Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

"Orly Taitz" redirects to this article

So should she then have her own section in this entry? It's also hard to believe that she would not meet the notability threshold for her own article, as I have seen her on multiple news shows everyday for the past 2 weeks .... Orly Taitz, take it away :o)   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

She would have to become notable for more than this one issue. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The separate article on Orly Taitz was deleted and replaced by a redirect. The deletion was challenged at DRV; the DRV was closed by relisting the AfD to allow more time for comments. You can weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (2nd nomination). Meanwhile, the standalone article has been restored but isn't in very good shape, IMO. JamesMLane t c 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "birther", The Nation

An editor has just removed the term "birther" and a quotation from The Nation. This surprises me as I'd thought that "birther" was the accepted term (see for example its use here) and the quote from The Nation was very distinctively presented as a quotation with the implication that it expressed a point of view. Explanation, please? -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The removal was done by by user Die4Dixie and has since been reverted by another editor. The Nation more than qualifies as a WP:RS in any instance, but especially for documenting the prevailing criticisms against this fringe "movement".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Birther" is certainly not encyclopedic and an opinion piece, given such prominence, distorts the the article. You are welcome to WP:OWN the article, as I am not particularlyinvested in this. This is such a poor quality article, and it seems that some are dertermined that it remain so. It would appear that some editors ideology prevents an objective evaluation of the article, "resolved" tags notwithstanding.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Applying your personal views and standards, on the other hand, isn't WP:OWN? Of course ... As was pointed out, "Birthers" is the term used by most sources to describe the group of people who believe and support these conspiracy theories. Hence, that's the term used here. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, "birthers" is the commonly used term to describe the present conglomeration of conspiracy theorists in the majority of reliable sources, thus we echo that description. It is irrelevant how I or you would describe them, we are simply here to document the prevailing reality of how they are described and received. Nobody here is owning the article as you state, and for the record I was not even the person who reverted your deletion. Lastly, "quality" of an article, is usually in the eye of the beholder, discredited political viewpoints notwithstanding.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Commonality isn't the point though; the point is appropriateness. Dropping the term in the context of ta talk page discussion is one thing. But in an encyclopedic entry it is purely a pejorative and simply isn't necessary to get the point across. Look at other articles on hot-button topics; is the rhetoric filled with "Some abortionists believe...", Some truthers believe...", some "neocons believe..." etc. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, an article on Neoconservative concepts could utilize the term "neocons" and not be pejorative as could an article on the "9/11 truth" movement, utilizing "truthers" (especially if quoted as this aforementioned passage is). For example, lets say that the Washington Post described those who doubt the official 9/11 story thusly: "9/11 truthers believe ... etc", then of course it could be appropriate to cite that and say in an article on the topic: "The Washington Post has stated that '9/11 Truthers believe ... etc'". For instance, those on the fringe who believe the earth is actually flat get called "flat Earthers" by reliable sources, and thus Wikipedia reflects such in kind. It is not necessary to always arduously describe a "flat Earther" as = "One who remains skeptical about the spherical shape of our current planet and thus favors the approach that perhaps it is indeed flat". Moreover, nobody has yet to provide any evidence that "birthers" violates Wp:Undue, and in fact I would contend that in lieu of Wp:Weight, the entire article could be renamed "birther conspiracy theories", although in bending over backwards towards objectivity, that isn’t necessary at this time.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I´m having a great deal of difficulty assuming good faith here.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, considering that you were the first editor on this thread to state that the ominous "some" (an obvious veiled reference to myself, Hoary, or both) "are determined" that the article remain in your words "poor quality" and then topped that off with accusing "some editors" (again, a nice rhetorical caveat of bad faith) of having an "ideology" that "prevents them from an objective evaluation" ... I would wager that you'll be ok in your reciprocal assumptions of "good faith".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Look. I specifically doubt your good faith. I won´t mince words about it, nor hide behind rhetorical devices. I unequivocally state that your ideology has clouded your judgement on the issue of the appropriateness of the repeated use of "Birthers" and your pathetic assertion that The Nation is a reliable source for encyclopedic content. Sure , I´m a conservative, I have never made any bones about it. You have used this article for your own purposes: to hold up to ridicule and marginalize "Birthers". This is not what the project is for. You are mistaking the article for your personal forum. You are obviously a bright man, however, you are being purposely obtuse here.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not assuming good faith and using the words "...being purposely obtuse here." just shows the glass house you created for yourself. Maybe you want to retract strike or rephrase your statement and comment on the issue, not the editor?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice I said "being" not that he was "obtuse". Don´t play semantics and try to make my comment something other than a commnet on" his being obtuse".--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dixie, you have no knowledge of my "personal ideology", as I never discuss the issue (finding it mostly irrelevant to my proposed additions which are always referenced to someone else other than myself). You have been reverted on this matter now 3 separate times by 3 separate editors. There may be one editor who is being "obtuse" in their insistence to violate Wp:Concensus here, but it isn't me.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the out of context quotation for the Nation´s blog perWP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Please discuss befor reinserting.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dixie, You were previously reverted on this removal by another editor and have now been reverted on this by myself. With this in mind, the chronological protocol would be for you to first justify your removal. If you find The Nation to violate WP:RS in all instances as you claim above, then there is a proper channel for you to seek out administrative approval for this wiki-wide distinction. As for WP:Undue, you also have yet to display how these remarks violate this policy. It is not enough to merely list policies without a clear designation of how they are relevant. Undue weight relies on a cumulative understanding of the overall preponderance of the evidence (i.e. 'weight') in order to hypothesize on whether we are staying true to the proportionality of representation. However, I would imagine that you carte blanche dismiss many of the sources who have discussed this fringe movement, and thus I am not sure what you are even allowing to be on the proverbial scales for "weighing".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are an academician, based on the degrees that you alledge to have. What i don´t understand is how you think a massive quote bomb from a leftist blog without and context is desirable. It appears that the way it explodes on the scene, that it has editorial oversight from The Nation. Can you not see that it is a blog? can you not look at the URL and see that? Can you not see how this gives undue wieght to inherently unreliable sources? Is Hannity a RS for Obama? No! and including his or Rush´s comments give undue weight in the same way. Quit trying to take me down the garden path.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dixie, since when is having an academic background a negative attribute or indictment on ones credibility ? - (although I admit this may be the case with the "birther" movement). Per your charges against The Nation, you have already been rebuffed on this at ---> Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Nation. You are now thus attempting to contradict the will of not only 3 other editors on this particular article, but now the advice of the noticeboard of which you sought. Couple this with your statement that User Brothejr is "God cursed stupid" and your laughable insinuation that I must be some aspiring shadow academic "revolutionary" - and the picture that emerges is not so favorable on your part. As someone who has let their emotions cloud their judgment in the past (something I am sure we are all guilty of from time to time) - my recommendation would be to move along and save yourself the potential aggravation in your futile quest to override everyone else you've thus encountered on the matter.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you notice the section is titled: Commentary and Criticism. The quote fits both and also sums to the entire section. The quote has been attributed to the author and is large enough to warrant a block quote. I also think that attacking other editors is unwarranted here and is against a couple policies. Please discuss the issue not the other editors. Brothejr (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am certain that I am discussing their actions. If not, I do apologize. Please read them that way. Please explain why you do not want the quotation labeled as a blog? PLease state unequivocally if you deny that it is indeed a blog.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW: If a reliable third party source had commented on the quote, it would reach notability. Please provide the source which has done so. It is a BLOG.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dixie, repeating something ad nauseam does not increase the validity of the declaration … If the "birthers" have taught us anything, this might be it. Read your own noticeboard inquiry.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A "news blog" which can be a RS (to be more precise)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. It is a blog that The Nation maintains. It has no evidence of editorial oversite. I have read the section. Several tiems. The first comments were from before I clarified that it was a blog. The way the quote is used deliberately misguides readers into thinking that it is from The Nation´s news department. Please provide the context and directly attribute the opinion.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what context, why it is important to include, how you would word it, and why it should be worded like that? Brothejr (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

the desired context should be appernt from my last edit that you reverted. Perhaps you did not read it before reverting?--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you answered my first portion, what about why is it important to include it and why it should be worded like that? Brothejr (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To stay on the right side of WP:UNDUE and not mistakenly give it the same creedence that one would their news reports. It should be directly attributed inline to the author.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And it currently is attributed to the author. However, why is calling the author of the opinion a "leftist" or some derivation there of needed? What part of the context does it serve? Brothejr (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The quotebomb gives undue weight to the opinion of this author. People should know the self-described mission of The Nation to evaluate the source properly.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Pardon the slight digression, but talk of self-described missions prompts me to express a worry that of late has been preying on me. Are you asking us to die for Dixie, are you planning to die for Dixie, or does your username mean something else entirely? -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please review the early history on my talkpage for an exhaustive discussion of my username, and a second one about a year later. If you really want to discuss it, please feel free to hit me up on my talkpage.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also got to ask why do people need to know what the "self described mission of The Nation" to evaluate the quote? Brothejr (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why deprive them of it? Do we not exist to inform and let the reader evalute the quote in its context?--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) However, how will calling the author or The Nation a leftist or some derivation of that help the reader evaluate the quote? Shouldn't the reader make up their own mind without us influencing them? Wouldn't labeling the author politically some how influence/skew the reader one way or the other. To be neutral, we should just include the quote's author and the place where it was written and leave it at that. Brothejr (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: I have moved the quote down into the section under the Rachel Maddow quote. Brothejr (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that and that makes it tolerable. I don´t have to love it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of birthers and truthers

The article now tells us:

The pejorative "birthers" moniker draws a parallel with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, who have been nicknamed "truthers".[1]

This points to an article in the Daily Telegraph. The article does not say that the term is pejorative and doesn't mention "truthers". What kind of "sourcing" is this?

My own impression is that the term is sometimes used pejoratively and sometimes isn't. Certainly the disyllabic "birthers" is more convenient than "people who don't believe that Obama was born in the US" or any other alternative that I can quickly come up with; in view of its brevity, it would hardly be surprising if it changed from being a pejorative to a neutral term. -- Hoary (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Treehuggers, Obamabots, Bushies, birthers, truthers, bible thumpers, right-wingers, yuppies, winos, wiggers, etc, etc. These are all common terms and all used with a certain amount of derogatory intent. I suppose it could be argued that the label "pejorative" is unnecessary because some intent to belittle is simply assumed. Also, I've just noticed that some revel in the term "birther". JBarta (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In the article about these people it is not appropriate to use the term other than in quotes. Think about using the word "nigger" as a euphemism for Black people throughout the KKK article. That some black people use the term with pride and as a term of endearment makes no difference.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie's unstated assumption is that using a pejorative to describe someone on the basis of their crazy, well-debunked beliefs is just like using a pejorative to describe someone on the basis of their race. The terms birther is more akin to flat-earther than it is to nigger. — goethean ॐ 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As you like. Point is , that in an encylopedia, neither is appropriate. The repeated use of "birther" is to ridicule and marginalize. This is appropriate in leftist publications and commentators rants. I would expect no less. Wikipedia´s purpose is not to hold up flatworlders, bible thumpers, or any other group in JBart´s incomplete list to ridicule. It tries to be an encyclopedia, and its primary purpose should not be suverted like this.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, your claim of the beliefs being "well-debunked" is false since an official birth certificate has not been released. I agree that the term is not akin to "nigger," but I do see how the comparison can be made. Die4Dixie, if you can show references describing the term as pejorative or offensive then it would have a better chance of inclusion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see ThuranX´s recent comments at ANI about me. He has purposely mislabeled me as a "Birther" to marginalize me and undermine my efforts to impove the article. If someone would call a person a Birther to marginalize them at ANI, it would appear self evident that the same purpose is being realized here in the article. ( which is not the purpose of the article).--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I did see that personal attack on ANI, but that can't be used as a source. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My real complaint is the use of "birther" in the prose repeatedly. I was just illustrating that the enclyclopedia should not use the word other than in quotes and when directly quoting someone. Other uses, like the ones employeed currently, can only be labeled propoganda, and Wikipedia should not be a propoganda machine. The article should not exist to marginalize the views, merely report them and what others have said about them, within reason.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your complaint, but the editors of this article will not care. Nothing can really get done here. But if you want to make the point, you need all the evidence you can find, and even if you do, they may just choose to ignore. That's how Obama articles work. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If I were to agree with you, we would be labled conspiracy freaks. I have made appeals to policy above several times. Finally a reasonably minded admin is willing to get involved, but most want to avoid the head ache like the plague. I can hardly blame them. Please inform me of any votes, polls, or requests for comment. They have finally worn me down--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

we dont have to use this word "brther". we can just use it when its being used as a quote from a source, but then we just Smith Jones 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to knock the comments above, but I sense an overwillingness to judge the degree of pejoration of "birther" (my second issue) from the gut -- nobody has cited any external commentary, aside from a single mention of a single website -- and nobody has taken up my first point, which is that the article a few hours ago claimed, and as of a few seconds ago still claims, (i) that "birther" is pejorative and is modeled on "truther" and (ii) that this is confirmed by an article in the Daily Telegraph -- while that very same Daily Telegraph article says no such thing (it fails even to mention "truther", or indeed "truth").

I think it is almost certain that "birther" was originally pejorative and a play on "truther". I've no objection to the article saying this, or that the term often has negative connotations. But if it says this, it should cite a reliable source that actually says this or at least clearly implies it. And then, in order to give a more rounded picture of the term as it is used now, some mention should be made of the way that "birther" appears now to be used within staid, sober, apolitical prose as the straightforward term for what it denotes.

(Linguistically, there's nothing unusual about this process of amelioration. Consider "quaker". Notoriously, WP is not an RS, but as this is merely a talk page I'll quote the article: what began apparently as a way to make fun of Fox's admonition by those outside the Society of Friends became a nickname that even Friends use for themselves]].) -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no real opinion about it. I suspect that you are right about the lede. I also think I am right about wikipedia using it. The linguistic process of amelioration took considerably longer than has elapsed for Wikipedia to start directly refering to"birthers".--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My question is how prolific is the term "Birthers" in the main stream media? Because we follow what main stream media uses, we should use the term they use. Brothejr (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and "we" use reliable sources, "we" don't blindly follow the "main stream media." Perhaps you are using "we" in a different context. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

<Ignoring the the rather snarky remark> Mainstream media does equal reliable sources? Do you have a different definition that is not the same with WP:RS? Brothejr (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The conventions should follow encyclopedic writing, this is not a news source. Conventions of the mainstream media have no place, just the information. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that when the sources actually use the term Birthers while describing the group as a whole we should ignore that? What is your definition of encyclopedic writing? Does that mean ignoring terms that the writer does not like even though it is not considered vulgar by the majority of society and is commonly used in regards to the subject of the article? Summing it up, are you saying that to be an encyclopedia we should ignore terms that a subject is popularly known as because some editors don't like them? Brothejr (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It should be ignored if it is inappropriate and unprofessional. I am not arguing one side or the other, I am simply saying that terms used in encyclopedic writings should be used as the basis. Slang terms are not particularly appropriate. I don't know about the complete usage of this term, but the mainstream media should not be the basis. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is who is deeming it inappropriate and unprofessional? What is the standard to deem something inappropriate and unprofessional? Is there a specific policy that tells use when the term Birthers is inappropriate and unprofessional? Also on a side note, so if a news article that has to go through various editors before being published, used the term is incorrectly or should not have used the term? Brothejr (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic works should be used to make that determination, since this is (supposedly) an encyclopedia. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I am unsure what you mean by encyclopedic works should be used to make that determination? Brothejr (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The way reliable encyclopedic sources handle the situation, should be reflected here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Then in this case and by that definition, we should use the term Birther, as that is how "encyclopedic sources" handle the situation. Brothejr (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence for that? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here ya go:

• Here is one that not only uses the term birthers in the body of the article, but also in the headline: [1]
• Here is another source that uses the term birthers [2]
• And another one: [3]
• And another one: [4]
• And so much more [5]

I think there is evidence out there. Brothejr (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are all opinion pieces, not reliable encyclopedic works. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how you can write them all off as opinion pieces? So are you saying all 3,923 articles found by this Google news search [6] are opinion pieces? Or maybe the standard is that if an article uses the term birthers, then it must be an opinion piece? Or maybe if because we don't like the term we shouldn't use it? Brothejr (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

a professional encyclopedia does not use pejorative terms in its articles, just like we dont use the N-word in the article Africa. IF a SOURCE says it and we are QUOTING that source, then we use the perjorative. But in just general writing we should use the term the term "birthers" only when absolutely necessary to acurately reflects the text of the source and not our own personal bias. We are not writing an editorial a press release from the Obama Administraiton. We are writing an enclyclopedia and should stick to WP:RS or WP:N and avoid undue weight to random editorials pumped out by the liberal media. I hope we can learn to abide by WP:MOS and follow the rules and the precepts upon which Wikipedia was founded by its founder James Wales. Smith Jones 00:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And the thing is that the term in the article is used exactly as you say. However, the argument is against the use of the term at all. Brothejr (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that argument being made. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are not arguing against the use of the word Birthers? Brothejr (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that I'm not on one side or the other because there is currently not enough information. However, I don't see where anybody is arguing that the word should not be used in the context described above by Smith Jones. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And as I said just below Smith's post that this article does use the term Birthers in the context described above. Brothejr (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

False. I counted at least three uses in the article as a label of the movement.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And were they supported by the sources? Brothejr (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

the problem is that you are incorrect in your assertion that birhters is only used when direct-quoting a source. These citations are not are ARE NOT supported by their sources. For example:

• the section entitled "[edit] Claims that the certification of live birth is meaningless mentions the word "birthers"
• in the comfort in conspiracy subsection which refers to "Birthers claim" even though that phraseology is not in the source and later
• you can find in the White House Response section refers to birthers

This is only a crossection of the many ways that WP:MOS is violating by the excessive iuse of a perjorative or other derogatory political slander is being used. Smith Jones 01:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones was referring only to "quotes," as emphasized in capital letters in his earlier post above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If a term is not supported by a source, then obviously we cannot use it. However, there are many times where the term is appropriately used in the article. Brothejr (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

i am fine with THOSE usages when they are supported by the source. in the cases that I wish to eliminate, they are not and I want to get consensus so that i can remove them without editwar. Smith Jones 01:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I say go ahead. Other terms can easily be used instead, and the usage itself of the word is disputed. So it's best to be safe. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the three in question, the rest are supported by sources and are appropriate. Brothejr (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Problem solved. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Perhaps we should initiate a request for comment and be sure?--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That will only be necessary if someone starts an edit war. I think we have consensus right here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I´m dubious. I really think a request for comment should be done to solidify it. I do think it should be removed until the results are in.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This was an agreement to remove three earlier birther uses, however this was never an agreement to remove the quote. That still needs to be discussed above in a section already started on it. Brothejr (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is true. My comment above only covered the use of "birther" outside of quoted material. I don´t like the quote, but we need a request for comment on it before it goes. I can tolerate it if it is incorporated into the prose and not block-quoted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pat Boone is irrelevant

The article is getting bloated enough as it is, so I have snipped this fancruft. Let's not waste space on random celebrity opinion if they have no tangible connection to the birthers or any past or present court case. Tarc (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

External Links needs cleaning up

Per WP:EL, what this section has become is no longer correct. What we have now is a mere "collection of links" in which the issue is discussed, positively or negatively. That is not the point of external links. Please see WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO for specific guidelines but most of these need to go. I'm going to clean it up. If anyone objects, please discuss the specific link you feel should be included here. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the link to the WorldNetDaily archive of their complete coverage of the subject should be restored. [http://www.wnd.com/eligibility] It does not obviously fail anything in WP:ELNO, and WorldNetDaily is a notable source for these theories. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, I would dispute that the current list is merely a "collection of links". In fact I would contend that the current links are probably the most beneficial and/or notable external mentions of this particular topic. I am open to discussion on particular links, or others views that they all should go (Wp:Concensus), but in lieu of this I have chosen to revert your blanket deletions to allow for more talk page discussion on the matter. I don’t find 6-7 links to be in the range of a WP:Linkfarm, and would posit that around 8 would be the Wiki average – although yes admittedly you have some editors who out of personal preference would like them eradicated altogether.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your insertion of all the links back into the article, but if you are adding those links back in, you need to at least give a justification for each of the specific links and why you feel they belong. The number of links (6 or 8) doesn't matter, it's the specific relevancy of the individual links. Of the three categories of link to include, the first two obviously do not apply. That leaves the third one "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." That right there rules out several of the removed links. WND is neither neutral or accurate. Most of the others are not being included for the legal and technical reasons stated above, but rather, simply because somebody likes it. I'll start by removing the WND link as it is a clear violation of WP:EL and we'll address the other ones individually. Please give specific arguments for EACH of the links why you feel they belong, not just a general statement that we don't have too many links so why not leave them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't mention WP:ELMAYBE. #4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Depending on how you interpret "knowledgeable sources" here WND could qualify. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Loonymonkey, the counter to "I like it" would be "I don't like it" (with both being as valid/invalid). At this moment there are 8 external links included in the article which I will list below:

• The Truth About Obama's Birth Certificate by FactCheck.org
• False Rumor about Obama's Birth Certificate from Snopes.com
• Email Hoax: Occidental College Transcripts Reveal Foreign Citizenship from Urban Legends
• Culture of Conspiracy: The Birthers by The Politico

Multimedia video

• The Daily Show: "The Born Identity" July 22, 2009
• Gordon Liddy on MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews July 23, 2009
• The Colbert Report: "Womb Raiders" Part 1 and Part 2 with Orly Taitz July 28, 2009
• Real Time with Bill Maher: New Rules - Warning On Birthers July 31, 2009

Per these links, I would say that the first 3 represent notable and reliable "fact checking sites" which are highly relevant to the topic and thus worthy of inclusion, while the 4th link from The Politico represents a fair assessment from a media source which is usually seen as a fair arbiter of conservative ideas. Per the second video section, it is obvious that these videos can't be linked in the article itself, and I would posit that these 4 media appearances (with their millions of viewers) gave the topic of “birtherism” more notoriety than probably any other occasions thus far in the entire "movement". They effectively brought the "fringe" out into the mainstream popular culture - for those who were probably not aware of these claims previously. Do you disagree? What would be your reasoning for objecting to including these links?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In the #Linking to birther sites thread above, I expressed doubt about linking to www.marchreport.com. By my same analysis, however, the link to World Net Daily is proper -- and I'm a liberal who has been known to refer to that site as "World Nut Daily". JamesMLane t c 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So can we re-add the link to the WorldNetDaily archive of their complete coverage of this subject? [http://www.wnd.com/eligibility] As I noted above, WP:ELMAYBE #4 would seem to permit it to be considered as an EL. If not for WorldNetDaily this subject might never have become notable enough for its own article in Wikipedia. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we trim/clean that up? Not sure if we need the snopes and Urbanlegends. Also, do we need Colbert, Maher, Stewart and Mathews commentary? It seems per WP:EL that ELs should be limited to sites that deal directly with the topic of the article rather than those just mentioned. This section could grow and who determines what is included. Anyways, TIA --Tom (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz's website

Orly Taitz's website, orlytaitzesq.com, is being reported by my virus protection program, and by talkingpointsmemo.com, as harboring malware. Fortunately, my virus protection caught it, but I'd suggest not going there unless you're sure your virus protection is up to date. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

that can be construed as a disappearance of good faith in BLP. please try to follow the rules in the future. Smith Jones 14:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what policy did he break, please be very specific? Brothejr (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any logical reading of that could be construed as running afoul of BLP. A simple fact...taitz's blog site is being reported as malware...was stated, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

i checked the wesite myself and I didnt find any malware. and I used some of the most advanced spyware detection and malware detection analysis software. it could be an error on your computer quite probably and this might inadvertently make Orly Taitz website look bad and be construed as being insulting of her unnecessarily, which is unprofessional on an encyclopeida. i Urge you to reconsider your position on this matter and refactor your initial statement, `Smith Jones 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what policy they broke and requires them to refactor their comment? Please be specific. Brothejr (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, it could have been an error in the web site that caused the problem and was corrected and that the editor was being a good editor and warning about a potential problem, thus not needing to refactor or reconsider their position. Or, there still could be a problem too. I have heard of a hidden frame that had malware on it. Brothejr (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as of a few days ago her web page contained this script, which can with a little effort be decoded to reveal malware, in that it loads a frame from (redacted)

I don't know if it's still there. --TheMaestro (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

that is also plausible, although as an Attorney she would know that her livelihood depends on cusotmers being able to easily view her contact information, and if clients are scared off by phony scares of malware/spyware that can do financial harm so Orly Taitz would endavort to cavort it. My studies of systems technology and IT have borne out such possibilities which I did have researched before my elegy here today. My recommendation is to perhaps redirect the link to her website on this page to the now solvent and website Orly Taitz which recently evaded an WP:AFD and was surmised to still exist on this Wikipedia as a separate article rather than a redirect. I will request Consensus as a naturalistic requirement before making such a move. Smith Jones 15:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well whatever it is, google still flags it as a malicious site. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Google is a well-known and controversial search engine. Smith Jones 17:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones, I am reluctant to go back to the site for obvious reasons. But since your computer seems to be unaffected by it, maybe you could check it out for us by going to the page and seeing if the source still contains the script I quoted above. --TheMaestro (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Windows shut down when I tried to open a link from the page on current lawsuits, to protect my computer or so it says.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I never made any claims about Ms. Taitz being the source of the malware, it might have been maliciously infected by an opponent. My virus protection no longer gives me any warnings when I go there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

precisely. since the original user who was allegedly accepted by this so-called "malware" has withdrawn te charge, i see no reason to continue arguing that there should be a problem. honestly, this entire thing just shows to humiliate Attorney Taitz and is a clear violation of WP:FORUM Smith Jones 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, may I ask how this is meant to humiliate Ms. Taitz? Also, may I ask how this can be considered "Scandal Mongering." (If that is the section you are thinking of because it is the only one that remotely relates to this argument.) I also like to point out that this isn't about, nor has ever been about, Ms. Taitz. Only her web site, which could conceivably be done by someone else. Finally, this whole "this spyware/malware accusation is only to humiliate her" tilt is getting a bit old and worn out. The message itself was a hidden message and not plastered over her article and no one here is directly, indirectly, or any derivation there of, trying to humiliate or blaming her. Leave it be and move on. Brothejr (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

are you kidding??? i never even MENTIONED scandal mongering. What i linked to was WP:FORUM, in that wikiepdia is NOT a forum for, according to wp:not, "hey are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance."

if you have a problem with the site and need techncial assitance, that's great. take it to talk page. this article is for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. quite frankly, we dont really even need to have her website on her Smith Jones 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then you have incorrectly used the WP:FORUM policy. When you brought up the policy before, the usage was incorrect. However, because you seem to want to push this past the web site and into a defamation argument, the proper policies to apply would be WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP as you are pushing this debate past the original intent of this section. Thus it can conceivably be argued that you are coming close to breaking those two policies. Brothejr (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm afraid that you've lost me here. WP:FORUM and WP:NOTFORUM link to the sxact same section and the same page. and what does WP:SOAP have to do with this? i am not talking about defamation, i am talking about using this talk apge to get technical assistance for the problems with the Orly Taitz webpage [[User:Smith Jones] 00:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually reading the first comment: it was to report that there was/could be possible malware embedded in the web site and was warning people about it. Then you jumped on them accusing them of a BLP violation. Then you try to turn it into a technical debate with the slant to say that there was no malware and that any mention of it was slanderous. Now you are trying to deny the technical side to it and add another policy. Maybe in your spare time you might want to read what WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP actually say. However, if you truly want to stop this "technical" debate, then don't comment anymore in this thread or topic as it is mainly you who are pushing it. Finally, if you choose to bring this section back towards your earlier assertion that mentioning this could be damaging to Ms Taitz (Or any derivation of the same thing you like to think of it as) would be considered inappropriate as that is not the focus of this section nor ever was. Brothejr (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still unclear as to the source for our allegatons, but I'm used to that by now on this page :D anyway, you do make a good point that i should stop commenting, as this is clearly my fault for pormulagating an obviously unfruitful point of distracting Discussion. thank you for your time and patinece nad I wish you the best of luck with the socalled "Malware" problem. [[User:Smith Jones] 02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones's charge that this warning is an attempt to make Taitz's website look bad is utterly unfounded. See my post in this thread above, where I reported the same warning from the Free Republic website. Free Republic is a far-right website whose denizens are all agog over the eligibility issue. There are numerous posts there praising Taitz -- I think some of them hope that Taitz will be named the Attorney General in President Palin's cabinet. OK, that's an exaggeration, but certainly Free Republic wouldn't phony up a malware warning to hurt Taitz. And, Smith Jones, if you're unclear as to the source for various allegations, you might consider whether you're reading others' comments carefully enough. JamesMLane t c 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Birth certificate image caption

William S. Saturn is trying mightily to cast aspersions on the authenticity/reliability of the birth certificate, but it is nothing much we haven't had to deal with before. First attempt is here adding "short form" to the image caption, but according to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, there is no long/short distinction. Attempt #2 (with revert) appended "as posted on his website", framing the matter in terms of its authenticity being contingent on how much one trusts the Obama camp to be truthful. Since the state of Hawaii has certified the document in question, this ""as posted on his website" bit is rather unnecessary. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A newspaper or a Hawaiian official can state there is no moon if they chose, but that doesn't make it so. While Hawaii may now only offer the short form certificate and while they choose to not make the literal distinction between "long" and "short" form, the fact remains the COLB that has been offered is generally known as a "short form" and the original birth certificate is generally known as a "long form". To blur this distinction in the article does the reader a great disservice. JBarta (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The only disservice is to birthers looking to make a distinction without a difference. Labeling it in a "this is only the short form" manner implies that there is a long form that could be placed in its stead". That is not the case, as explained by the state's Dep't of Health, which certainly does make it so. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The article can clearly state that currently, when a birth certificate is requested, it is this computer generated short form that is given rather than a photocopy of the original birth certificate (long form). If the state of Hawaii were ever to say that NO ONE, not even Obama himself can get a certified photocopy of his original birth certificate, then that can be in the article as well. But regarding the two, there is a distinction and there most definitely is a difference. They are two different documents. Yes it may be true that details on the short form correspond exactly to details on the long form. And yes it is true that the state of Hawaii has, in limited and carefully chosen words, stated just that. What remains however is that we are STILL dealing with two different documents... commonly known as "long form" and "short form". JBarta (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's quite amazing that the resident experts here on Wikipedia know more about Hawaii birth certificates than the official spokesperson of the Hawaii Department of Health. Unless...she's in on the conspiracy! — goethean ॐ 23:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

goethean, I don't see where anything I've said in this thread is in conflict with anything in that Q&A you reference. JBarta (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate." — goethean ॐ 00:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote. Again I don't see where anything I've said in this thread is in conflict with that statement. JBarta (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Granted, I don't know much about this topic, but when I was reading this article the other day, I got confused about the distinction between the short form and the long form. At one point (this was a couple days ago), it said there was no long/short distinction but then the article kept talking about long and short as if it mattered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It matters. Read the article, read the talk pages, read the various arguments pro and con that are out there in Internetland and you will see there is a difference and why it matters to many people. If after understanding the issue a little better it still doesn't matter, then that's OK too. JBarta (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A clarification is definitely necessary, since there is a difference between the certificate provided by Obama and the official birth certificate. By hiding the difference, the motive of editors seems to be an attempt to discredit the movement, and that is not the goal of wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, it leaves the implication that there is another, different document that could be produced instead of the currently available one. According to the government agency responsible for such records, this claim is false. Tarc (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the difference now. You are simply misinformed about the matter. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Under what circumstances the original birth certificate can be produced is a little foggy (at least from my understanding of the issue). Obama can produce it voluntarily by a request to the State of Hawaii? A court order is necessary? Even Obama would need a court order? I'm not really sure. Regardless, there's no sense in pretending that an original 1961 birth certificate does not exist simply because the State of Hawaii has recently said "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate". In the past they've acknowledged the disctinction and recently they have referenced the original birth record in their statements. Let's let the article reflect the facts as clearly and completely as possible. There is a COLB (generally known as a short form) that has been produced and the original birth certificate (generally known as a long form) that has not. Why it has not or cannot be produced is a separate discussion. What's not up for discussion is that original records never existed. JBarta (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you and Will are having difficulty understanding "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate", but I really don't think there's much that we can do to help you with that. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind too much removing "short form" from the image caption based on "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate". I think it's rather misleading however because the COLB is in fact generally known as a short form (even if Hawaii has recently seen fit to disavow the distinction). JBarta (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to readd "as posted on his website," since some editors believe that stating "short-form" is not factually correct in Hawaii. I think it was a good compromise that clarified that it was not exactly the "official" birth certificate as readers are currently being led to believe. Any thoughts? Or suggestions for a better clarification? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that compromise. Actually I'm not sure any compromise should be made. At the same time the document is a "birth certificate", a "certification of live birth", a "short form birth certificate" and a "green piece of paper". All are correct... but which is best? It's slightly misleading (considering the circumstances), but I can live with "Certification of Live Birth" as the image caption. But... the article should make perfectly clear the differences between the long and short form and how it pertains to this issue. JBarta (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that "short form certification of live birth" or its variants are a little clunky... and now argumentative since the Hawaiian official has decided to declare that Hawaii doesn't have long forms or short forms. Again, I think that distinction is probably best made within the article text rather than an image caption. JBarta (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that many readers will quickly scan through the article and just see the image and caption. I think clarification is ideal, but I guess clarification in the article would suffice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Claim that "Both parents must be citizens"

I'd like to add a sub-section that reads something to the effect of: Taitz claims that in order for a person to be "natural born", both parents must be citizens. ... I have seen the tape, as they say, but I can not find a written transcript or reliable document with that assertion. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I found it! Bearian (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I lost it; User:Loonymonkey reverted my edit. I will carry on and try to find a better source. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not taking a position on whether it belongs in the article, but for a source, Orly says it herself in the David Shuster interview (at 5'40" of the YouTube clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUaca8wP9w). --TheMaestro (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Taitz started out pushing the Kenyan-birth theory. Although she has lately added the argument that both parents must be citizens, the legal pioneer there was, I think, Donofrio. He assumed from the beginning that Obama was born in Hawaii. His theory is mentioned in the article under Donofrio v. Wells. We might add there a comment that Taitz later incorporated this argument into some of her cases. JamesMLane t c 07:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Wow. These edits are blatant violations of NPOV, made in such a discreet and spread-out way, as to make it almost impossible to revert. I'll let them stand so I can have something to laugh at. But please realize that you are only hurting wikipedia's integrity when you make edits like that. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A template has been added to the article until the corrections are made. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The template has been removed by User:WikiDemon, but the misinformation remains. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed the template - that is not an appropriate template for this sort of article. Further, I have nominated this particular template for deletion because I don't think it serves any legitimate purpose on any article. Please use this page to discuss any content matters or objections, and/or use WP:BRD process to handle any disputed content changes. Redthoreau has made a large number of edits to the article recently. What, specifically, do you dispute as misinformation? Wikidemon (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, WikiDemon feels this version is acceptable. If you truly feel the problem is not that obvious, I question your judgement as a wikipedian. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never claimed that a particular version is acceptable. Again, if you disagree with some of the content on the page, please state what you disagree with and why. If you do that, the editors here can have a reasonable discussion on the topic. I have left a caution on your talk page about Obama article probation and about using article talk pages to make accusations against other editors. Let's stay on topic. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm gonna leave this alone because I find the bias hilarious. So far, it's a perfect demonstration of the bad faith by the owners of this article, but let's see what the others have to say. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was asked by WikiDemon to revert my revert of his hiding of discussion on this talk page. I see where he stands on this issue (and perhaps my accusations of bad faith were aggressive), but I'd like to know what others feel about the additions by RedThoreau. I hope this is all settled by the morning. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

William S, I see you using terms like "misinformation" but no actual examples. If you aren't going to provide any actual proof for your spurious allegations, then I would request that you retract them. Not one single edit that I have added has contained a piece of false information - if you dispute this then show it here so it can be discussed. Thus far you are the only one screaming "pov" because I guess you take offense to your aforementioned above "movement" being shown to be demonstrably out of touch with reality. Yes, I more than welcome the thoughts of others, and can defend every single edit I have made to this article - which before I fixed parts of it, was starting to read like the National Enquirer, and not an Encyclopedia built on documented facts. I care very deeply for Wikipedia's credibility, which is why I am insisting that we treat this fringe conspiracy theory the same that we would any other. Furthermore, I am not an "owner" of the article, in fact 99 % of the words contained in the article were not even added by me - all I have done is bring some of the ambiguous "birther" inspired lingo, in line with the facts of the situation. See ---> WP:LEGS.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Please don't edit my comments
2. Please do not try to label me as subscribing to a particular political movement, when there is no evidence for the claim
3. The additions I have problems with are as follows:
   1. Insertions of the word "incorrect" in passages you are misinformed about
   2. Bolding of irrelevant words
   3. Moving the image of the short form birth certificate to the front of the article, and bolding words in its caption
   4. Mislabeling aspects of the movement to read as though that those asking the president to release the original birth certificate, are all members of the lunatic fringe.

I refuse to make the changes in the article, because I know the intent is to start an edit war, and I will not fall into that trap. RedThoreau made the changes without talk page discussion and therefore, he or the editors that approve of his edits should defend these edits.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

William, there are mechanisms for dealing with disputes like this. I know you would prefer to see all of Redthoreau's recent edits removed at one clip, but why don't we discuss them one at a time? Find the one you consider most egregious, and we can proceed to evaluate the arguments on both sides. --TheMaestro (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

William S,

[1] You seem to have a problem following clear wiki policy. Per Wp:Talk (which I have already pointed out to you) not only are "section headings communal property", but it clearly states = "Never address other users in a heading" while adding = "using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines." I have since fixed this one more time (next time I will be seeking administrative action if you continue to blatantly disregard wiki policy).

[2] For all of your hyperbolic invective about "misinformation" - the best you can come up with is image placement, bolding of words in the title/caption, and inserting "incorrect" on claims that were in fact "incorrect" to begin with. Moreover, for these supposedly now incorrect passages, you offer no diffs as is customary per Wp:Talk which states = "When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs." With that said I believe your hyperventilation is empty rhetoric. As always I am willing to discuss or defend any of these edits and why they were done, which I will do below.

[3] The only words that I bolded were the title of the article in the first sentence (this is customary per MOS), the de-facto alternative title for the article which automatically redirects here i.e. "birthers" (if someone is searching for "birthers" this article comes up, as it should), and the title of the birth certificate image in the lead - which is acting as a quasi-info box at the moment, until one can be created (usually the infobox would have bolded words).

[4] As for you charge of "mislabeling aspects of the movement as the lunatic fringe", you will need to provide actual diffs for this, as I'm not sure what you're talking about. For the record the entire birther "movement" is Wp:Fringe per the WP:RS's, although I have never personally added either the words "lunatic" or "fringe" to the article.

[5] To your allegations of inserting the word "incorrect" on those rumors which were in fact incorrect, once again offer some diffs - so that we can deal with specifics (not with your personally insulted feelings towards how the "movement" is described). Thanks   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (William Saturn) for stating some of your concerns. Without specific citations to the disputed text it is hard to guess exactly what each is. Reviewing the appearances of the word "incorrect" in the current text:

• The first two appearances, saying that one version of the birth certificate is "incorrectly" called the "short form" and another is "incorrectly" called the "long form", is a bit awkward and I think it violates the WP:LEDE style guideline. The lead is supposed to be a short summary of the key points of the article, and is not supposed to contain any material that is not in the body of the article (thus, it should not need citations). To claim in the lede that the terms short and long form are applied incorrectly when people use them would need a citation to that specific fact, and this really should be pointed out in the lede only if it is a key point. It's not obvious that either holds. Are you sure the terms are incorrect? Maybe they're just informal.
• The next appearance, that "This [Rocky Mountain News claim of dual US/Kenyan citizenship" turned out to be incorrect" is verifiable, but the phrasing is a bit awkward and informal. What does it mean to "turn out" to be incorrect? It was incorrect all along. The way it's worded creates an implied persona of a narrator relating an account where something was initially believed but later proven wrong. Also, "false" is more to the point than incorrect to describe this mistaken claim.
• The fourth appearance: "Some people claim [birth certificate not proof] because they incorrectly claim that [foreign-born kids could get them], so that..." is also awkward. On a strictly grammatical level, Person X claims Y because Z is actually saying that Z is X's motivation for claiming Y, not their argument. "Incorrectly claim" is a bit off. The claim is not made in an incorrect manner; rather, it is wrong. I would reword this entire paragraph to be a bit cleaner. But sure, the sources support the substance, that this particular claim is used in argument and it is wrong.
• "Another incorrect but popularly reported claim is..." - this one looks fine. The word "incorrect" is used a bit too often but as long as a few of the other uses are reworded this could stay.
• "fringe activist" is not necessary. I think "activist" will do. The theory is a fringe theory in all of its incarnations, but that does not mean everyone who believes it is a fringe individual. You would have to strongly support that the theory is being spread mostly by fringe activists. I'm not sure whether that's the case or not. After that, there seem to be five different quotes where the word "fringe" is used - that's overkill I think. Two or three will do, right? Also, quoting anti-birther activists, pundits, party loyalists, etc., isn't the most encyclopedic. A sober analysis in reliable sources would be better, some serious attempt to understand the movement, theory, etc. That doesn't mean giving it any more credence, it just means a neutral tone. There is no need to spend so much of the article refuting the theory. We don't usually offer direct proof of things here, except maybe in the math articles. Normally we just report what the reliable sources describe.
• I agree that the caption to the birth certificate image should not be bolded, that's not the normal style of doing things. Further, I don't think the caption should attempt to repeat the anti-birther argument. How about shortening it and just saying what it is, without the explanation? The explanation should be in the text.
• "Birthers" should be bold because it's one of the main topics of the article, and probably redirects here. I'm not aware of any other uses of bold in the article.

- Wikidemon (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I appreciate your reply which deals with specifics (although some of those "incorrect(s)" were not added my myself). As for the "fringe" labeling in the lead, that existed long before I arrived at the article - and I'm ambiguous either way, to its inclusion in the lead (although I imagine others are not, per the FAQ above). Per the bolding and other minor issues, if you disagree with my take on them after I have provided my reasoning - then please adjust them accordingly. You have shown yourself to be a fair arbiter on the issue, and I trust your judgment on the matter.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First sentence: "have circulated"

To say:

Conspiracy theories about the legitimate citizenship of President of the United States Barack Obama, and other challenges to his eligibility to become President have circulated before and after his victory in the presidential election of 2008.

is to make the understatement of the century. A view held by tens of million of Americans has not "circulated", it is widely held, even if it is easily demolished by those who subscribe to verifiable facts and logic. My best guess is that we are talking about 44 million people in the US who believe the conspiracy theory (58% of Republicans, who comprise maybe 25% of the population), and another 44 million who are unsure. I attempted to correct the inaccuracy but was quickly smacked down. — goethean ॐ 18:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Roughly 15 percent of the population or perhaps a bit more is still in the minority by quite a bit, I'm not sure why circulated is inadequate. Soxwon (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a credible source (i.e. one not mindlessly reporting the results of a poll) that this large number of people actually believe it? There is a vast gulf between what Americans truly believe, what they think they believe, what they say they believe, and how they respond on a poll. I suspect any question in a poll will get at least 10% yes, and at least 10% no - even a question chanted in Sanskrit. 10% believe there are extra-terrestrials living among us, 10% believe we didn't fly to the moon, only 90% believe Canada is a nation, etc. To interpolate from how people respond in the structured environment of a poll, to how significant this is as a movement, leaves out a few steps. I would say a well-written paper or book by political scientists, historians, culture studies people, etc., would be a much more reliable source on the significance of it all than poll numbers. Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I take your comments to mean that you have no reliable sources indicating that the poll numbers are unreliable. — goethean ॐ 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, your personal skepticism regarding poll numbers is irrelevant. — goethean ॐ 19:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with "have circulated", but the sentence seems a bit awkward. Is this any better? "Conspiracy theories challenging the legitimacy of President of the United States Barack Obama's citizenship and eligibility to become President have circulated before and after his victory in the presidential election of 2008." I'd also drop or move "The primary engine of these theories are a number of fringe activists and political opponents nicknamed "birthers"". The start of the article should focus on the conspiracy theories, not the proponents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good sentence to keep for two reasons. Given the nature of this issue, the article is about both. There's a fair number of quotes talking about the people involved, motives, etc. Also, it does outline from the beginning that these are fringe theories. Hiding that gives them more weight than warranted. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Title of the Article

Given that the title of the article is "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories", shouldn't the theories outlined in the article involve a conspiracy of some sort. None of the proposed theories seem to use a conspirancy, or at least it wasn't stated as such in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.125.89 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

They seem pretty definitively to be conspiracies to me. For instance, a common birther claim is that Obama's birth certificate is false. They claim that either there is a long form that differs in some significant way (usually place of birth) from the certificate Obama's presidential campaign made available or that the released certificate was totally fabricated with no basis. Since the State of Hawaii says that Obama's certificate is a valid certificate produced by the state and that he was born in Honolulu, the birther claims participation by Hawaiian officials in producing a false certificate. And it's the sources that matter. Several sources describe the theories as "conspiracy theories." --JamesAM (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This subject is also addressed in the FAQ at the top of the page. JamesMLane t c 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, strictly going by what "reliable sources" say, nearly ALL sources have gone off the deep end calling this issue a fringe/nutty/rightwing/birther conspiracy theory and attacking the mere mention of it with surprising rabidity. There was a time when the argument could be made that the issue was being reported on responsibly and professionally by a significant number of journalists. That day is gone. Now there is a parade of juvenile talking heads deriding all comers like I've never seen before. For better or worse, Wikipedia feels compelled to follow that lead. That said, compared to some of the crap that has passed for journalism on the topic, this Wikipedia article takes a responsible high road by comparison, and while not quite neutral or complete, is about the best review of the issue that can be had. JBarta (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, there's some very strong evidence that everything is legit. It get's harder and harder to believe some of the accusations when it looks like documents are being faked to support those accusations ("Kenyan Birth Certificate"). I quite agree that the Obama campaign had a way to silence some of the critics back in late 2008, but right now I don't know if there's anything they could really do to answer what's being raised. I know we've got at least one commentary in the article expressing that point. I've got a feeling that some of the more aggressive right-wing commentators use this as something they can hammer Obama about.

Your point about "deriding all comers" is a good one. The article shouldn't go overboard in making the point that these are generally considered "fringe" by the mainstream. Explain the particular theory and the various views then cover how it's viewed in the mainstream. These theories are dismissed by most sources, but have strong emotional support among certain segments. The "birther" label is pretty accurate, as there's a lot of similarity to the "truther" situation. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read some of the "pro-birther" commentary out there, you will find many examples of perfectly sane and reasonable people asking perfectly sane and reasonable questions and making perfectly sane and reasonable points. I would suggest that the lion's share of strong emotion and denial on the issue is displayed by the "anti-birthers". (Crazy Eileen excepted) JBarta (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, could it be the other way around? That the majority of America has laughed this off as some people who cannot accept that Obama is the president and that the majority of America sees this as nothing more as a bunch of conspiracy theorists who keep on wanting to think that this guy is evil. Also, it could be that the main stream media is reflecting what the majority of America thinks about this topic? Next, most people would have dropped it a long time ago when the birth certificate was shown. Yet when it was shown, these people then said it was either a fake or not the right one, thus the conspiracy was born. About the only people who think that there is any merit to any of these claims are those who have some kind of deep seated problem with Obama. Either way, the majority of Americans agree that these are just conspiracy theories with the main stream media reflecting that, and thus the title of the article is correct. Whether the mainstream media or the majority of America is right or wrong is irrelevant to this article. Nuff said. Brothejr (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I love the sane and reasonable way with which Orly Taitz calls anybody who questions her "Brownshirts". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone suggested a Manchurian Candidate scenario (involving rather a lot of people - official and otherwise)? Or the "proverbial 8 foot lizards in disguise'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

no and we shouldnt exncourage attempts to smear rbitehrs without the theories of unverified WP:FORUM behaviorists. Smith Jones 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My point I was trying to make earlyer was not that the brithers are not a fringe group that factialy incorectt. I was trying to say that the article is incorectly titled in an efort to blitle the birther movement. If you were to look up what a conspricy is you would find that a conspricy involves mulitipule conspritors entering in to an agreement to preform an illegal act. Every time i have seen clips of Orly Taitz, the "mother" of the birther movment, she claims that Obama's mother could have falsely claimed that her son was born in Hawaii to curcomvent imagration problems. If this were the case it would not constitite a conspricy, it would have been one woman lying to the state to get a brith cirtificate. the proposed theories are nothing like other examples of conspiracy theories. If you look at the JFK conspiracy theories page you will see it stated at the very top of the article who the aleged conspritors are, same with the truthers page. In this page you don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.125.89 (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And other articles don't. For example the Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories article states in the lead:"...a number of related Moon hoax accounts have been advanced by various groups and individuals...". So how to divide the "birthers" [conspiracy] and the "just curious one's"[Not so much conspiracy but in part politically motivated, ergo conspiracy]? I don't think it's possible at least in the title. Maybe somewhere in the article's main body?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For the birther claims to be true would require a huge conspiracy.--RLent (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sunday Times article

Can this be added (9 August issue) - it gives a summary of the backhistory (do not have it to hand). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this it?[7] The Four Deuces (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece, not a reliable source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The piece is the one referred to: 'noting it here' will suffice for reference purposes. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Noting it here as in here on this Talk page? What reference purpose does citing a non-reliable source do on the Talk page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

it's is an opinion peace according to YOUR standards. consensus has yet to be etsablished so it is a content disput until then. User:Smith Jones 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an op-ed column. That's an opinion piece by definition. Smith Jones, your uneducated comments are becoming tiresome. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

as are your incivil comments, tiresome indeed. I understand taht opeds cannot be used as sources, but they CAN be used as representations of the author's beliefs IF the author is considered important. THAT is why Jackiespeel mentioned it, so that the people on this talkpage can discuss it and decide if the ifnormation is worth including. If the answer is no, just say so. there is no reason to be rude or condescending to someone who is profearing a possible source in good faith. User:Smith Jones 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(inserted out of order) Yes, let's keep this civil and friendly. I appreciate Jackiespeel bringing this article to our attention - it makes an interesting read whether or not one agrees. Being an op-ed, and the tone of the piece (lots of name calling, informal use of language, statement of things that are clearly unprovable opinion rather than news or analysis), it is clearly not a reliable source as the term is generally used. But perhaps we can make something of it (see my long comment below) or it will lead us to some more solid sources. In the future, when you do mention a new source on the talk page it would be most helpful if you make some suggestions for how the source could be used or what difference it would make on the article. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My take on op-eds is a little different. For one, I would say that the judgment of whether the opinion is worth reporting here should ideally be based on third party reliable sources. Not every opinion held by an important person is noteworthy, and not every noteworthy opinion necessarily has to come from an important person. As an example let's say a very important person opines something very important to him, e.g. George Herbert Walker Bush announces in an editorial that he hates broccoli. Should we add that to the broccoli article? I'm not sure. You could argue either way. But if the New York Times food writer writes a reliable piece on the history and public perception of broccoli, and says something like "Many people disparage broccoli. In one of the more celebrated instances, George HW Bush wrote in a now-infamous op ed piece that ..." that third party citation establishes weight, relevance, NPOV, etc. The other major point is that not every op-ed piece is completely unusable for direct citation/verification of factual article statements. In other words, a piece may not be completely unreliable just because it's editorial. It depends on the specific piece, who wrote it, where it appears, and what it's being used to support. The Sunday Times piece, for example, states: "Lou Dobbs, CNN’s resident crank, broadcast several segments expressing doubt about Obama’s birthplace." You may agree or not, but I think this would be perfectly valid as a source for the proposition that Lou Dobbs broadcast segments expressing doubt about Obama's birthplace. Even though the piece itself is an op-ed, this is a credible statement that surely went through the editorial vetting process, because respectable major papers do fact checking even on their editorial page. For the first reason above, the mention in the Times editorial does more than a direct citation to Lou Dobbs' pieces, to make the claim that Dobbs raised citizenship questions. Of course the Times piece is not a good source for the proposition that Dobbs is a crank, or even that he is a "resident" of CNN (because that term was obviously used in a colorful, non-literal, opinionated sense). But anyway, the main thrust of the piece is that the motivation for at least some of the birther controversy is racist in nature. That's clearly not citable directly (we can't use that for the proposition that there are truly racial motivations), nor do I think the piece is a good self-validating source in terms of weight. I would not want to use it to stand for the proposition that "some have questioned the racial motivation..." or "an op-ed piece in the Times questioned the racial motivation..." If we are going to bring up claims of racism I would much rather see a third party neutral source reporting that some people have raised racial questions. And for NPOV reasons we should hunt around to see if there are major sources that report a denial, or that report that some of this is not racial in nature. Wikidemon (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The other debate

There seem to be three main camps:

• Accept that Obama is an American citizen 'no further statement necessary'
• Accept that, given statements by Hawaiian officials that Obama is an American citizen, but want him to provide more details - various positions adopted.
• Disbelieve that he is an American citizen on various grounds.

Have those who are opposed to him being US president provided sufficient reason why 'a number of Hawaiian officials' have persistently stated that he was born on that island, and what would the political scene be like if Obama was disallowed the Presidency - a somewhat different situation to the hanging chads controversy. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your third camp needs some refinement. Some of the birthers believe that he was born in Hawaii, and hence is a U.S. citizen, but is not a natural-born citizen (and hence not eligible for the presidency) because they give effect to the British law governing derivation of citizenship. Because British law made him eligible to claim British (later Kenyan) citizenship, they consider him ineligible, even though he never claimed it. As an aside, some of those pushing this position have also loudly decried Supreme Court decisions that so much as mention foreign law, but their hypocrisy probably isn't important enough to include in this article.

As for what would happen, I've seen birthers stating variously that: Biden would become President; Biden became VP through electors who were improperly chosen (because pledged to an ineligible candidate), so those electors' votes must be discounted and McCain would become President; a new election would have to be held; Obama, not being a citizen at all, would be deported; Obama, having perpetrated a fraud on the country, would be dragged out of the White House in handcuffs and tried for treason. This unlikely hypothetical has not been the subject of much discussion among experts, so we have little in the way of reliable sources to consult. JamesMLane t c 23:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If Obama were removed from office for whatever reason, Biden would become President. Even in the electors were improperly pledged to an inelligible candidate for the presidency, they were properly pledged to an elligible candidate for the vice presidency. The electors vote separately for President and Vice President. He could not be tried for treason, as the Constitution is VERY specific in what constitutes treason. These are not "unlikely", they are impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RLent (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In the weirdest possible evolvement, both Obama and McCain could be disqualified, Biden could be somehow be twisted out of the picture, and Sarah Palin could be our President. I would be the last to assert that our electoral system is faultless, but I'm glad it works better than that. PhGustaf (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Palin would do a better job than the community organizer in chief is doing but the real scenario IF any facts came out that Obama is NOT a U.S. citizen would be that an Article of Impeachment would be brought forth and then Biden would be the President. Biden would then choose his VP (as Nixon did after Agnew resigned and as Ford did when he became President)...--MONGO 00:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was starting the discussion off - and agree that any further developments of the ideas involved belong on Alt history Wiki [8] (g).

Given that there is no equivalent of the 'vote of no confidence - initiate general election' process available elsewhere a constitutional crisis would arise.

The situation is slightly different in Europe - David Steel stood for election as an Italian MEP and Otto von Habsburg was an MEP for Germany despite being the 'reversionary heir' to another country (and there are probably more examples). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe?

As noted in this Sunday Times article, 58% of Republicans question whether Obama was born in Hawaii, including 70% in Virginia. Can this truly be considered fringe? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is what about America as a whole, not just the Republicans? It's the same as saying that because cheese makers love eating cheese.... Brothejr (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, however Republicans are a major party in the United States, much more proportionate to the population at large than cheese makers. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That leads to another question of: is the Republican party the majority party in the U.S.? Are there current 2009 statistics that back that up? Brothejr (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe is defined by reliable sources, not opinion polls. This line of reasoning is a non-starter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be. It is a major party, perhaps not the majority party, but the affiliation is extremely large. It is in no way a "fringe" party, so if the majority of its members question where Obama was born, I don't think you can label it a "fringe" movement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion polls should be taken into account, the definition of fringe is "something that is marginal, additional, or secondary to some activity, process, or subject <a fringe sport> b : a group with marginal or extremist views." --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, of course they're not the majority party (see last two elections, for example). Currently, 27% of the country identifies itself as Republican, so 58% of those would be 15% of the voting-age public. There isn't any point in debating where the cut-off point for "fringe" is, because it's not up to us to decide. It's up to the reliable sources cited. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the most we could say is that 58% of the Republicans believe these theories per the sources. Brothejr (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Partisan sources can falsely claim a party is "fringe," to discredit their position. However, sources such as a poll, can factually demonstrate whether a party is a "fringe" movement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if one looked at the actual Republican breakdown; (courtesy of politico.com

• wasn't born in the US (28%)
• aren't sure (30%)
• born in the US (42%)

we would see that barely a quarter of the party is in the literal "OMG FOREIGNER!!!" camp, while a little ore than that are on the fence. We're still only talking about the narrowly-focused opinion of a group of people who profess a particular party affiliation though, which is not at all representative of the American public. From the same article, an overwhelming 77% of all polled believe Obama was born in the US, with 11% going for "no" and the rest unsure. So, yes, when only 11% stand up and express the Birther side of the issue, it is still firmly entrenched in the wild, wooly lands of the Fringe. Tarc (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would dispute the assertion that 11% is fringe. I believe statistics on homosexuality suggest percentages close to that number. In no way is homosexuality a fringe lifestyle. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that how many people believe in a theory makes it a "fringe theory". What really matters is how gounded in reality or verifiability a theory is, that dictates whether it should be considered "fringe". Bearian (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bearian is correct. Even though a substantial number of people may believe the Apollo moon landings were faked (I've heard figures as high as 20% of the U.S. population), it is still definitely "fringe" because it flies in the face of all available documented evidence (one is tempted to say "reality"). BOCCT falls in the same category. Arjuna (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is a non-starter. Opinion polls of ordinary people are completely irrelevant. What matters are opinions by subject matter experts as published by reliable sources. For example, consider evolution versus intelligent design. Opinion polls show that 57% of Americans believe in or lean toward intelligent design[9], but it's still considered a fringe theory because it's rejected by the scientific community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And who is an expert on what a birth certificate says? By your logic, Judaism is a fringe religion, as is homosexuality. There is nothing scientific about this. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, particularly the bolded part of the first sentence in the lead. Read WP:FRINGE for what is, and is not, fringe. This very, very clearly qualifies. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On what basis? Scientific? Factually based? A fringe view is not something that is held by 15% of the public and cannot be dissproved scientifically. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories. That's pretty much what this is, so if the shoe fits... Soxwon (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

15% can be considered mainstream. That's why the polling numbers have been brought up. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's still a conspiracy theory, departs from a far larger majority, and no amount of arguing over what constitutes "mainstream" and the relevance of polling data is going to change that. Soxwon (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

15% to 85% is not a "far larger majority." And really, what's the conspiracy? The biggest part of the movement is the desire to see a birth certificate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources call this fringe, therefore so do we, per policy. The fact that some sizable percentage of the population, no matter how you want to slice and dice it, believe in fringe theories does not suddenly counter what the reliable sourcing says, which is specifically, "fringe." The arguments in this thread to counter the reliable sourcing appear to be editor WP:OR. cheers, --guyzero | talk 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

William S, the "biggest part of the movement" is the desire not to see the birth certificate that has been provided ... and then weave these multi layered conspiracies on all the people covering up for Obama including the GOP governor of Hawaii who says she has seen the original --- and his Mother who somehow knew that her mulatto child named Barack Hussein Obama in 1961 (when he would not have even been allowed in the all whites swimming pool) would somehow become President of the U.S. one day, and thus began the elaborate birth scheme of making it appear he was born in Hawaii. What Obama has provided is what the state provides when one requests a copy of ones birth certificate (for a passport, license etc). The only way in Hawaii to have the other document the birthers want would be for his now deceased mother to have preserved the original (something that most people don’t do for the first 50 years of their child’s life). This "short form" is the ONLY form given out in the state of Hawaii at present.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What are these reliable sources? Op-eds? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources. This is covered in the FAQ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

..and in the article. Please refer to the 6+ RS's in the article that backup each use of "fringe." Additional RS's can be found here and in various other locations in the archives. Please provide reliable sources that specifically state that this movement is NOT fringe. thanks, --guyzero | talk 00:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, this sub-topic should've been given a "see FAQ, Q1" response and that would have been the end of it. Tarc (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that, is that sources with that exact wording do not exist. However, I can cite examples that do not state it is fringe. But this is more or less, a logical argument, how can 15% of the public's beliefs not disproved by scientific fact be considered fringe?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"15% of the public's beliefs not disproved by scientific fact" = would also include belief in angels, witches, ghosts, Big Foot, curses, tarot cards, the Yeti, Lochness Monster, magic, psychics, voodoo, and probably fortune cookies.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are obviously disproved by scientific fact.

And to those arguing there is no difference between the actual birth certificate and the one released by Obama, you are wrong. [10] There is an origninal, and it has not been released. Many are simply misinformed on this matter, which leads to the illusion that this is a lunatic fringe movement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Saturn, you're asking us to prove a negative...we don't do that...since no facts have been provided that Obama is not a U.S. Citizen, then the onus is on the conspiracy theorists to provide factual evidence proving their point. In this they have failed. Oddly, no one seems to question that Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, which is sufficient for Barack to be one regardless of his place of birth. McCain was born outside the U.S. but his parents where both U.S. citizens so he was naturalized at birth (Jus sanguinis)...Barack was born in Hawaii after it became a state...no factual evidence refutes that and he was therefore a natural born U.S. citizen and this would be true no matter what his parents nationality was (Jus soli)...so yeah, believing in non factual information is fringe in most cases and especially in this one.--MONGO 00:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the original birth certificate has not been released. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

William S, those things are NOT "disproven" by Scientific fact - however they are also not proven with any scientific fact - just like the belief that Obama was born in Kenya has no evidence at all. Conspiracies and fringe beliefs usually work backwards (unlike other things) where they begin with a premise i.e. "Flying Unicorns exist" - and then ask those who doubt the assertion to prove a negative = "prove they don't". Obviously this can't be done, however the fact that no evidence AT ALL exists to prove that flying unicorns exist (or that Obama was born in Kenya) still does not dissuade a true believer (in fact nothing will). If Obama produced the video of him breaching from the womb on the beach in Honolulu, birthers would claim it was made with CGI equipment ala Jar Jar Binks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Saturn, no one disputes that his mother was a U.S. citizen....--MONGO 00:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mongo, what are you talking about and where are you coming from on this? The movement is to convince Obama to show his original birth certificate, how is that a conspiracy/fringe movement? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the RS's say so. --guyzero | talk 01:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

These repetitive arguments are accomplishing nothing. The WP:RSs have described it as a Conspiracy Theory and a CT is clearly marked as "fringe" under wikipedia policy. There's nothing more to discuss. Soxwon (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Show his original birth certificate" is only one aspect of the Birther movement, which is not some sort of monolithic entity. Others have filed lawsuits seeking to disqualify Obama outright, both before the general election (remove from the ballot) and after (removed from office). The birthers themselves use the term, e.g. "...to finally expose the conspiracy behind President Obama’s birth certificate" [11], and it is used by others, e.g. "Culture of conspiracy: the Birthers" [12]. The use of "conspiracy" by reliable sources and self-identifiers is well-cemented in fact. As for "fringe", that is precisely what it is; a point of view held by a small amount of people. The fringe belief itself has become notable enough that it warrants its own article, but an article on the fringe/conspiracy nature of the matter. That it is notable does not equate to the creation of a platform to actually espouse/promote the fringe POV. From WP:FRINGE; "The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia." Tarc (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is too much emphasis on the lunatic faction. This article should give more weight to the Americans simply asking Obama to release his original birth certificate. This is the more prominent aspect of it, and this aspect is not a conspiracy theory, it's a movement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"A movement", yeah well so was Jonestown or Heavens Gate. This article is for the "conspiracy theories" (hence the actual title), if you would like to create another article about the ---"show us the birth certificate that no longer exists because all Hawaiian birth certificates are now in the shortened form Movement"--- then propose an article and see if it has legs. Also, be sure to gain your "movement" some Wp:RS publicity, as to avoid WP:NOTADVOCATE.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RedThorough, please. the very first post on this section of the talk page indicates that FIFTY EIGHT (58%) of Americans share this reasonable concern. its not the same as Jonestown. User:Smith Jones 20:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. Read it a little more carefully. 58% of Republicans (according to one poll). That's about 15% of Americans. --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

According to a recent poll about the birther phenomenon, 8% of Republicans in North Carolina didn't think Hawaii is part of the United States, so that might skew the results a little. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the same poll which a bit of googling just turned up for me, you've apparently misinterpreted the results a bit. North Carolina Survey Results in Obama approval drops into negative territory, Public Policy polling, August 11, 2009 speaks of a poll of 749 North Carolina voters from August 4th to 10th. Q4 and Q5 , with responses, were Q4: Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States? Yes 54%, No 26%, Not Sure 20%; Q5 "Do you consider Hawaii to be part of the United States?" Yes 92%, No 5%, Not Sure 3%. The word "Birther" is not mentioned. This is covered by a secondary source at North Carolina Leery About "State" of Hawaii, Jim Iovino, nbcwashington.com, August 12, 2009. Were you perhaps thinking of some other poll? If so, please cite your source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Which all goes to show you, as much as Americans believe that democracy involves a head count, telephone surveys are not that helpful for assessing the significance of or degree of believe in a particular opinion. As I said, 10% of Americans will vote for any given answer in a poll. Many would not get the correct answer in a simple mathematical test, and a majority would be fooled by the Monty Hall problem and most simple optical illustions. If you asked them to vote by phone they would tell you as much. That does not mean there is a bona fide dispute over the results. Wikidemon (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the survey I was talking about, and I see nothing there which disagrees with what I said above. I never said "birther" was mentioned in the poll, and whether it did or didn't has no bearing on the results of the poll. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking.

Just a quick reminder as there have been several instances of overlinking on this and other related articles. Remember, in general, link only the first occurrence of an item, not every occurrence of it. Also, more important, words which are commonly known in the English language should not be linked. This is especially true for articles like "forgery" or "parents" that provide no additional context for this subject. See the WP:MOS for further explanation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

i agree. is there a way that we can incorporate the relvent sections of WP:MOS into our FAQ, just so that its is accessible to new users. User:Smith Jones 00:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Health Care Conspiracy Theories

It seems that the conspiracy theorists have moved on to health care conspiracy theories. Does anyone know if there is an article about this yet? Apparently the new theory is referred to as "deathers" who worry about "death panels". The Four Deuces (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This term is currently only used on the DailyKos and Huffington Post. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I heard "deathers" on both MSNBC and CNN today. Nevertheless, that would be irrelevant to this article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Woo, now we only need a reliably reported conspiracy theory that Obama is a polygamist and we can start a Birthers, Marriagers, and Deathers article! AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard "deathers". The right-wing talking point about the (nonexistent) "death panels" is described in America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Criticism and controversy, but without using that term. As one of the people editing that article, I'd be strongly inclined to remove the term if someone added it. A nickname for adherents of a conspiracy theory should be included in an article that's specifically about the conspiracy theory, but such a nickname is much less likely to be appropriate in a more general article. JamesMLane t c 12:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

even if that was true (it isnt - no one outside of the leftwing media is talking about "death panels") it doesn't belong in the CITIZENSHIP article. this isnt a general conspiracy theory article. User:Smith Jones 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is leftwing media? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Those outside the leftwing media are talking about Palin's facebooking of "death panel":

• Debunking Q&A from AP
• Approving commentary on the AP debunking from the Dallas Morning News
• Comment in the Colorado Independent
• Small news item from the WP on how Rep. Sen. Johnny Isakson had termed Palin's interpretation "nuts", from the Anchorage Daily News

Though then again to somebody who "supports the policies and views of Nick Griffin, MEP", perhaps these are all examples of the "leftwing media". -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the point still stands that healthcare has nothing to do with the citizenship conspiracy theories. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

True. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that there's a lot of overlap among the adherents (birthers and deathers and for that matter teabaggers). Even if we had a reliable source supporting my opinion, though, there'd be no reason to mention it in the article. JamesMLane t c 16:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• comment - exactly. the fact that we hae sources that allegedly mention this claim doesn't mean that it can go in any article. Put it in the health care debate article or in the sarah Palin article but not in here. User:Smith Jones 18:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear-cut to me that even the weaker versions of Obama's theories (e.g. "show us your long-form birth-certificate") fall into the category of conspiracy theory as defined elsewhere in Wikipedia. Even if not explicitly stated, the implication of such theories is that the refusal to comply with the request implies that there is something dubious about his origin. If you doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii then by implication you doubt the truthfulness of the documents produced and authenticated by the State of Hawaii, and therefore you are endorsing a conspiracy theory. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy

I can see the authors of the intro really want the reader to know this is a "conspiracy theory"-- it's repeated over and over, 5 or 6 times. This repetition is silly and to me makes it seem like "the lady doth protest too much". The term conspiracy theory doesn't necessarily apply; those who say Obama forfeited his citizenship by growing up in Indonesia are not alleging a "conspiracy" (a collusion of several conspirators), just advancing a legal position.

I can see what happened of course: One side of this dispute won a battle to have this deemed a "conspiracy theory" and "fringe" and is making sure to do it over and over at every opportunity. They will not be restrained by duty to neutrality or reasonableness.

The most ridiculous part in the current version: "According to these conspiracy theories, if Obama is not a natural born citizen, he is not eligible to be President of the United States under Article Two of the U.S. Constitution." That's not a conspiracy theory, that's just a fact.

Others above have made similar points it seems, so my own contribution is unlikely to change the entrenched view. Second best is if the article at least lays out the elements of the debate amidst its editorializing, which maybe it does now.

Tyuia (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The birthers have alleged conspiracy, as you can easily see in both comments above and in the article. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubt some have, but not all theories are conspiracies. "Other theories allege that Obama is a citizen of Indonesia, or that because he had dual citizenship at birth (British and American), he is not a natural-born citizen of the US." What's the conspiracy here? Tyuia (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be overdone a bit, but we shouldn't whitewash the fact that this is a conspiracy/fringe theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying it only once instead of six times is "whitewashing"? The article London only mentions once in the intro that London is in England. Tyuia (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've toned done the language a bit and reworded the sentence you objected to so that it's stated as a fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, can someone check my grammar? I'm not sure that this sounds right: "Being a natural born citizen is a requirement to be President of the United States under Article Two of the U.S. Constitution." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(after a few edit conflicts) Best not to impugn the motivations or intentions of the editors, especially if you're trying to convince them of something. Also please note that community probation (linked in box header above) discourages that. Agreed that there are some phraseology and word choice issues. The writing and structural logic could be strengthened here. The article sounds like it is trying to debate against the claims it is reporting, so it seems like editorializing. The right tone for an encyclopedia article is a neutral, authoritative voice that reports on what other sources are saying rather than arguing its own conclusion. In substance the claims discussed here about Obama's birth, citizenship, and eligibility for office are indeed fringe / conspiracy theories, something confirmed by the weight of the reliable sources. To be neutral, the article must say that and not try to make both sides seem like a debate among two credible opinions. But it need only be said once, in a matter of fact way, i.e. that sources generally describe these theories as fringe, and go onto the analysis they have made and discussion of the reaction and response made by various relevant parties. Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon that the article seems to debate itself, which may be unavoidable. Tyuia is correct that the term "conspiracy" should not necessarily be applied since the only person it takes is Obama himself to promote most variations of the theories by not releasing documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.237.210 (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tyuia's post at the top of this page. What is the conspiracy? This movement has its extremists, just like all others movements do, however, this article gives too much weight to the extremist faction. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the entire movement is ground as a CT based on the fact that A) No action has been taken by gov't, B) that the views are in an extreme minority, and C) The whole point of the movement is that our otherwise legally elected president is not eligible to be president Soxwon (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter. We are all slaves to WP:RS. If WP:RS call this a conspiracy theory, then so do we. It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to tell WP:RS that they're wrong. And yes, if WP:RS say the Earth is flat, so does Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

See my comment below. No action taken means judges have rejected their arguments. Unless they claim the judges are all in cahoots (I don't think so), this isn't a conspiracy claim. Tyuia (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a spin around a few of the birther sites; you'll be amazed at the claims. Several have claimed that someone "got" to the judges. And others claim Obama, as a former law lecturer, knew that he was ineligible yet ran anyway. The conspiracy allegation is implicit, as those who helped him ran also knew, or others that knew he wasn't eligible said nothing (the made-it-happen vs. let-it-happen debate amongst the truthers). Weazie (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re impugning motives: Call me jaded, but I've seen a few examples of one side winning a victory and considering it a blank check to go far beyond even arguable NPOV. The repeated use of "conspiracy theory" in the article seemed a textbook example of this. I'm glad to say the responses to my comment were more constructive than I had feared.

I compared this article to 9/11 conspiracy theories, which I boldly edited to remove a redundant "conspiracy theory", and 9/11 Truth movement (where truthers redirects), which in my view really mollycoddles the truthers. "Conspiracy theorists" is attributed to others' labelling, and put in quotes! (Also, it's listed in the wrong place as though it were a name for the truthers instead of a superset.) Later, their rejection of that label is noted. Perhaps the right tone for these articles is somewhere between this article and that one, maybe closer to that one.

The term conspiracy theory is a bit slippery. If someone alleged that GW Bush personally demolished the WTC with help from no one, that wouldn't be a "conspiracy" but the term conspiracy theory would seem oddly appropriate. But, to say that Obama is legally an Indonesian citizen is not alleging a conspiracy by any stretch.

Tyuia (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As reliable sources refer to the matter as a conspiracy theory, the Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources have to say. It really a simpler matter than you make it out to be. The Wikipedia is not a battleground where "sides" earn "victories". Tarc (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources considered reliable also editorialize, so judgement (really, common sense) is necessary. Also, there are many different "matters", some conspiracies, some not. Yes, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground, but people do battle and take sides. You don't know anything about this place if you think otherwise. The matter is less simple than your dismissive comment makes it. Tyuia (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point, though. This is an article about many different flavors of things, some more extreme or strident than others, some clearly fabricated, others just unsupported or that run against majority thinking. What they all have in common and why they're all together in the same article is that they challenge Obama's citizenship, eligibility, and/or circumstances of birth (I think that's the scope, I may be leaving some things off). Some of the many flavors of the questioning of Obama's [b/c/n] don't precisely allege a conspiracy. Some are legal or factual arguments (such as they are), not allegations that Obama or anyone else has engaged in any secret plotting. As a term, "conspiracy theory" has taken on some meaning that does not necessarily imply a conspiracy. So it might fit. I'm not really sure that the sources all call it a "conspiracy" though. Some call it "fringe" or other things, and others simply say the body of claims have little support and (relatively - at 10% or 20% or whatever) a minority of adherents. As I argue, neutrality and RS imply that we shouldn't form or argue an opinion, but we may point out that the body of claims is generally considered fringe and has not gained much mainstream buy-in. But I also agree with Tyuia's observation that it seems inevitable that Wikipedia articles try to argue/debate the point against positions that are deemed fringe. In an article about whether the moon is made of cheese, should we point out for example that there are no cows on the moon so that it is extremely unlikely as a scientific matter that such a large mass of curdled dairy product could be located that far from earth? Or do we just say that it's a fringe theory (actually, a joke theory, but that's a different story) Wikidemon (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, Intelligent design is our only article on a fringe theory that has reached Featured Article status. Perhaps we should use that as an example to follow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyuia wrote, "If someone alleged that GW Bush personally demolished the WTC with help from no one, that wouldn't be a 'conspiracy' but the term conspiracy theory would seem oddly appropriate." Yes, and that illustrates that the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a connotation that diverges from the literal meaning of the words. The official U.S. government theory of 9/11 alleges a conspiracy among the 19 hijackers and many other people, but no one calls that a conspiracy theory. The term means that one view on a subject is widely accepted (among experts and/or by the general public) but that there are dissenters who advance a radically different position and who allege deceit on someone's part. If there had been a Wikipedia in 1972, there probably would have been some justification for using the term "conspiracy theory" for allegations about the Watergate scandal that turned out to be true. I think the term always raises NPOV issues. Nevertheless, current Wikipedia policy is to use it under certain conditions, which are met here. JamesMLane t c 06:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The division between conspiracies and conspiracy theories will always be fuzzy - but the distinction can probably be made by using the 'amount of information confirmed by or arising out of third-party sources.' Those involved in the Watergate scandal left an information trail (documents, the door noticed by the guard at the Watergate Hotel etc) and with the events of 9/11 likewise. Some of the 'hypothetical questions' for conspiracies proper can be answered without referring to the particular subject: eg comparing the collapse of the Twin Towers to Ronan Point) but with conspiracy theories #there appears to be# much looping back and excluded/unanswered questions. (In this case - what benefit to the Hawaiian officials from hiding Obama's point of origin?) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight we know a lot of strange stuff to be true - President Nixon was spying on his opponents, the US intelligence service was secretly tapping into everyone's conversations, the US government secretly gave diseases to African American men (and LSD to college students) as medical experiments, it lied about the conduct of the Vietnam war. The FBI tried to set up John Lennon and Martin Luther King. British Petroleum was behind wars in the Middle East. All of these things, when judged from the point of view of a conscientious lay reader at the time, would have seemed fringe-y because there were truly no reliable sources to corroborate them, only obscure references, original research, alarmist propaganda. So yes, some conspiracy theories turn out to be true, and in real life, a healthy skepticism and dogged investigation of things is very useful. At least, it's important that at least some among us investigate every last thread of evidence on difficult subjects, and if they find everything they can present their case. And one can go into science, who would have thought that there is a universal speed limit, or that light is a particle, or that things are uncertain. However, as encyclopedia writers, operating in the present moment, it is impossible for us to know which among the thousands of seemingly unsupported theories will turn out to become accepted and which will join the giant dustbin of history. We have only so much to work on, namely the reliable sources. Based on them it seems extremely unlikely given the sources available that Obama is ineligible for the presidency, wasn't born in that particular hospital, that his birth certificate is invalid, etc. If you're going to believe that, or believe the less mainstream sources, there are a thousand other strange things to believe and sources to read. Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable person may suspect that a conspiracy exists, even if there is no evidence and mainstream opinion disagrees. An investigative reporter would then search for evidence. Based on the evidence they would conclude that their suspicions were proved or disproved or that they could not be proved. A conspiracist would believe a conspiracy without evidence and would then search for evidence to prove their point. Any evidence that contradicted their opinions would somehow be explained and no contrary evidence could convince them they were wrong. None of the JFK conspiracists I have spoken to have even read the Warren Commission Report, yet that would be the obvious starting point for determining whether their suspicions were correct. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

'Hindsight is always 20/20': perhaps the distinction between 'conspiracies and other strange linkages (ie non-criminal and non-trivial)' and 'conspiracy theory' should only be made some time after the first proposal, and based in part on the evidence found/used - and to some extent the distinction falls in the cateogy of irregular verbs 'I have found a conspiracy/interesting linkage, you have an obsession, they have a conspiracy theory.'

What is the John Maynard Keynes quote about changing opinions as the facts change?

In this case has the issue of #why# the Hawaiian officials are happy to state that Obama is native born if it was not the case should be addressed by the birthers. Or is their question more about 'defining what Americanism is'? Jackiespeel (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen some birther comments to the effect that the responsible officials (in Hawaii, in Congress, in states letting the Kenyan usurper on the ballot) know perfectly well that Obama is ineligible but are intimidated by his political power and by threats of retribution against them if they dare to do what is clearly their duty. JamesMLane t c 05:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

At what point in his rise to power did 'Obama and his bandwaggon' become so overpowering? Are the results of it being revealed that they agreed to a cover up likely to be less than of agreeing to it? (I have yet to see any convincing evidence to 'prove' anything more than (a)that Obama does not wish to reveal his birth certificate and (b) the Hawaiian Regsitrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths altered its system of registration of births sufficiently often to cause confusion.) Jackiespeel (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a flaw common with pretty much every other conspiracy theory: If the claims of it's proponents were taken on face-value then the size and cope of the conspiracy would be so massive and far-reaching in terms of time, personnel and geography that it just beggars belief: The birthers expect us to believe that everybody from low-level Hawaii birth-registrars and Obama's parents all the way to the highest office in the land are in on it, not to mention a whole bunch of journalists, the nameless goons and "obots". If you were to follow the scope of this alleged conspiracy it would seem to involve more than half the country! --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The big problem with this conspiracy theory is that there's not one but many theories. For example there are some who believe he was born in Kenya, some who believed he was born in Hawaii but under circumstances that mean he is not a "natural-born citizen", and some who even claim that he is an "illegal immigrant". The problem with these theories is that none of them pass a basic fact-check and they are almost all mutually exclusive. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As with the Kennedy assassination theories one could argue that 'there are so many variants' that they mutually cancel out through their diversity - if there were an actual conspiracy some of the points would have 'crystallised out' by now given the amount of investigation. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, lack of consensus of even the most basic "facts" is one indicator that this is a conspiracy theory rather than just a "fringe" theory. The birther movement is a political alliance of a whole bunch of positions, and from what I can tell the only thing they have in common is dislike of Obama. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Would note that sometime such 'collections of strange theories' do indicate that there is 'summat weird' - different people pick up on different 'odd aspects.' The question of why 'all and sundry' decided in 1961 to render opaque Obama's birth certificate including changing Hawaii's birth certificate legislation often enough to 'jumble up the information avaialable' and others involved variously in the expectation that 2008 he would (a) run for President and (b) get elected has not been answered.

Possibly what is needed is an official re-definition of what constitutes a natural born American citizen as the range of possibilities has expanded since the original drafting of the constitution when the main point to be covered was - persons born in territories incorporated into the American domain.

(The retort to most of the JFK assassination conspiracy theories - the negative payback for it being revealed that 'X was using discrete blackmail to not reveal JFK's peccadillos' is going to be #very# much less than involvement in his assassination - would even the rulers in the Kremlin have lasted the week if they had been so involved?). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is any of this section in any way connected with improving the article? This is not a forum to discuss Obama's birth. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Larry Sinclair, accusations of secret affairs and murder

Non-notable and rather far-fetched to say the least
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One of the more elaborate and far-fetched Obama conspiracy theories is promoted by Larry Sinclair. He claims that he had sexual relations with Obama on a leisure visit to the state capitol. He further alleges that this is only one of many homosexual affairs that the President engaged in secretly, and further more that Obama's agents are killing off former lovers. Larry Sincliar claims that Obama was responsible for the murder of Donald Young who was a former choir-master at a church that Obama and his family once attended. As yet sinclair has provided no evidence of this encounter, or that he even was in Chicago at the time he claimed. Nor has he established any link between Obama and Young. I'd like to see this theory included since it's one which Orly Taitz recently advocated in a telephone interview for Slate Magazine --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC) WP:TABLOID, next you'll be wanting us to talk about aliens having unsolicited sex with sheep... Soxwon (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC) The fact that Taitz mentioned it doesn't make it part of the "birther" conspiracy. It shows only that she expresses negative opinions about Obama for other reasons as well. The proper place for covering Sinclair's allegations would be in an article on Larry Sinclair, which has been deleted several times. JamesMLane t c 19:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Article has taken a turn for the worse

Recently this article has taken a really hard turn for the worse. What was for quite a while a somewhat flawed and slanted, though reasonable survey of the issue, has become an embarrassment to the high principles of Wikipedia. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a cheap tug-of-war. I don't have the energy, time or inclination to keep up with more energetic and persistant editors. On at least this controversial topic, several editors here have not just dropped the ball... they've tossed it into the gutter. I hope you are pleased with yourselves. It's all yours. JBarta (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I explained this above. RedThoreau is mainly responsible for the article as it stands at this moment after his series of questionable edits. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually the "I'm taking my ball and going home" routine, is not an effective way to win converts to your point of view. As for your claim William S, I would ask that you provide some actual evidence, or cease from your baseless accusations. I've maybe cumulatively added less than 100 words to the present article. Stop "scapegoating" me for your frustrations with the "birthers" being exposed to reality and wiki policy. Moreover, if you believe my edits were flawed then explain so up above, or change them (I’m not going to edit war with you on this). However, I am not going to just sit here and have you attack my actions --- change them back and let everyone transparently see just how biased you would like this article to read or quit complaining.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree that the article is in the gutter. Clearly, it has rolled off the lawn and out onto the street.  :) - Wikidemon (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

:o) There's always Conservapedia ! (actually they may even be more critical (i.e. factual) against birthers than William wants to be ... which is astounding)   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that article in a while. It's even more hilarious since "Obama is a communist (and a fascist)" pushed "Obama is a Muslim" off the top spot. This is funnier than Stephen Colbert. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can sum it all up for everybody right here. This article was made by a person or people who hate Obama and didn't want him to win the Presidency, so they have to hate on him instead. I can't believe somebody actually made a page about Obama Conspiracy Theories. I doubt one would find that in Encyclopedia Britannica. This is among the dumbest articles in Wikipedia, further proof that this website is the worst source of information ever created. Now I understand why any teacher would fail you for citing Wikipedia as a source for a term paper. Supergoalie1617 (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same article? I'd freely admit that this article is nowhere near the best that Wikipedia can create it did seem to be a summary of the major conspiracy theories concerning Obama's birth. I also felt that it did not violate WP:NPOV. Can I urge you towards more constructive criticism... how can we make this article better? The fact that Britanica would not include such an article is immaterial, and if you think Wikipedia is bad, I'd urge you to sample the delights of Conservapedia! --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)