherism because this article can accommodate the information. JamesMLane t c 05:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe all that's needed is a simple statement that some organizations have withdrawn support for a candidate because of their belief/support of the birther movement, with the reference. There is absolutely no reason we should bother with more detail here - especially when it's fairly minor, but the fact it happened may be pertinent to the article. So cut it down to what's important for this article - that an endorsement was withdrawn, and if the reader wants to know some examples of who, they can hit the sources. Ravensfire (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Where would it go? The fact that it happened is not commentary or criticism of the birther movement, it's simply an incident. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm conflicted on this issue, but currently favor at least a mention of the material because the article has very little real-world content (that is, consequences of the conspiracy theory, while there is plenty of to-and-fro on the theory itself). Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The un-endorsement of a candidate solely because he/she is a birther is not a common enough occurrence to have "some examples". I also don't quite see how you would "cut [the paragraph] down to what's important for this article". The paragraph currently contains only 3 sentences: one to describe the incident, a second sentence that quotes the un-endorsement editorial (giving the reason), and a third sentence gives the candidate's reaction. I suppose you could delete the second sentence, but why would you do that? It's a good summary sentence for the entire editorial. Victor Victoria (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps placing this paragraph in a new section will mitigate the concerns that the story does not belong in the "Commentary and criticism" section. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sr. vs. no suffix & Jr. vs. II?

I've changed the reference to II (as per his birth certificate) from Jr. These are not interchangeable suffixes, even though the relationship is the same. Also, I believe we should consider replacing the Sr. reference with no suffix, unless it can be documented that the elder went by this name. Sr is not added to your name by default by having a son with the same name. JackOL Sr. aka JackOL31 (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Sr." suffix, even though there's nothing to suggest the elder Obama ever used it, just makes it clear which Obama we're talking about. We could also use "Obama père", but that's a little too fussy. PhGustaf (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, however Wikipedia should not refer to someone by something other than one's correct name for the sake of ease or expediency. What are the rules for referencing someone by something other than their name? JackOL31 (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So, everyone is okay with me editing out the suffix Sr. from the article, yes? JackOL31 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, for the reason stated by PhGustaf. Fat&Happy (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As a Jr., I concur that "Sr." is used as a disambiguation title; my father never uses "Sr." as such, but documents by others refer to him that way when we are both being mentioned in the document (and I get called "Jr." then, too, and that's mostly the only time that is used by me, very formal documents.) htom (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

I'm sorry, even by WP standards this is idiocy:

The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a "Certification of Live Birth") that states Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" birth certificate, and that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations, every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate.[8]

Consensus? They all got together and formed a statement and each signed it? Got any proof? And the article links to Salon.com which is hardly authoritative and barely covers the above excerpt? Who's got the conspiracy going?Dynasteria (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Every authority on the matter has confirmed that the birther arguments are bunk. "Consensus" doesn't necessitate a formal get-together, a literal gathering of heads. Tarc (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So wikipedia is now the arbiter of political consensus. Otherwise, where's the citation?Dynasteria (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:REDFLAG and WP:PARITY. In brief, the conspiracy theories are nonsense (if there was anything to it, Obama's political opponents would have spent big money and would have had a legal victory), and there is no requirement to provide gold-plated refutations of poorly sourced nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. Hey, checked out the links provided. So in the case of a conspiracy article wikipedians can say whatever they want. Just go live with your own mediocre WP standards. I have no idea where Barack Obama was born.Dynasteria (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's in the Lede(perhaps you should read that link) and a summary of what is in the article. This isn't a forum to air your grievances about Wikipedia or standards that you do not seem to understand, and if you read the article you should know where Obama was born. Hawaii..... As the Birth Certificate and the overwhelming consensus of State/Federal officials, media outlets and judicial forums have stated. Dave Dial (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Arizona rider not becoming law

There is currently an edit war going on regading the use of the word "as". The objecting editor is rejecting the word "as" because of speculations that in my opinion violate WP:CRYSTAL. The fact is that the lack of a vote did prevent the rider from becoming law. What would have happened had there not been a vote is completely irrelevant, and not up to Wikipedians to speculate.
Is there anybody who agrees with the editor who objects to the word "as"? Victor Victoria (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not really about WP:CRYSTAL. I object to the way the section was worded in general. It is not law as of now - see here - so it should be talked about in conditional ("the law would give") and simple statement of fact that it was not voted on and is not law. I've edited it accordingly and hope that will stop this edit warring. Tvoz/talk 18:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon's revision here is fine with me - it states the facts without the spin in a less awkward way than mine did. (I also agree with removing "narrowly" here and in the Oklahoma section.) Can we move on now? Tvoz/talk 21:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a sham

Unhelpful commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is articles like these that show how the minority can spin their stories despite NPOV rules. Wikipedia is no longer the encyclopedia of the masses--it is the encyclopedia of the censors. This article needs to be deleted as its sole purpose is to debunk claims. --Nathanbrisk (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for sharing. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC) You say that like it's a bad thing! -- ChrisO (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Maybe Wikipedia is a sham wow? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

MSNBC Chris Matthews said Obama was born in Indonesia

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22326842/

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Dec. 18

MATTHEWS: But didn‘t Hillary dump on Obama a few days ago for playing up his Indonesian roots? So, what is she up to here? Is she pushing how great he is for having been born in Indonesia, or what, or simply reminding everybody about his background, his Islamic background?

72.95.240.151 (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a point here? There's quite a bit of difference between misstatements such as this and the "he was born in XXX" claims by birthers made as statements of (perceived) fact. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is from 2007, which predates these "theories." --Weazie (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Update on Rhodes case

The Supreme Court of the United States has officially rejected Taitz's appeal of her fine for abuse of the judicial process. You can find information about the update here [1]. Could someone please add this to the article (I am too busy at the moment). Remember (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Taitz's unsuccessful appeals to being sanctioned are adequately covered in the Wikipedia article about her. In my opinion we already give the sanctions too much attention by repeating the whole thing here. They're only marginally relevant here and of very little significance. Her sanction wasn't for filing the original case, but for vexatious filings after the judge had already ruled against her (and apparently without her client's consent), basically abuse of process. Per the judge's comments, her behavior is somewhat delusional, so it's more apt to say she's having some personal issues than that her legal antics are part of the conspiracy theory. Perhaps it's notable that one of the leading birthers is very strange, but if so we should cover it from that angle rather than taking any of this process as relevant to the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the section could be trimmed; a link to the case on Taitz's page would suffice. --Weazie (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What a lot of arguments

... about the subject on this talk page.

Are #any# of the birthers attempting to get legislative clarification' of birth qualifications to prevent future discussion on the subject ('up to and including persons born on American space stations'/'the putative American sectors of the Antarctic, Mars and anywhere else in the universe'?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Virus Code in Talk Page Archives

I have tried viewing some of the talk page archives on this article before and have been warned of a viri code, blocking my access to the page. Now it seems to be infecting Archive 8. I don't know the procedure here, but this is something admins or another editor more familiar with these issues should take care of. If I remember correctly I believe another editor pasted the code they found from the website of Orly Taitz. Dave Dial (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Aren't all Wikipedia pages, including archives, text only? The Mediawiki PhP software processes the wiki markup text files into xml code (also text), sends it to your browser, and your browser obliges by displaying the page. I don't see how an executable virus could be contained in that. -Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that you're correct. Still though, I've been prevented from going to many websites on the net that try to add code to web pages and other aspects of websites that install Trojans on visitors websites. I don't know the exact reason why I am getting these warnings from the archive, but here is a screen capture that shows what happens even when I mouse the link I proved above. Dave Dial (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not as knowledgeable about viruses as I used to be but trojans come in a variety of different shapes and forms. They can register as false positives, maybe moreso than a regular virus, so maybe it is a mistake. I just went there and had no problem.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted a question at the Help Desk.[2] TFD (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I get the warning too, for the record. Tarc (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I was able to login and redact it. Someone had posted the actual malware script from Taitz's website. Derp derp. Thank god for 1990's technology. Tarc (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. No problems on my computer - I guess Wangs are immune. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone. Yea, someone copy and pasted the malicious code into the talk page, trying to show why there were warnings for the page in question on a Taitz thread. Tarc redacted the code. Thanks again everyone! Dave Dial (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fringe" in 2nd Paragraph of Article

I looked at the archive sections linked above, regarding the use of the word "fringe." It appears there has been discussion of the article's title, and the use of the phrases "Fringe," and "Conspiracy Theories" in the title. I didn't see discussion of "fringe" in the body, but it is possible I just missed it.

I'd like to suggest that we change the phrase "fringe theorists" in the second paragraph to "conspiracy theorists." While they may seem equivalent, "fringe" is a judgement call that differs depending on POV, whereas "conspiracy theorists" is a factually accurate description. These are people who believe in theories involving one or more conspiracies.

Does it matter? Well, using an emotionally loaded POV word such as "fringe" would seem biased to a conspiracy theory believer, and discredit the article in their eyes. They may even disregard the factual material in the article as coming from "the other side." We should remain as neutral and non-POV as possible, even (especially?) on controversial topics.

Apologies if these points have been made already. 0x539 (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is some reading for you: WP:FRINGE. It might help. Henrymrx (t·c) 19:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fringe" just means that the theory is discounted by mainstream reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The mistaken notion that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and thus (or otherwise) ineligible for the US presidency, is both WP:FRINGE as defined by Wikipedia, and "fringe" as the term is commonly used per the reliable sources. The first dictates that we cannot treat it as a viable question of fact but rather a minority opinion that some adhere to. The second dictates that we refer to it as such as a matter of Wikipedia content. In most articles there would be a question of how much weight to give the fact that some believe it, but this is an article entirely about the belief so it occupies more or less the entire article. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I had not read WP:FRINGE and "fringe theorists" appeared to be an emotionally charged POV phrase. Having read it, I still think that "conspiracy theorists" would be less POV, but I agree it's allowable as is under WP:FRINGE. I also agree that we cannot treat it as a question of fact under WP:FRINGE. 0x539 (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a "birther" but I find the use of the term "conspiracy theory" to be both loaded and incaccurate. The term has taken on a negative connotation and suggests a certain degree of crackpottery... which appears to be why it is used here. I'm not sure the birther allegation, at its core, requires a conspiracy to work. "Obama Citizenship Allegation" or "Theories" would be more accurate and wp:npov. John2510 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

John, please see FAQ #1 above for a reply about why this page is named as it is. Tvoz/talk 21:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow.... Thanks for pointing me to that. Especially after reading the FAQ and archives... Other than being gratuitously dismissive and inaccurate, I'm not sure what adding the word "conspiracy" does for the article. The fact that a point of view is fringe is no justification for piling on with dismissive and inaccurate labels. The dearth of references to an "Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theory" elsewhere in the omniverse confirms that the phenomenon, is a Wikipedia invention. The usual cast of characters advocating for the clearly inaccurate label. Sad. John2510 (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page for talk about improving the article called Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories(or Birther), not running comments on how unfair or biased you believe Wikipedia is. Take that talk to the appropriate venue. If you have reliable sources that outweigh the numerous sources provided that describe the "Birthers" with "negative connotation" that "suggests a certain degree of crackpottery", then provide them. Otherwise, it's time to move on. Dave Dial (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a single source that this issue inherently involves a conspiracy? I don't see any consensus on that issue whatsoever, and there's virtually no reference to it elsehwere. If ther isn't, the article needs to be changed and we'll move on. John2510 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's sourced as a conspiracy theory, not a theory that there is a conspiracy. The term has a specific meaning, which these beliefs fit. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If you follow your own link to conspiracy theory, you'll see that, to meet that definition, a theory must be based on "...a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." i.e., a true conspiracy (and then some). And.. that assumes that the WP definitions of that term is gospel (which it isn't). We should be able to agree that this simply doesn't fit. Yes? John2510 (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's obviously not a very clear definition of what a conspiracy theory is. Anyway, we follow the sources and the sources call them conspiracy theories. That's obviously what they are. Anyway, although I wouldn't remove the term entirely from the lede or the article entirely, it does seem to be overused, appearing ten or more times. We should make sure each time we use the term that the source calls it a conspiracy theory; otherwise just call them "theories" or "beliefs" or something else. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying sounds fair. I just don't think Wikipedia wants to make a self-contained definition that doesn't make sense and then feel bound by it. Maybe an edit to the opening paragraph would make sense. As it exists, it seems to be defining a phenomenon that doesn't really exist. John2510 (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Further input on birth certificate image caption

I need input on this edit. To me, it reads like an attempt to discredit the birth certificate, and I removed it, but was reverted. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a great addition to the caption. It has the following good features

1. corrects capitalization error in "Birth Certificate"
2. points out to important features (birth date and location)
3. points out authenticity vis a vis the time stamp on the back side that is visible in the scan (I personally did not notice it until it was pointed out in the caption).
4. removes the words "the Obama" from the fragment "..released during the Obama presidential campaign.". The words "the Obama" are not necessary. If anything, I would replace with "..released on XXXX" whatever date that the certificate was released, as this would be more precise.

I do not see any "attempt to discredit the birth certificate". Victor Victoria (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've taken the liberty to restore point #1 and edited per point #4. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And that's completely fine, but the previous edit made it sound as if the certificate had been cobbled together in 2007. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For better or worse, I've made this edit based on the above feedback. 192.45.72.27 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion provides some info: /Archive 1#Printed on June 6, 2007 (and the section following that). Note that the lead contains "The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his birth certificate" which is in agreement with the caption. I'm sure that conspiracy theorists would use the date stamp as "proof" of something, but my main problem with the caption is that the detail about the resolution and scanner is not relevant, and the fact that the date stamp can be seen is somewhat original research; a brief cited statement might be better. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You do raise a valid point, which at this moment is moot until we settle below the issue of the length of the caption. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Caption length

Two editors have now trimmed the caption due to length constraints here and here. Is there anything in the policy on length of photo captions? It would seem that in long articles (such as this one) lengthier photo captions are justified. In this particular case, I think the caption, prior to being truncated the second time, was an excellent summary of the entire article.
The statistics on the caption: 122 words, 583 characters (excluding spaces), 704 characters including spaces.
Victor Victoria (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I should add that the edit summary that the second editor used was this is a caption of a simple image, we're not going for the Pulitzer Prize for Literature here. I would counter that argument by pointing out that

• this is not "a simple image" -- it's the centerpiece of the article
• it seems counterintuitive to criticize (and revert) good writing

Victor Victoria (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is something to say about the image, then it should be sourced commentary in the text of the article. An image caption that becomes more of a side bar to the article is unhelpful, in large part because it contains a lot of WP:OR in the form of Wikipedia authors examining the image and noting their observations. If they are simple descriptions of what the image shows, the reader can see it for themselves. If they aren't so obvious, they shouldn't be doing that kind of analysis. And if they are cited, that should be in the article instead. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Put aside the OR concerns. The question is there a policy against "long" captions? In my opinion, since the article is so long, it would be very useful to put very succinct information about the image that is the center of the entire conspiracy theory, rather than just saying "this is an image of the birth certificate". Victor Victoria (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is just an image caption, simply there to give a brief description of the...wait for it...image. Not for linking, not for exposition, not for explanation of the article subject. Just tell the user what they're seeing and move on. The most recent addition is ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would refer to WP:CAP, point #2 about what makes a good caption. Please keep it as short as possible, imho. --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon, Tarc, and Threeafterthree on this. The added text does not illuminate, it raises questions, such as what are "various reasons"? Captions should merely identify; they are to be succinct, and merely describe the image which supports the text of the article, not raise questions or explain what the article is about. If the main image were of Barack Obama, we would not have a caption that said some people question his citizenship, we would merely identify the image as Barack Obama. The image of the birth certificate is the same - it should be identified as such- Scanned image of Barack Obama's birth certificate released by his campaign in June 2008 is ok - and leave the text of the article to do its job. Tvoz/talk 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm chiming in just because people are claiming consensus where there is none. I know that I am repeating others. Captions should be short and to the point. The article should provide the necessary detail. Henrymrx (t·c) 23:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I offered this caption as a compromise, as it is certainly shorter. Not quite sure why it was reverted. I prefer this caption, but it is longer. Reading WP:CAP, it seems to me that BOTH versions of the caption are within the guidelines. The captions are succinct, describe the image, as well the image's relevance to the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Victoria (talk • contribs) 14:39, August 24, 2010

There is no reason to add to the caption. This has been debated numerous times here before, and I do wish editors would search the archives before edit warring. On another note, my virus protection alerts me to a viri code in the talk page archive. I am going to open up a new thread about it. Dave Dial (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with DD2K that there is no reason to add to the caption, I don't have a major objection to this edit, which was reverted by another editor before I saw it. Instead of the specific wording used there, I would go for something slightly longer, like "which some conspiracy theorists contend is inadequate to prove Obama's place of birth" (lose the "birthers" reference), and an internal link of "contend is inadequate" (or equivalent) to the relevant section of the article where this is discussed. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fat&Happy, it seems like you are trying to be accomadating, which is nice, but we now have 5 folks who say leave it alone and it has also been mentioned that this caption has been discussed before? That certainly doesn't make for consensus to change it and I must wonder what is the exact motivation(not you, but the other editor who reverted 3 times today and 5 times yesterday?) to change this? Maybe it's time for a warning/admin advice, ect. I will step out for now as well. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Although there may be room for slight improvement, the caption is fine as it is, and it is not worth this much effort to discuss the series of proposals, all of which in my opinion degrade the caption by adding unsourced analysis. Saying that some conspiracy theorists view this particular image as inadequate proof is not particularly helpful and it misses the point. Some conspiracy theorists don't know of this image, others believe it is a hoax or fraud, yet others are simply not following the rules of logic and reason. Amidst this crowd are some who acknowledge the authenticity of the birth certificate but have some reason why it is not sufficient proof, probably a small subset. If we do find a good source that runs down the logic and mentality behind the various theories we might include that, but in the body of the article. I have cautioned the editor about edit warring,[3] the second time in as many months.[4] I see no reason to doubt good faith here, I see it as more of a WP:COMPETENCE issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for this edit I thought that when the original reverting editor agreed, and the length was reduced to satisfy the concerns of the second reverting editor, and that the original research was removed, that consensus was achieved. I'm still not quite sure what the objections are, as the additional sentence does not make the caption unbearably long. It's disappointing that people here are not open to improving the caption of the photo. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that the text just below the image (at least at my page width) talk about the scanned BC, I don't think adding to the caption is really needed. It just adds length to what should be fairly short. If the image wasn't close to text talking about it, I'd probably be more inclined to agree with the extra sentence. Ravensfire (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Adhering to the guidelines for captions

I wanted to give a few days for tempers to cool down because things got quite ugly — I was falsely accused of edit warring and having some sort of an agenda, when the truth is each and every one of my edits was based on discussions that took place in the talk page (I had only one revert which was because the editor implied that he was correcting vandalism, when there was no vandalism). I have learned my lesson, and I will wait a little longer to make changes to the article.
I think we should add another sentence to the caption for the following reasons:

1. The article is extremely long
2. The lead, which is supposed to summarize the article, is quite lengthy in and of itself (at 500 words, longer than many articles)
3. The photo is the reason this is a conspiracy theory — on the surface, there should be no doubt that Obama is a natural born citizen

I like the idea that was propsed by Fat&Happy, to have a link from the caption to the section that explains why birthers don't accept the birth certificate.
Threeafterthree brought up the fact that the guideline on this issue is WP:CAP. Quoting the criteria for captions from the guideline, a good caption:

1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious.
2. is succinct.
3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article.
4. provides context for the picture.
5. draws the reader into the article.

I think adding an additional sentence would adhere to all 5 of those points. Yes, there is certainly an argument that adding a sentence reduces the "succinctness", but I think "succinct" is a relative term, so relative to the very lengthy article we are dealing with, a two sentence caption is succinct. Adding a setence with a link to the relevant section would certainly enhance to the last point in the guideline (to draw the reader into the article).
Victor Victoria (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

— I guess the best solution is to simply move the photo to the section describing the release of the certificate along with the rejection of the certificate. This way the caption does not need any additional information (nor links). Looks like the best solution was to think outside the box. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Unfortunately, the lead looks lonely without a graphic. I have half a mind to create {{template:infobox URF}}to help break up the space. Or else we could use an image like this one - Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Be careful how you use humor -- it might not be interpreted the way you intended for it to be interpreted.
I agree that the lead now looks bare. I guess we can move one of the bumper sticker photos or the protest sign photo to the lead. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Polls!

Hey, just to keep discussion going, given the number of recent polls and increasing attention to birther stuff of late in the media I think it's okay that mention was added in the lede that several 2010 polls suggest that more than 25% of Americans have doubts as to Obama's birthplace. The 42% figure is misleading: only 42% in the latest CNN poll were certain Obama was born in Hawaii. Another large chunk believes he probably was, and then 27% either think he was probably born elsewhere or are certain of it. And a few percent must have been none of the above because CNN's totals didn't add up to 100%.

I do think we're being a little POV by using language like "nevertheless", "however", etc., because they express the judgment that this quarter of the population has an opinion inconsistent with the facts. That may be true, but the facts speak for themselves. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem with this is the facts are the facts, and it's very un-encyclopedic to insinuate otherwise. Some people believe that the moon landing was filmed in a Hollywood studio, the Earth is flat, and George W Bush orchestrated the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The cross-tabs are here, and the results are simple. 27% Believe that Obama was probably or definitely born outside of the US, but 71% believe that Obama was probably or definitely born in the United States. 2% had no opinion. The source of the poll makes no bones about the facts here.

On Tuesday, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh quipped on his program, "They tell us August 4th is the birthday. We haven't seen any proof of that!"

Yet there is ample evidence that defies Limbaugh's statement and the beliefs of the 27-percent of Americans that, according to the poll, doubt the president's birthplace. CNN and other news organizations have thoroughly debunked the rumors....

In a WABC interview before signing the legislation, Lingle said, "...I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health." Lingle added, " … The president was in fact born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact."

"It's been established he was born here," the governor continued. "I can understand why people want to make certain that the constitutional requirement of being a, you know, natural born American citizen … but the question has been asked and answered. And I think just we should all move on now."

Simple. Dave Dial (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I am personally convinced Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen, I continue to have misgivings over the neutrality of the "conspiracy theories" title of this article — especially given that roughly 1/4 of Americans believe (rationally or not) that he is not eligible to be President. On the other hand, I will note that we have an article entitled John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, even though in that case an overwhelming majority of Americans believe there was a conspiracy. Whether the title of that other article justifies the title of this one, or whether both article ought to be renamed, or even perhaps if it's not relevant (consider WP:WAX), I'm not sure I have an opinion right now. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 20:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The degree of public acceptance is of no relevance, only the degree of acceptance in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed your post, and agree. While the theories are fringe (regardless of whether they may be proved out (I agree... probably not)), they don't inherently involve a conspiracy. The Kennedy Assassination Consipiracy Theories (which probably gave rise to the term), on the other hand, involve conspiracies. It's a question of accuracy. Adding the word "conspiracy" to the name here is just plain wrong. John2510 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A fair amount of these theories do allege a conspiracy, and all have repeatedly blamed a conspiracy to explain the lack of serious attention. --Weazie (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of what I've read suggests his mother reported a U.S. birth as a convenience, and there was no real conspiracy. It seems to make more sense to consolidate the title under a unified theory than to have a dichotomy between conpiracy-based theories and non-conpiracy-based theories. John2510 (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And most of what I've read alleges Obama's family (i.e., more than one person) engaged in document forgery; even if his mother (somehow) acted alone, other family members allegedly conspired to suppress the truth. Also, many suggest Hawaiian officials are also complicit in this alleged conspiracy. And adverse legal rulings are explained away by use of a conspiracy: Holder got to Judge Land, Bauer got to Judge Carter, McCain agreed to not raise natural born citizenship as a quid pro quo, etc. It takes classic conspiracy-theory thinking to explain why this issue has been ignored and Obama remains president. --Weazie (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting... but those supposed conspiracies aren't discussed anywhere in the article that I can see, and they certainly aren't inherent in the question, however fringe, of the location of his birth... which is what the article is currently about. Maybe somebody needs to write up something on conspiracies and reduce the rest if that's what the article is to remain titled. John2510 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not an exhaustive list of every allegation of every possible conspiracy. (And the allegation about Judge Land and Holder is a noted topic in the Rhodes case, which is discussed in this article.) As for the conspiracy-theory thinking that permeates this issue, here's a (RS, even) offhand reference to the conspiracy of silence. The concept that a group of people either have conspired or are continuing to conspire to keep Obama in the White House (despited his alleged ineligibility) is not really in dispute. --Weazie (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be an exhaustive list, but you'd think that an article with "citizenship conspiracy theories" in its title would give at least passing mention at least two of them. I note the "conspiracy" mention you found doesn't even relate to his citizenship and wouldn't be within the scope of the article. Can we agree the article needs to either be renamed or substantially rewritten so that the article is about the thing for which it is named? John2510 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost every ineligibility theory alleges a conspiracy; the article is correctly titled. If you want to find some (RS) sources that explicitly explain that it is alleged that two or more people colluded to make Obama appear eligible, knock yourself out, but I think that's pretty self-evident (e.g., unless Obama possesses sufficient skills to forge his own COLB, he had help, and there's your conspiracy; if Obama somehow singlehandedly forged his COLB, Hawaiian officials know that and aren't talking; etc.). And I disagree that the conspiracy of silence doesn't relate to his citizenship because the touters of these theories regularly allege a conspiracy has prevented this issue from being reported adequately or receiving fair treatment in the courtroom -- the same shadowy people who installed Obama are the ones silencing the media and the judges. --Weazie (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's going to be about "ineligibility theories" rather than conspiracies, then it should certainly be called that. The fact that these theories may involve conspiracies that aren't discussed in the article is irrelevant. If they aren't in the article... they shouldn't be in the title. It seems to me these theories are silly enough on their own without suggesting they need an inaccurate pejorative in the article title to further weigh them down. John2510 (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of "conspiracy" is accurate because the various theories of ineligibility require a conspiracy to execute and maintain. --Weazie (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove

I request that this article be removed since it's only a nonsense theroy and is full of Bias? Why is there no page like this for other "Ideas" such as the rezoning of city areas so Republicans could always win elections and of Bill O'Rilery and his calls to violence?99.13.118.232 (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that deletion of the article has been debated extensively twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (2nd nomination) and both times the community has decided to keep the article. The relevant policy regarding "nonsense theor[ies]" is WP:FRINGE. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The first item you mention is covered in the article gerrymandering 99.250.231.129 (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD removed,[5] and any ill-formed deletion nomination based solely on a claim of bias is not going to get serious consideration. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

News Hounds

This article includes a wikilink to News Hounds, and improperly uses it as a reliable source. Notice that the wikilink takes you to an article about a 1947 comedy. This material ought to be removed from this article.166.137.139.91 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The wikilink that directed users to an unrelated article has been removed, but the references and sources are there and answer the fringe claims made by Hannity. Because a wikilink was wrong does not discount the sources. Although some of the sources in this article would not be considered in many articles, this article is about a fringe conspiracy theory and sources that cover it are used. Dave Dial (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the wikilink. However, the huge quote from News Hounds also needs to go, because it is not from a reliable or notable source. WP:RS should apply to this article like every other article, and the following footnote just doesn't cut it, IMHO: "Ellen (July 16, 2009), 'Fox Continues Promoting Birther Lawsuit While Ignoring Red Flags Indicating It's A Hoax,' newshounds.us." The author (Ellen) does not even give her last name. I have no objection if you want to find a reliable source to rebut Hannity, but this is not it.166.137.139.51 (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

See parity and fringe. If you can find another source that describes how Hannity propagated this "birther" silliness, then come back here and suggest it, I'm sure it will be considered. Otherwise, I believe that the two guidelines posted answer why this article uses sources that cover these topics rather than only mainstream media outlets. Since mainstream media outlets usually just ignore this b**s**t crazy stuff. Dave Dial (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to policy. Per WP:PARITY: "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." Even if it were Wikipedia policy to suspend the reliability requirement in the name of parity, there is no parity between Hannity (a notable figure) and the blogger "Ellen".166.137.139.51 (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure there is. Ellen is one of the founding members of News Hounds, and Sean Hannity is a conservative opinion host. Parity. Dave Dial (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They're both human beings too. Anyway, let's see if other Wikipedia editors are okay with relying here on anonymous blog entries by non-notable people. It seems like a straightforward application of Wikipedia policy for us, but I could be mistaken.166.137.139.51 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's already been decided numerous times that some blogs and not mainstream sources are acceptable in this(and other fringe articles) to rebut some outlandish claims. One such time is here, and there was consensus to add the sources already. So yes, it's straightforward. Dave Dial (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion that you link to does not indicate that your solution is the straightforward one. ChrisO called it a plain violation of Wikipedia policy. And I didn't notice anyone disagreeing with what Blaxthos said about News Hounds: "FAIR, MMFA, and Huffington Post are all widely cited by a plethora of third party sources (especially the mainstream media)... I personally don't think NewsHounds qualifies in most circumstances, but the other three certainly do with regards to media accuracy and criticism."166.137.136.197 (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead photo

Why was the birth certificate removed from the prominent place at the top of the article, without discussion? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably the same as the answer to the question "why was the moon's surface mined for cheese?" :) - Wikidemon (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

By which I mean that the matter was discussed.[6] I'm not sure the move has consensus, but it has at least four days of acquiescence behind it. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't a discussion, that was an "I'm going to do it". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

More of an "I just did it", if you ask me. Anyway, I do like the suggestion to use an emblematic anti-Obama protest photo in the lede, because that would illustrate the subject of the article, namely the conspiracy theories and their proponents. The scan of the birth certificate, and now, the swearing-in, both illustrate major facts related to the article, but not its subject. And I was half serious about creating a template for fringe theories and urban rumors. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you're right and I think Wikidemon's first description of apathy ahead of 'acquiescence' describes it better. I just did not feel like arguing about it. I also do not see why the scanned birth certificate was/is not the quintessential image descriptor of the fringe theories. Dave Dial (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It would seem the first photo encountered in an article should be a photo of the subject. Since there is no way to photograph conspiracy theories, we're forced to move a bit away from that. So, what best represents conspiracy theories? 1) a document that seems to counter some of the theories (the birth cirtificate) 2) an event that believers in the theories see as the goal of the conspiracies (the swearing in) or 3) someone protesting against the alleged conspiracy (the protester). I cannot see any answer other than 3. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with #3. It maybe be silly to discuss what photo is front and center but at the same time, why was there a need to change it in first place? I think a photo of a protester best represents the article and the photo under "Commentary and criticism" I think is best.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

President Obama is in the article title, and he's the alleged lead conspirator, so I have no problem with the swearing-in picture at the top. However, if you decide to instead have a picture of a conspiracy theorist at the top, perhaps use a pic of a leading conspiracy theorist rather than small fry. For example, a pic of Farah or Lakin would seem more appropriate.166.137.136.199 (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The image of the document was moved to the section where the release of the document is discussed, because when it was in the lead, there were too many facts about the document that did not fit well in the caption. Those facts need not be present in the caption when the image is positioned in the appropriate section. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion or conclusion about where consensus is on this, but my personal position is that the birth certificate image belongs farther down in the article in the section where the birth certificate is discussed, and that the image in the lede should be an emblematic picture of some of the conspiracy theory-related protests (not the current / reverted image of the swearing in). All for reasons already discussed. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Billboard photo

I concur that the birth certificate image belongs down in the section where it's discussed, while a better photo for the lead would be some sort of image symbolizing the conspiracy theory protests. Maybe something like this photo ? --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If that picture clears copyright, I'd support putting it at the top. PhGustaf (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. I don't see copyright info on that website and it is used in several other blogs.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This photo would indeed be the best photo for the lead. I think a case could be made for fair use since those billboards are no longer existence (WND is no longer paying for them) so therefore the image is not replaceable. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The photographer may not see it that way, however. Tvoz/talk 16:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the image and labeled that it is fair use only in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. It appears (at least to me) to be in conformance with WP:FU.Victor Victoria (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

←Unless using the image of John Roberts, the conservative Bush appointee, is meant to suggest that he is either a dupe of the conspiracy or a conspirator himself (both of which make me laugh - whoever said "hilarious" hit the nail on the head), the image is not directly illustrative of the overall article and so doesn't belong as the lead. I agree that the billboard, or even better one of the images of protestors from lower down in the article, works best as the first image. Tvoz/talk 16:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I kinda liked the swearing-in pic as an example of what it is the conspirators believe in; that a fraudulent person is holding the White House. But if more want the billboard, then sure, though I doubt it will pass NFCC. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, but if we use it we ought to have the "Dupe or conspirator?" caption - kidding aside, none of these birther supporters ever actually answers if they think Roberts was in on it or was fooled by it. And which is worse? (Sorry, it's a digression.) Tvoz/talk 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that such photos can no longer be taken (because those billboard have been taken down) is the biggest justification for WP:NFCC. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't an article about the billboard, it is just something picked to illustrate the subject; it isn't critical to the atricle that that particular photo be used. It will likely be argued that the swearing-in or the birth certificate photos are equivalent illustrations. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, nothing else other than the billboard can illustrate the extent to which the conspiracy theory has penetrated society. The old saying "talk is cheap" certainly applies here. Anybody can say anything they want, but once they are willing to put money behind what they are saying, it takes the talk to a different level. Homemade signs cost nothing, and bumper sticker cost a couple of dollars at best (to the end user), but a billboard requires a major investment by whoever wants to put up the advertisement. Therefore, from that perspective a photo of the sign is irreplaceable. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it! I don't think it would survive a stern application of NFCC, but I'm not one to complain. We should be looking for a backup just in case one of the image police stops and takes it away. - 01:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — This message was left by user:Wikidemon

The billboard best illustrates the issue. To the degree the article is intended merely to mock the issue, the previous illustration is better. John2510 (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for an edit?

User:John2510 claims to have consensus for this edit. Can somebody tell me where the consensus is to remove the title of the article from the article's lede? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is no consensus for that edit. Just undo it back to where it was. All anyone has to do is read Q1 of the FAQ to know that he is just edit warring. The user is very close to getting blocked and topic banned. Dave Dial (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been in discussion with him on his Talk page, but he doesn't seem interested in anything other than his own viewpoint, despite the probation that this article is on. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Any consensus that the previous lead makes sense? Eligibility theories, wacko as they may be, don't necessarily involve a conspiracy. More importantly, there's really no such phenomenon as a "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theory" as referenced in the lead. Does anyone have sources for this phenomenon, as such, existing? The article doesn't discuss conspiracies, as they relate to eligibility theories. John2510 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As you have been told at least once before(and probably more than once) to read the FAQ and the provided links therein, you either have not done so, or are being purposely obtuse. Once again, read the FAQ and the links provided there(1,2,3,4). Now, please do not change the descriptors again. Dave Dial (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read these, and they support the change to the articles name as a wp:consensus. They don't really relate directly to my edits. John2510 (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea I know Everard Proudfoot, I've seen you(and others) try to discuss this with the editor. And believe you are correct. Dave Dial (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW... You do know that the "FAQ" was created by an account named "Dems on the Move" (which couldn't conceiveably be less wp:npov and really means nothing... or at least I hope you know that... Also, it doesn't address the issue of the lead paragraph. I don't want to edit war... Anyone want think there isn't a consensus on this?... feel free to take it to dispute resolution. John2510 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC).

No. I provided you with the links to the consensus and the FAQ. If you choose to ignore the clear evidence of consensus again and change the descriptors, you will be reported and blocked. Dave Dial (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, John, you revert back to your version one more time and I'll report you for violating probation on this article, and then you'll be blocked. Try getting consensus to change the article title and lede. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Threats violate general Wikipedia principles. Provide some sources or knock yourself out.John2510 (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's all dial this back a bit and reset. Looking at the archives, the prior consensus is that the article title and lead should be "conspiracy" theories, not "eligibility" theories. That being said, the issue can always be revisited if there is substantial support to reverse prior consensus or if genuinely new and novel issues are raised. The appropriate method for that is not combative reverts, but constructive engagement in discussion. If anyone wants this thread to continue, assuming they've already read up on the issues in the archived discussions, they should lay out a clear and convincing rationale for why consensus should change. However, they should keep in mind that the burden of presenting logical argument and finding supportive sources rests with those that challenge existing consensus, and civil discussion is always more productive than edit warring. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I see nothing here that would support a change to the title. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read the existing materials and don't agree that there's is an existing consensus regarding the lead. If you believe there is... I would be interested in seeing your sources. John2510 (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Moot point. You're proposing a change to the long-time wording of an article. Nobody needs to demonstrate that the current wording has consensus. It's there without opposition, except yours. If you think you can get consensus for a change, go for it. It seems extremely unlikely given that six frequent editors have rejected the notion of removing "fringe" and/or "conspiracy theory", either in current discussions here or by reverting your change. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The antiquity of the language and a wp:vote in the moment don't mean much. Certainly "fringe." is accurate. That's consistent with consensus and I would support adding that to the lead. "Conspiracy" does not accurately describe all theories covered by the article, and is not discussed in the article. That's especially the case since Wikipedia has defined a wp:conspiracy theory, and these don't fit. John2510 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion, which specific theories in the article didn't automatically expand in the minds of their adherents to encompass any contrary evidence? --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question John2510 (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You've indicated that not all the theories in the article are conspiracy theories, so perhaps it would be constructive for you to indicate which ones and why they don't fit as a conspiracy theory. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. wp:conspiracy theory indicates that terms is used, "...to refer to any fringe theory which explains an historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." Using that definition, the theories described in the article are wp:fringe, but aren't necessarily conspiracy theories. For example, The separately-headed set of theories that he was born in Hawaii, but isn't a citizen because of Hawaii's status, etc. (here), while bizarre, don't entail a conspiracy at all. Also, this theory is based on the idea that his mom submitted a false affidavit upon which his birth certificate was based, presumably to avoid the nuisance of naturalizing him. Anything she filed is either lost or properly protected from public scrutiny under Hawaii law. That's a single act by an individual (Obama's mom) and doesn't involve a conspiracy. It would be accurate to say that:

"Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories" are conspiracy and other fringe theories...

That suggests that the article title has taken on a seocondary meaning beyond its denotative one. John2510 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the lead should be modified to something like this: "Conspiracy theories about the citizenship of Barack Obama and other fringe theories reject the legitimacy of the United States citizenship of President Barack Obama or his eligibility to be President of the United States." (?) --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, even though that wording is acceptable(although not anything near what was trying to be inserted), the fact is that almost all(and both of the examples listed above) involve some kind of 'conspiracy' in order for them to be true. Claims of judges, Hawaiian officials, the Obama campaign, Obama's parents and grandparents, all involved in some kind of 'conspiracy' to make it seem as if he is a natural born citizen all fit within both descriptors of fringe and conspiracy theories. Dave Dial (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the established wording (that is, I oppose the change proposed by John2510). The term "conspiracy theory" is commonly used to refer to suggestions that appeal to a minority of people, and which are based on misunderstandings, misinterpretations, wishful thinking, lies, or other non-credible mechanisms such as the promotion of a known-wrong story as a tactic. There does not have to be a literal "conspiracy" between each of the participants. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too. That is, I continue to support the agreed upon title and opening to this article, as has been previously discussed, dissected, and otherwise debated. Tvoz/talk 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We've been through this many times before, and always come back to this or a similar wording. Nothing has changed to alter consensus. PhGustaf (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What you've set forth is the very definition of wp:fringe... which is what these theories actually are. A conspiracy theory, by Wikipedia defnition, requires a consipiracy and calling this a conspiracy theory is both incorrect and misleading. I hope that's not intentionally the case but, in the absence of a rational explanation for the current wording, it's hard to see it that way. John2510 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

I am not going to debate this again, unless something new is raised, which has not happened. But for everyone's convenience, I repost the following from archive 3, as we all know that reliable sources are what we go by, not other Wikipedia articles that may have their own reasons for being written the way they are. (NB: I did not check with the editors quoted from the archives - I am reposting this for its list of reliable sources have called these claims "conspiracy theories".) From archive 3:

For easy reference, here is a blockquoted list, from this talk page archive, originally posted by Abecedare on 29 December 2008, as mentioned above [in archive 3] by Wasted Time R:

Here are some sources that use the term conspiracy theory (or some variant) in reference to this issue. The links include news items and editorials/columns published by mainstream periodicals:

• Philadelphia Inquirer/ Associated press
• Washington Post
• Le mars Daily Sentinel (T.J. Templeton)
• Honolulu Star-Bulletin
• The Tribune Star
• The Daily Sentinel
• Washington Times (Michele Malkin)
• Times Record news
• Salon
• Salon
• News Press
• Chicago Tribune
• LA Times
• Star Tribune
• Rocky Mountain News
• St. Petersburg Times
• Time Union
• Slate
• The Week
• Memphis Commercial Appeal
• Newsmax (Ronald Kessler)
• The Virginian-Pilot
• New york magazine
• The Atlantic (Mark Ambinder blog)
• [http://www.spectator.co.uk/clivedavis/3077196/among-the-inmates.thtml The Spectator

copied from Archive 3 by Tvoz/talk 00:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, no one is forced to participate in discussion on Wikipedia, but it's a fundamental principle that Wikipedia isn't finished. That sort of mentality would have left us with the earth being flat and the sun revolving the earth. Further, my reading of that discussion suggests that the consensus is to change not only the lead, but the article title. If anyone disagrees with that, they're free to pursue dispute resolution. There may be some argument that Wikipedia, which is a network of articles, has no need to be internally consistent. However, this article specifically links to the definition of a "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia - thereby adopting that definition. Rather than a link, does this article then require a caveat that it is using some definition inconsistent with Wikpedia's? The first of the listed articles I checked didn't describe the Obama citizenship issue as a conspiracy theory. Before I check others... have you actually looked at these? John2510 (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Further, my reading of that discussion suggests that the consensus is to change not only the lead, but the article title." What? No. You do not have consensus to do that. "If anyone disagrees with that, they're free to pursue dispute resolution." WHAT? NO! You have literally NO support for this as far as I can see. Henrymrx (t·c) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW... If I can find an equal number of properl source articles that don't use the expression "conspiracy theory" would we have universal agreement that a different title would appropriate as a univeral label? I'm thinking not. I'm really kind of torn here between a desire for accuracy in Wikipedia and an inclination to let the article stand... since it so immediately warns the reader of its blatant biased. John2510 (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we would not have universal agreement, and the flat earth analogy is ridiculous as are the repeated pronouncements about consensus and the article's supposed bias (are you arguing that the theories are in fact credible?). It is not a requirement that every editor participate actively every time someone decides to resurrect a perennial proposal, or to continue the discussion endlessly while someone who simply cannot accept consensus finally gets tired of it. No, we are not adopting the definition of the "conspiracy theory" article, which you misconstrue rather severely to involve something about superhuman powers or something equally absurd. We go by what the sources say, filtered through some stylistic issues and common sense. We don't apply our own analysis of the definitional logic we think is established by other Wikipedia articles. The bottom line is that the subject of this article, and most of its content, are best described as "conspiracy theories". There may be some more mainstream positions included in the periphery of this article that assume the facts as they are, but the fringe theories and smears that are covered in main are all conspiracy theories. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing, nor do I believe, that they are credible. But, for that very reason, I believe they should be treated with particular objectivity - to maintain Wikipedia's credibility. Calling the theories something the clearly are not undermines Wikipedia. The current label, and particularly the lead, suggests a closed mind. John2510 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the link[7] you just removed. As I hope you understand, internal hyperlinks are here on Wikipedia to help interested readers navigate to further sources of information about important things discussed in an article. They aren't there to define terms, something we don't often do link or no link. If the conspiracy theory article needs improvement (and I think it does, that quotation about superhuman ability seems out of place), the place to address that is there, not here. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you believe "conspiracy theories" needs to be redefined not to require a conspiracy, then I agree... that should be addressed there, but the link is inappropriate so long as the definition requires a conspiracy. The (alleged) counter-consensus here is that this article will be inconsistent with that article's basic premise. John2510 (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You know what, John? My first comment on this article talk page was on December 11, 2008, a day after the article was created, and it was about changing the title of the article. (I was against it.) I held the same position in the RFC and several times last year when this was raised here again, and I'm not even going to get into how many other times I commented on this on the Obama main article talk since I started editing there in 2006. If you were presenting something new, I might participate in further discussion beyond stating my position, but as it is you have not and I choose not to go over the same ground again and again and again. Wikidemon's summary above says it all quite well, and I have nothing to add to it. Tvoz/talk 05:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the article's current title satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. I have no qualms with the use of conspiracy theory, the definition from what I have read is often flexible. With that, I am not astonished when I read the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't change title/lede. "Conspiracy" is accurate, even if the article doesn't explicitly reference (and/or support with citations) every allegation of two or more people scheming to place a purportedly ineligible Obama into the White House, and then using various nefarious methods to keep him there, silence the media, rig court outcomes, etc. Sufficient RSs have used the term (and there's no evidence of refuation of the term); that is sufficient for wikipedia. --Weazie (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Other than "Dems on the Move" self-serving FAQ page, has there ever been a determination of a consensus on this issue? John2510 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ and article belong to Wikipedia, not to one editor in particular. If there were consensus for a change it would have been changed in the past two years. Yes, there have been many determinations of consensus, including the present discussion, both for the article title and for mentioning it in the FAQ. This is getting repetitive. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Where? John2510 (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ entry has links to several previous discussions. Perhaps it should eventually link to this one. PhGustaf (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

John2510, perhaps you trying to make the point that there isn't a specific archived discussion where it was explicitly and officially declared that consensus had been formally established for the article's definitive title to be "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories". However, as Wikidemon pointed out, there is ample evidence over an extended period starting in December 2008 that the issue was raised numerous times with many repetitive attempts to modify the title, rename it, reframe it, etc. All such proposals were rejected. Hence, it logically follows that the article title should remain as is, which is a form of defacto consensus if not a literal explicit consensus. Judging by the comments here on this page, there has been no change in group sentiment among the regular editors here on that issue. Unless you are going to present something truly new and novel for people to consider, this discussion has nowhere to go but circle endlessly. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Over the last two years a number of people have complained about having "conspiracy" in title, only to be shot down by the same small group of editors. It seems to me that consensus is with John2510.173.64.145.97 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system Regards. --Weazie (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The "number of people" are also editors. The "small group of editors" are also people. To put in more neutral terms: some people think the title should be changed. Other people do not. The consensus has been to not change it.--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of editors who are people, which editor are you 173.64.145.97 ? --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not part of the same small group of editors. My position, the title is appropriate and should not be changed. JackOL31 (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Claims vs. misconceptions

The new reference added, does not name a single individual who believes that Hawaii was not part of the US at the time of Obama's birth. Therefore, I changed the describing text from "claims" to "misconceptions". In my opinion, in order to correctly use the word "claim" there has to be a specific person(s) or organization(s) that can be attributed to the claim.
The paragraph itself is marginal, as Cohen does not name the poll nor does he even quote the percentage that responded the way he claims they responded. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not even true that they are confused as to when Hawaii became a State. The poll, and Cohen, just state that the respondents believe Obama is Hawaiian born but do not think Hawaii is part of the United States. It's really not that surprising, given that there are a lot of people who are just not informed or correctly educated on geography or history. Has anyone watched Jay Leno do his 'Jay-Walking' bit? Those are regular people that probably vote. Dave Dial (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Section removed. We have no sourcing as to weight - an offhand comment in an op-ed cannot establish that this is relevant and of due weight for the article. Moreover, it logically establishes the opposite, that in addition to having conspiracy theories, some Americans are just uneducated or confused. This article shouldn't be a dumping ground for every last tidbit of cultural news on the subject. In every political question on any topic, there is going to be a subset of people who have some weird uninformed opinions. It would be pointless to clutter up the encyclopedia with that. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Op-eds are not reliable sources for facts. In this case, Richard Cohen wrote, "still others say... that he was born in Hawaii but do not know... that Hawaii is an American state".[8] We would need a news source for that. The 6% of people who do not know that Hawaii is a state may not know that Obama was born there or that there is a requirement the president be born in the U.S. or even that he is president. There are also some people who believe that Hawaii's inclusion as a state was illegal. TFD (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to remove the section, but not for the reasons cited by the removing editor. WP:WEIGHT does not apply here, as this was a very small section that was NOT blown out of proportion. I agree with the removal based on the reasons provide by TFD . Should better references be found for the fact that there are people who believe Obama was born in Hawaii but Hawaii is not part of the United States making him ineligible to serve as president, I would support re-inserting back into the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Should better references be found for the fact that there are people who believe Obama was born in Hawaii but Hawaii is not part of the United States making him ineligible to serve as president, I would support re-inserting back into the article

And how would that fit into this article? That's not some conspiracy to fool people into believing Obama is eligable to be President, it's either ignorance or not being informed. It might be more apt for discussion in the Hawaii article, but I can't see how that particular claim belongs here. Dave Dial (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

All the conspiracy theories presented in the article are due to "ignorance or not being informed". Therefore this one is no different. The only difference is that this one raises the bar for the level of ignorance. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured Articles for April 1, 2011

I would like to nominate this article, as well as Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories as a fetured article for April 1, 2011. Any thoughts? Victor Victoria (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For April Fool's Day? Nah - while many of the theories are a joke, they are taken seriously by the proponents. Having these as FA's on that day would probably cause a bit of a backlash and vandalism that can be avoided by picking the next day. Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can think of far more funny articles. Also, quality-wise this one probably doesn't even live up to its current B rating, no offense meant but it's just not that tight of an article. Maybe we try to bring it up to A class? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What would we need to do to improve this article to bring it up to A class? Victor Victoria (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is bloated and full of minutia. Also organization could be improved. --Weazie (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose it being nominated for April 1. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose it as well. To add the the comments above, it will probably be under heavy vandalism if on the front page, so TFAR may avoid it. I haven't read the entire article but the one tag stands out as an issue. I can run through more of it later and pick out any obvious problems.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So far the only objections that I'm seeing are:

• fear of vandalism
• article is too verbose
• there are unspecified articles that would be more appropriate for April Fools Day

Unless there are other objections, it seems that this article could potentially be a good candidate for featured article, as the objections can easily be mitigated. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking down the featured article criteria I see issues with:

• 1(a), "well written", described as "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". As of now the tone is uneven and the prose is not at all precise to the points. It is nowhere near engaging, brilliant, and professional, and I'm not sure whether any of the editors around here are experienced at bringing articles to that level. I've rarely been involved in the process myself but from what I can surmise it takes a lot of dedicated work by experienced, capable editors.
• 1(b), "comprehensive" - I think there is a big gap here because for all the description of conspiracy theories the article never gets to what is behind them. Is it racism? Is it paranoia? Populism? Mistrust of government? Poor education? A flaw in the media? Deliberate propaganda? If we cannot get to the substance behind the phenomena this article is not doing a whole lot more than pointing out that there are some false claims out there.
• 1(c), "well-researched" - the strength of sourcing could be improved, but that is doable with some effort
• 1(d), "neutral" - the tone seems defensive and argumentative, as if we are trying to prove to the reader that Obama is a citizen. Indeed he is, but the tone is off. That would be very easy to fix but editors have resisted that
• 1(e), "stable" - time will tell
• 2, style. This can all be fixed but it is a lot of work
• 3, Media. Most of the images are more or less the same, colorful pictures of protesters. We haven't found images that specifically illustrate the various topics.
• 4, "..stays focused.." This is the biggest problem in my opinion. Much of the article is a laundry list of lawsuits, claims, and theories, without a unifying theme. There's too much use of primary sources, and a bit of WP:SYNTH to tie the fact that someone has filed an eligibility lawsuit to the article subject, that there are conspiracy theories. This could be a fatal flaw, because the subject matter of the article as presently conceived is not entirely encyclopedic.

- Wikidemon (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Great feedback and guidance on how to improve the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to improve this article so that it can become a featured article, I have no problem with that whatsoever, but I will vehemently oppose any chance of it becoming a featured article on April 1. That is entirely inappropriate. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you feel it's inappropriate? Victor Victoria (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it is appropriate and think it is unnecessary. It is a slap to those hard-liners who believe in the conspiracy and would add to the belief that Wikipedia is biased towards Obama. Essentially, it would attractive unneeded attention. I think the past TFA for April 1, 2007, 2009, 2008, 2010 were more appropriate. --NortyNort (Holla) 09:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is certainly in line with the recent choice of the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack for September 10, rather than the more obvious choice of September 11, which was some comic strip. I didn't look at the discussion, but I'm guessing similar reasoning led to that choice. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding timing, I think we have to assume that any proposal made six months out to coincide with April Fools' Day is either a joke or commentary itself, or if serious, intends for the readers to make a connection between the article and the day celebrating practical jokes. Wikipedia does sometimes time featured articles to coincide with holidays, or with anniversaries of famous events or birth dates, as a way of better informing and piquing the interest of readers, as it did last January 4 on the tenth anniversary of the 2000 Sugar Bowl. More often it chooses articles with no conceivable relationship, for example featuring Ceres (dwarf planet) on the Gregorian New Years' Day. There is likely a guideline or some discussion in the FA pages about how and why this happens. However, one thing we try not to do is to time articles as sly commentaries on the subject matter. Even the appearance of trying to play the smart-ass on the front page is avoided, as was the case recently when Jimbo himself got involved in a dispute over making a "did you know" reference for the Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation article, shortly after a flap over the FBI demanded that Wikipedia remove images of its seal over its strained interpretation of a United States law on the subject. Although the article and timing were likely innocent - an editor, reading of the dispute, researched the matter and thought readers should know more about the seal - many thought that other readers, and the FBI, would see it as a deliberate provocation, and our goal is to inform, not inflame. Back to April Fools' Day, the conspiracy theories are not in the slightest related to the holiday, nor are they a practical joke, so the timing must be a commentary about the nature of the theories, or our coverage them. It is customary for news outlets and content publishers to run joke stories on the day, sometimes blatantly fictionalized stories that briefly hook the reader into belief. Running this story on that day would convince many readers that Wikipedia has decided to make a backhanded commentary either that the theories themselves are some type of joke or hoax, that they are so absurd that they are a joke even if their proponents take them seriously (the joke is on them), or conversely, that Wikipedia and the world are party to a joke in the form of the presidency of a man who is not eligible, a Manchurian President. The intent of timing the FA for April 1 isn't the issue here, because our readers will assume our collective intentions for themselves. I don't think any conclusions they reach about the timing would lead to their being better informed, and they might lead to some very negative reactions. If this article is worth taking to FA status (it seems as worthy as any other topic), it is just as good for March 31 or April 2... or better yet, work on it until it is ready, then get it in the queue. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii

In the last paragraph of this section, there is a statement made by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh which appears to be incorrect. While he states the law as it stood in 1961, it currently has been superseded by a later revision. From what I've seen, this is the current reading of Title 8 Section 1401: 1986 - Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99-653 substituted "five years, at least two" for "ten years, at least five". Based on this information, even under the hypothetical, Barack Obama would be eligible. Do I have consensus to modify? JackOL31 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You might put in something about how the law has since been changed, but that doesn't affect its application to Obama. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a hypothetical that is nonapplicable to Pres. Obama. It's more than just the law has changed, what the Prof said is incorrect (since 1986) and needs to be deleted. Possibly replaced with "the law at that time ...". The statute also states, "This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;". The 1961 version referred to by Volokh is superseded and nonapplicable, eh - of course, none of this is applicable". JackOL31 (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why it needs to be changed, since it was not changed by JackOL31 after asking for consensus(which the editor did not receive). The relevant portion reads:

Andrew Malcolm, of the Los Angeles Times, has argued that Obama would be eligible for the presidency, because his mother was an American citizen, irrespective of where he was born, saying that Obama's mother "could have been on Mars when wee Barry emerged and he'd still be American."[39] According to UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, in the hypothetical scenario that Obama was born outside the U.S., he would not be a natural-born citizen since the then-applicable law would have required Obama's mother to have been in the U.S. at least "five years after the age of 14", but Ann Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born.[40]

With citation (40) stating:

^ Volokh interpreted the law differently in Janega, James (October 30, 2008). "Obama birth certificate rumor debunked". Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-birth-certificate-30-oct30,0,1742172.story. , but later posted a correction at Volokh, Eugene (December 1, 2008). "Correction About Natural-Born Citizen Law". The Volokh Conspiracy. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_30-2008_12_06.shtml#1227910730.

So what's missing? There is nothing new here, and in any event none of it applies to Obama(as I stated below). Dave Dial (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you making the same mistake Volokh describes himself making in the linked blog entry? The "applicability after 1952" sentence only applies to the "provisio" clause. It does not apply to the entire 1401(g) paragraph. Thereby, the "five years, at least two" law is not to be applied retroactively to 1952, making the "ten years, at least five" rule the one which applies up until 1986, and covers Obama's birth. He even lists a technical note 1988 in which the Immigration dept states explicitly that the superceding rule applies only to people born after 1986. JethroElfman (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That is my understanding of this also. Although it doesn't really matter, in terms of being a natural born citizen, because Obama was born in Hawaii anywho. Dave Dial (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But, per Wikipedia's verifiability and neutral point of view policies, it is not our place as WP editors to assert our beliefs regarding such matters. It is our place to document from a neutral point of view what reliable sources have said about such matters, giving those sources due weight in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors 'assert our beliefs' all the time. And this particular issue is a no brainer. Dave Dial (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Bill. On this topic, there are opposing opinions concerning whether a Kenyan-born Obama would be inherently a US citizen through his mother. Both viewpoints have great numbers of adherents, and for the birthers it does matter. Andrew Malcolm and Eugene Volokh have sufficient stature to be used as references for each opinion. JethroElfman (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is commentary reporting?

Can someone explain the purpose for references 8 and 9? They link to commentary pages rather than news links. An opinion piece is not a news article. 184.100.46.85 (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Give actual links. The current current references 8 and 9 do not appear to be commentary. Also, just because it is commentary does not mean it gets outright rejected. It also depends how the commentary is referenced. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What if he was born in Kenya?

There is no actual talk of editing isues here, just speculation on the topic itself. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If he was born in Kenya how would that change his status as a natural born citizen? He would be American at the time of his birth due to having an American mother, unless I'm missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.47.66 (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, that is exactly correct. But apparently truth is not a consideration for birthers. (And he was born in Hawaii.)Tvoz/talk 15:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC) the birthers claim that the federal citizenship law at the time of Obama's birth required that the American parent have been a US citizen for one year prior to the child's birth, and since Obama's mother was less than 19 years old, she was therefore not a US citizen for one year. They also claim that since his father was Kenyan he was, therefore, at the time of Obama's birth, a subject of the British Crown, and since British citizenship laws at the time did not allow dual citizenship, that means that Obama was, by definition of British law, a British citizen. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC) That's utter rubbish. Obama's mother was born in Kansas and was the child of American citizens. She was an American citizen from birth. The citizenship-begins-at-18 thesis is utterly delusional. As the child of a US citizen, Obama would have acquired citizenship by birth, whether he was born in Hawaii, Kansas, Kenya, or Krypton. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC) AND HE WAS BORN IN THE FIFTIETH STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. HAWAII. Can we close this now? Tvoz/talk 23:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC) The question was asked about why birthers can't imagine Obama being a citizen. I think it's a proper question and a proper discussion. Nobody here is throwing out theories, it's a discussion of the subject of this article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, but "...talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article." (WP:NOT#FORUM). Tvoz/talk 08:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Balance

This article contains just about every piece of mudslinging possible about Obama's heritage. What's ridiculous the evidence that rebuts all that is said comes in the first section. That should be the end of the article but instead it just goes on and on!! For purposes of argument, this whole article is about the completely unsubstantiated belief that Obama does not have obvious Hawaiian heritage. It might as well be 90kbs worth of drivel about whether he is a reptile from the Planet Xyxyxy! For balance this article should not just promote every fringe theory out there. Therefore why is there no proper examination of the people making these claims?

By having an article that deals solely with "claims" that have been completely refuted demonstrates that this page is nothing more than a fan site for fringe nuts i.e. enough nut jobs say it's so, it therefore becomes a belief of sorts. One man's God is a delusion, two man's a cult and several million a globally recognised Church. Without analysis or self critique this page is just prose listing every ridiculous lie surrounding Obama's birth without examination of those adherents claiming the belief.

Furthermore look it at this way. Using the logic of this page, and the baseless nature of the material, if enough people wanted to create pages such as "The Moon is made of Cheese", "Hitler was a nice guy", or "Apples are really blue". As the authors don't have to step and submit themselves to scrutiny, they can hide behind the unfounded claims that they make. My point being the things stated have to be refuted not the character or the motivations of the proposers. I hope something can be done because all this article tells me is that a lot of sad people have too much time on their hands. As the page is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories", the article can be surmised as nothing more than huff, puff and guff. It should therefore focus less on the outlandish and more about the people making the claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.4.0 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation. The article can hardly be said to endorse these theories. It comes out and states that they are false. It's not supposed to promote them, but it does cover them. That's the nature of information. We cover a lot of things without necessarily approving or disapproving of them. We actually do have articles about The Moon is made of green cheese (the rhetorical example) and Holocaust denial (the fringe theory), incidentally. Nothing about blue apples because that isn't a real meme out there. Wikipedia does cover the activities of people with too much time on their hands. Some would say Wikipedia itself is proof that people have too much time on their hands. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

People not believing in the certificate is a noteable social phenomenon and thus worthy of coverage. Lots42 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii" section

This section opens up with the words, "Opponents asserted that Hawaiian officials had not explicitly addressed the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, and ..." and continues for a couple of sentences, eventually citing this Washington Independent article as a supporting source. The cited source appears to support the assertions which I have not quoted here. I can't find support for the assertion requoted here, however. I suggest that the portion of the section intro requoted here be replaced with "Some have". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Having seen no objection to the suggestion, I've made the edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch; Hawaii acknowledges Obama's birth. --Weazie (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see an article full of opinions as a place for a "source" Trentc (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

== Nunc pro tunc ==

This subject has already run its course, and this is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't get it! Wikipedia has so much unreliable junk on it in the way of non-factual (untrue) articles, including the nonsense on this one, but nunc pro tunc is the name of a practice for removing and replacing State documents. It means "now for then" and it is supposed to do no harm, but just like Wiki editors with nonsense articles such as this one, the practice is stretched to allow for the remote possibilty that this COULD happen! I have no axe to grind one way or another, but I am interested in education and I am also interested in making this information available since I know of instances where this has harmed ordinary, non-political people. Yet there seems to be an effort to make sure that the nunc pro tunc link disappears by claiming that Wikipedia is unreliable, what a joke! Wikipedia is unreliable and certain editors seem to love it that way. Consequently Wikipedia is something not to cite in any academic article. So what is the point of it? It is one giant blog! 80.192.68.143 (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC) You have to provide a reliable source that states a link between what you are describing and the links/edits you are inserting. You cannot make up your own research and synthesis. Even if everything you are claiming is true, it's not fit to include into Wikipedia without reliable sources. Dave Dial (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC) To clarify: We are not specifically doubting that nunc pro tunc exists or that there may be problems caused as a result. What we need a reliable source specifically making a connection between this practice and conspiracy theories regarding Obama's citizenship. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Agree with the above. Also, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for articles. You can't use one Wikipedia article to reference another - you should look at the references from the first article in the second article to see if they can be used. But the biggest lack was a good source that directly tied the nunc pro tunc concept with Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Ravensfire (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I am not into the master conspiracy nonsense, nor am I interested in wading into this particular issue. I was directed here while looking for something else and I took time to read the article and follow some of the major existing links. Clearly, if either of you Wikipedians had actually taken time to read the core of the article and become familiar with the practice of nunc pro tunc, you would see that what these conspiratorial nuts are saying (some of them) is that documents were removed and replaced by others - that is the process of "nunc pro tunc" in action. Now for then, removing one document and replacing it with another. But I will leave you to it. If you don't want to take the time yourselves to actually understand what is being argued, then you should remain silent. Trying to enforce a policy with regards to something that you don't understand is very similar to confronting the brain dead government employee who looks at a social security card and says "You're dead". Read this article and then read the nunc pro tunc article. Then you will have a basis for offering advice. But that is up to you and that is why Wikipedia in many instances is just a big blog of useless information. 80.192.68.143 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I think I understand your point. The problem is that what you are offering is analysis, basically, it's original thought. That doesn't mean that your point of view isn't valid, it just means that we need a reliable source to back it up before we can add anything about it to the article. Henrymrx (t·c) 08:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC) By the way, please don't insult people around here. It's against our rules, and not a good way to make your point. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Also, no one is disputing the existance of nunc pro tunc, but rather whether a reliable source has reported that a birther has made the claim that Obama's records were nunc pro tunc'ed. --Weazie (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I came here from a link on the Barack Obama talk page. I'm wondering if this article is appropriate. Just because you can find reliable sources to say people questioned his place of birth, does Wikipedia have to provide space for this? I'm thinking this might well be bordering on a WP:BLP vio, if not to the letter, than certainly the spirit of the policy, and I'm thinking it should be nominated for AfD. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC) We have plenty of articles covering fringe views and their followers. See WP:Fringe) Certainly acceptable so long as it is neutral. TFD (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Then for WP:NPOV purposes, it might be a good idea to remove the photo of the 1961 birth cert versus Obama's birth cert. Birth certificates change over time and the current one being issued for that same individual who's birth cert is the 1961 version would definitely look today just like the one the Obama campaign released. That is one reason why in America you have to show a recent copy of your birth cert for things such as passports, etc. The comparison of a new version to an out-dated version is stacking the scales a bit there.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC) "That is one reason why in America you have to show a recent copy of your birth cert for things such as passports, etc. The comparison of a new version to an out-dated version is stacking the scales a bit there." What a crock. I have copies of my grandparents, parents, and my own birth cetificates. That is dating back to 1900. And you know what? For 70 years and 4 different states, they all look basically the same. So don't be coming on here and start pulling crap out of your rear-end. Trentc (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC) The hairsplitting over the birth certificate is very much part of the "theory" of Obama's ineligibility; it is an accurate representation of the beliefs being espoused. --Weazie (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC) As noted in the article, Factcheck.org [9], seems to have solved that mystery. I think the man was born in Hawaii, just like he says. The article seems to read more like a tabloid. As I said, I'm surprised it's on Wikipedia, but then The Care Bears article has a criticism section (how silly is that?) so go figure. Maybe it could be edited down to salient points rather than all the speculation.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC) LOL! 'Fact'check.org? Obama has ties to that organization. Trentc (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Not true, but why should the truth stop the birthers? Corvus cornixtalk 19:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC) There is absolutely nothing you can write/say to convince these conspiracy-theory minded people of the truth and facts. Nothing. Just remind editors that this is a page to improve the article, and not a place to spout what they believe. Dave Dial (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Not true? According to the Wiki article on Obama, "He 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 1999." Well ghee, then we head on over to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge page which states, "was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001 that worked with half of Chicago's public schools and was funded by a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years from the Annenberg Foundation." Then head over to the FactCheck wiki page which states, " is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation." You may just want to stay off Wikipedia with all your "knowledge" of how things are "not true!!!" Trentc (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead photo

The lead photo is now in a deletion debate, if anybody is interested in contributing to the discussion. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

so what is the 'debate'? just keep it. Trentc (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Kesha Rogers

An unregistered user added a reference to Kesha Rogers in the article. The contribution was swiftly reverted. I've never heard of her before, so I looked her up, and found out that she is a big critic of Barack Obama, calling for his impeachment. I was unable to find anything to suggest that her reasoning for impeachment have anything to do with Obama's eligibility to serve as president due to questions about his status as a natural born citizen. Should anything come up that she is a birther, I suppose that would be appropriate to add to the Campaigners and proponents section, as she would be notable as a Lyndon LaRouche supporter (running under the Democratic Party banner) supporting the conspiracy theories. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Larouchites are anti-Obama, so the fact that she thinks he should be impeached is hardly notable, since they all think that way. Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Which makes it even more important to include her, as the majority of the LaRouche supporters are not notable, her notability would allow a paragraph to be written about the LaRouche followers. Assuming, of course, that they are birthers, and not just critics. Victor Victoria (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter Fitzpatrick

Fitzpatrick is a former naval officer who doubts President Obama's eligibility. He tried to convince his local grand jury to indict Obama (for treason, etc.); when it refused, he interrupted one of its sessions, and sought to place the grand jury foreperson under citizen's arrest. Fitzpatrick in turn was arrested (by law enforcement) and currently is awaiting trial on those charges. Reliable sources have reported all of this. Birthers are keenly following this story, but is it sufficiently related to this topic? Fitzpatrick's charges stem from interrupting the grand jury, but his motivation for doing so was birther related. --Weazie (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I found 3 stories on the WBIR-TV web site regarding this story.

• April 1, 2010 story (not an April Fools' Day joke)
• a tangentially related story on May 4, 2010
• A followup story on October 28

In those references it only says that Fitzpatrick wanted Obama indicted for treason, not for lack of an adequate birth certificate. Therefore, unless it can be shown that Fitzpatrick's motivation was Barack Obama's ineligibility to serve as president due to not meeting the "natural born citizen" requirement, I don't see how this case fits into the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This 'Mother Jones' article provides the link. (It is also all over Fitzpatrick's blog, but that's not a reliable source.) --Weazie (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

His blog is a reliable source about himself. I'll take a look at it this weekend to see how it can be added to the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Promise fulfilled, and I did not even have to rely on his blog. Thanks for the tip. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Caption to billboard photo.

The billboard does not say anything about a "long form". It just challenges him to release a birth certificate. Since he did, the billboard challenges the validity of the document he released. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

wrong; he released a "Certificate of Live Birth", not a birth certificate. Trentc (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not true, but why should the truth stop the birthers? Corvus cornix_talk 19:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You were saying??? http://www.uspoliticsguide.com/images/barack-obama-birth-certificate.jpg It amazes me how many people just accept things as fact without even bother to make sure it is even true. And now those same people wonder how he even got into office. Trentc (talk)19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's what the whole discussion is about. The colb is his birth certificate. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The billboard says, "Where's the Birth certificate?" The current caption, purporting to clarify this not very unclear content, says, "A billboard questioning the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate and by extension his eligibility to serve as President of the United States. [...]" The billboard does not challenge the validity of the released documents, and it is original research to assert that it is the opinion of Wikipedia that it does. The billboard does not challenge Obama's ability to serve as President, and it is Original research to assert that it is the opinion of Wikipedia that it does. The billboard asks (depending on the reader to understand about the COLB document which has been released) that the long-form birth certificate be released. It is original research to speculate about what motivates the question without citing a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the birther logic. Unfortunately for the birthers, and those that sympathize with them, it's not real logic or anything close to sourced. The fact is, the birth certificate was released and confirmed by every media outlet that inspected it, and every court has upheld that fact. It's the birth certificate you receive when asking for your birth certificate. It's the birth certificate you use when applying for a passport or any other official document. So no, your reasoning is(birther) original research and synthesis. The current caption is well documented. Dave Dial (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not "birther logic", whatever imaginary figment that might be. The billboard says what it says, and does not say what it does not say. Asserting without citing supporting sources on behalf of Wikipedia that the billboard says or implies something which it neither says nor implies is WP:OR, and is not WP:NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(added) I have boldly removed the caption entirely. The message on the billboard is simple enough not to need interpretation, particularly interpretation containing POV editorialization. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(another addition) I suggest that this photo be moved to the "Release of birth certificate and its rejection by conspiracy theorists" section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a well established fact, and sourced throughout the article many, many times, that the Obama campaign released the birth certificate of Barack Obama. It's a fact, and it's sourced. We are not going to have a lead image on top of this page without describing those facts. Personally, I liked having Obama's birth certificate as the lead image, but whatever image is the lead image is going to describe the facts inside the article. Your claims of NPOV are like saying we have to give equal weight to fringe conspiracy theories to the facts that are backed up by reliable sources. That's definitely not the case. Dave Dial (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the dispute. Here are the facts

1. Billboard asks "where's the birth certificate?"
2. Barack Obama released his birth certificate in 2008

The billboard therefore questions the validity of the birth certificate that Obama released (and as stated by Dave Dial, the questioning of the certificate is referenced throughout the article).

Of course, the only reason anybody cares about Obama's birth certificate is because of questions about whether he is eligible to serve as president. This is documented in the article with all the litigation challenging the validity of the Obama presidency.

I am therefore puzzled as to the WP:NPOV and WP:OR claims.

Victor Victoria (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The caption adequately expresses WND's view on this matter. Would a cite to a WND article clarify? (WND can be cited to demonstrate what WND espouses.) --Weazie (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Beg to differ. Joseph Farah states the WND position [http://www.wnd.com/index.php/?pageId=199373 here] (and probably elsewhere). There, he asks the rhetorical question, "Is Barack Obama constitutionally eligible for the presidency?" and answers that question with "We don't know." I've tagged your reinsertion of the caption asserting otherwise {{POV-statement}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just rhetoric; the truthers who ask "Did George Bush cause 9/11?" really aren't asking a sincere question, but are planting the idea through the asking of the question. And I did not reinsert anything. --Weazie (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

HuffPo's WorldNetDaily's Birth Certificate Fraud. --Weazie (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You lost me here, Wtmitchell. You provide a reference showing that WND is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to serve, and then you add a template to the article questioning the neutrality of the statement that the billboard is questioning Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president of the United States. What gives??? Victor Victoria (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, Farah's statement of WND's position ("We don't know") says that WND is not completely convinced that Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president. I accept that as a sincere and truthful statement. Others may hold the opinion that Farah speaks insincerely and/or untruthfully here, but such opinions should not be used to cast Farah's stated expression of WND's views on the matter as something other than what those views have been stated to be.

Also, to my mind, being unconvinced that something is true is not the same as being convinced that it is false. Describing a statement by someone that he is unconvinced that an assertion is true as a statement that he is convinced that said assertion is false is a distortion.

Also, though we are not in a courtroom environment here and compliance with the best evidence rule (paraphrase: secondary evidence will be not admissible if an original document exists, and is not unavailable due to destruction or other circumstances indicating unavailability) is not a requirement, it is still a pretty decent rule of thumb. The billboard simply asks that the best available evidence be disclosed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't asking "Is Barack Obama eligible to serve as president?" and providing any answer other than a "yes" constitute "questioning whether Barack Obama is eligible to serve as president"? Victor Victoria (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that providing the answer "I don't know" does not. I think that providing such an answer indicates that one is unconvinced by whatever evidence has been presented that the answer should be "yes". See also "Responding to Weazie", below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We are not going to get into this circular logic debate over and over. Each time it's the same reasoning, and each time there has been no reliable source given, and only synthesis based on original research from websites/outlets that are not reliable sources here(Free Republic, WND, etc). The fact it, it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. With clear and convincing evidence provided(birth certificate, birth announcements, statements from government officials). To everyone. You might as well tag a picture of the moon as violating the NPOV standards because someone questioned if it was made of cheese. In other words, if WND put up a picture of the moon and asked "Is it made of cheese?", it's the same thing. You seem like a smart and intelligent editor, but you should stay away from these conspiracy theory articles. You become unreasonable and refuse to accept the standards that are used here as facts. Dave Dial (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly there is no concensus for the tag inclusion. And to paraphase an example from the rhetorical question page, "Who knew that smoking causes lung cancer?", the questioner is not asking for a show of hands. Given the volumunious -- and uncontradicted -- evidence that President Obama was born in Hawaii, WND's "question" is not sincere, especially because it ignores all that evidence. Oh: The best evidence was provided (Obama's COLB), but WND refuses to accept it on the very bases discribed in this article. --Weazie (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between the noun form of the word "question" and the verb form of the word "to question". The "question" that is on the billboard "questions" the validity of Obama's birth certificate. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should use tags as a proxy for discussion, but I'm sympathetic to Wtmitchell's point that the caption includes some analysis of things not there in the words on the billboard, and that is not sourced. The billboard asks a rhetorical question, where's the birth certificate, based on the false premise that Obsma's birth certificate is not accounted for. Just why they have arrived at the false premise or how they would support it if they chose to debate it (he never released it, it's not the real birth certificate, it's real but not valid, it's valid but does not show that he was born in Hawaii, whatever) is not for us to speculate. Without that analysis, and with a little more cleanup, the caption might read:

A billboard asking rhetorically where Barack Obama's birth is, bearing in the bottom right corner the URL for WorldNetDaily, which argued at the time that Obama's eligibility for the office of President was in question.

- Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, saying that the question is rhetorical is Original research. In my opinion, they really want an answer to their question. The fact that the answer is "released to the world June 2008" implies that they are questioning the validity of the document that was "released to the world in June 2008". Victor Victoria (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems obviously rhetorical to me (as in "where's the beef"), probably as obvious as it is to you that the question is premised on the acceptance that Obama did release the birth certificate but that it was invalid. Point taken, though. We shouldn't include speculation either way. Best to strike the word "rhetorically" in my proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Wikidemon, I think that an assertion that WND argued at the time that Obama's eligibility for the office of President was in question would need to be supported by citation of a WND piece clearly making such an argument. I don't think that neutral reportage by WND re others making such an argument is equivilant to WND making that argument itself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Weazie: I erred earlier when I described the question "Is Barack Obama constitutionally eligible for the presidency?" which Farrah asks [http://www.wnd.com/index.php/?pageId=199373 here] as a rhetorical question. Actually, it's a hypothetical question used as a rhetorical device. The best info I've found in WP on hypothetical questions is at Thought experiment#Uses. I do not believe that asking a hypothetical question as a rhetorical device is equivalent to taking a position in support of whatever can be argued to be contained in the hypothetical question. The point of such a rhetorical device is to highlight one's response to such a hypothetical question, not to highlight the question. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "Where's the birth certificate?" is more of a battle cry than a question. In many places in the U.S., that phrase is instantly understood, and to suggest that it is simply a question to be taken at face value contradicts commonsense. The billboard pictured in the article cost someone thousands of dollars; people don't go to that much trouble unless there is a serious issue at stake (such as undermining people's beliefs re the eligibility issue). Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in the U.S. and last visited there in 2003, so I haven't experienced that "battle cry" atmosphere. Your comment did, however, cause me to search for info. That search turned up [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=145801 this April 25, 2010 WND article], which says that the billboard campaign started one year previously. That would have been on April 25, 2009 -- just over two months after Obama's inauguration. I doubt that "Where's the Birth Certificate" was a battle cry back then, and don't see how that relates to this article topic, to the subject of the photo caption, or to the question of whether the present caption is or is not OR or NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that WND was on a campaign, both before and after the election, to foment mistrust of Obama by promoting the fringe conspiracy theory that he is not an American citizen. Whether they did that as political partisans, wingnuts, or just a stunt for the notoriety and ratings is harder to tell. The point is that they were not sincerely interested in finding answers to that question, and the billboard was not an attempt to seek answers - it was a political act. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as an expression of your opinion, which may or may not be valid. If that is asserted in the article, though, please cite a reliable source which supports the assertion. AFAIK, the most reliable source about WND's editorial policies and about what WND has published is WND itself. While looking at the WND article mentioned in my response above, I noticed [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546 this link] to what is billed as WND's complete archive of articles on the issue of whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve. That may be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether one prefers to label "Where's the birth certificate?" a rhetorical question or a hypothetical question, it is clear from WND's articles that it is aware of the 2007 COLB (which is a birth certificate); WND simply refuses to accept this as sufficient proof. This denialist behavior is exactly what is described in this article, and thus accurate. In any event, the inclusion in the caption referencing the citation you provided sufficiently addresses your concerns; the discussion on this edit has run its course. --Weazie (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WND says here [10] that the purpose of the billboard is to raise the eligibility issue; to "join in a campaign to generate public debate and discussion". They ignore the 2007 COLB entirely, so you can't really say that the billboard questions the validity of the COLB, or accepts the COLB while requesting further evidence. Of course, the lawmakers were wary of someone using the best-evidence rule as an argument, and in statute 338-13 declared that legally, a printout such as the 2007 COLB is just as good as having the 1961 original. JethroElfman (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's my summary of WND's history of birther claims, not my opinion about them. WND is not a reliable source regarding its own actions, editorial practices, motivations, or opinions. I don't think we can safely treat any of WND's advocacy as part of a larger coherent position on the subject - it's just printing stuff for whatever reasons it has. We've seen in some other cases that the organization and its writers have said things about the organization that are not fully true. The existence of a story attributed to WND on the WND website is reasonably (not completely) reliable as a primary source to support the fact that WND published the story. The WND name on the billboard and the statements on the site that they engaged in a billboard campaign are reliable to source that WND is in some way responsible for the billboard(s). But I would not go too far beyond that without solid secondary sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Re WND as a source about itself, I was think of it in the spirit of WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. I still see it that way, not having seen those assertions supported by reliable sources (re its writers having said things about the organization that are not fully true and that the existence of a story attributed to WND on the WND website not being reliable as a primary source to support the fact that WND published the story—note, I've deleted "supported by reliable sources" here, as it is not a WP requirement that cited sources must cite their sources). Perhaps the assertions have been supported and I've just missed seeing that, but I looked at the WorldNetDaily article, and didn't see it in the WorldNetDaily#Criticism section there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. Weighing whether a source is reliable or not is a matter of Wikipedians editorial discretion based on their analysis of things. The argument doesn't go WND is not trustworthy as a Wikipedia source as to its own history [cite to New York Times]. Specifically on the birther matter, WND in early 2009 attempted to edit war birther claims into Wikipedia's Barack Obama article as a breaching experiment (they admitted), published a misleading account that ignored their involvement then, once caught, changed the original posting of the story rather than issuing a correction. David Shankbone has a pretty good summary of this on his blog.[11] There is a little sourcing for this (you can look at the Klein article), but the more convincing direct evidence is in the Wikipedia article history archives. At any rate, I would not trust WND's self-published statements about their motivations for questioning Obama's birth certificate. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Re your assertion a couple of comments back, "WND is not a reliable source regarding its own actions, editorial practices, motivations, or opinions.", that sounds like a matter for WP:RSN. I'll ask there, linking this exchange (that'll probably be in a few hours -- I'll have to get moving in a few mins from now).

I'll take a look at the blog you mention just out of general interest. That may or may not be a citeable supporting source -- my guess is not, but I haven't looked at it yet.

You say, "The existence of a story attributed to WND on the WND website is reasonably (not completely) reliable as a primary source to support the fact that WND published the story.", without citeing a supporting source. Perhaps that's intended to be supportable by info from the aformentioned blog. If that "not completely" assertion is supportable by a solidly reliable source, I'd take it as a pretty solid indictment of WND's reliability about anything at all. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This exact article already has spurred a similar RSN discussion. --Weazie (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That discussion concluded that WND is not a reliable secondary source, and though reliable as a primary source as to the content of its own statements does not by itself establish the due weight of those statements. However, that discussion is stale because it occurred before WND was caught misrepresenting its birther advocacy on Wikipedia, and editing its own back story to cover up the misrepresentation. Getting to the bottom of this doesn't require secondary sourcing - we have better than that, the User:Jerusalem21 edit history. But it is covered to some degree in the sources that the blog, and Klein article, link to. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I had lost track of where we are and how we got here, so I looked back. To recap:

• You suggested modifying the caption to read A billboard asking rhetorically where Barack Obama's birth is, bearing in the bottom right corner the URL for WorldNetDaily, which argued at the time that Obama's eligibility for the office of President was in question. (subsequently striking the word "rhetorically" from the suggested wording.
• I opined that assertion that WND argued at the time that Obama's eligibility for the office of President was in question would need to be supported by citation of a WND piece clearly making such an argument.
• You provided a link (it's a dead one, but I think [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=98565 this] is the page you meant) said to be to an article where WND says that the purpose of the billboard is to raise the eligibility issue; to "join in a campaign to generate public debate and discussion" (I see that they speak there of having "relentlessly pounded the eligibility questions"). You say, "They ignore the 2007 COLB entirely, so you can't really say that the billboard questions the validity of the COLB, or accepts the COLB while requesting further evidence."
• Looking at that WND web page, I see that it says, "... The idea is to make sure Obama cannot avoid this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn." The only reasonable meaning I can see to assign to the "it" of which they speak there is the document sometimes called a "long form certificate of live birth" -- the unreleased document said to be on file in Hawaii.
• I continue to believe that the WND billboards asking "Where's the birth certificate" are asking that that unreleased document be released.
• That WND web page goes on to say, "WND previously launched a petition campaign that has collected more than 370,000 names demanding Obama's eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly." I read that as having been a demand that Obama's eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly (to WND's satisfaction by releasing that unreleased document). I do not read that as having asserted that Obama is ineligible to serve. I think that describing it as an assertion that Obama is ineligible to serve would be a distortion.

Getting back specifically to the caption which we are discussing at such length, its initial sentence currently reads, "A billboard questioning the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate and by extension his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.", citing [http://www.wnd.com/index.php/?pageId=199373]. The cited item comes up as a dead link for me. Can you provide a live link? I would like to verify that the source cited here (1) does question the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate and (2) does question his eligibility to serve as President of the United States. (If you cannot provide a live link to the cited web page, could you quote a relevant snippet? I'm guessing that googling for some literal text on the page will turn it up at a different URL.)

This may come down to a question of interpretation of the words "has relentlessly pounded the eligibility question". You seem to believe that it means that WND has relentlessly questioned and/or challenged Obama's eligibility to serve. AFAICS, it means that WND has relentlessly campaigned for Obama to better demonstrate that he meets the constitutional eligibility requirements by releasing the unreleased document said to be on file in Hawaii (hence the question: "Where's the birth certificate?" (concluded hastily and posted from an internet cafe -- I need to get moving on to someplace else) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be conflating what several people say here. At any rate, because of WND's functioning as as a political advocacy group for fringe matters and having misrepresented its actions on the matter, rather than a media outlet reporting news, we cannot accept its statements as trustworthy. If WND says that WND collected Y names on a petition demanding Z, we cannot take on face value that any of this is true. If a billboard attributed to WND says N, all we can gather is that a billboard attributed to WND says N - to be careful we ought to find a secondary source even for the fact that WND actually sponsored the billboard. We cannot rely on WND's claims that it did, or its explanations for why it did so. It would certainly be a mistake to derive from its statements a consistent overarching argument about Obama's citizenship status. By all indications it was simply trying to discredit Obama, not trying to lay out a cogent argument or stating an actual opinion it held. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to there about conflating. If you are speaking of the bullet-pointed list above, I was speaking of recent comments by you in this discussion, of a dead-link WND link which you (you, not I) provided in those comments, and of a live-link to the WND content to which I believe you were referring when you provided that WND link.

Following that, saying "Getting back specifically to the caption which we are discussing at such length," I got back to the caption. This discussion began with unsupported (and POV AFAICT) assertions in the caption. I see that the assertions in the caption are now supported by a cite of a WND web page[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=199377] That link (again, added not by me but by someone else) was dead for me when I checked it during my last comment, but it's live now; it points to a WND web page offering to send a report by email. That WND web page (added as a supporting cite by someone other than me) does not appear to support the assertions in the caption which cite it for support. I filled out the form on the web page (again, not a page cited by me) and submitted it, which produced an email sending me to another WND web page which says, in part

Is Barack Obama constitutionally eligible for the presidency?

We don't know.

That also does not appear to support the assertion in the caption (the cited URL for which led me to look at it).

I downloaded the report offered on that web page. That report wanders all over the place, but eventually gets down to the point relating to the caption which is under discussion here in its "Conclusion" section. There, it says, "President Obama could quickly and easily resolve the issue by releasing his personal historical documents to authenticate his claims."

I continue to believe that WND is seeking the release of the document sometimes called a "long form certificate of live birth" which is said to be on file in Hawaii when they ask, "Where's the birth certificate?"

I still have not seen any support for the assertion in the caption describing the imaged billboard as "... questioning the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate and by extension his eligibility to serve as President of the United States." As to the first part, I've seen assertions that the released document might possibly not be valid (The Report document which the current cite eventually leads to discusses this at some length), but I've not seen a claim that it is invalid. Likewise, I've not seen an assertion that Obama is not eligible to serve as President (I have seen assertions that he is ineligible if he does meet constitutional eligibility requirements, indications that WND is unconvinced by the released document, and assertions that the unreleased document said to be on file in Hawaii should be released to resolve the matter, but I have not seen an assertion that he is ineligible).

As I see it, still, neither the billboard not any other WND document I've been referred to questions Obama's eligibility to serve as president. Rather, they express doubt that the released document fully, completely, and finally settles the issue, and they ask that the issue be resolved by release of the unreleased document said to be on file in Hawaii.

If I've missed finding a source which would unequivocally supports the current caption, the current very dodgy supporting cite should be replaced with a better cite of such a source. If no solid supporting source is available for the assertions in the caption, the assertions should be changed to say something which is supportable. (again, saved in haste -- I've been told that I've got to get moving and get back to real life issues) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot make out your point. Are you suggesting that WND may only be requesting a clarification on the birth certificate because they happen to be very interested in such matters? And there is a possibility that the billboard is not a comment on the elligibility issue? In that case, why aren't you asking how we know that the bilboard is about Obama? You also seem to think that a comment like "is he elligible ... we don't know" should be taken at face value, when it is obviously a political attack (how would you expect a voter to react to repeated comments like that?). Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say or do all those things here -- other people did -- but no matter. Absent a reliable source all we can say about the photograph is that it depicts billboard with the WND logo that contains the question, where is the birth certificate? WND is not a reliable source as to its own actions, motives, or opinions, so it is not helpful to include their statements on the purpose of the billboard campaign. Johnuniq is on the money that the most obvious thing is that it's a political attack. Political attacks are best understood according to the political goals they are trying to achieve, who is trying to achieve them, and to what end, not the make-believe logic in which they are cast. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you seem to have arrived at the same point I was at before this discussion heated up: "Absent a reliable source all we can say about the photograph is that it depicts billboard with the WND logo that contains the question, where is the birth certificate?" Don't include WP:OR, attributed or unattributed WP:SYNTHESIS, or WP:POV unless it passes WP:DUE and is attributed and source-supported. For whatever is included, comply with WP:V. AFAICT, the caption in its current form flouts all of that.

I would disagree somewhat about the harsh exclusion of citing WND -- They are a reliable source to support an assertion that they have published whatever it is that they have, in fact, published (e.g., the snippet I quoted a comment or two back from the "Conclusions" section of that report I dug up by following the WND cite in the current caption), but I'm getting pretty sick and tired of beating my head against the stone wall of this article and I'm not going to argue hard at the moment about including any assertions which WND's publication of that snippet might be cited to support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(added) I've placed a {{failed verification}} tag after the Ref in the caption with the relevant cite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(added) See here for a discussion about whether this tag should be retained or removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How about just changing the caption to A WND billboard bearingn the question, "Where's the Birth Certficiate" - ? (or something like that). I've lost track. Is there any opposition here to simplifying it so as not to include any analysis of what WND specifically means by it? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is. About 4 or 5 other editors have either undid that attempt by the above editor, or tried to explain to him on here that WND is definitely questioning the validity of Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to serve as President. It's sourced throughout the article and I just added another source. What we have here is the same God Damned circular argument that presented every month or so, by the same editor. This thread should be closed and this issue put to rest. It doesn't matter which edit this particular editor has a problem with, the essence is ALWAYS the same. Making claims that the birthers only want Obama to release his "original" birth certificate. No matter what the edit is, that is the general gist of Wtmitchell's point. And no matter how many editors show him there is no freaking difference, and Obama definitely DID release his birth certificate, he just repeats the same lines over and over. If that picture is going to be the lead photo, it needs to be explained in the caption. Dave Dial (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

JethroElfman, I take your point re 336-13 to be that WND should not be unconvinced that the released certification demonstrates Obama's eligibility. WND has probably detailed the reasons why they remain unconvinced somewhere in their published articles. Not being convinced may or may not be unreasonable of them, but it is supportable that they are unconvinced. The billboard photo (the caption of which is the topic of this section) is one manifestation of their being unconvinced. I'm not sure where this is leading. Are you saying that the challenged unsupported photo caption is not POV because WND should be completely convinced and are not? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=197557 This WND article], describing a WND-produced report on President Obama's eligibility, contains these two quotes about the report: "An explanation of Obama's 'Certification of Live Birth' posted on the Internet and how it falls short of providing proof" and "Should state officials who claim to have 'seen' Obama's 'original birth certificate' be believed?" --Weazie (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to an earlier comment by Johnuniq. Apologies. Here's a belated response:

• I'm not suggesting what WND might or might not be doing. I am unable to read their minds (others may believe that they are able to do that, but I do not have that ability). I may have drawn some conclusions about that, and if I did it was inadvertent and based, probably, on what they said they were trying to do.
• You ask why I am not asking how we know that the billboard is about Obama. I've seen WND articles which said so, and I took them at their word. Those articles could be cited in support of that point, but they would probably meet a storm of protests about WND not being a reliable source about what WND's billboards are about.
• Yes, I think a comment like "is he elligible ... we don't know" should be taken at face value. It might be discredited, but that would need strong support. Absent such strong support, it should be taken at face value.
• It is not obvious to me that such a Q&A is a political attack by the party saying, "I don't know."
• If someone is unconvinced that Obama meets eligibility qualifications but is also not convinced that he does not, I would expect his truthful answer to the question "is he elligible?" might be "I don't know."
• Re the foregoing point, I don't think that consideration of what a third party hearing that question and answer might think about it should influence the answer.

Are WND a bunch of underhanded agenda-driven people with a blind hatred of Obama, his political philosophy or his political party? Maybe; maybe not. Are some others a bunch of underhanded agenda-driven people with a blind devotion to Obama, his political philosophy or his political party? Maybe; maybe not. Are such agenda-driven people editing this article? Maybe; maybe not (I'd personally guess that this is probable). 10:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)