Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Use of unreliable sources

Okay.. I know this topic is covering a fringe/conspiracy theory, but all of the sources here still have to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. This article has a multitude of sources that do not meet this guideline and, even worse, almost all of these are unnecessary as the coverage on this has been in-depth enough in truly reliable sources that the non-reliable source does not have to be used. Sources that I've removed so far are a Michelle Malkin article making a claim about Berg, a WorldNetDaily article about Berg's injunction request being denied, and a link to the ObamaCrimes website's reproduction of Berg's ad. While the ad and website are put out by Berg, self-published sources can only be used in articles about the subject (so it can only be used in Berg's article) or in an article where the author is an established expert. While the conspiracy/fringe theorists may consider Berg to be an expert, he is neither a constitutional scholar or historian. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those removals (I have made a few errors at this article, but not those particular ones).Ferrylodge (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Frank Benjamin here. The second paragraph has an error. yes, the paragraph sites sources. Those sources are incorrect. : The Donofrio Case has NOT been dismissed. it is currently pending. See SCOTUS site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Benjamin (talk • contribs) 06:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

FB still. In the Donofrio v Wells section of the article. The article is inccorrct, despite its surce (60). In fact, SCOTUS has the case as pending in its December 08, 2008 order. (see link above to Supreme Court website) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Benjamin (talk • contribs) 06:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, according to that Supreme Court link you provide, and confirmed by all the reliable sources referenced in the article: "08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied." Priyanath ^talk 06:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

When talking about these cases, it's important to keep in mind the difference between applications for writ of certiori and for emergency injunctions. I've seen examples in Associated Press articles that say the suit is denied, only to find out that actually was an injunction that was denied. As of today, December 20, Donofrio's request for injunction has been denied (no record of a writ existing)Kevin (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC), and Philip J. Berg's latest injunction has been denied, but his writ is scheduled for discussion by the Court on January 9 according to the SC web site.Kevin (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So it's not okay to use Berg's own site (ObamaCrimes.com) here just because this article isn't specifically about Berg? On Dec. 12 I added that here to source a claim marked "citation needed" about alleged Indonesian citizenship. All I was doing was attributing Berg's opinion. And what's unreliable about conservative magazines/writers? I mean, c'mon, they can be right sometimes despite their floods of misinformation. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You have to be very wary of citing a source with an obvious political bent. However, if you're citing Berg's source for information on what his lawsuit is about, I would think that's reasonable. Who would know better than he, what he's trying to prove? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

BB, as a self-published source, Obamacrimes.com can only be used in Berg's article for uncontroversial claims about Berg. Since this article is not about Berg, you can't use the site as a source here. Additionally, if you allow sourcing of the site here "because Berg knows the details of his lawsuit the best" you'd be opening this article up to using fringe websites to supporting their theories because who knows their theories better then them. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Tough call. Berg's site is a good source for what Berg thinks, and Berg is an established expert on what Berg thinks. I say cut the whole thing down to one line a litigant and be done with it. "Litigant presents case, judge says no" and "litigant presents case, judge says ha ha" are not notable events, and that's all we've seen. SCOTUS dismisses over 7000 cases a year unheard; each one doesn't deserve an article. PhGustaf (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the point I was making. It's the best source for what Berg's viewpoint is. It's not a valid source for the legal merits of the case. That would have to come from elsewhere. The court's rejection of it is part of that. Independent commentary on it is another part. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The main article section on Obama's early life states the hospital in which he was born. While there are two newspaper reports cited as reference, neither newspaper explains how they know this. The hospital definitely is not the source according to the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, who said: "While most Obama residences can be traced, the hospital where he was born is difficult to document. The desire of historians to pinpoint where Obama's life began has crashed head-on with the modern American propensity toward confidentiality. The federal Health Information Privacy Act of 1999 [sic] — a law passed to protect medical records from public scrutiny — prevents hospitals from confirming births, administrators contend.". The Advertiser attributes the hospital name to "Obama's family and other sources". I am going to add this reference to the main article because it explains where the story comes from, and is in general a much more informative source including quotes from the hospital.Kevin (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

price per letter

Bobblehead made a recent edit removing the price per letter. I would argue that the price of the letter is important because it tends to show that the letter writing campaign is as much an attempt at fundraising as it is a purely civic minded effort. I re-inserted it with a very slight wording change. Jbarta (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upon further investigation, FedEx'ing a letter to each of the nine justices would certainly cost a few bucks, so maybe the $10 is more to defray costs than to raise funds. At any rate, they *were* charging $10. I might also argue that it might be fair to add "to help defray costs" since the WND article that is referenced mentions that it would cost more for individuals to send their own FedEx letter.

On another note, I see that the source used for this letter writing campaign points to slate.com, which in turn points to the freerepublic.com which in turn points to wnd.com for the details of the WND letter writing campaign. Why not just point to wnd.com? Are articles on one web site considered somehow more reliable if they are referenced through other web sites? Seems to me that going straight to a particular source would be preferrable to going to the story through intermediaries. Jbarta (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That it was FedEx used to deliver letters because The Supreme Court limits the type of delivery it will accept. It wasn't a traditional "letter writing campaign" using the post office. It was specifically a FedEx letter writing campaign. That said, the use of the wording "sponsored a FedEx letter writing campaign" is agreeable to me. Jbarta (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The $10 charge is an irrelevant trivia as far the larger topic of this article is concerned and we do not need to synthesize facts or speculate as to whether WND's motives were to defray cost or raise money.
2. "Are articles on one web site considered somehow more reliable if they are referenced through other web sites?" Yes! WND is a unreliable source as far as wikipedia is concerned, which does not mean that everything they publish is incorrect - but does mean that we cannot judge what on the site is true and what is made-up. So, the fact that New Republic and Slate chose to talk about WND's lettter writing campaign, is both necessary and sufficient for us to judge the reliability of this factoid. (Of course, we still need to consider WP:UNDUE, but for now it seems ok.) 66.253.202.164 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Being relatively unwise to the ways of Wikipedia, the whole business of reliable vs unreliable sources seems to me rather murky and subjective. Certainly I understand and agree with the basic concept, but the issue does seem to be frosted with a heavy topping of subjectivity... in other words "if I disagree with the source it is unreliable and anything taken from it is discountable nonsense". Specifically regarding WorldNetDaily, where has it been determined that anything on their site is unreliable? Is there a working list of which sources are or are not reliable? How can an editor determine whether or not a source is considered reliable or unreliable that doesn't include wallowing around in a mosh pit of emotional and unreasonable debate? Jbarta (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The unreliabilty of WND was discussed here, for example. I found that merely by googling "WND and Wikipedia and Reliable source". Basically, if you stick to sources having uncontroversial reliability, then you'll avoid controversy about whether they're reliable. WND is reliable for what the views of WND are, but its more general reliability is controversial.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of discussion and clarity, are there any examples of sources that can be described as very conservative, right wing, often critical of Obama and/or Democrats in general that ARE considered reliable sources by the average Obama supporting editor? A couple that that come to mind might be the National Review or The Heritage Foundation. Would statements coming out of either one of those organizations carry as much weight as statements coming out of the New Republic or The Center for American Progress to an editor of this article who believes the first two are just a bunch of "right wingnuts"? Jbarta (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, if an article is titled "news" in a mainstream publication that is widely viewed as a reliably neutral source, then it's okay here. Otherwise, it's not. I doubt that the Heritage Foundation or the Center for American Progress claim to be news organizations, so they shouldn't be used as sources for objective statements of fact. However, they may be used as sources for what some conservatives or liberals believe, respectively. Generally speaking, if you'd like to learn more, please visit WP:RS, which is probably a more appropriate venue for this kind of discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

'natural' birth abroad

The article doesn't mention that he may inherit citizenship from his mother even if he was born overseas. I happen to have here a copy of relevant clauses of the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, §301:

(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: . . . (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.

(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United States for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.

And P.L. 85-316 (1957) §16:

In the administration of section 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, absences from the United States of less than twelve months in the aggregate, during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required, shall not be considered to break the continuity of such physical presence.

(This is quoted on the back of my consular birth certificate, issued in 1960.) If he was born in Kenya, would he not be a US citizen under these clauses? —Tamfang (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• The crux of these wacky theories is that he is not a natural born citizen, not if he is a citizen at all. Guess what that means, you will never be the president. Sorry. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at these words in the Act: "at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years." His Mom was only 18. This is covered slightly in the present article, which mentions "Volokh."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

While the theory is about Natural born citizen, the arguments are lifted from older anti-immigrant writing where the crux of the argument WAS citizenship in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdavids (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Keyes defeated by Obama

I see in the introductory description of Alan Keyes it is noted that he was defeated by Obama in the 2004 Illinois senate election. He has also had a reasonably respectable career that includes being an ambassador to the UN, assistant Secretary of State and staff member of the National Security Council. And without arguing with the label of "perennial candidate", he has certainly achieved some respectable showings in various elections on par with many other "respectable" candidates who also happened to lose their races. My question is, with all to choose from, why has this particular career item been placed next to his name? (I know what the answer is... I'm just looking for a better explanation and justification.) Jbarta (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Because sour grapes looks like the likely (only?) reason he's pursuing a bizarre, doomed-to-fail campaign against the president elect in the absence of any evidence to support the crazy conspiracy he says he believes. He's a "perrenial candidate" because he's run, what, 12 times for various high offices, and always lost. All of this is most relevant vis a vis the question: "Why is this guy on the obama conspiracy badnwagon?" Hint: The answer isn't that he spent two years in the 80s on the United Nations economic and social council.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And *I'm* supposed to be the conspiracy theorist ;-) At any rate, is it normal Wikipedia policy to cherrypick and arrange facts in an attempt to manufacture a conclusion? Even if half the country believe that Keyes' actions "looks like sour grapes" that doesn't mean that's what his motivations actually are. I'm not opposed to making mention of the fact that he lost a Senate race to Obama, I simply object to the idea that right out of the cage we are describing him as "Keyes, the guy who lost a senate race to Obama (hint hint)". In his Wikipedia article he is first and foremost described as a "conservative American political activist". I think that more accurately describes Mr. Keyes, and when introducing him, use that as a description instead (sans 'American'). If you also wish to offer a notable quote stating that the quoter believes Keyes' motivation is an election loss to Obama, no problem. Jbarta (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jbarta on this one. The text was great for me to lift for my own web site which is dedicated to ridiculing Obama conspiracy theories, but it's not what I would want in the Wikipedia.Kevin (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

ObamaCrimes.com

I noticed that Berg's ObamaCrimes.com website has been mentioned, but not made into a link. Is this deliberate? Since it's a significant part of Berg's effort, is there any objection to actually linking to it rather than just mentioning it? Jbarta (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It violates WP:ELNO, specifically with "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

By that logic we could avoid linking to most all religious sites. If OJ Simpson made a website where he stated his case that earthworms secretly rule the world, and his efforts were notable enough to warrant a description in Wikipedia, you're saying that editors could describe his efforts and mention the site where he's making these allegations, but they just can't link to it. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Jbarta (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The guideline WP:ELNO says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject". If ObamaCrimes.com isn't an official web site for Obama conspiracies, plus Berg's official web site (I would argue) then I don't know what is.Kevin (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

liberal vs conservative

Just an observation here... in this article the word conservative has been used as an adjective preceding a name a total of six times. The word liberal has been used a little less than once. Certainly there are one or two names in this article that can be tagged with the adjective "liberal"? Jbarta (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've yanked all the 'conservative' labels. This is not a liberal vs. conservative matter. This is a mainstream thought vs. conspiracy theory issue, whose boundaries do not align on political ideological but rather mental temperament. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored one instance of the word "conservative" here just to show that both liberals and conservatives are involved (previous sentence says "liberal").Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The other use is based on someone's self-description in the context of this issue, although unless it can really be verified I would junk it too. Us putting a label on Keyes is unwise – he's more of an idiosyncratic super-egotistical constitutionalist than a garden variety conservative at this point. Again, conspiracy theorists and fringe nuts operate on a different axis than the normal political spectrum. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Couldn't have said it any better. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WTR, as you said, "This is not a liberal vs. conservative matter." That fact ought to be indicated somehow in the article. Keyes self-identifies as a conservative, even in the present context. See [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82640 blurb at bottom of this column by Keyes]. And there are billions and billions of reliable sources that say the same thing about Keyes. You would apparently prefer to consign him to the outer reaches of the political galaxy where there is no such thing as a conservative or a liberal, but that is not what the reliable sources say, or how he self-identifies.

I understand that you would like to characterize this whole thing as a conspiracy of wingnuts, to the maximum extent possible. And to some extent I agree with you. However, you are sweeping with too broad a brush. Donofrio is not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination; he merely seems to take the fringe view that the minority opinion in Wong Kim Ark was correct instead of the majority opinion. Additionally, if everyone who thinks Obama ought to prove his eligibility is part of a vast conspiracy, then Obama himself is part of that conspiracy, because he decided that he ought to reveal his short-form birth certificate. Keyes is merely saying that he ought to go one step further, and also reveal the long-form. Personally, I'm 99.99% sure that Obama is eligible, but that does not mean we should mischaracterize the people who are less certain.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that if he showed another birth certificate, these types would say that was a forgery and demand to see doctor's notes from the maternity ward. And if those were produced, the same response again. No conspiracy theorist has ever admitted they were wrong, as their psychological makeup doesn't allow for that. As for Keyes, he is no longer anywhere near the mainstream of American conservatism, and to give him the 'conservative' label suggests that mainstream American conservatism is sympathetic to this cause, which it is not. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily takes the position that the short-form is not forged. Donofrio takes the position that the short-form was not forged. So, no, I do not agree with you about forgeries.

As for the notion that identifying Keyes as a conservative suggests mainstream conservatives agree with him on this issue, that's false. We obviously acknowledge that Keyes is a human being, but that does not mean all human beings agree with him. This article is replete with statements about how insane Keyes and his cohorts are on this issue, so I don't see any danger that identifying him as a "conservative" (once) will give him any credibility on this issue, or imply that he has more allies than he actually has.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot. Now that it's abundantly clear that none of these wacky lawsuits is going to unseat the president-elect, we're down to arguing about incredibly minor unimportant details. Sure, Keyes identifies as a conservative and shares many values with many other people on the far right. And sure, this is a wacked-out conspiracy theory with no credible evidence to support it. Whether or not we call Keyes a conservative one time in this article isn't going to change that. If people want to know more about Keyes' particular brand of socio-political mumbo jumbo, they can click on his name and read his bio. It just does not make that big of a difference. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, we should be consistent with what the Alan Keyes article says. I've modified the description of Keyes to match what it says in his article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Details on litigations necessary?

Are the details for the court cases really that necessary? So far the court cases themselves have only been notable in the sense that they are bringing the various theories into the mainstream media, but the specific dates of trials, their results, and lawyers representing the cases are not particularly notable as far as the theories go. As an example... In the Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz section, is it really necessary to say that "the case was dismissed on November 3 by State Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers?" I could see that particular case being reduced to three or four sentences and still getting the point across:

On October 31, 2008, Connecticut resident Cort Wrotnowski, a health food store owner and register Republican filed suit against Connecticut Secretary of state Susan Bysiewicz alleging election fraud and requesting that she be ordered to verify Obama's citizenship before allowing him to appear on the ballot. After the case was dismissed on November 3 by the Connecticut State Supreme Court, Wrotnowski filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a stay or injunction. It was initially denied by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then refiled and submitted to Justice Antonin Scalia, who forwarded it to the full Court for review where the application for stay and/or injunction was denied.

I'm also a little concerned with the reliance upon primary sources for information here. If the specific details are not notable enough for inclusion in secondary sources, that kind of tells me that it isn't important enough for inclusion here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is way too much detail on the cases. The notability is not the minute details of the course they are tracking through the legal system, but on their fringieness. A year from now these details will be irrelevant, and thus they are irrelevant now. Priyanath ^talk 18:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a restructuring of the article in general is necessary? Instead of giving the cases their own sections, perhaps they could be rolled into the appropriate theory section? As an example Donofrio and Wrotnowski into the born in Hawai'i, but still not a natural born citizen section and Berg, Martin, and Keyes into the "Possibly not born in the US" section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming back here to say the exact same thing. Priyanath ^talk 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I wouldn't mind keeping the litigation section, but boiling it down and perhaps getting rid of the subsections. Note that the cases do not cleanly fall into one category or the other (e.g. the subsection on Berg's case says that Obama "had to have renounced his American citizenship to have attended Indonesian school").Ferrylodge (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, my concern with keeping the litigation section is that a decent amount of the content for the theories sections is largely based upon reporting related to the litigation and if we keep separate sections for the litigation and the theories we'll have a continuation of the redundancy that we currently have. Seriously, how often do we really have to mention in this article that Hawaiian officials have said the birth certificate can only be released to someone with a close relationship to Obama (him, family member, member of his campaign/administration) and that they can't release it to the public or that "constitutional scholars" say that Obama being born in the US means he's a "natural-born citizen"? :) Keeping different sections for the litigation and an explanation of the theories pretty much requires us to repeat this information. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Berg is a throw crap at the wall and hope something sticks lawsuit, but that being said, his primary argument is that Obama was not born in the US, so therefore can not be a natural born citizen. The claims about Obama being adopted by Soetoro and/or having to give up citizenship to attend school in Indonesia are the just in case he was born in hawai'i portion of the lawsuit.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I just cut out a lot of stuff, especially redundancies. I still kind of like the format, though.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's premature to reformat this section drastically; right now, while these cases are (at least technically) still making their way through the courts, it's very, very useful to have a clear summary of which case is which and where each is. Once they are (presumably) all dismissed, it will be easier to reduce this to a more concise summary, but right now the details of each of these cases are getting a lot of attention in mainstream media--not just from the fringe--and this article is a much clearer guide to the facts than Snopes or anything else I've been able to find. (Thanks again to the editors who have put the work into making this so.) One other point: I understand Bobblehead's concern about overreliance on primary sources, but I also think we should be careful not to allow the inaccuracies that creep into press coverage to obscure facts that can be definitively established from prima facie valid (and important) sources like the Supreme Court docket. A specific (albeit somewhat lawyerish) example today--although a particular press report may refer to Wrotnowski having been "dismissed without comment", the order list actually says the application was "denied." There may be a substantive difference, because "denied" suggests a definitive ruling while "dismissed" might not.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to what advantage there may be to maintaining the litigation at this time. If the United States Justice Foundation is to be believed, there will always be several of these cases in progress because they plan to litigate every decision Obama makes throughout his tenure based on him not being a natural-born citizen. It should also be noted that just because the cases do not have their own section, it does not mean that they wouldn't be covered in this article.

In regards to primary vs secondary/tertiary sources, regardless of "errors" in secondary sources, Wikipedia has established that secondary and tertiary sources are preferred to primary sources and that the use of primary sources should only be done with caution. If a secondary or tertiary source inaccurate reflects the primary source, then the best course of action is to find a secondary source that correctly interprets the primary source.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just on general principles, I think litigation mumbo jumbo should be separate. I just trimmed a lot of it, and maybe we can revisit the matter later to trim more, but for now it looks okay. Also, there are plenty of secondary sources in the litigation section, so sprinkling in a few primary sources doesn't seem like a big problem, IMHO. If redundancy was the main problem, I think that problem has now been cured.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think explaining at least the bare bones of the major cases shows the scope and variety these bizarre challenges have had. Notability is a requirement for entire articles, not individual sentences or concepts within those articles. Of course we also don't want to give undue weight to cases that are only reported in small town papers or on talk pradio or something, so there is a fine line to walk here. In short, keep the section, but maybe trim it down, batching similar cases together but noting the many unique (read:crazy) approaches. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would not describe the present section as a clear summary. It's closer to a running total or a stream of consciousness. I think a tabular form would be much preferred (but I don't know enough about Wiki formatting to do it). Three columns: case name, where filed, status. Example: Berg v. Obama et al. (with hyperlink) | US Supreme Court | Distributed for discussion on January 9. With a table, one could tell at a glance how many cases there were and eyeball their status. I think we could drop *all* the emergency injunction filings which are mostly noise.Kevin (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Rumors

Is it possible to post within the article refutation to allegations that are purely rumor? The following for instance:

"It is also alleged that Obama made a trip to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport, during a period when U.S. citizens were forbidden to travel there, thus indicating a loss of U.S. citizenship."

Oddly enough, this sentence is flagged for lacking a reference, however it wouldn't be difficult to find a source to corroborate the existence of the rumor. There are many websites that discuss the rumor, and it's mentioned directly in the Berg lawsuit. Finding direct evidence to refute it with a statement equivalent to "there was never a US ban on travel to Pakistan" is much more difficult, as this statement doesn't seem to exist.

However, I can also find no information to confirm that there ever was a US ban on travel to Pakistan, either. In fact, I find much information that would seem to pretty clearly refute it. While Pakistan was a military state in the early 80's, the US was heavily allied with it. It was a staging site for US-funded forces fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, and also a US-funded site for Afghan refugee camps. Logic would indicate that the US would not ban travel to a region where it was pumping both military and relief funding. Obviously, review by US Citizens of how military & relief funding was being used would have been of extreme importance to the US government. Also, many US-based relief organizations would have wanted to volunteer their services to Afghan refugees in this region.

There is a contemporary article in the New York Times about an American who traveled to Pakistan in 1981 which makes the whole travel ban thing rather absurd sounding (the article says: "Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports". I believe the fact is that there was a "travel advisory" for Pakistan in 1980, as there is today.Kevin (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, due to the US philosophy of personal freedom, travel embargoes are extremely rare. There may have been others, but I can only find mention of two in recent history, and both would point to a need for direct attack or extreme threat against the US in order to move the government to ban travel. There was one formerly against Libya from 1981 - 2003 that originated due to their attacks on US military jets in 1981, and continued as it supported terrorism and defied the demands of the US and the UN. And of course there's the current, long-standing, and highly controversial Cuban embargo that originated during the Cuban missile crisis. However, throughout the Cold War, we never had embargoes on the USSR or Eastern Europe. And we don't currently have travel embargoes against Iran, North Korea, Syria or any country that the US views as an enemy and/or a supporter of terrorism. Cuba is the only one today.

The posting of rumors creates a need to also present alternative theories as well as factual evidence that either refutes the rumors or raises reasonable doubt. However, citing proof that a rumor is false presents a serious challenge, absent a mainstream website that has cared to research and write about it. If it would be allowed, I'd be willing to do further research on the topic of this rumor as well as many others. I've done a great deal of online research to find information from the State Department and mainstream sites that refutes almost all of the assumptions of the citizenship conspiracy theories. I'd also be willing to contact the State Department to obtain additional information to solidify my theories. If I'd be able to cite my own writing, I'd even be willing to publish them on my own website. However, I'm pretty sure that using your own website as a reference is against the rules. I'd be interested to hear any ideas others have. The conspiracy theorists do a great job of passing these rumors around their sites and linking back and forth amongst themselves, but there is little focus by anyone interested in the truth to find evidence to refute them. --Wri1975 (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just that "a source" can be found, but rather that a reliable source has to be found. I've done a quick bit of hunting around on this specific rumor, but so far all I've been able to find are sources that have been propagating the theory do not meet the reliability standard, so they can't be used to support that it's out there. Conversely, even if we were able to find a reliable source that the rumor is out there, you also couldn't do independent research to refute the claim. That would fall under synthesis of published sources, which is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. In the case of this specific rumor, it would not be allowed to write a sentence that said "However, this theory is not true because the US government has never banned travel to Pakistan[link to a US State Department page] and Pakistan has never banned Americans and non-Muslims from visiting their country.[link to Pakistani Govt page]" Basically, you'd be using two unrelated published sources to push a theory that neither of the published sources actually mention. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead's correct. FYI, here's a reliable course that he went to Pakistan, but it doesn't say much more than that: Tapper, Jake. “Obama's College Trip to Pakistan“, Political Punch, ABC News (2008-04-08).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I found plenty of reliable sources that said he went to Pakistan after attending Occidental, but none of them mentioned that he was banned from doing so (either by Pakistan or the US) and that therefore he would have had to done so under an Indonesian passport. I don't think the trip itself can't be sourced, just the theory that it is evidence he is not a natural-born citizen. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why our notability guidelines say that a subject should be discussed by independent secondary sources. Any reliable source reporting on this allegation would be likely to do any fact checking and refutation necessary. Just another reason why this article shouldn't include every self-published allegation against Obama's eligibility. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean verifiability policies? WP:N is about whether an article can be created, not the content within the articles. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability it is. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So if the sources aren't supportable, then it seems that this statement shouldn't even be included in this article. And what you all are saying is that the existence of this rumor would have to be verified by a major media outlet, who would also likely research it from both sides? I have to admit that it seems strange that in an article discussing conspiracy theories that a self-published rumor on an unreliable source wouldn't support that the rumor is out there. Conspiracy theories are fueled by rumors published by unreliable sources. And if a rumor is admissible, it seems even more strange that evidence refuting it from a true authority wouldn't be admissible - like a verifiable statement from the State Department that no such ban ever existed. --Wri1975 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of articles on conspiracy theories.;) But yes, we are saying that the existence of this theory would have to be verified by a reliable source (of which major media outlets are one example) and if a reliable source did document the theory, but did not include a rebuttal to it, then a rebuttal to it could not be included if you were able to find a source that refuted the theory, but did not actually mention the theory.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did actually mean notability. Notability is a real concern when dealing with fringe theories. From the general notability guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The converse is also true: if independent sources have not written about a subject, it may be presumed to be non-notable and therefore not suitable for inclusion. And notability does apply to all content, including content within articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability is primarily a concern for articles as a whole, rather than sub-sections within them (that's why the line you quote speaks of "the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article"). I believe you're thinking of undue weight, where one aspect of a topic receives undue emphasis. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the lead of the guideline saying "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles."--Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Timing of litigation to electoral college vote

Is it really necessary to include things that happened to be timed coincidentally as if they have a relationship? Just because Berg refiled his injunction request on December 15 and the electoral college vote took the same day does not mean there is a relationship between the two events. Unless a source can be found that ties the two events together, the addition of the electoral college vote is just an unrelated trivial detail. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, except that the injunction request was an attempt to halt the very Electoral College vote that took place on December 15. Thus, they are related. If there were no such vote, there wouldn't have been a need for an application for injunction or the refiling of same. The fact that the vote did take place is relevant. Of course, that is not to say that it is relevant to the substantive issue of Obama's citizenship. Nevertheless, it is relevant to the Berg v. Obama case. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Except the injunction is not just to prevent the electoral college vote from taking place. It was to prevent the electoral college vote from taking place and prohibit the Senate/House from counting any votes for Obama. That's not to say the injunction won't be rejected, but the electoral college vote isn't the final step in this process and if the Supreme Court were to approve the injunction they could still prevent the Senate/House from counting the vote and thus making Obama president.;) But as noted earlier, unless a reliable source is provided that connects the timing of Berg's refiling and the electoral college vote taking place, making such a connection is a synthesis. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? I don't see the attempt to prohibit the Senate/House from counting any votes for Obama in the article or the references. --Evb-wiki (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

←The Connolley source article (note53 at the moment) makes the point that Dec 15 is the date the EC votes, so I added that fact at that ref point; the USA Today source about the Dec 15 vote does not talk about the injunction or about the Berg case, and therefore I'd have to agree with Bobblehead that it's synthesis to add it there. If you find a reliable source that makes the connection between the injunction denial and the vote, that might be ok to add. But as it is worded now, it seems to me that it's not needed - the point is clear. Tvoz/talk 06:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest keeps getting deleted

Second time after it was perfected. I understood how the first one did not really look or sound good, so I revised it, pretty much rewrote the entire thing and it sounds not bad. I have three sources that note that Barack is former chairman, one may have been partisan but the other is not and the third is right here in wikipedia. It works out and it is true and not against Obama. If someone believes that my excerpt is partisan, they should check all references and delete which is partisan, not the entire thing.
My excerpt:

Some question the connection between Obama and FactCheck.org as they are funded by the same corporation: the Annenberg Foundation. Obama is actually former chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. This conflict of interest is significant in the argument that there is a difference in the Certifications of Live Birth on both FightTheSmears.com and FactCheck.org but it does not have any standing in the cases against Obama that he is not a natural born citizen.

Mdandrea (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Annenbergs are conservatives, not liberals. Fringe theory FAIL. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The president and chairwoman of the Annenberg Foundation, Leonore Annenberg, endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Fringe theory really fails. Priyanath ^talk 02:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

How can you decide what fails? It is still a theory that is mentioned a great deal in court cases. This article is about conspiracy theories is it not? I mention the theory and how it works and then I note how it has no standing in cases against Obama's citizenship.

Mrs. Annenberg's endorsement does not shoot down the theory. Is she an expert in document fraud?
Mdandrea (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me also say that each time my post was deleted, it was not about fringe theory, it was about partisan links. And there are three sources that are just pointing out one thing - Barack Obama was chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, it had nothing to do with politics! I believe some admins watching this article have a partiality towards something or someone and should worry about more important things. Mdandrea (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is about a fringe theory. The basic facts are that Obama was a former chairman and all that, sure. Where the tinfoil hattery comes is is when you try to draw connections and conspiracies between them all. That is the subject matter that is fringe gibberish tied to unreliable sources.

Protip; A section that begins with something like "Some question the connection..." is likely going to be a no-go. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources are completely unacceptable, but the theory itself has been covered in reliable sources. As far as the theory being crap, well it is part of a conspiracy theory. Calling it crap is kind of like saying a Yugo was a crappy car. True, but a bit of an understatement. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Btw, it's mentioned in the Salon article about why the conspiracy theory will never die.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If the Anneberg passages were worded in a way that delineates that that is part of the conspiracy theories and how it is a part of said CTs. then it would be appropriate for inclusion. The way it is worded currently makes it sound like this is an objective counterpoint when it is fringe theory writ large. Make it clear that the Anneberg part is a claimed facet of one of (or multiple) CTs then it might be legitimate to include. Lestatdelc (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to provide this reference of an early proponent of the Obama/Ayers/Annenberg triangle.. Kevin (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to chime in that I don't see a "conflict of interest" here. If anything, all across the spectrum I see a tendency of bias more than anything else. Obama is very popular and the common perception is that citizenship challenges are trivial and "fringe", so there is a general fitting of the available facts and opinion to support that predetermined conclusion. In some cases it's fairly blatant, in some cases it's very subtle. I'd place factcheck in the subtle category. It's pretty clear they set out to "put the citizenship issue to rest", although they do treat the issue with a respectable dose of evenhandedness. I think that's more an issue of bias on a personal level than a conflict of interest on an organizational level. Jbarta (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Inconsistencies between the two docs posted is part of what originally drove this conspiracy at the outset. A reading of the Berg lawsuit conveys this, irrevocably tying this allegation/conspiracy to the argument. Efforts to ignore it neglects any opportunity to justify the differences. Both candidates are self-professed moderates, thus partisan debates are tenuous over the question of conservatism versus liberalism. The smell test here is based on the facts of questionable difference which appear between the said document posted on Obama's page and factcheck.org, regardless of political sway. Markdandrea (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New Conspiracies

I've bumped into a few. How far nutcase do we want to go, like the association of Obama with the biblical number of the beast 666 (put Obama and 666 in a search engine)? Kevin (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You might have a hard time tying that into the natural born citizenship issue. And, while some specifics of the citizenship issue may be relatively unknown to the masses, and while the citizenship controversy in general is unpopular and trivial with many who DO know the specifics, and while some of the characters involved do display slightly wacky tendencies from time to time, the natural-born citizenship issue in general is not "nutcase". Jbarta (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Kevin raises an interesting point, aside from whether this article should include all the various conspiracy and wacky theories. All of these fringe theories, including the citizenship one, have a common thread—painting Obama as an "other", i.e., "not one of us". For example, he's a Muslim, or he's really not a natural born citizen, or 'we don't know much about him', or he's the anti-christ. Maybe the article should be titled "Barack Obama isn't one of us conspiracy theories". Priyanath ^talk 23:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you are doing what so many others do... taking a legitimate issue of constitutional eligibility, and framing it as something else in order to more easily dispose of it. For me (and probably many others), the issue has nothing to do with whether or not he's "one of us" or his religious affiliation. It is a question as to whether or not he meets the constitutional eligibility requirements to be President... nothing more. Jbarta (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I'm sure you're aware, there's much more to it than just whether he meets the constitutional eligibility requirements. The underlying theme is the idea that he's not "one of us", not a "true American", etc. That's what lay behind the "secret Muslim" claims and it's no coincidence that some of the people most responsible for those are also involved in this conspiracy theorizing. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This topic is not about general constitutional eligibility (that's for someplace else). This topic is about conspiracy theories and how they relate to Barack Obama's eligibility specifically. There are other conspiracy theories about Barack Obama, and they should IMO be documented somewhere.Kevin (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a topic about the allegation that Obama may not be eligible for the Presidency because of possible natural born citizenship questions. As a first line of defense, the issue was immediately slapped with the label "conspiracy" and anyone willing to give it a closer look as vengeful nuts (I'll concede in part justifiable due to of the somewhat questionable motives, statements and tactics of a few of Obama's loudest accusers). At any rate, lumping this issue in with garden variety "conspiracy theories" is a mischaracterization IMO. Jbarta (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point about 666 not being related to citizenship, nor is the alleged forgery of his Selective Service registration citizenship related although it is full-blown conspiracy minded. But I see some value in making the topic more general, to "Conspiracy Theories about Barack Obama".Kevin (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Another tangential issue is related to Chester A. Arthur. Arthur's father was a British citizen when he was born, a close analog of Barack Obama. Leo Denofrio on his Natural Born Citizen web site is making claims that Arthur intentionally created a campaign of lies designed to misdirect investigators into his citizenship (leading them to think he might have been born in Canada) so that they would not look at the facts right in front of them that his father hadn't naturalized before Chet was born. Kevin (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"summarizes the contents of the original 1961 birth certificate"

The first paragraph uses the phrase "summarizes the contents of the original 1961 birth certificate". In normal circumstances this might be a minor issue, but considering the context, it's not all that minor. According to the Wikipedia article on Birth Certificates, this short form certification contains "limited information"... not a "summary". I think a more accurate description of what was released could be something like "The Obama campaign also released an official copy of the candidate's Certification of Live Birth which contains limited information drawn from his original 1961 birth certificate". I'm sure there are those who may take issue with such a blantant refelection of the actual facts, but I throw it out there for discussion anyway. Jbarta (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No. A more accurate description would acknowledge that a short form birth certificate contains all the information necessary to give proof of name and place/time/location of birth. If the Wikipedia article claims that it provides "limited" information, then that article is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Original birth certificates can contain all sorts of neat stuff you won't find on a short form. In addition to the more mundane length and weight, there may be amendments, changes of name, late registrations, not to mention birth hospital, attending physician and other details. The short form birth certificate simply takes limited and legally current information and prints it into a certificate that is usable whenever you are required to provide a legal certificate of birth (as an aside, Obama wasn't required to provide this certificate... he volunteered it). I think "limited information" is a little more accurate than "summary". If you look at the two types of birth certificates side by side, it is very plain to see that one contains a limited amount of information drawn from the other. A summary implies that ALL infomation is summarized... INCLUDING any changes or amendments. This is not the case. Jbarta (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Either description is insufficient. The short form certificate contains enough information to satisfy any legal requirements when presenting proof of birth, and it also serves as proof that a long form certificate exists (or existed, in the case where the record has been lost). That isn't "limited" information, because that implies some sort of lack of information. A better description would be that it presents all necessary and pertinent information. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the state of Hawaii, their Department of Hawaiin Homelands "utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."[1] So, saying that the Certification of Live Birth is a summary seems about right, IMHO. We could say instead that it's an incomplete computer-generated record as the state phrases it, but I think "summary" is sufficient for now.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey, "summarizes" is insufficient, by itself. (Jbarta, "summary" means a "shortened version of the original", so it already says what you want it to say). I think the statement should be changed from "which summarizes the contents of the original 1961 birth certificate, and states that he was born in Honolulu" to "which is a legal summary of the original 1961 birth certificate—and confirms Obama's statements and the 1961 newspaper announcement of his birth—that Obama was born in Honolulu." Priyanath ^talk 23:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper notices are dealt with in the body of this article, and shouldn't be in the lead, in my opinion. For one thing, the newspaper notices do not say what country he was born in, so we cannot say that they confirm he was born in Honolulu.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is more accurately described as an "abstract". The US Department of State calls it "short (abstract) versions of birth certificates" In all cases what vital statistics agencies hold in their "vaults" are called "Birth Certificates" and what people get are called "certified copies". The certified copy can be produced in different ways and may appear in different formats and may vary in content, for example some states issue what are commonly called "baseball certificates" for children to use when joining sports teams. The last system I worked on had 6 different certificate formats. The terminology is a bit complicated and varies between states and between contexts. Birth registration forms contain two sections, the legal section and the medical section. The National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease control publish a "national standard certificate" which is a model for state forms. The NCHS sample shows what a real long form looks like (compared to the so-called long form photocopies floating around the Internet). When a VR agency prints a computer-generated certified copy for a customer, it's the "short form" and when they print an in-house document for verification with a medical provider, it's a "long form" which contains all the data fields. When talking about photocopies of original records, the top part is cut off and given to the customer and that too could be called a "short form" by people in the industry who know about the medical portion. I think "certified abstract" is the best term we could use for the Obama Certification of Live Birth. For the vault record, what they will get should it ever come to light will not really be the "long form" because the medical information (birth defects, complications of pregnancy, risk factors...) is never released. It will be a certified copy of the legal portion of the certificate. I would call that, to avoid confusion, "a certified [photo?] copy of Certificate of Live Birth".Kevin (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The word "abstract" is synonymous with the word "summary,"[2] and more people will understand the latter.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"Abstract" in the sense of a birth certificate is not the same thing as definition 6 in your dictionary reference. A birth certificate abstract is a selection of items "removed" from the original (in the sense of the verb "to abstract" = remove selectively). For example, if you had a class of students and you listed their last names and their desk assignments, you would never call this a "summary" of information about the class; you have only abstracted some information from the total things that could be said and presented that. The abstracted information on a birth certificate is not a "summing up" of the information on the full certificate, but basically the selection of a few key items necessary to certify facts of birth frequently used for legal purposes (such as getting a passport). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdavids (talk • contribs) 22:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Original Birth Certificates do not contain "amendments" or "changes of name". Amendments and name changes are separate documents. The original certificate is never physically altered or it wouldn't be "original" now would it?Kevin (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that a copy of Obama's original 1961 birth certificate has surfaced. Any objection to using this as a reliable source and putting this pesky issue to rest once and for all? Jbarta (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeh, that looks like a reliable source. And if you believe that, I've got a slightly used bridge to sell you. Some assembly required. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this was just Jbarta's attempt at sarcasm. It's obviously just meant to be a funny spoof ("Baby Baraky"). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

short form

I take issue with this edit and the reason given for the edit. The document released was titled "Certification of Live Birth" and was in fact a short form birth certificate. I think it's perfectly right and proper to link directly to short form birth certificates on the Wikipedia birth certificate page. To my thinking, avoiding the more accurate linking muddles the distinction between the two types of birth certificate (which has already been done enough in most mainstream accounts of the issue). The distinction is germane to the topic and should be approached clearly. Would the editor object to changing the wording to "The Obama campaign also released the candidate's short form birth certificate" and then linking to short form? I mean, if you really want to get specific, that's precisely what he did. Right? Jbarta (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to save your ammo for the bigger fights that will make a bigger difference. Right now, the article says "The Obama campaign also released an official copy of the candidate's Certification of Live Birth which summarizes the contents of the original 1961 birth certificate." So, no matter where this sentence links, it's perfectly clear that Obama has released something shorter than the original 1961 document.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

FL. You just made my point. The sentence you're quoting comes right after and in extend of the sentence in question (regarding the linking) and therefore linking to the whole section is giving our readers more information and a better chance to see the difference of the forms.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "which summarizes the contents of the original 1961 birth certificate" is a claim and not a description. Conspiracy theorists would argue that because of some administrative procedure, the "short forms" don't say the same thing as the certificate. If I were trying to be 100% objective, I would word it this way: "The Obama campaign also released a 2007 certified copy (sometimes called a "short form") of the candidate's Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii which states that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961."Kevin (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very professional but could you back this (claim)somehow up with a source? No offence but you understand that we can't just take somebody's word for granted on WP.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well birth certificates *are* my profession ;) but I appreciate the need for sources. "The Obama Campaign also released " "a 2007 Certified Copy" "of the Candidates Certification of Live Birth which states that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961".Kevin (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources but those are widely known. I was actually talking about your (seemly professional) statement you made to improve the article: "...(sometimes called a "short form")...". "Sometimes" makes a big difference and if this can be confirmed in a reliable fashion we ought to include it as a fact.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

On the State Department Passport web site they use the phrase "short (abstract) versions". Idaho uses the distinction "Computer Generated" and "photostatic copy", while Illinois uses "certified copy". Louisiana uses "short form". What you will not find on a Hawaiian web site is the phrase "short form". The Hawaii order form describes it as a "certified copy". The NCHS Model State Vital Statistics legislation makes the distinction between "full or short form certified copies" as well as "full certified copy or short form or birth card". In particular it says:Kevin (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Full or short form certified copies of vital records may be made by mechanical, electronic, or other reproductive processes, except that the information contained in the "Information for Medical and Health Use Only" section of the birth certificate ... shall not be included.Kevin (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that this demonstrates that Wikipedia article on birth certificate is wrong when it claims Electronic Systems will make "long forms" obsolete.Kevin (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The lead paragraph used to say "The Obama campaign also released an official copy of the candidate's Certification of Live Birth which summarizes the contents of the original 1961 birth certificate, and states that he was born in Honolulu." It has now been edited to say: "The Obama campaign also released a 2007 certified copy (sometimes called a "short form") of the candidate's Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii which states that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961." I disagree with this new edited version, because it gives no clue that the Certification of Live Birth excludes some of the information in the original 1961 birth certificate. I'll fix that.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this article even needed?

I believe this article violates WP:FRINGE because:

1. The article is two-thirds of the length of Presidential transition of Barack Obama, but the latter has got way more news coverage than the former.
2. It's a tiny minority viewpoint possessed by the Palinite conservatives who also believe that Obama was involved in Bill Ayers' domestic terrorism.

Really, this does not deserve an article. Maybe a paragraph or two. But the fact this is more easily dismissed than Apollo or JFK says something. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally in agreement. I think this is a stupid, pointless POV fork for fringetards to document their nonsense; however, our view is very much in the minority, and we must respect this process. I believe that this article will eventually be deleted once it becomes apparent that from a historical perspective, it is unnecessary. Until then, it might as well remain so that the fringetards don't soil all the proper Obama articles with their brand of lunacy. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also in agreement. However, the one thing this article has done is to get all the fringe away form the other articles to this one spot. If this article was deleted, then all that would happen is that these fringe pushers would go back to the other articles. I also think that this article might just have some historical value itself in documenting these fringe theories so that others can laugh at them and their absurdity! Brothejr (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Though I should point out that "better here than there" isn't a good reason for keeping an article. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The just-closed AFD pretty well echoed the "better here than there" sentiment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE says "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." and I would assert that such references do exist, for example "Why the stories about Obama's birth certificate will never die" from Salon.com deals with this topic specifically as a conspiracy theory, and a series of articles in the Chicago Tribune, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Los Angeles Times. I think that after the suits have worked their way through the courts, then some severe editing could cut the article back down to a reasonable size. Kevin (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that vigorous editing is needed, perhaps enough to make the article a quarter or a third of its current size. There's no reason, for example, to say more about Obama's early life except where he was born, and there's no reason to say whether a litigant was a Clinton or a Reagan supporter. I hesitate to go at it now, though, because every sentence is going to have its ardent defender. PhGustaf (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

PhGustaf, in the first comment in this section, Sceptre said that this article is all about a fuss by "Palinite conservatives." Therefore, I think it's useful for the article to point out that perhaps the most active person is actually a Clinton supporter.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to all involved, I think the average reader cares little about Sceptre's perceptions. As I said, "every sentence is going to have its ardent defender". PhGustaf (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also with all due respect, I think the conspiracy theorist's political persuasion is far less relevant than their prior history with conspiracy theories, 9/11, vexatious litigation, etc. The notability really isn't about the legal cases so much as the nuttability of the theories and the nuts who are propagating them. Priyanath ^talk 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a clarification on the term "Palinite conservative"; I'm not going to paint every conservative with the same brush, especially seeing how respectable McCain normally acts (even if he had to mudsling Obama because that's just what politicians do, but McCain still kept a sense of decorum during the election). And with regards to Berg... every party will have its batshit conspiracy theorist. When I say "Palinite", I mean the people that McCain was embarassed about when he conceded the election. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Palinite" unfortunately suggests that this is a left-vs-right matter rather than a loon-vs-nonloon matter. It's notable that neither Palin, McCain, nor any other mainstream conservatives up to Rush Limbaugh are asserting that Obama is not a citizen. It's all vexatious litigants and tinhat bloggers. Tough to source passive notability in an article, though. PhGustaf (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is a waste. It should just explain the conspiracy theory at hand and then present the fact that children born in America are citizens. Short and sweet. As a first-generation American and past presidential candidate born to non-native parents, I find the article in its current form intellectually offensive and almost tabloid. 98.231.218.240 (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Way to miss the point about the whole "natural born" thing. I have followed this topic fairly closely from the start, and I have found it fascinating from a constitutional standpoint. I like this page because it supplements the information on the natural born page, and I find the constant derision heaped on the adherents to be unseemly. It is a "fringe" topic but so is constitutional law. As with Goldwater and the Arizona Territory, the 1959 statehood of Hawaii and his mother's marital status and international residencies made Senator Obama's status legally interesting, and that alone would rate some attention.Nightmote (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How does the 1959 statehood of Hawaii tie into all of this? Jbarta (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Governments change slowly. I would be very surprised if the Hawaiian government had fully adopted the federal standards within two years, and a certain amount of confusion would be understandable and maybe even inevitable. McCain's Canal Zone birth has a certain legal quirkiness about it, too. Both births are worthy of contemplation, if not legal ruling.Nightmote (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This should definitely be put in the main Barack Obama article, rather than as a separate page like this. And "Barack Obama citizenship issues" would be a more NPOV title. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much text for the main article. And there are no citizenship issues with Obama, except in the minds of the conspiracy theorists. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Debunking

To what extent, if any, is debunking the conspiracy theory appropriate?

In a conspiracy theory there are things which cannot be 100% proved or disproved, like the assertion "Obama was born in Kenya". Given enough conspiracy, fraud and cover-up, I suppose, no matter how implausible, it could have happened. That's a dispute in the conspiracy.

But there are other things which are just plain false. There are two example from the Alan Keyes lawsuit that I took the liberty of explaining in the main article, where the edited text now says:

People such as Alan Keyes who are questioning Obama’s birth location point to a Hawaii statute[30] that allows births to be registered for children born out of state, a law passed in 1982. Keyes also alleges that block 7c of the long-form Certificate of Live Birth allows the entry of the "country" of birth (block 7c is the usual residence of the mother; the location of birth is in block 6a, which has no "country" label).

I pointed out that the law was passed in 1982, making it inapplicable for Obama's registration, and that block 7c doesn't say what Keyes claims. Anyone, conspiracy theorist or not, would concede when the law was passed and what goes in block 7c, after looking at the state law web site, and a picture of the form (widely available). And indeed, at least one conspiracy-promoting web site removed the false information after being contacted.

I don't want to turn the article into a dispute, but I also do not want to propagate false information by mentioning misinformation without caveat in the main article.Kevin (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"To what extent, if any, is debunking the conspiracy theory appropriate?" -- All relevant information ought to be presented in a clear, concise and neutral manner giving the reader an informed view of the topic with as little slant or bias as humanly possible. Facts debunking the issue are just as welcome and just as important as facts supporting the issue. Jbarta (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Born out of state statute

At the bottom of the section titled "Claims that he was not born in Hawaii" there is mention of Keyes and births out of state and that law being passed in 1982, etc. To me that paragraph is confusing and unclear. I hesitate to make edits there myself for fear of just making it worse, but I do think that paragraph should be revisited by someone with a clear understanding of that specific issue. Jbarta (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the last paragraph in this section for clarity.Kevin (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The article states that out of state births can be registered in Hawaii according to a law passed in 1982.

• Can you add a source for that law so anyone wishing to read it may do so?

The Link to the Hawaiian law is already in the Main article.Kevin (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• While the article mentions the law being passed in 1982, I'm wondering how the law in 1982 differed from the law in 1961 and may that be relevant to the article?.

You have to familiarize yourself with the syntax of the Hawaiian current law web site. The "L1982" at the bottom tells us that the law was passed in 1982 (an online person claiming persuasively to be a lawyer explained it to me). If there had been a previous law on the subject, we would have seen previous years in the citation at the bottom of the page. Don't be fooled by the formatting that makes it look like the citation at the bottom of the page refers only to the last paragraph; all the laws are formatted that way). See also next answer.Kevin (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• How were out of country births handled and what safeguards were in place to prevent out of country births from being claimed as something else?

Vital Statistics in the United States takes its lead from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), who provides sample forms and data sets, as well as suggested model legislation for state vital records activities. States typically follow the recommendations within a few years. The registration of foreign-born adoptions was new with the 1977 recommendation NCHS. See U.S. Vital Statistics System Major Activities and Developments: 1950–95 page 6. It is unlikely that Hawaii had any registration of foreign-born persons before that date.Kevin (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not now suggesting all this information necessarily be included in the article.... but I'm wishing to examine a little closer what is in the article now. Jbarta (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Dual Citizenship

The article as it stands now incorrectly states that Obama's having Kenyan citizenship is part of the "theory". No one disputes that Barack Obama was born with dual US/Kenyan citizenship. Obama's own web site contains the words: "Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.". If there are no substantive objections, I will reword the introductory section to reflect the actual points of controversy. One might even argue that the whole "natural born citizen" thing (while still "fringe" in my view) is not a conspiracy theory but a legal dispute.Kevin (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See Donofrio v. Wells. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The article states, quite correctly, that "[o]ther theories propose that Obama was a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia rather than the United States, or that he had dual citizenship at birth (British and U.S.), and that therefore he is not natural-born citizen." The qualifier at the end of that sentence basically says that Obama's dual citizenship plays a significant role in many of the fringe theories. The existing language does not state that this is a disputed fact, so I cannot see why the language should be changed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding the conditional word "because" will fix it.Kevin (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean to change it to "or that because he had dual citizenship at birth", I would tend to agree that's more accurate wording. I might even go so far as to suggest the following change is more accurate and reads better... "or that because he had dual citizenship at birth (British and U.S.), he is therefore not a natural-born citizen." Jbarta (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In the same vein, the article mentions "Other theories propose that Obama was a citizen of Kenya". As Kevin stated (correctly I believe), no "conspiracy theorist" mentioned in this article or anywhere has made this allegation. The issue is one of dual-citizenship at birth and possible Indonesian citizenship later on. As it pertains to an accurate description of the controversy, these are important distinctions. Jbarta (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. Berg claimed that Obama was born in Kenya. The original text is fine, and should not be changed without first establishing a proper consensus for doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not in dispute that Berg claims Obama was born in Kenya. But "born in Kenya", "citizen of Kenya" and "dual-citizenship" are all slightly different things. If you can provide a source showing Berg claims Obama being born in Kenya results in inelligiblity due to Kenyan citizenship alone rather than dual-citizenship, I'll concede the point. Jbarta (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the time being spent here to try to make some coherent sense out of these wacko theories, is probably more than their proponents actually spent on the subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not finding any evidence of claims or arguments that "[o]ther theories propose that Obama was a citizen of Kenya", I will remove that bit from the second paragraph. There are claims that he was born in Kenya. There is the undisputed issue of his dual citizenship (U.S. and Britain) at birth. And there are claims that he became an Indonesian citizen in his youth. All these are noted fairly accurately in the second paragraph. That he "was a citizen of Kenya" has not been claimed by any of the plaintiffs and is inaccurate and should be removed. I don't agree that claims "he was born in Kenya" should be morphed into claims "he was a citizen of Kenya". The article should reflect the facts as accurately as possible. Jbarta (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Feb 2005 Boston University Law Review contains an excellent article examining the natural born citizenship issue. It's useful reading for editors looking for authoratative background, analysis and commentary. (It's also useful to note that nowhere in the document will you find the phrase "conspiracy theory" or other attributions of lunacy.) Jbarta (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And one from Yale. Generally, and this is the position I take over at obamaconspiracy.org, that definitions of natural born citizenship are not conspiracy theories in and of themselves. When Leo Donofrio claims that Chester A. Arthur (another president born with dual citizenship) created a convoluted fabric of lies to make investigators think he was born in Canada (which could be disproven) so that they would not look into the naturalization status of Arthur's father (who was still a British citizen when Arthur was born) is in my opinion a full-blown conspiracy theory. And then they go on to point out that the Supreme Court justice who wrote the most important Supreme Court on citizenship (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) was appointed by Arthur and so his vote was "tainted"...well you get the picture.Kevin (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that the BU article Jbarta cites as well as the one from Yale I cite both start from the premise that the one thing we know about "natural born citizen" is that it applies at least to people born in the United States. While not a conspiracy theory, the contrary constitutional theories being put forward, described as if they were a historical consensus, by some blogs and web sites are fairly described as "fringe". Then the treatment of Chester A. Arthur that I mentioned, plus conspiracy-based reasons given for the Supreme Court not acting to save the country from the disaster that surely will follow if the usurper gets inaugurated. It's hard to tell where fringe ends and conspiracy theories begin. (Was that too over the top?)Kevin (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that it's not necessarily "known" one way vs. another. The authors put forth that such is their interpretation (and certainly is a respectable interpretation and possibly even the most weighty interpretation). But it still seems to me that given the slight jumble of law and precedent, combined with the fact that the consitutional definition of "natural born citizen" has never been firmly established, there does remain a certain degree of ambiguity (this being the main point of their papers). Add to that, the processes that establish a candidate's natural born citizenship (or the natural born citizenship of presidential successors) are arguably weak.

At any rate, I think it would be good for this Wikipedia article to include these papers as sources stating that (some?) legal scholars interpret Obama's dual-citizenship at birth as probably not impacting his status as natural born citizen. (Is that a fair interpretation?) I figure the article contains enough commentary and hyperbole by non-experts and it would be good to include a few people who actually know what they're talking about. Jbarta (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Terrible idea. There isn't a single scholar that thinks this wholly theoretical "dual citizenship at birth nonesense" has any relevance to the question of his "natural born citizenship." Why not? Because not only was he born on american soil, but one of his parents was an american... that is, he passes the test two ways -- birth and parentage. A long degression explaining why the collective legal world has not lost its collective mind and does interpret very clear, simple statute and precedent dating back hundreds of years precisely as it always has been is not appropriate. If either of these two statements are true ("his mother was an american citizen" "he was born in hawaii"), by law and practice, he's a natural born citizen. Sheesh.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While it does appear that the claim that dual citizenship diminishes his status as "natural born citizen" may be weak (if not completely unsustainable), it is a main issue/claim in this controversy.

A point of confusion is that while a person's natural born status may arguably be affected by exotic circumstances of his birth, his natural born status being affected by the specific circumstance of being born in the U.S. with dual U.S. and British citizenship appears weak to non-existant.

It seems to me that clarifying this distinction and adding expert commentary to that effect to the section Claims that Obama is not "natural-born citizen" even if born in Hawaii or Commentary and criticism would do the reader good.

I would also add that reasonable and intelligent people can look at the issue and have questions, and that attempts to label all questioners as frustrated conspiracy nuts or to dismiss the entire issue as not worthy of seeing the light of day serves no noble purpose. The main reason I've attached myself to this issue in the first place is not because because I don't support Obama (which I do), but because of the ridiculous attempts to closet and marginalize the issue most everywhere one looks. If there is a conspiracy at all, I would propose that it is a conspiracy of denial running at fever pitch by anyone made uncomfortable by this potentially troublesome issue lurking near Obama. Jbarta (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not in touch with how power works in America if you think this issue is "potentially troublesome" for Obama; it's most likely that an asteroid hit will keep him from assuming the presidency than this. As for the light of day, only 7,440 people have viewed the article in the last two weeks, a low number for an Obama-related article. So yes, the conspiracy to hide the shocking truth is in full force. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Rename the Article

For some time, I have been concerned that the article's title, "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories", is not descriptive of what the article is about. Indeed I know of no "conspiracy theories" about Barack Obama's citizenship per se except that Hawaiian officials conspired to lie about what is in their vault -- and that is not in the main article at all (and I couldn't source it if it were). (Some newspapers did talk about a "massive conspiracy" but this was only done in a derisive tone.) There are conspiracy theories about Obama's Selective Service registration , and there are conspiracy theories about Obama's connection to the wellspring of conspiracy theories, the Trilateralist , Bilderberger, Illuminati and CFR. The article as it stands is about "fringe theories", not "conspiracy theories" or in my personal view, the article is about the extension of the smear campaign from the presidential election to the post-election period.

Controversy over Obama's citizenship falls into two categories, those who deny the facts of Obama's birth and those who deny that definition of natural born citizen allows someone with a non-citizen parent to be President. The former is primarily an argument over facts which will eventually go away, because Hawaiian law says what it says, and prima facie evidence is what it is. The latter is a legal question that will only be settled in a court or by Congress or, as some suggest, by Constitutional amendment. The latter is "fringe" in the sense that the view is against legal consensus and the claim that the theory was well known since the country's founding is against historical consensus. Neither case is a conspiracy theory.

One final note. There is the possibility of a real conspiracy, and that is a conspiracy behind the smears/fringe theories. Barack Obama raised this point on his own FightTheSmears.com web site in a diagram which ties certain individuals and conservative organizations involved in the Bill Clinton impeachment and the Swiftboat attacks on John Kerry to the present attacks on Obama.

I suggest renaming the article to "Barack Obama Fringe Theories".Kevin (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that by bringing that last bit in, you've effectively argued for keeping the title the same. And it would be fair to introduce that info into the article, since what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that none of these lawsuits have panned out, and they have received very little national attention I think it is clear that this article might as well be deleted due to lack of notability. Certainly it seems to fall well short of the standards required in the general notability guidelines, which specifically mentions the need for significant coverage from reliable sources that address the subject directly in detail. Furthermore, it would seem that having "Barack Obama" in the title of the article, when some of the lawsuits have been generalized enough not to refer to him specifically, would seem to be inappropriate. I think some serious thought must be given to deleting this article, with any useful content being folded into the BLPs of Philip J. Berg, Andy Martin and Alan Keyes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It already failed a recent AfD, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, but that was largely for the weak reason that the article was needed to prevent the tinfoil hat brigade from dumping their trash into the mainstream Obama articles. That isn't a legitimate reason for keeping it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless though, that is still the result that came out. I do not see the merit of the subject matter either, but I'd rather not join the Bitter Bettys out there (e.g. foes of Allegations of Israeli Apartheid and Virgin Killer come to mind) that nominate and re-nominate articles trying to get their preferred result. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

*oppose renaming. It's about conspiracy theories thought up by the conspiratorially minded requiring a vast conspiracy over 3 continents and decades to conceal the "truth." There is no better term for these ridiculous conspiracy theories then "conspiracy theories." As for AfD (i supported deletion at the time), i now think this has not only been a wonderful bit of flypaper but has served a useful purpose by laying bare, all in one place, how stupic and kooky all these theories are.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Are any of the cases still pending? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Berg v. Obama et al. is still pending (scheduled for conference January 9 AND 16. I frankly don't know enough about how the Supreme Court works to say whether the others are still pending or not. Various emergency stays are no longer pending, but don't know whether the Court gives an up/down on every case.Kevin (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Keyes v. Bowen also still technically alive (though in a coma on life support)...? Lestatdelc (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say leave the name as it stands. Though, if reliable sources can be found for that last portion, then it should be thrown on in with the rest of the stuff in the article, maybe in it's own section. Brothejr (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose rename. While I'm not entirely content with the current title, I'd be less content with the proposed change. The issue revolves around challenges to Obama's citizenship/eligibility specifically. This is a fairly notable and limited topic with easily definable boundaries. Jbarta (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article should be renamed, although I am not sure about the proposed new name. The article is about fringe, unfounded theories, but they are primarily not theories about "conspiracies." "Conspiracy theory" is way overused on Wikipedia. If some reliable source has called some of these theories "conspiracy theories", that can be mentioned in the article, but as it is, the whole focus of the intro follows the title in discussing "conspiracy theories", but then the body of the article isn't really about that. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines conspiracy theory as "A conspiracy theory alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities." In Obama citizenship denial, who is the alleged group? There is none, and therefore this not a "conspiracy theory". Language such as "requiring a vast conspiracy over 3 continents and decades to conceal the 'truth.'" is the creation of opponents, for the purpose of derision, and completely unrepresentative of what Obama citizenship deniers say. Obama citizenship denial proponents do not claim that anyone is working together. There is not a hint of anything approaching a "vast conspiracy" in the main article and this is exactly why I argue that the title misrepresents the content.

"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia". wp:fringe It is clear that the selection of the current topic name, "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories", exists to label a group of ideas for the purpose of marginalizing them, and putting them out of the way in a harmless place as part of a containment strategy. Calling an argument about what block 7c on a Hawaiian birth certificate means a "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral point of view, it's a smear.

Rather than looking at these issues as a "conspiracy theory", I think they are more properly viewed in terms of the permanent campaign and a phenomenon that we will be seeing more and more of, now that world wide self-publication is free for all. I think how these ideas appear and spread is a very important topic.

Ok, let me propose another title (one that I use on my own blog):

Barack Obama Citizenship Denial

Kevin (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so my opinion is clear, I have no problem with "marginalizing" fringe theories such as the ones at issue in this article. Since they are not supported by any reliable source, WP:FRINGE (an extension of WP:NPOV) actually requires that we "marginalize" them, in the sense of putting them "in their place", see especially Wikipedia:Fringe#Reporting on the levels of acceptance. My problem is with calling them "conspiracy theories", which some of them are to some degree, but the overall issue in the article is not whether there is a conspiracy or not, but what the theories are and whether they have any merit, and the title should reflect that. I think "conspiracy theory" is becoming a kind of lazy shorthand on Wikipedia for saying "We don't believe it", and we need to come up with something better.

I was going to suggest that the use of "conspiracy theories" should be restricted by WP:Words to Avoid, but I have discovered that it already is, at least in the context of an article title. See WP:Words to avoid#Article_and_section_titles. It says: "For example, the title "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy" is inappropriate because it suggests a viewpoint on whether there was such a conspiracy." Actually, I think that statement goes a little too far; see my comment above. But it does seem to cover the issue here. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I support either of the changes suggested by Kevin. I have no problem with a title that denigrates the theories, but let's be accurate. Donofrio and Wrotnowski simply asserted that the minority opinion in Wong Kim Ark was correct instead of the majority opinion, which makes them fringey, but not conspiracy theorists. Also, Worldnet Daily has agreed with Donofrio and Wrotnowski that the short-form at Obama's web site was not forged, which again distinguishes them from conspiracy theorists. Obama himself thought it worthwhile to publicize his short-form, so why is someone who thinks he should go one step further (by disclosing the long form) a "conspiracy theorist"? Are poll-workers conspiracy theorists when they ask for ID before letting you vote?

Sure there are some conspiracy theorists involved in this thing, but guilt by association is not the best way to title a Wikipedia article. Suppose someone thinks Ann Dunham finished her studies in May 1961, and then went on summer break to visit Kenya, where she gave birth, and hustled back to Hawaii to register her son there (to avoid the hassle of naturalization). This is a fanciful tale, but it's not necessarily a conspiracy theory, seeing as how she could have done it pretty much all on her own. Certainly no officials in Hawaii would have had to have lied about anything.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Some call it "Certifigate".[3]  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have significant alignment with what 6SJ7 says. I have no problem marginalizing fringe theories (including these) so long as that marginalization is done through citation of facts and accurate representation of the lack of general acceptance of the theories. I want someone who is told "it has been proven beyond a doubt that the Obama COLB is a forgery" has someplace to go to learn that this is indeed a very doubtful proposition. After some thought, while "fringe theories" is more accurate than "conspiracy theories", I think "citizenship denial" is a less pejorative term and is preferred. Assuming a consensus could be reached, how does one get an article renamed?Kevin (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is going to be a name change for this article, I assume that the scope will want to be constrained to strictly the issues and "controversy" over Obama's citizenship status vis-á-vis his eligibility to take office as POTUS. If there is not a precise boundary of the scope of what theories are inside the scope of this article, this article could be a magnet for who knows what all crank theories yet to be uncorked from the frothing fringe. Look at the Mena airport, Vince Foster, Hillary lesbian murder nonsense that looney-fight-wing unleashed on Clinton. On second thought, using this article as flypaper might be a good thing. THoughts? Lestatdelc (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. DELETE FROM articles WHERE subject="retarded"; -- Scjessey (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship challenges and fringe theories. How's that for a nice fusion of words? (with the intent that it remain limited to citizenship/birth certificate/eligibility related issues) Jbarta (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims" (since all suits seem to revolve around his eligibility)? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that could work, plus we could also then shoe horn other weird theories and claims that we can find RS that people have of why he should not be president. Brothejr (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The topic is best kept to his ineligibilty by way of citizenship questions and challenges. I think the title should reflect that. And we don't want to "shoe horn" in "other weird theories" in an attempt at obfuscation or dilution. The topic is neat, limited and clearly defined. We should try to keep it that way. Jbarta (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename article: Barack Obama citizenship challenges and fringe theories

I would like to explore objections to or gather support for renaming the article to Barack Obama citizenship challenges and fringe theories. It's been reasonably well shown and agreed that "conspiracy theories" is inappropriate, so for now I would prefer to stay away from suggestions that the article's current title is fine. Rather I would like to find if this new proposed title specifically finds support or objection. Make it good, make it specific and keep it clean. Jbarta (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have indicated previously, all the theories and claims documented here concern Obama's eligibility for the presidency; therefore, I think "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims" is appropriate. I believe your proposed title offers the chance for "scope creep" when the wack-jobs start adding fringe theories not concerned with presidential eligibility. Of course, wholesale deletion of this article would be better, given its dubious notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with "ineligibility claims" is that once Obama is inaugurated (which appears a near certainty unless SCOTUS decides to stick their hand into a meat grinder), a reasonable case could be made that once he's President, he is obviously eligible and we can cleanse Wikipedia once and for all of this dastardly nonsense. Like it or not, the challenges will likely continue after inauguration and the issues, questions and theories will remain. On the issue of "scope creep" I would imagine you'll have that tendency in any article regardless of the title. My intention, and hopefully the intention of other editors, would be to keep this article centered on the specific issues it's centered on now. Also, my intention of using the words "citizenship... fringe theories" is to acknowledge that some of the claims find little or no scholarly support or have dubious evidence behind them. I'm sure if someone edits in that Obama is really one of the lizard people that secretly control the earth, dealing with that shouldn't be too difficult. Jbarta (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if everybody appreciates how deep the rabbit hole goes should we let the topic pass beyond the citizenship/eligibility issues. I mean, there are allegations that Obama's mother is a Lebanese-born CIA spy who is still alive by the way, tied to Fannie Mae through microloans to an Indonesian bank, with DNA tests proving Obama is not biologically related to his grandparents, and on and on.. I think that once Obama is inaugurated the eligibility issues will take back seat to the more conventional fringe ideas that are very much classic conspiracy theories. Once the court cases are resolved, all these can be neatly folded into the natural-born citizen article. I am completely comfortable with the title "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims"Kevin (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The article covers notable theories that there has been a conspiracy to cover up or falsify the records so that Obama could be president. What is it about the conspiracy theory title that you dislike? Do you think these claims are somehow more legitimate than other conspiracy theories? Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See other areas of this Talk that address the pros and cons of the phrase "conspiracy theories". No need to repeat them all here. Jbarta (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, as discussed above, the issue is not with the "legitimacy" of the theories, it is whether they primarily involve "conspiracies." The word "conspiracy" really does not belong in the title. I am not sure about the suggested title with "fringe" in it, although it is better than the current title. The problem is that WP:WTA seems to say that an article title should express no opinion about the legitimacy of the subject. I am not sure that such a guideline is realistic when it comes to an article like this. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really not for us to make up terminology. Reliable sources, in great numbers, call these things conspiracy theories. Can you show a list of sources that use another term? Jehochman ^Talk 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's noted that you prefer the phrase "conspiracy theories". Aside from that, do you have any other criticisms of or support for the specific wording of the proposed title change? Jbarta (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My criticism of all the proposed title changes is that none of them are supported by reliable sources. Please look at what the reliable sources call these allegations, and that's what we should use. Jehochman ^Talk 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Post calls it a fringe theory. See "President Alien, and Other Tales From the Fringe". I'm not aware of any reliable sources that specifically call people like Donofrio or Wrotnowski "conspiracy" theorists (they merely have a fringe interpretation of some words in the Constitution, and they do not allege any forgery).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That article uses the word "Fringe" in the title, and uses the word "Conspiracy" in the body. However, it does not use "Fringe theory" at all. Compare and contrast fringe theory and conspiracy theory. You'll notice that fringe theory redirects to fringe science. Given a choice between the two terms, it seems that conspiracy theory is much more accurate, and more commonly used. Jehochman ^Talk 00:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of expanding this section back into a discussion of the pros and cons of "conspiracy theory" and to address Jehochman's specific point about reliable sources calling it one thing or another, I conducted a simple and wholely unscientific experiment. Typing "obama citizenship challenges" in Google News nets 225 results, "obama citizenship conspiracy theories" nets 174 and "obama citizenship conspiracy" nets 109. Consider that my contribution to the world of half-baked and nearly useless science. Jbarta (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

From the article:

• Columnist Michelle Malkin has ridiculed the theories about the short-form birth certificate, writing that the "birth certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory" and that "they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law."

It is not acceptable to tendentiously argue to water this down this article to make these conspiracy theories seem somehow respectable. May I remind all the participants here that this article is under probation and that any uninvolved administrator can place sanctions as needed. Rather than engaging in circular arguments, I recommend anybody who disagrees with the current title to start a requests for comment. Jehochman ^Talk 00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I am the last person who commented here, are you saying that I've tendentiously argued to water down this article, and that I may be subject to sanctions? I simply pointed out that the word "fringe" would be acceptable in the title. How is calling something "fringe" making it respectable? See "President Alien, and Other Tales From the Fringe" in the Washington Post. Also see "Change They Can Litigate: The fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president" in Slate. Also see The Chicago Tribune: "If you think the attack on Barack Obama's citizenship is the only fringe crusade going."[4]

There is no question but that there are some conspiracy theorists involved in this thing. But this article also covers people who are not conspiracy theorists. They're very fringey, which is just as unrespectable, IMHO. Also, as Malkin mentioned, there "may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here" regarding the broader issue of how the citizenship requirement is enforced for presidential candidates.

Frankly, if you want to start handing out sanctions, you might start by sanctioning people who assert that every single person mentioned in the present Wikipedia article is a conspiracy theorist. By no stretch of the imagination has Donofrio asserted any conspiracy by Obama, by his family, or by the State of Hawaii. This is a smear against him, but apparently anyone who disagrees with that smear is now subject to sanctions.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the rundown of 'tinfoil' vs. 'not tinfoil' in the article, i.e. conspiracy vs. fringe? Perhaps if we can get a tally, we can see in what direction the weight of the article leans to. Tarc (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that "Fringe Theory" tends to have a relationship to science (so a cryptozoology is a "Fringe Theory") while the theories proposed here do not have a relationship to any science. There is also a problem that while some of the lawsuits have not had a strict adherence to a "conspiracy" they have been accepted by the conspiracy theorist movement and in return some of the litigants have embraced the movement in return. Even more annoying is that some the litigants that are suing based on their interpretation of the "natural-born" clauses are, in part, claiming there is a conspiracy keeping their litigations from going to trial. Round and round I'm going, but just to through it out there, would Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and legal challenges be more acceptable than the inclusion of "Fringe theory", but also incorporate the litigations that are not strictly adhering to conspiracy theories? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, as I mentioned in the above comment, the line between the "tinfoil" vs "not tinfoil" is a bit hazy. But in the strictest sense, the people that adhere to the "Obama was not born in the US"/"He was adopted in Indonesia"/"His birth certificate is a forgery" fall under "tinfoil" (So, Berg, Martin, and Keyes), while those suing that accept him being born in the US, but not a natural-born citizen due to his father's nationality (Donofrio and Wrotnowski) are dancing around the edges of "tinfoil" and "not tinfoil". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You (Jehochman) seem to be arguing from the position that any and all of these challenges, questions, issues and theories are first and foremost not "respectable" and that the article's title ought to reflect that. Isn't that adding a slant right from the start and building in a non-neutral point of view? Ought not the facts simply be reported and documented in a neutral manner without necessarily assigning "respectability"? I'll look into your suggestion of "requests for comment". (I'm relatively inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia) Jbarta (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The challenges/questions/issues/theories are not being treated as "respectable" by the reliable sources, so there isn't much reason why ths article should take a view contrary to that treatment... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I was sort of hoping that we at Wikipedia could rise above the mosh pit churning at our feet rather than simply trying to be part of it. Jbarta (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to give validity to these crackpot theories would be to enter that churning mosh pit. It's best to stay above that fray. As for neutrality, as WP:NPOV states: Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia is confined by what we can source to reliable sources and if the reliable sources are treating them as conspiracy theories, then we must also. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory ?

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
• The Examiner
• New york magazine
• The Atlantic (Mark Ambinder blog)
• The Spectator

So there is sufficient basis for the current name of this article in my opinion, although I am sure that a similar list can be compiled for the term "fringe theory" too. What I haven't seen yet is any reliable mainstream source treating this issue as legitimate/respectable. Abecedare (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at only the first link in this list.[5] It says: "Reacting to Internet-fueled conspiracy theories that Obama's birth certificate is a fake...." That's perfectly accurate. However, many people calling for Obama to release his long-form certificate, or questioning his eligibility, do not say the short-form is a fake. Donofrio doesn't say it's fake. Wrotnowski doesn't say it's fake. WorldNetDaily doesn't say it's fake.

If I were to go around to a bunch of Wikipedia articles, and rename them to match only one respective section header, then that would be insane. You're proposing to name this article according to only one of its elements.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this list (as far as I've read) and the main article itself is that they use the phrase "conspiracy theory" to describes things that do not involve a conspiracy. The term is used pejoratively to dismiss the theory and not to describe the theory. You might as well substitute "tin foil hat" in the main article, because that is how the term is being used.Kevin (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I could go on and on and point to plenty of reliable sources that don't use the words "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theories" when reporting on the issue...

• Washington Post
• Chicago Tribune
• CNN
• LA Times
• New York Times
• etc
• etc

Where do you see large numbers of the word "conspiracy"? In the public comments sections. These comments are usually chin deep in hyperbole and label slinging barely becoming of a Jerry Springer show. The fact that some journalists take this approach should not require that Wikipedia follow this low road rather than the high road. The high road is what plenty of reliable sources in fact do... report the facts in a neutral manner with as little bias as possible and with no preconceived judgement one way or another. "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts." At any rate, I dispute the notion that the vast majority of reputable sources call this a conspiracy theory... just a lot of them. Jbarta (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not using a certain descriptor is entirely meaningless unless a different one is substituted. I can find plenty of reliable sources which discuss the sun without specifically referring to it as a "star", but how many can you find describing the sun as a "planet"? This is rather basic common sense within our various sourcing conventions. Where are the sources that use a different term than "conspiracy theory" like "citizenship challenges" or "fringe theories"?PelleSmith (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I got the above sources by searching for "Obama citizenship" in the first few mainstream news sources I could think of via Google News. I didn't have to look hard... all but one I looked at did not use the word conspiracy (I was actually even a little surprised myself). I just copied down the links as I found them, then seeing a bit of a pattern, I figured it was about enough to make my point that not everyone defines this as a conspiracy theory. As far as something alternate to "conspiracy theories", I think "challenges" fits the bill rather nicely. I would even go so far as to say the word "challenges" is probably used more in reliable sources than "conspiracy theories" when reporting on this issue. (See my unscientific experiment above.) At any rate, the phrase "conspiracy theories" is nowhere near universal in reputable sources and more importantly, it's an inaccurate descriptor of the various specifics in this issue (at least most of them) and is really only bandied about in an attempt to denigrate the issue and anyone wishing to give it a closer look. Is that any way to run an encyclopedia? Jbarta (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your "experiment"--simply searching Google news with all of those separate terms is a bit deceptive. If you force exact phrasing on the search by putting "Obama citizenship" in quotes you get more hits paired with "conspiracy" than with "challenges", for instance. Same goes for putting "citizenship conspiracy" vs. "citizenship challenges" paired with "Obama". In an even less reliable plain Google search one gets 10:1 in favor of the exact phrasing "Obama citizenship conspiracy" vs. "Obama citizenship challenges". Of course our exercises are rather meaningless because all of these events involve actual "challenges" of Obama's citizenship status which suggest various "conspiracies" to conceal facts about Obama at the time of his birth which would make his status something other than a natural-born citizen. This is why reliable sources exist in droves specifically calling them conspiracy theories (see the list compiled above). Once again, the fact that not all sources use that term "conspiracy" explicitly is not meaningful. To make your point, vis-a-vis sourcing conventions, you would want to list some reliable sources that use "challenges" (or another phrase) instead of "conspiracy". It is safe to assume that the term "challenges" would also be used in sources using "conspiracy" when these sources describe the actions of individuals who have filed suit.PelleSmith (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Obama citizenship challenge goes nowhere
• Ind. lawsuit challenges Obama's eligibility
• Hoosiers file suit challenging Obama's birth status
• OBAMA CITIZENSHIP: Supreme Court Declines To Hear Challenge
• Tax activist's ad challenges Obama's eligibility for office
• etc
• etc

I would also suggest that the phrase "conspiracy theory", being generously tossed around within the comments sections of many of these articles, would skew search results and suggest that the word "conspiracy" is used in the main article more often than it actually is. Jbarta (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

List of title suggestions so far

This is a list of all the suggested titles I found here and in the archive for this article talk page. Sorted to keep similar titles together. Also ignoring the amount of consensus for or against each suggestion. I left out the suggested titles that contained the word "nutjob" and the like. Note that the article was moved to Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories and them moved back to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, both on December 12, 2008.

1. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (current)
2. Barack Obama Citizenship Denial
3. Barack Obama citizenship challenges and fringe theories
4. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and legal challenges
5. Barack Obama citizenship challenges
6. Barack Obama citizenship questions
7. Barack Obama citizenship issues
8. Barack Obama citizenship controversy (REDIRECT to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories)
9. Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories (subject of MOVE and restoration)
10. Barack Obama eligibility challenges
11. Barack Obama ineligibility allegations
12. Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims
13. Barack Obama Fringe Theories
14. Criticisms of Barack Obama's citizenship

— Becksguy (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

See also:

• 9/11 conspiracy theories
• Chemtrail conspiracy theory
• New World Order (conspiracy theory)
• UFO conspiracy theory
• Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
• Masonic conspiracy theories
• Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories
• Global warming conspiracy theory
• Bible conspiracy theory
• Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories
• October surprise conspiracy theory
• Armenian conspiracy theories

Wikipedia does not mince words. If something is substantially a conspiracy theory, as these denials of Obama's citizenship surely are, we call them conspiracy theories. Jehochman ^Talk 12:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any kind of "conspiracy" claims at all. Are there reliable sources stating that people are alleging a conspiracy, specifically? Certainly there are a number of claims concerning citizenship, and there are suggestions of some sort of cover-up by FactCheck.org, but do sources exist that confirm actual claims of a conspiracy? That Obama and the people around him conspired to get him into the presidency from birth? I'm just not seeing that supported by the sources. All I'm seeing are specific claims about specific (largely citizenship-related) details, and not a "conspiracy" claim at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I found a couple of sources that do discuss an alleged conspiracy theory; however, it does seem that this is confined to the out-beyond-the-orbit-of-Pluto fringe, rather than some of the more "mainstream" claims of ineligibility that are described here. It would seem strange that this article contains "conspiracy theories" in the title when (a) there is only one prevailing conspiracy theory, and (b) the article is mostly about specific eligibility claims and the lawsuits that are related to them. Again, I think "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims" is more appropriate, because it encapsulates all claims and theories that Obama may not be eligible for the presidency. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Other than citizenship related challenges, what other claims of presidential ineligibility are you aware of? Jbarta (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I understand that is your viewpoint, and here is mine: These questions about and challenges to Obama's citizenship are not a conspiracy theory... they are largely questions and challenges and claims... little more. I understand that "Wikipedia does not mince words", but nor does it wish to be inaccurate.

While one can point to this or that and claim it's suggestive of a conspiracy theory (like Berg's association with 9/11 conspiracy thought), those items are few and far overshadowed by the rest which is NOT suggestive of a conspiracy theory (that Obama only released his short form and some wonder if he has something to hide, or that his mother may have lied about his place of birth, or that his birth hospital is essentially unverified, or that someone has a tape in which he claims Obama's grandmother says he was born in Kenya, or claims that dual citizenship at birth may be a challenge to his being a natural born citizen). True, these questions and claims are largely unpopular and some of the accusations may be thin, but that doesn't qualify them as "conspiracy theories".

There is no suggestion that "a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities" (which is how Wikipedia defines a conspiracy theory... and "conspiracy theory" is arguably a much overused phrase).

To me, the eagerness of many to simply slap a derogatory label on the entire issue is born more out of personal bias than a neutral examination of the facts and of the issue. Get a lot of folks doing the same thing, and the notion has a way of reinforcing itself... "group think" and "pep rally mentality" so to speak. If these same circumstances were about someone less well known, or less popular, then I'd suggest almost NO ONE would be calling it a conspiracy theory. And again, while many reputable sources are chiming in with cries of "conspiracy theory", many are not. I might even go so far as to suggest MOST are not (born out by my unscientific experiment and the ease with which I found plenty of articles that DIDN'T see fit describe the issue as a "conspiracy theory"). Jbarta (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For once I find myself in total agreement with Scjessey.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

W00t! A touch of détente. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So where does this leave us? A number of people wish to retain "conspiracy theories" in the title and a number claim it's inappropriate and inaccurate. Jehochman has suggested requests for comment. I understand that to be a request that others jump in and make an assessment and offer their opinion. Quite frankly, that proposal doesn't really inspire much confidence with me, because the last thing this particular dispute needs is a bunch of people relatively unfamiliar with the specifics yet loaded with plenty of personal bias popping in just long enough to sling around some off-the-cuff opinions and a few insults for good measure then pop right back out again. Call me a little jaded, but I've seen and heard enough to more than justify that concern. At any rate, assuming the consensus is that requests for comment can be a good thing, I'll holster my concerns and be content to sit back and see how it plays out. Jbarta (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC is the way to go. Otherwise, if somebody moves the article it will just get moved back, there might be an edit war, and then folks will get blocked followed by other drama. We don't need that. Jehochman ^Talk 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, let me ask you two specific questions if I may... 1) Would you concede that the various claims and challenges documented in in the article do NOT add up to a "conspiracy theory" as it is defined in Wikipedia? And 2) would you agree that there are a large number of reputable sources that do NOT use the phrase "conspiracy theory" when reporting on this topic? Jbarta (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I would be in support of archiving everything up to and including this. The effort to rename the article has gone nowhere (athough it has greatly expanded the examination of the topic for anyone interested in reading through it). In addition, the page is getting really long and is beginning to render a little slowly. So, assuming there is no dissent, would someone experienced in such things be willing to archive all the above and cease the RfC? Jbarta (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I endorse closing (but not archiving) those discussions and will do so if there is some agreement.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between closing and archiving? Jbarta (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What you see above in purple is closed but not yet archived.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've archived it up to the start of the current RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Collapse the closed discussions. Heck I'll do it.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Appears I lack the technical skills. Someone else might give it a try.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Any objections to closing the RFC and placing it in a collapsible box too ? Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a fine idea to me. Jbarta (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree also. — Becksguy (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Done. Abecedare (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some archive housekeeping. If there is consensus, we could establish auto archiving to automatically archive threads after a certain number of days have passed without any new posts, such as 5 or 7 days. Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AOL News poll - is there merit to the citizenship controversy?

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Resolved AOL News poll is completely unreliable for use in Wikipedia. Jbarta (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Is AOL News a reliable source? Thought this was interesting. Possibly we could work into the article that an AOL News poll shows that most Americans think there is merit to the citizenship controversy. Thoughts? Jbarta (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC) No way. That's a voodoo poll, with no statistical reliability whatsoever. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Ahh... didn't notice that. I thought it was a regular poll. You're right. Interesting maybe, but useless as any sort of a reliable poll. (I was surprised at the numbers, now I understand why) Jbarta (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Right after i finish re-writing my online-poll ballot-stuffing bot is when we should use this non-statistical, non-poll. And no, there's nothing interesting about conspiracy theorists skewing on-line polls. Happens all the time.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The series of polls are all politically oriented so you have to figure there is a pretty good cross section of people voting on these things. (especially as you scan the comments) As far as multiple voting, both sides have equal opportunity to do that (of course, one might argue that nutty conspiracy theorists would tend to cast multiple votes much more than normal, intelligent and rational people). Anyhow, at the very least it shows that large numbers of people see merit in the issue. And I would even go so far as to surmise that if you randomly picked 100 people to listen to both sides of the issue, about half would say there is something to it and roughly half would say there is not. So, to my thinking, that poll may not be too far off. Jbarta (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC) With these kinds of polls, it is far more likely that a person would bother to vote if they thought the subject had merit. Therefore, the poll numbers are going to be skewed horribly toward people who think there is an issue. A proper poll would not yield a result anywhere close to that. Indeed, that is patently obvious from the result of the election! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. But even if we halved the yes votes... that's still 27%... a respectable number. And I'm not sure what you mean by "patently obvious from the result of the election" Jbarta (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Well if there was anything like a significant number of people who questioned Obama's citizenship, there is no way he would've been able to win the election. The real percentage is probably less than 5%, concentrated in red states. You also need to factor in the "those who are dumb enough to be reading AOL News" weighting as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.