Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Gibbs

Under "Official White House Response", it says that Gibbs says that Ann had no passport in 1961. This might be true, but it shows that an official check on any issuing of a passport to Ann seems to have been carried out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC) It seems that no passport was needed for travelling from Hawaii to Washington State and back in 1961, 1964 and 1967. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ann seems to applied for her first American passport in about 1967. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.203.214 (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there was no requirement to travel between US states. Unless you're one of those 8% of North Carolinians who don't think Hawaii is part of the United States. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How does one establish a WP:NOTABLE "fringe theory"?

Is "notable" and "fringe" a contradiction in terms? Can we actually have a fringe theory which fully satisifies WP:NOTABLE?

There is no single Obama citizenship conspiracy theory but actually a range of sometimes mutually conflciting conspiracy propositions. For any given variant of the theory there's almost no correlation with the number of people who believe it and the degree to which it is supported by evidence. Take for example, the archived discussion above (murder accusations etc) which is clearly one of the most far-fetched, bizarre and unlikely conspiracy scenarios which have been proposed: This is actually one which I've seen advocated quite frequently on birther blogs and podcasts and even Christian radio. You might argue (incorrectly) that its notable by it's sheer sensationalism.

But can we say any better for any of the other theories? Surely they are all preposterous, so what makes one theory noteworthy and not the other given that they all fail in more or less the same way?

Furthermore, it's actually impossible to pin down what any single birther advocate actually believes: If you do not believe me, read through the archives of the "Citizen Wells" blog from around this time last year. One man manages to express just about every variant of the theories presented here, and then a whole load more besides. You will find the exact same approach from Orly Taitz, Phillip Berg and the other activists. It's actually impossible to write a consistant summary of what any one birther actually claims.

My conclusion: No single theory satisifies the notability criteria. Your thoughts? --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

the reason that these theories are considered notable is not becuase of thier rationality, consistency, or any of those things. it is because mainstream news sources have given credence to the particular iterations of the conspiracy theory that are outlind within this article. there are probably a lot more citizenship theories swiming around out here but we are only looking at the ones that mainstream media sources have already covered, as well as any notable proponents and any response than the Obama camp has thusfar chosen fit to give. Even though the theories themselves are often cinosistent both within themselves and with other theories, we still cover them, just like we cover JFK assassination theories even though not every ocnspiracy theorist believes in the same version of the conspiracy User:Smith Jones 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Other presidents who had similar issues

I don't understand why linking in the See Also to Chester Arthur who opponents claimed was born in Canada, or Herbert Hoover who never lived in the U.S. for 14 years in a row before becoming President, who, were wikipedia around back then would certainly have whole articles devoted to these similar conspiracy theories, is so verboten. It's a fact of history that Obama is not the first president who has dealt with these exact same issues before. Why do other editors want to sweep this history under the rug? I asked about it on the talk page before, and it got shuffled off to the archive without objection. So what's the deal? -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they want to "sweep this history under the rug", but let's not speculate on editors' motivations or discuss such speculation. You make a good point (and you cite a particularly interesting article in order to make it), so I'm in favor of the addition. -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be so trivial and really not something worth mentioning IMO. Soxwon (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, see the Natural born citizen of the United States article. Add a See Also to that article which IS pretty related to this one. Chesty and Herb don't belong in a See Also for this article. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, you do know there have been a half billion natural born citizens, and only 50 or so have been presidents? -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See Also sections are commonplace and permissible, and in no way equate to trivia sections. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that I'd be more happy to integrate the history of disputes over this clause into the article itself, I just thought a mere see also was more appropriate for now per WP:RECENT. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In this edit, Ravensfire2002 removes the material with the edit summary Not related to this article - maybe add Natural Born ... article here. ¶ I presume that "Not related to this article" means "not related to the subject of this article". It is related, and the relatedness is made explicit in the Slate article linked to. ¶ I don't see any obvious connection between "natural birth" and recent residence. ¶ All in all I'd say this stuff is related to the subject of this article, and I'd cite the Slate article as evidence for the relatedness. Ravensfire2002, what additional evidence for relatedness do you want? ¶ Now, it could be claimed that mere relatedness is not sufficient. Indeed, all sorts of related stuff is normally kept out of articles (even mere "see also" links). So is there some other objection? ¶ (As for the matter of residence, I've always wondered about the residence and tax status of Cheney, and the eligibility as a pair for prez/veep of Bush and Cheney.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I re-added it, I think it adds an extra historical perspective to the article. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I got to ask is this article about Barack Obama and conspiracy theories about him? Is there any mention of other presidents and their citizenship problems in this article? Is there another article that discusses citizenship problems? What/who is the main focus of this article? Brothejr (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the links due to the fact that they are not directly related to the subject of the article (I.E. Obama). Those links are more appropriate for the Birthright citizenship in the United States of America article and having a link to that article in this article is appropriate. Brothejr (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama is not the subject of this article; the citizenship question is. Therefore, other citizenship questions are related to the subject of this article. Powers ^T 13:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I got to ask, did you read the article? Obama's name features over forty times in the article and no other president is discussed or their issues? Heck, the title of this article is: "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" please tell me how this article is not related to Obama? Brothejr (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the article was not related to Obama. Powers ^T 14:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If the "other citizenship questions" had risen to a level of importance that warranted an article of their own, i.e. Chester A. Arthur citizenship conspiracy theories and Herbert Hoover citizenship conspiracy theories, then you would have a point. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's just WP:RECENTISM. The arguments over both of these other President's fitness to serve is actually being covered in their bio articles, last time I checked. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, you could easily have a stand alone article about the Canada-born theories about Arthur, it was as huge a deal then as Obama Kenyan-born theories are now; if anyone wants to stub it out (since I can't start articles) I'd be happy to research the matter and flesh it out. Hoover having never lived in the U.S. for 14 years in a row is a matter of fact, IIRC, but, sure, you could title all three under the rubric of "President X's fitness to serve under the U.S. Constitution" as the common point. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

guys calm down. This article is about barack obama-related citizenship conspiracy theories, not just citizenship conspiracy theories in general. if it doesn' t have anything to do with Barack Obama, it can go into another article where it should be treated IF it has enough notability and relaible sources attached. However, I think that those backlinks shouldn't exist because they might be misleading to others. User:Smith Jones 18

30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, we're talking about the See Also section, not the main body of the article. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. The "See also" is exactly the place for tangential but related topics. Powers ^T 12:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then instead of fighting in those links, why not spend your time actually writing a citizenship problem articles for each subject? As of right now there are no articles written on them and all you can do is include main pages with a reference as to why it should be in the See Also section. See Also sections are not there to prove or show that other president's have had that problem. Nor, is it appropriate to use references to prove why another subject should be included in a See Also section. Finally and again, if there is such a citizenship problems with those presidents, the appropriate thing to do is to start an article on the issue not paste links into a See Also section with references to prove why they should be there. Brothejr (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added Natural born citizen of the United States in the See Also section. This is a related article and also includes some info on other presidents who have had their citizenship questioned. Brothejr (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with adding the links. I agree there's no need for references, but so long as the controversies are discussed in the presidents' articles and not in separate ones, they remain the appropriate link target. Powers ^T 13:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that those conspiracies don't even have their own sections within those articles. A reader has to hunt for them to find anything out and even then it's just a couple lines. Simply put, the conspiracies are barely discussed. It would be more appropriate to include links to articles that are written on them then to include links to articles that barely discuss them if at all. So instead of fighting to get the links placed here, may instead it would be better to spend your time actually writing an article or section on these theories and then include a link to that article/section in the See Also section. Brothejr (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion operates from a false premise; I do not believe those instances are notable enough for separate articles, nor do I have the time or inclination to attempt to write them. Powers ^T 14:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly this is a false premise from you. If you don't have the time/interest to write them then why are you pushing something that barely has any info on it into this article? As I said, there are no articles written on these, there are no sections in the parent articles written on these, and I have included a link to the only article that even discusses them. This is becoming a circular debate. Unless you want to write a section or article on them, then there is nothing more to discuss. Either way this is seriously digressing from the main focus of this article. Brothejr (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens, it's just a pair of "See also" links. I don't think the threshold is as high as you seem to, but why you're practically berating me for not hopping-to and creating two whole new articles is downright baffling. Powers ^T 10:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple, because there are no links to the info you are suggesting. There are no clear sections on them. There are no articles written about them. The original links that were posted did not directly indicate to the reader what the problems were and the reader would have to hunt to even find the couple lines written on them. Finally and again, this is an article on theories related to Barack Obama. Brothejr (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, if there was a clear cut section in the main articles, or a separate article on the citizenship issues of each president, then I would have no problem including a link to them in the See Also section. However, the only article that discusses these president's citizenship problems has already been added to the See Also section. There are literally no other section or article in Wikipedia that discusses them clearly for the reader. Brothejr (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I didn't realize there was a whole list in that other article. This is fine by me. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And, I presume it's OK to mention next to the see also that it contains this information, as it's not intuitively obvious from the title. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Given that two other US Presidents' citizenship qualifications were argued over, and John McCain's birthplace etc, perhaps there should be a subheading under President of the United States giving 'requirements and candidates quibbled over.'

No doubt in 'many countries' there would be at least some discussion over an elected head of state/government who was born in another country not being a predecessor state or who is 'theoretically heir to another country's dormant monarchy' (Simeon of Bulgaria does not count in this context).

How much is the discussion actually about 'What constitutes Americanism/What are the requirements of a President'? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an article Natural born citizen of the United States. Most countries do not have a requirement that their heads of government/state are natural born. Some even have no citizenship requirement. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The situation in the EU is slightly different - all electoral inhabitants can stand/run for local offices and MEP (David Steel), and variably for parliamentary seats (Brian Gould, Otto von Habsburg) - not to mention the 'Scottish predominance in the Westminister Parliament.' There would at least be 'Polite editorial in (broadsheet newspaper of choice) and discussions down the pub (ending with variants on 'Politicians all have their snouts in the trough and what about (football clubs of choice).'

And come the next President there will be similar quibbles - chads one time, opaque birth certificates the next: what else could arise? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Constitutionalist comment

BIRTHERS are the new movement out to prove where Barack Huesein Obama II was really born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: Actually, as a Constitutionalist not affiliated with either party, and also "older" American, I find the article title inflamatory and not at all accurate. Whether Obama was born in this country or not really is not the issue at all. What is the issue is whether or not the founders would define him as a "native born or naturalized" American citizen. Since their provisions actually were intended as "minimum" qualifications, at that, for the first generation of truly natural born Americans or new immigrants. The 14 year provision really gives the clue as to what they deemed "American," and actually was based on the European practice that most kids were born in this country and then developed ties to it as their "homeland," when during their teens the gentry then sent them to Europe to learn languages and customs of the European countries of their ancestry. So on that basis, I don't call Obama an America. He has stated that he is a "ctizen of the world" and also spent his really formative years outside the United States. And is no Constitutional lawyer, that's for sure.

So to call this article "conspiracy theories," actually is ludicrous. Since it is clearly questionable that the founders would have supported someone for the highest office in the land, whose true "roots" actually in his youth were outside this country, and has since stated that he is more a "globalist" than an American, even during the campaigns.

And there was much anti-American sentiment during the '60's, and his parents clearly were of that generation and that also bears on my judgement as to his "American" roots and status. And how come he won't provide those school records or anything else to support it - he is a lawyer, and if the people call for more "evidence" that is not at all within his power to deny, as a government "of the people," meaning ALL people, not just his "liberal" devotees and supporters. ....lgg530. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgg530 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Native born or naturalized"? What Constitution does that come from, Constitutionalist? And where in the United States Constitution does it say anything about all your other theories? Krakatoa 08:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently being a "constitutionalist" includes foregoing the rule of law for a transparently paranoid appeal to emotion.24.239.162.254 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Kornhaber cites

The article cites a hit-piece on Orly Taitz by someone named Spencer Kornhaber which appeared in the OC Weekly news magazine (a sister publication of LA Weekly and The Village Voice) as a supporting source in three places.

The citation is Kornhaber, Spencer (June 17, 2009). "Meet Orly Taitz, Queen Bee of People Obsessed With Barack Obama's Birth Certificate". OC Weekly. Costa Mesa, CA.

Possibly a better supporting source could be found.

Also, WP:BLP says, Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). perhaps, if Mr. Kornhaber is to remain as the cited supporting source, the support should be attributed more explicitly to him. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kornhaber isn't a "professional" (other than a professional writer). And did the OC Weekly discount Kornhaber's "opinions"? Regardless of whether it is a "hit piece," it is reporting of facts. Weazie (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Kornhaber has written several articles for a Northwestern University student-run online magazine, but I can't find if he's a student or a journalism professor. This calls him an "instructor" at "the National High School Institute – Journalism". The "National High School Institute Jounralism Medill Cherubs" program is a 5-week intensive journalism program in Chicago, which would make sense if Kornhaber is based out of Northwestern. This would indicate he was a high school student, but I can't find a date on that. He's had four articles published in OC Weekly and a couple in Dallas Weekly, and also writes for SPIN magazine. OK, here we go: [1]. He was 17 in 2004, that makes him 22, he's a student at Northwestern, or a recent grad. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, OC Weekly has not either claimed or disclaimed responsibility for his opinion; I've only seen OC Weekly or Kornhaber via this citation. As to whether what he reports is factual, it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to judge that (I see discussion about that in WP-unciteable sources, e.g. here and here, I don't know if there is such discussion in any WP-citeable sources). The cited Kornhaber article is clearly focused on disparaging Taitz, and judging from the "Related articles" listed on the cited OC Weekly page, that publication looks similarly biased. I suspect that if a source of this tone and quality had been cited in this article in support of some statements by Taitz instead of in disparagement, it would have been quickly challenged and excluded as unreliable.

I'm just back from a month-long vacation today (I've been lightly wiki-dabbling from internet cafes while traveling), and I'm trying to catch up on a lot of things right now, but...

• (cite a) appears to support the assertion, "The law allowing foreign-born children to obtain Hawaiian COLBs didn’t exist until 20 years after Obama was born, while Obama’s published COLB says his birth information was recorded four days after his birth in 1961, and explicitly states that he was born in Honolulu." The statute in question, §338-17.8:Certificates for children born out of State applies in situations where "... the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child." (emphasis added) The Territory of Hawaii ceased to exist in 1959, and it is argued here (probably not citeable in this article) that the statute, though added in 1982, was intended to apply in situations where a parent had lived in the Territory of Hawaii in 1959 or earlier and/or in the State of Hawaii 1960 and later. Kornhaber asserts not, without giving any basis for that assertion. Perhaps he is right; perhaps not.
• {cite b) apparently supports the assertion, "The Pakistan 'travel ban' is a complete fabrication based on zero evidence and completely contradicted by State Department records and a 1981 New York Times article." (Kornhaber's words, and a pretty strong assertion. I'm not sure from a reading of the cited article whether Kornhaber is accusing of Taitz or others of fabricatiing accusations here. If he is accusing Taitz, it's probably something for which could/should result in her disbarment if true. That's a pretty big deal, and one would expect that there would be other (more solid, less biased) sources covering it.
• (cite c) apparently supports the assertion, "WND has mounted an advertising campaign, using electronic billboards to ask 'Where's The Birth Certificate?' ". WND itself is probably a better supporting source on that (I seem to recall that at one time WND was being considered unciteable in this article as unreliable, but I see that the article currently does cite WND in a couple of places.

It seems to me that the parts supported by the Kornhaber source focus too much on making the case that claims discussed there have no validity. It is as if the Intelligent design and Theory of evolution articles each focused on trying to poke holes in one another, each citing sources biased towards its own POV and considering sources cited in support of the other to be biased and unreliable. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama's myspace page says he was born before Hawaii became a state.

Obama's myspace page says he is 52 years old, meaning that he was born either in 1957 or 1956. But Hawaii didn't become a state until 1959. This was first reported [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107163 more than a week ago] without being changed. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that if he went through all this trouble to hide his place of birth that he would have it in plain sight on Myspace. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, you've been here much too long to keep citing crap like that in good faith. Stop it. PhGustaf (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Here's the link to his myspace page that says he's 48.[2] The Four Deuces (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, quadducks. But myspace pages and facebook pages are almost never reliable sources. We have a whole lot of reliable sources that point to 1961. PhGustaf (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That URL is for Barack Obamaca. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

PhGustaf, it could be argued that this entire article is "crap." Grundle2600 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the main Obama talk page. It appears that the myspace page is in error. Instead of spinning around in circles on this someone ought to just notify Obama's publicist or whoever it is who maintains his myspace page and they'll fix the error -- or engage in further cover-up if that's the way you care to think about it. Wikidemon (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuits in Separate Article

There are perhaps 40 lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. (See http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/docket) If indeed the current article is too long, and difficult to navigate, then one way would be to move the lawsuits out. I have lawsuit material I'd like to add, but would hate to make the article longer than it already is.

Or one might conclude that the eligibility lawsuits in the main are over the constitutional definition of "natural born citizen" and don't belong in a conspiracy theory article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdavids (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Or one might note that VAST majority of lawsuits listed there have been denied or dismissed. One would probably conclude that these are frivolous lawsuits that reflect a fringe conspiracy theory that's been dismissed by the majority of notable, reliable sources. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is better to keep everything in one article. There can be external links to the lawsuits, the link to obamaconspiracy.org is good. The article does not need to cover the details of each lawsuit, just mention that there were lawsuits and provide a link so that people can follow them. The main interest of this article is not the claims that have been made but the fact that claims have been made and readers are interested in the birthers rather than their opinions. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reluctant as I am to give this matter more coverage, a simple list of all the lawsuits brought regarding this matter (even if dismissed) might be useful. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All of 'em - nope. This isn't a list of minutia. If the lawsuit is notable, it should be mentioned here. To me, that means if someone notable filed the suit, if it got decent national attention or significant local attention. Joe Snuffitelli filing a local lawsuit that gets mentioned once or twice in a local paper, then disappears isn't something that belongs here. See that whole "not a list" thing. It also starts to trivialize the larger, more prepared lawsuits. We should be covering what the major theories are, and the more prominent lawsuits that have used those theories. Look at the tax protester articles - out of the thousands of court cases and lawsuits related to that, only a handful are mentioned. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't enumerate them all here, and attempts in the past to create articles about lawsuits that were quickly dismissed ended up in article deletion, but if reliable sources see fit to report that there are 40+ lawsuits, even frivolous ones, against Obama's eligibility then we should report that as part of the fringe phenomenon. Wikidemon (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The only notable lawsuits were those by Donofrio and Wrotnowski. (Maybe there's also a third one… I forgot.) They are notable because they're not about the birth certificate conspiracy theory. The BC is ancillary in these cases. They deal with the legitimate constitutional question, if a natural-born subject of the British monarch like Obama can at the same time also be a natural born citizen of the US if born on US territory (of which the COLB is official proof). The rest is conspiracy crap, a joke, by definition unprovable, totally irrelevant. —85.178.103.191 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Donofrio not "retired"

Donofrio stated on his website that he is not "retired" but "currently a lawyer fully licensed to practice in the State of New Jersey and the federal courts since 1991." See here. Additional quote from a comment edit by Donofrio: "The only thing I would sue [FactCheck.org] over is their stating to the world that I am a "former attorney". I am a current attorney actively licensed in NJ. I have written them a letter and if they do not correct it, litigation will happen." Therefore changed in this article. —85.178.64.176 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition: FactCheck deleted the "retired lawyer", and it now reads "lawyer" only. —85.178.64.176 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mombasa

Although Mombasa was highly theoretically part of Zanzibar in 1961, it was treated as part of Kenya for all purposes, including birth certificates. Thus, the line of argument is useless. It seems the Mombasa certificate is forged, any way, as it is arranged differently to the birth certificates of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There were very few Luos and half-Luos in Mombasa in 1961. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.93.255 (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the latest birther hype is an alleged birth in Indonesia. (No kidding.) —85.178.103.191 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source proving that they made this claim, and a source claiming that they have been reliably disproven? If not, then throw it out. User:Smith Jones 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Many countries, such as Indonesia, have few or no state birth records. This makes it hard to

prove that anyone was not born there. Often, one has to rely on denominational records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.10.188 (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, which was a British colony, where records were kept. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But the latest poll shows that, of the 44% of Republicans who either don't believe, or don't know, if Obama was born in the US. the largest percentage of those polled believe he was born in Indonesia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that should be in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces has over-looked the difference between voluntary and compulsory

records of births, marriages and deaths. If records are compulsory, they are extensive.

If they are voluntary, very few events are recorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.10.188 (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See http://flagspot.net/flags/ke_witu.html The Protectorate was incorporated in Kenya by an Order in Council in about 1921. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.54.248 (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that states your preferred text plainly. The text in the article is already sourced. Don't forget that wikipedia is about verifiability. thanks --guyzero | talk 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2334186/posts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.142.171 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not going to be considered a reliable source. See WP:RS. Ravensfire (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's important enough to be mentioned in the article, this source might back it up. Unfortunately, that source is not previewable online. Perhaps someone with access to library copies could check it out here or here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Note 51, said to be a source, is a mere assertion, made by an American with no attempt at proof. I have received an e-mail from the Privy Council Office in London. There were actually two Orders in Council made on the 27/6/1921. Both referred to Kenya. One Order in Council says the the Protectorate, including Mombasa, is part of the territory of Kenya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.34.152 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, we can't refer to a private email. Did the Privy Council give any reference for its assertion? Even if it's not an online reference, we might be able to get someone in London to check a printed source, or I could check it at the New York Public Library if it's in that extensive collection. JamesMLane t c 15:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See "African Boundaries, a legal and diplomatic encyclopaedia", by Ian Brownlie

and Ian R. Burns. This is partly available online, with a Google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.74.68 (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Page 943 of Brownlie and Burns refers to the 1921 Order in Council in the context of the

later 1926 Order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.74.68 (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz new lawsuit

Orly Taitz has filed a new lawsuit on behalf of a soldier: Connie Rhodes v. Barack Hussein Obama : http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=3178 Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I like this part: The evidence contained in Exhibit E shows that Barack Hussein Obama might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.

The social security number most commonly used by Barack Hussein Obama, is one issued in the state of Connecticut, the state where Barack Hussein Obama never resided and it shows him to be 119 years old.

This coupled with the fact that Mr. Obama’s grandmother, Madeline Dunham was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court Probate Department and had access to the social security numbers of the deceased, constitutes circumstantial evidence casting serious doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Obama and his claims of being born on US territory. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good old Orly is likely to be sanctioned for that one, and possibly declared a vexatious litigant. Very strange stuff. I'm thinking we should make a special heading for Taitz, and consolidate all of her lawsuits and other stuff there. Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Dr. Rhodes is also objecting to being required to immunize soldiers with H1N1 vaccines, out of fear they aren't safe. That isn't part of this lawsuit, but she's objecting to receiving orders to do that. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow - just reading through that case is shocking. I mean, you get to invoke Godwin just from initial pleading! *shrug* If it doesn't get tossed out, I suppose it should go in the article. Alternatively, if Taitz gets tossed out or fined, probably should go in her article. It's not a good sign when people on a friendly site are castigating parts of the filing. Ravensfire (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Forget Taitz. Her only job is to distract us. She's even deliberately sabotaging her own lawsuits, carefully circumnavigating all relevant issues, relying only on her bogus claims. She doesn't want to succeed. She only wants us to look where we're supposed to look. —85.178.121.213 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

this might be belonging to Orly Taitz as well. User:Smith Jones 13:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

IP, do you think that Orly Taitz is part of the alleged conspiracy? If you have any sources that relate to this theory, they might be valid for the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an argument from silence, but the sources are everywhere. It's a simple observation. The media are only talking about the bogus conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya. Except for a short segment on Countdown, where Prof. Turley had to correct Olbermann on the issue, the dual citizenship question is avoided completely. If it's mentioned in passing, it's lumped together with the conspiracy theory. The media clearly don't want to discuss the issue that Obama was a natural-born subject of the British monarch and a UKC citizen at birth, but they seem to be happy to book Taitz and her nutcase birther conspiracy as comic relief. And Taitz seems to be happy to comply, and she's acting in the same way as the media. She's lumping the dual nationality question together with her Kenya conspiracy theory, and when her bogus claims are rejected by the courts—rightfully rejected!—the dual nationality issue is rejected along with them, because she never presents it as a separate element. In interviews she states that a natural born US citizen needs to be born on US soil of two citizen parents. She presents it as a fact, which it is not, because as SCOTUS has ruled at least twice, there is no definition of natural born citizen in the constitution. It's a matter of first impression. She even alleges that Obama can provide documents that prove that he is a natural born citizen. No document can prove that, because it's an unanswered legal/constitutional question. Furthermore she files lawsuit after lawsuit, although she knows that none of them will have any effect on Obama's presidency, because that's only possible with a Quo Warranto action at the District Court in DC. Either she's completely incompetent as a lawyer or she's playing along in the big hush-hush orchestra, distracting everyone with her actionism. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, but there is a broad and common tendency to emphasize the conspiracy and avoid the relevant constitutional question. —85.178.121.213 (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is the grand point here; Taitz is a double agent deliberately playing up the more absurdist elements of the controversy in order to discredit the legitimate (in your opinion) concerns such as dual citizenship? That might be an interesting theory if it weren't for the fact that the dual citizenship angle is just as ill-conceived and nutty as anything else Taitz has come up with. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What's "nutty"/"ill-conceived" in asking the legitimate question whether a natural-born subject of the British monarch can at the same time be a natural born citizen of the US, if born on US territory? What's "nutty"/"ill-conceived" in asking that this question be answered? What's "nutty"/"ill-conceived" in stating that this question is currenctly unanswered? What's "nutty"/"ill-conceived" in acknowledging that there are two different opinions and possible outcomes? What's "nutty"/"ill-conceived" in settling for on one of those opinions? What's "nutty"/"ill-conceived" in presenting arguments for one's opinion? The Kenya birther conspiracy theory is "nutty" and "ill-conceived", I agree. But the dual citizenship issue? How can that be "nutty"/"ill-conceived", if Obama's own State Department disclosed that "the US government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause"? —85.178.121.213 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you slow down for a moment and think rationally about it, yes, even the dual citizenship issue is nutty and ill-conceived. Imagine for a moment any child born this day in the USA to a British citizen and an American citizen. This child is an American citizen by birth, and ostensibly could claim British citizenship via descent. Are you really going to say that this child, should he/she wish to run for president, would be ineligible? Tarc (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not admissible to either say he's ineligible or he's eligible. It's a matter of first impression. So we are only allowed to says that we don't yet know, but either believe he's eligible or ineligible. And by the way: "ostensibly could claim British citizenship" is the usual amateur hogwash. Obama was a U.S. citizen plus a natural-born subject of the British monarch plus a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—automatically at birth, and definitely. Obama admitted this himself on his website. So there is no "ostensibly" or "claim to British citizenship". Obama was definitely a UKC citizen and a British subject according to the prevalent British nationality laws—I repeat: at birth and automatically. (And since it says natural born citizen, only the status at birth is relevant in terms of presidential eligibility.) —85.178.93.252 (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

this is all irrelvent and immaterial. we aren't here to determine the veraicty of these claims, only to construct them into whether or not they're not are accurate. We don't have to argue whether or not she is nutty or illconceived but simply decide if there are sources that indicate that these claims are being made and the responses therein. User:Smith Jones 20:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Smith Jones that the discussion here is pointless. The article mentions the dual-citizenship theory. The presentation is brief but it seems to cover the point. If there's more that could be said, from reliable sources, including reports of opinions held by prominent people (including any important birthers who criticize Taitz on this score), that information can be added. JamesMLane t c 08:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not "irrelevant/immaterial": The prominent anti-Obama website Investigating Obama, which also covers the birther cases a lot, has asked for information in order to document the "inconvenient/convenient 'miscues' of Orly Taitz". In the follow-up blog article at I.O. we read stuff like "straw man challenger", "saboteur", "buffoonery", "media-grabbing". There are a lot of people within the birther movement who suspect her to be a fraud, a smokescreen actor, who covers up the relevant issue. As I wrote above, one of the things Taitz likes to do is not to treat the birthplace conspiracy theory and the dual citizenship question as separate. See also here, which proves that she's either a totally incapable attorney or in fact a fraud, who's sabotaging her own cases so that they are planned to fail—so that the dual nationality issue is dismissed together with the conspiracy theory. —85.178.93.252 (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What you above call "the prominent anti-Obama website Investigating Obama" describes itself as Examining the underreported ideology, alliances, and allegiances of an illegitimate "president," who is at war against America, a key element in a global insurrection / When we showed he was a neo-Marxist before the election, it was not a hoax / As we show that known evidence indicates Obama is an unconstitutional and fictitious "president," who must be disqualified, and an agent to destroy free America for Marxism, we do not kid you. That's powerful, uplifting stuff that I'd have thought only Stephen Colbert would be capable of writing. Can you name a dead-trees publication that takes this stuff seriously? -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you need a printed report about e.g. a prominent birther's opinion. Don't you think that's a little paradoxical, considering that this article covers a movement and its criticism, both of which mostly happen on the internet, in some blogs etc.? I'm just asking. Personally I don't give a rat's ass about Taitz. So if you don't mention it, it's perfectly fine with me. —85.178.93.252 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, please, let's keep rats' asses out of it! With a few rare exceptions, Wikipedia is uninterested in blogs. The major political insights of prominent people, even prominent "birthers", will presumably be written up in reliable sources. So who are these prominent people, and where are the reliable sources? -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatver one thinks of 'these people and their theories' perhaps what they #should# be doing is trying to get the definition of this aspect for qualification for the Presidency more clearly defined - given the discussion on Obama and John McCain etc. The writers of the Constitution did not envisage the possibilities for 'slightly fluid nationality' (having parents of different nationalities, patrial nationality etc). (Tangent question - would someone born by Caesarian sction count as naturally born?)

Anyone brought in the reptilian angle yet (g)? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A certain well-known author links him to the Illuminati and thus to the reptilian humanoids. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference spotted - and 'methinks he protests too much.' Jackiespeel (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Case dismissed (see section below) already. "Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions." Should be interesting to see if Taitz wants to run afoul of that. Also some speculation by the judge about the motives of the plaintiff. Ravensfire (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

FactCheck.org Update on Sep 3, 2009

Factcheck.org published the following update to their story Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?footnote link 39 containing the following change:

Corrected (Sep. 3, 2009): Our original article incorrectly stated that then-Sen. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship on Aug. 4, 1982. The correct date is Aug. 4, 1984. The Kenyan Constitution required Obama to choose whether to keep either his U.S. or Kenyan citizenship upon his 21st birthday, which was in 1982. But we initially missed that the Constitution provided him a two-year window for making that choice. So Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship until his 23rd birthday in 1984. We have updated the item to reflect this.

- Joe Miller

Date of 1982 has been changed to 1984 to reflect this change in the Dual citizenship claims section of the article HMTKSteve (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Our article shouldn't imply that having a UK-citizen father automatically makes one a UK citizen. (After all, the birthers assert that the parallel as to a U.S.-citizen mother isn't true.) I've added a reference to British law, which is mentioned in the FactCheck report you cite. JamesMLane t c 02:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The birthers cite something a little bit different. They claim, that under the law at the time, Obama's mother would not have been old enough to pass on her citizenship if Obama were born outside of the US. Further, Obama has never disagreed with the notion that he was born a dual-citizen. HMTKSteve (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're correct that most of them make that claim. Some of them, however, in addition to or instead of that argument (which relies on a hypothesized Kenyan birth), contend that even if he was indeed born in Hawaii and is therefore a U.S. citizen, his eligibility at birth for British citizenship disqualifies him from the Presidency. My point is simply that his eligibility for British citizenship depended on British law, as FactCheck noted. This is worth pointing out because it means that, if this particular birther argument were accepted, a person who is conceded to be an American citizen could be rendered ineligible for the Presidency by virtue of the actions of a foreign government. JamesMLane t c 23:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the question that some are asking. This effort is being spearheaded by Leo C. Donofrio on his Natural Born Citizen blog. The question is very simple, "can someone born with dual allegiance qualify as a natural born citizen for Constitutional purposes?" It is a clear cut Constitutional question and not a conspiracy theory. HMTKSteve (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This article mentions that, despite it not being a conspiracy theory. Quite a bit of the info in this article seems to belong outside of what the Conspiracy theory article describes. Re dual citizenship, it is interesting (though not directly relevant) to take a look at the Sue v Hill article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NH Rep. Rappaport Requests Investigation of Obama’s Eligibility

Should this be added to the legal section of the main article? I have not been able to find any good sources for this other than in blogs and email correspondence with New Hampshire State Representative Lawrence M. Rappaport.

New Hampshire State Representative, Lawrence M. Rappaport payed a visit to Mr. William Gardner, the NH Secretary of State, on Thursday, Sept. 10th.

His stunning request: an investigation of Barack Hussein Obama’s presence on the NH 2008 Ballot.

NH Rep. Rappaport Requests Investigation of Obama’s Eligibility

HMTKSteve (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire's legislature is one of the largest in the Western world. One out of the 424 lawmakers making a not-a-part-of-his-job informal request to the AG. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

On top of that, the source given is essentially a blog. PhGustaf (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that one state representative has made such a request is non-notable, unless it receives mainstream media coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a mainstream media source- [3]. Remember (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source but the story has not received widespread coverage, not that it won't in the future. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NH's Secretary of State has made it clear that, despite the request, he has no interest in any investigation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Another lawsuit, another loss

Here is a link to Rhodes v. MacDonald - [4]. Feel free to incorporate. It has some entertaining prose. Remember (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here´s an article that talks about it: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/841419.html?qwxq=9746908&pageNum=1&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

According to comments, she has filed for reconsideration.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on Judge Land's comments, Orly is coming awfully close to becoming declared a vexatious litigant. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Captain Rhodes has sent a letter to Judge Land saying she never authorized Orly Taitz to file any actions on her behalf, and has asked that the appeal be withdrawn. The judge has also given Orly 14 days to show cause why she shouldn't be fined $10,000 for re-filing after he warned her about making frivolous claims: [5]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reader reaction at that URL dated subsequent to the above comment includes, "I have verified that Letter was NOT faxed from the Columbus, GA OfficeMax store and have demonstrated the letter is a forgery." "The letter" referred to there is the letter purported to be from Captain Rhodes. This appears to be a still-developing situation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Until there's something actually in front of the judge that's been verified, might be better to keep the letter stuff out of the article on BLP concerns. Fraud is a seriously bad thing, especially for an attorney. Ask Jack Thompson about that! Ravensfire (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I love that line, This appears to be a still-developing situation: it sounds Ed Woody. ¶ Yes, one Larry Sinclair has repeatedly posted this. Mr Sinclair seems more interested in this than does the rest of the universe put together. He also has this link to his blog, where he makes liberal use of CAPITALS to hammer away at his point that Obama is a SOCIALIST. (Maybe he also points out that Obama is a gay secular Muslim antichrist, but I dozed off before I got to that.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that Obama is neither gay, nor Muslim, nor the antichrist; I don't have reliable sources to support those guesses, and I don't know what Larry Sinclair, Orly Taitz or Ed Wood might think about that. If this were a screenplay, it might be a collaboration between Ed Wood, Rod Sterling and Mel Brooks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

An attorney has filed a complaint against Orly Taitz with the California bar

Subodh Chandra, former Democractic candidate for Attorney General of Ohio and a member of the California bar, has filed a complaint against her with the California bar for her comments about Judge Land: [6]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Does TPM fall under WP:RS? If not, probably have to wait'll it gains more traction in mainstream sources, and even then it is probably a better fit in Taitz's article. Tarc (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't consider TPM a reliable source, but it has shown up in mainstream sites - [7], it's a blog, but it's the Chicago Tribune blog. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

TPM is certainly a reliable source. We can be confident that such a complaint has indeed been filed. That isn't enough to qualify for inclusion in the article, though. One person -- one private person, with no role in the attorney disciplinary process -- has expressed the opinion that Taitz has violated disciplinary rules. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions, but not every opinion that anyone has. There's nothing that makes this opinion worth inclusion. JamesMLane t c 04:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the article should present the story as it is reported and not provide investigative journalism. This story will be written about in many local papers but nothing should go into the book until it becomes widely reported. This story is however important and at some point it will be written more thoroughly and a better article can be written. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

it shoudl go into Orly Taitz User:Smith Jones 15:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC) and not here.

Kapli'olani Medical Center Dispute

Closing this per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM. No reliably-sourced specific changes to the article are being discussed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a colorable dispute over whether Obama was born at the Kapli'olani Medical Center for Women and Children. There has never been any first person or documentary confirmation that he was born at that facility. The first time this alleged "fact" appeared anywhere was in a Washington Post article in August 2008, without attribution. The writer claimed that Obama had been "walking below the hospital room where he was born," a wholly dubious assertion because the room has never been identified anywhere and due to construction over the past 50 years may not even exist. Obama has never directly identified Kapli'olani as his birthpace, except in a purported letter he allegedly sent to the hospital on January 24, 2009. At an official White House press briefing on July 13, 2009, the following exchange took place between Lester Kinsolving and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: ______________________________ Q While you and the President were overseas on July the 7th, there was on the Internet a copy of a letter on White House letterhead dated January the 24th, 2009, with the signature "Barack Obama," which stated "The place of my birth was Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center." And my question is, can you verify this letter? Or if not, would you tell us which Hawaiian hospital he was born in, since Kapi'olani, which used to publicize this, now refuses to confirm? MR. GIBBS: Goodness gracious. I'm going to be, like, in year four describing where it is the President was born. I don't have the letter at my fingertips, obviously, and I don't know the name of the exact hospital. Q Can you check on this? MR. GIBBS: I will seek to interview whoever brought the President into this world. But can we just -- I want to do this once and for all, Lester. Let's just do this once and for all. You can go on this -- I hope you'll take the time not just to Google "President, January 24, Hawaii hospital, birth" and come up with this letter, but go on the Internet and get the birth certificate, Lester, and put -- Q It's not a birth certificate. MR. GIBBS: I know. (Laughter.) Just a document from the state of Hawaii denoting the fact that the President was indeed born in the state of Hawaii. Q But it doesn't say where he was born or who the doctor was. MR. GIBBS: You know, Lester, I -- I want to stay on this for a second, Lester, I want to stay on this for a second, because you're a smart man, right? Q Hypothetical. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: All right, all right, settle down in here. Only I get to make jokes like that. No, Lester, let's finish this one. Do all of your listeners and the listeners throughout this country the service to which any journalist owes those listeners, and that is the pursuit of the noble truth. And the noble truth is that the President was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States of America. And all of this incredible back-and-forth -- I get e-mails today from people who inexplicably can figure out very easily the White House e-mail address, and want proof of where the President was born. Lester, the next time you ask me a question I'm going to ask you what reporting you've done to demonstrate to your listeners the truth, the certificate, the state, so that they can look to you for that momentous search for the truth, and you can wipe away all the dark clouds and provide them with the knowing clarity that comes with that certainty. ______________________________ The hospital later removed the letter from its web site and the White House has never confirmed its authenticity. For the sake of completeness, the birth certificate conspiracy article should be edited to include this information to give some context on why birthers have suspicions. If, in fact, Obama cannot identify what hospital in Hawaii he was born in, he may not have been born in the state at all. Furthermore, the fact that he has (through press surrogates) identified a particular facility but refused to supply corroboration for the claim indicates that it may be a recent invention. The hospital is not identified on the 2007 computer printout of the Certification of Live Birth that Gibbs alludes to, but would be on the 1961 original, typewritten Certificate of Live Birth. Gibbs consistent reference to the 2007 certification, while refusing to address the existence and contents of the 1961 original, creates confusion which could easily be cleared up if in fact the resolution was favorable to the President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) And .... Let's see, you're wanting to put something that says the PRESS SECRETARY didn't know the exact hospital name of where President Obama was born in to the article. Umm, I strongly suspect that most people don't know the name of the hospital where they were born. That's not something they would prepare for, and oddly enough, they don't know everything. Bluntly, that's not something that is relevant or adds anything to the article. Information is already in the article about the source of the doubts raised by birthers, the evidence they rely on and the evidence that refutes those beliefs. Ravensfire (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Ravensfire: Please observe the civility requirement or your editing privileges may be suspended. There is no need for sarcasm, and avoiding the precise questions presented by my post is a form of rudeness. I will directly address all your concerns, and would appreciate the same courtesy from you. There is no need for you to respond if you're simply going to perpetuate your one-sided and obviously biased POV. First, the very job of the Press Secretary is to be informed and answer questions. Gibbs is Obama's official spokesman. Clearly, he would have been very carefully briefed on this issue and would know about the letter sent out to the hospital. It's highly disingenuous to suggest that he hasn't been advised of what information is in Obama's original (1961) birth certificate and what isn't. Second, Gibbs HAD addressed the birth certificate issue at a previous press conference, as reflected in the Wikipedia article in question. (Why is that there -- do you only quote Gibbs, incompletely, when he helps your argument?) His responses demonstrated a very clear bias, one which impermissibly condoned by the editors. Specifically, he creates the misleading impression that Obama's original 1961 birth certificate has been posted on the internet, when in fact it has not. He repeated dodges questions about the existence and contents of the 1961 original Certificate (NOT Certification) of Live Birth, which, as relevant here, would indicate whether Kapli'olani was Obama's birthplace. Third, let's get back to the original issue, and this time please address it directly rather than going off into irrelevant tangents about what you think press secretaries prepare for, how many people you think can identify their birth hospital (I can), or what you think is "relevant" in a general sense. The point I made is that that there is no basis whatsoever, no competent source anywhere, that identifies Kapli'olani Medical Center as Obama's birthplace. Obama has never directly asserted it. No documentation has ever been provided, even though supposedly even the room number is available. All we have is a sudden assertion late in the 2008 campaign, made after Wikipedia, Snopes and other cites had been identifying Queens Medical Center (also without proof) for some time. So, to summarize my questions: (1) What competent evidence (or even official assertion) do you have for the proposition that President Obama was born at the Kapli'olani Medical Center for Women and Children? (2) Why aren't the repeated evasions by Obama's official spokesman, Robert Gibbs, on the simple questions regarding Obama's birthplace which are clearly within his knowledge, relevant to the credibility of the yet-unsourced rumor that Obama was born at Kapli'olani?TruthfulPerson (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC) This should have just stopped at the first sentence, i.e. "There is a colorable dispute over whether Obama was born at the Kapli'olani Medical Center for Women and Children". There is no legitimate dispute over the matter; only the fringe conspiracy theorists known as Birthers push this sad, sad, assertion. Tarc (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Tarc: Please observe Wikipedia civility conventions, and do not make conclusory statements of opinion which add nothing to the discussion. You claim that there is no legitimate dispute over whether Obama was born at Kapli'olani Medical Center for Women and Children, and yet do not provide any credible evidence for the claim that he was. As I noted, Obama has never made the assertion and there is no documentation of Kapli'olani as his birthplace -- it was just thrown out there late in the 2008 campaign. Your characterization of the assertion as "sad, sad" and use of the terms "fringe", "conspiracy" and "birthers" aren't evidence on the question, but mere evasions of it. So I ask again: (1) What competent evidence (or even official assertion) do you have for the proposition that President Obama was born at the Kapli'olani Medical Center for Women and Children? (2) Why aren't the repeated evasions by Obama's official spokesman, Robert Gibbs, on the simple questions regarding Obama's birthplace which are clearly within his knowledge, relevant to the credibility of the yet-unsourced rumor that Obama was born at Kapli'olani?TruthfulPerson (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Whether or not any of this has any bearing on where Obama was born, it has no bearing on the article. The article is here to report the birther movement not to argue for or against their case. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I am making "conclusory(sic) statements", because this is a subject that is, in fact, concluded. As to your questions, 1) The clear majority of reliable sources report this hospital as the place of birth, so the Wikipedia reflects what these sources have to say. That's how it works here. 2) Your characterization of the Q&A as "evasions" is a minority point-of-view not supported, again, by reliable sources. Same goes for your claim of "rumor". Anything else? Tarc (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Tarc: I can see you're not a lawyer, or you'd know that "conclusory" means devoid of support reasons rather than "concluded. But back to the point, not a single one of the alleged reliable sources (1) attributes the assertion that Kapli'olani was his birthplace to Obama or any other person or (2) identifies the documentation supporting the claim or other corroboration. The assertion is simply one that popped out of nowhere late in the 2008 campaign. You certainly are careful not to attempt any form of verification, or even identify which of those "reliable sources" you find persuasive, and what particular facts they recite you consider to be corroborated (or even attributed) by the authors.TruthfulPerson (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC) My characterization of the Q&A as "evasions" is supported by the transcript of the briefing, which demonstrates conclusively (not "conclusory") that Gibbs responded to a question about the contents of the 1961 Certification with a reference to the 2007 certification. Your denial of the evasions is not even a minority-point-of-view, as you're the only one who asserts it. Anything else? Four Deuces: The purpose of this article appears very much to argue against the birther case. Otherwise it wouldn't cherry-pick statements from Press Secretary Gibbs, and omit other statements from him which have fueled the birthers' suspicions. It's quite relevant to the birthers' state of mind: can you blame them for doubting Obama's claim that he was born in Hawaii, when his surrogates have floated out this very specific tidbit of information about the alleged hospital (and even room) that turns out to have no verification (other than having been repeated in unattributed and unsourced articles)? So I ask again: 1) What competent evidence (or even official assertion) do you have for the proposition that President Obama was born at the Kapli'olani Medical Center for Women and Children? (2) Why aren't the repeated evasions by Obama's official spokesman, Robert Gibbs, on the simple questions regarding Obama's birthplace which are clearly within his knowledge, relevant to the credibility of the yet-unsourced rumor that Obama was born at Kapli'olani?TruthfulPerson (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You are committing a logical fallacy, the burden of proof is on you to challenge common knowledge and calling information regarded by the press and the opposition (McCain didn't even bother bringing it up) "an unsourced rumor" is incredibly dishonest and blatantly POV. Soxwon (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The definition of insanity is repeating an action and expecting a different result. Your two questions were answered; ("per WP:RS" and "it is a WP:FRINGE POV", in case you've forgotten already. I know that birther proponents don't like those answers, but that is not my problem. Tarc (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Truthful, what you aren't getting is that Wikipedia or WP's volunteers aren't here to provide you with The Evidence. We are here to summarize what reliable sources say. That you want to disregard the reliable sources for whatever conspiratorial or construction related reason is not really something we can address on this talkpage. We don't engage in any original research here, which is exactly what you are proposing in asking us to disregard the source due to your inside info of the 1960's hospital construction industry. We also don't call up the reliable sources and demand that they produce whatever sources they used in making their stories. We also don't try to read the minds of Press Secretaries. Hope this helps. --guyzero | talk 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)] I'll ignore the name-calling and evasions by Soxwon and Tarc -- suffice it to say that references to "common knowledge" and John McCain's campaign strategy don't cut it. Yes, Obama's birthplace at Kapli'olani is an "unsourced" rumor insofar as the alleged sources don't attributed that alleged "fact" to anyone or suggest that it has the most remote corroboration. Guyzero, it's obvious you don't engage in any original research here, but I'd like just some ordinary thinking. All I'm talking about is accurately reflecting what the "reliable sources" say and don't say. You cite campaign puff pieces as evidence of hard fact. As to reading Gibb's mind, you've done that already by cherry-picking his comments and presenting what talking points he would find important. As to the "construction" conspiracy, just go to the hospital's official site and look at its timeline as to when and what was constructed and relocated etc. It's not "original research", it's just reading. You're really embarrassing yourself here. So, Guyzero, you honestly believe that there's a hospital room in Kapli'olani that Obama was born in, and that the room is still standing? Did the hospital put a plaque outside of it? lol! Speak of fringe conspiracy theories. I guess we'll just have to agree to submit this to dispute resolution. Reading comprehension! This has nothing to do with what an editor believes. This has to do with following WP policies. For the nth time, we follow and summarize the reliable sources. They say Kapi'olani. Before you head off to dispute resolution, you might want to actually read the policies we keep citing to you. --guyzero | talk 01:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) What the birthers should do is: collect (1) a sufficiency of their birth certificates and equivalent documents together (allowing for years and states/localities) before 'persons acting as paid notaries public' and see how many of them contain all relevant information including medical persons, (2) locate as many of the institutions involved and check out their records/archives for comparison purposes and (3) perform a similar exercise for people born in Hawaii for the period 1955-1965. They should also be campaigning to get the relevant section of the Constitution clarified - to cover 'having one parent having non-US nationality at the time of the person's birth, child of US citizens born outside the US', resident royals/persons claiming to be royal, and all other reasonable possibilities. (And, if they wish to cover all eventualities, Caligula's horse, the theoretical extra-terrestials born in the US, and constructs passing the Turing test. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment at the end of the above (getting comparative information and clarifying the the relevant legislation) stands.

Sow will today's event affect the discussions? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

East African Standard / AP story

I concur with Guyzero's rescission of KevinOKeeffe's edit. The article is questionable as it appears that there are no similar quotes to be found in the archives of the Standard or the AP or any other news sites that carry AP stories. Fragments of the article can be found, but none of them refer to Obama as "Kenyan born." Both the Standard and the AP have been contacted for verification and the article should not be referenced until it is authenticated. --TheMaestro (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How many times does a reliable source have to state something before it can be cited? Within the context of a section entitled "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii," I would say that a single claim by a reliable source to the effect that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (and thus not in Hawaii) would be notable. It seems extremely counter-intuitive to suggest the contrary.

Here is the text of the edit in question:

Kenya's principal opposition newspaper, The Standard, at the time of Barack Obama's candidacy for the United States Senate, cited a 2004 Associated Press report which states Barack Obama was "Kenyan-born."

Now if I were attempting to make a definitive claim that Barack Obama was, in fact, born in Kenya, I would obviously be in error to do so, based on this single citation. However, my citation seems to constitute the very epitome of notable relevance to a section entitled "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii," as it is a claim that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, taken from a reliable source.

LINK: http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Question one is if the East Standard is an RS or not. I honestly don't know, not trying to sound sarcastic. Question two is this is quoting an AP story, it might be better to find the AP story to see what it says, and consider using it as a reference. Ravensfire (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia's own article on The Standard (Kenya), it seems like it would be taken as a reliable source. If I had a more conventional source for this material, I would have employed that (or more likely both citations), but alas, this is the only source I have at present. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Normally the Standard would be a reliable secondary source. However in this case their story conflicts with all other reliable sources and therefore must be rejected. It could however be seen as evidence supporting the birthers' theories, but in that case it is a primary source. This article should not argue the birthers' theories for them, just report what their theories are as reported in mainstream media. There must be a story that the Standard article is part of the birthers' arguments before we should refer to it. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The section in question isn't about "the birthers," but rather is entitled "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii." And the citation constitutes such a claim, taken from a reliable soure, ergo I am unclear why this edit should be remotely controversial. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that the article only appears on web.archive.org. If the East African Standard confirms that they published the article, then the question becomes whether the Standard qualifies as an RS. But as long as the citation is only to an external archive without confirmation by the Standard, I don't see it as a good cite at this point.--TheMaestro (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Standard did not claim that Obama was born in Kenya, it merely erred in reporting that he was born there. (It is like saying they claimed he was a candidate for US Senate.) Using the incorrect story in the article without showing that it was covered by reliable secondary sources makes it original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

After reading the article in The Standard, that's my view as well. It mentions 'Kenyan-born' in the title and the first sentence, and then nothing else. Nothing about how they determined that Obama is Kenyan born, nothing about his birth at all in fact. What does this add to the article? I'm just not seeing it. Ravensfire (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how the Standard article misspells his first name as "Barrack". The Four Deuces (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It also is erroneous to say that 'The Standard ... cited a 2004 Associated Press report which states Barack Obama was "Kenyan-born."' While the AP is cited as a source for the article, so far no other AP-sourced article makes a similar claim, and the "Kenyan-born" part appears to have been added at The Standard. Also, a subsequent archive.org version of a Standard article (http://web.archive.org/web/20040706035526/www.eastandard.net/intelligence/intel03070417.htm) says:

Simultaneous with Obama’s rising stature is the increasing desire by Kenyans to identify with him. Typical newspaper headlines and messages flying around the Internet tend to lead with the theme "Kenyan-linked", or "Kenyan-American", or even, erroneously, "Kenyan-born".

--TheMaestro (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Determining whether something is a WP:RS has nothing to do with what another wikipedia article says about the source. It must be a "reliable, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on independent secondary sources." Further they should "generally be regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." In this instance, I don't see how any of that applies. They may very well be a solid reliable source for articles about Kenya. For articles about U.S. politics and biographies of U.S. citizens, not so much. I'm not sure what their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is, but considering that they spelled his name wrong in the first sentence, It doesn't look glowing. And their "source," a reference to an AP article that never existed doesn't instill a lot of confidence either. The fact that the article has been scrubbed most likely means that it was retracted (which is why it would only exist in an archive....also not a WP:RS, btw.). In any event, it has no relevancy here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This shouldn't even be up for debate. No evidence of fact checking. No evidence of evidence. No actual AP article. Meanwhile, there is ample proof that Obama, a virtual nobody for years who was semi-notable enough over the last decade to have made his origins abundantly clear, was indeed born in Hawaii; including a birth certificate, and notice in the local paper. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguing against the case

'Given all the fuss' if there was a case for Obama being born elsewhere independent evidence would have arisen by now.

And, working backwards, given the vast amounts of money required to launch and run a campaign, would those providing the money have 'invested' in a non-runner? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#FORUM that argument may be true but there's nothing we can do about it as far as using it in the article - it's utter speculation, even if it's reasonable speculation. There's a similar concern that does manifest itself in WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Any claim that the President of the United States is ineligible for office, and worse, that he has perpetuated a lie about his citizenship, is indeed extraordinary and would require incredibly strong sourcing. Indeed, there are probably no reliable sources, or at most very few, that support this claim, so we cannot treat it as a legitimate claim. However, there are numerous reliable sources to stand for the proposition that the claim has been made. That makes it a notable subject, so the article correctly focuses on the claim itself, and not the truth of the claim. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The most that can be said is (a) there is a slight non-clarity about the birth certificate and Obama does not wish to get into a 'same to you with tomato sauce' playground exchange, and (b)some people have got a bee in their collective bonnet about this 'for a variety of reasons' - which may involve defining what 'being an American is' (which may well be a legitimate discussion point - but, as with 'the relevant section of the Constitution should be recast to recognise modern complexities' belongs in another context').

Those of us who do not support the 'birther and associated arguments' viewpoint find it difficult to think into their mindset.

Can someone write the 'Arguments against the Birther viewpoints' piece for Wikinfo or other suitable website so we can continue the discussion in an appropriate context? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the mainstream birther viewpoint (mainstream for birthers, that is) is that there is a certain lack of clarity in the Obama COLB which has been released vs. image copies of such certificates (see comparison of certificates numbered 151-1961-010641 vs. 151 61-10637 an 151 61-10638 at www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2303249/replies?c=25 ), coupled with a lack of understanding of Obama's reasons for declining to authorize release of an image copy of his certificate which is said to be on file in Hawaii[8]. Some base suspicions of a desire to conceal information on such refusals to release information. I think that concentrating on the most fringe viewpoints attributable to birthers clouds this, in this article and elsewhere. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to release what information? The birthers claim that Obama is in possession of another document and refuses to release it. Obama claims he does not have any other document. It's hard to refuse to release something you don't have. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a difficult argument to make. While it may well be true that he does not have any other document, I'm not aware of his having said that; and even if he does not have one, it can still be truthfully claimed that he has access to personal information that he has not made public. He can rightly argue that, short of a lawful order to disclose, he is entitled to some degree of personal privacy, and I think that position is superior to the questionable stance that there have been no "refusals to release information." --TheMaestro (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't simply assume that he actually has the information the birthers are calling for, such as the name of the physician who delivered him. I don't know who delivered me. My mother might remember, and might not, but Obama's mother died some years ago. JamesMLane t c 05:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about arguing conspiracy theories but about reporting what conspiracy theorists say and do. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

He could authorize the Hawaii Department of Health to release image copies of the recotds of his birth records which they have on file, which might dispel some of the questions about his birth. He could similarly authorize release of his transcripts and other records at Occidental College and Columbia University, which might dispel questions about whether or not he registered as a foreign student, etc. His refusal to release information does lead some to suspect that he is actively concealing something. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:NOTAFORUM. This has nothing to do with discussing changes to the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My comment above was in the context of discussing a suggestion made Jackiespeel that someone write the 'Arguments against the Birther viewpoints' piece for Wikinfo or other suitable website so we can continue the discussion in an appropriate context. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a case for an article such as I suggested, to avoid multiple repetitions in a circular discussion, and which involve 'adopting a viewpoint'/more original research than appropriate for Wikipedia, with a suitable link being added. (There are a number of other cases - and a case for having an 'automatic suggestion to this effect). Jackiespeel (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What would convince the bithers - 'the relevant documentation authenticated with signatures by the Apostles?

'Further points for the argument against' - the number of the birther variants, and the seeming absence of 'redefining the definition of a natural-born citizen' case (and, pace Macbeth would an infant born by Caesarian section or AID be classed as a n-bc?). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Article title NPOV

Why is this article page titled a "conspiracy", when there is official documentation from Obama's university that he has received education grants only available to foreign students? This means he is a dual-citizen at best and thus cannot be the president legally. 87.97.110.166 (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there reliable, verifiable source material available to support this? If so, please add a link. --Alan (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course there isn't. It's yet another unsourced rumour swilling around the conspiracy theorists' blogs. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It never fails to amaze me how some people can claim that official government documents are false, yet assert that some crackpot rumor they read on a blog somewhere is undeniably true. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation bias probably explains it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding citizenship, Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 5: Qualifications for office requires only that the President be a natural born citizen. No bar exists to a person holding multiple citizenships becoming President. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And - 'for certain purposes' England and Scotland can treat the other as abroad; HMRC can treat the Channel Islands and Isle of Man as abroad for tax revenue purposes.

The issue still seems to be that Clause 5 may to be reworked - to allow for the various modern possibilities (including John McCain) - though as likely to cause as much wailing and gnashing of teeth as Clause 4. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A conspiracy is a covert group effort with a devious purpose. That isn't the emphasis here, but it does seem to be the implication (from the "birthers'" perspective). I wish people would use terms like "conspiracy" (along with "science") a bit more discriminately and with greater etymological sensitivity; but at the same time, I don't think that "Obama citizenship baloney babble" has quite the same ring to it as the current title. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete article

This is really not an objective entry in wikipedia. Numerous issues have not been addressed here. The Kenyan ambassador has stated that Obama was born in Kenya. Yet that was removed when I added that to 'other issues.' That is not advocacy, but a fact. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson stated that Obama was 'an immigrant.' Is that worth adding under "other issues." The fact that Obama's half sister is acknowledged to have been born in Jakarta, Indonesia and yet has a certificat of live birth (just like her brother) is noteworthy and should also be included. Objectivity and a thorough explanation of the arguement and 'conspiracy' should be the goal. Not selective presentation by those attempting to control what facts are presented here. I am not a 'birther' but the concept should at least be presented correctly here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkhunt (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about conspiracy theories about Obama's citizenship that have received coverage in the media. It is not the purpose of the article to present arguments supporting these theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If Dkhunt can find reliable sources to substantiate the claim that "the Kenyan ambassador has stated that Obama was born in Kenya," I agree that it should be included. Likewise regarding the claim that "Obama's half sister ... has a certificat [sic] of live birth (just like her brother)." If Bill Richardson actually believes that Obama is an immigrant, that might be worth mentioning if properly attributed, though if it was just a misstatement it does not deserve to be included. But I suspect that Dkhunt is wrong when he suggests that the "selective presentation" stems from anything other than a consideration of the evidence. --TheMaestro (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter whether these statements can be sourced they are irrelevant to this article. This is not a conspiracy theory website but an article about conspiracy theories. Dkhunt's stories can only be included if they are shown to have been used by the conspiracy theorists and can be sourced to articles about them. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be easy to show that the statements "have been used by the conspiracy theorists and can be sourced to articles about them." But what has customarily been done in this article is to include those references along with a statement regarding the validity of the underlying claims, e.g.: "Another incorrect but popularly reported claim is that his father's step-mother, Sarah Obama, told a reporter that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya." Dkhunt was doing neither but rather offering claims without substantiation. --TheMaestro (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we take the evidence and the disproof from the same article, we do not report stories that may support the theories then find evidence to disprove them. The case you mentioned is taken entirely from the McClatchy News, which is a reliable source.[9] The Four Deuces (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel this is a complete article in that sources have been exhausted and all new data is reviewed. Even so, the discussion page is here so people can put up new sources so it's welcomed. However, this article is limited in scope to just stating the arguments and theories of the broader topic, and not about debating them. There is no interpretation done. If there's a source that adds new depth, by all means present it. To be more generic, per WP:IINFO, articles cannot be FAQs that cover every theoretical of a topic or things that are only complete after there are no objections left. I know there are plenty of places where you can ask those questions and discuss conclusions, but I don't think it's here. Datheisen (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the certificates of live birth issued by the state of Hawaii for people born outside of the state contain a specific notation as to the location of the birth. Obama's sister's certificate would most likely contain an annotation that she was born in Indonesia. This is all speculation, though, since no such certificate has been produced. Provide evidence. In addition, it was also my understanding that the law authorizing these out-of-state births was passed after Barack Obama's birth, and therefore he would not be eligible for such a certification. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, a Google news search for '"kenyan ambassador" obama "Kenya-born"' or '"kenyan ambassador" obama "born in Kenya"' comes up with zero hits. Provide evidence for that bald-faced claim as well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't see any Google hits suddenly appearing, but even if they did, and a citation or link to such an ambassador's statement could be found, it would only be a step on the way to justification fo rincluding such a statement in the article. Ambassador's do not have universal authority. They have no connection with birth documentation of their citizens, never mind a supposed citizen who was born decades before the ambassador took office. Centrepull (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Snopes

I am removing the reference to Snopes. This article is not about where Obama was born, but about the birther movement. The fact that Snopes or other groups decided to investigate the birther theory is only relevant if it is notable. That can only be established if the Snopes investigation is covered in mainstream media. Then we could say something like "the theory became so widespread that Snopes decided to debunk it" with a reference to the newspaper article about the Snopes investigation. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Snopes is not a reliable source; it's a hobby site. There's no coverage in mainstream media, and its inclusion would be iffy even if there were. PhGustaf (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Snopes doesn't have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? You're joking, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No coverage in mainstream media? St Petersburg Times and The Telegraph A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Snopes' status as a reliable source has been discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard, notably here. Most (but not all) editors conclude that it's reasonably reliable for "debunking" stories, and that it has been so relied upon by other reliable sources. It may, however, be appropriate to view Snopes as a kind of self published expert. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There you go! I think Snopes is reasonably reliable for garden variety urban rumors where they're one of the few sources around, but regarding matters of great national importance (however farfetched) and political partisanship they're a little outside of their regular turf. Press covering non-press information sources is a slightly different kind of sourcing. You know, if you searched for "according to Wikipedia" in the meanstream press[%22according+to+wikipedia%22&cf=all you get thousands of hits. That doesn't mean we really ought to cover it all. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, could you please read my postings before replying. I said the Snopes story "can only be established if the Snopes investigation is covered in mainstream media". I did not say it was not covered. Now that you have reliable secondary sources you can put in what those sources say about Snopes investigation. But you cannot directly reference Snopes because its article does not comment on the birther movement, whether or not it is a reliable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Snopes is most definitely a reliable source for debunking conspiracy theories, false emails and urban legends. Why wouldn't they be a reliable source regarding the absurd conspiracy theories that claim President Obama is not eligible to be President? I've seen Wikipedia discussions on whether Snopes should be considered a reliable source, and it's been decided by a pretty large majority that Snopes is a reliable source, especially when dealing with these types of claims. DD2K (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a reliable source, it cannot be used as a source for this article. This article describes the people who challenge Obama's citizenship and their theories as reported in reliable sources. The purpose of the article is not to present arguments pro and con about whether Obama is really a citizen. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In articles about WP:FRINGE theories, we can and should debunk such fringe theories. It's a violation of WP:NPOV not to. For example, our article on Intelligent design (a featured article) make no bones about the fact that Intelligent design is religion, not science and has little-to-no backing within the scientific community. AFAIK, there are few, if any, reliable sources which claim that Obama is anything but a natural born citizen. This article needs to reflect what reliable sources are actually saying about the subject. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not up to us to debunk anything merely report what has been written in reliable sources. I notice that the ID article does not mention Snopes. Nor does it include unpublished research. It is sufficient that the article reports what the state government and the courts have decided as reported in mainstream media. The unfortunate effect of allowing Snopes as a source is that it turns the article into an argument about whether the theories are true. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we simply report the debunking of other reliable sources. It's not our fault if ID or Obama conspiracy theories are a load of BS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

First we already have debunkings from Factcheck and the State of Hawaii, both far more reliable sources than Snopes. Second, placing so trivial a reference in the first paragraph flouts WP:LEDE. Finally, the sources you cite are casual mentions, not "substantial coverage". PhGustaf (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this with some amusement, and now I think I'll just weigh in... I'd leave Snopes out entirely. Although it's arguably reliable enough in theory, there are several stronger sources to stand for the main proposition that the birther theories are bunk, and any more than 1-2 sources to stand for the same thing is overkill. The mere fact that snopes saw the issue as significant enough to report, though reliably sourced, is utterly unremarkable because snopes weighs in on everything and doing so does little to underscore the pervasiveness of the theories. The amusement is because the issue is really not that important. I could live with it either way, but the article looks more professional without snopes. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Indiana litigation

There is a new section that I am removing which is sourced to court documents from Indiana. Please refer to reliable sources and original research. Primary sources should rarely be used in articles and putting in informtion supported entirely by these sources in original research. If the mainstream press does not find something noteworthy then it should not be included in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I quote from the article on Reliable sources, the part on primary sources. "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." If our passage on the Indiana appellate court decision merely says that the case was dismissed; quoting what the court said about "NBC", I do not see where original research comes in. I haven't seen any birther sites claiming that this case was NOT dismissed on the merits, in fact they are all in arms over it and saying that it is bad law (eg [10]. This thing is not a hoax: a) the site that was quoted is the official site of the Indiana court b) it has been commented on by non-blogs, see the Indy Star reference in the article, and see [11] --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that while I was writing this (and checking google), a third editor has edited the text the way I would have done. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you. I struck some stuff that seemed ORish and moved the reference to clarify. PhGustaf (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A second newspaper has commented on Ankeny v Governor of Indiana: [12]--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since that particular source is an opinion piece, WP:RS#Statements of opinion applies. This is probably a better source. Also see this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dual Citizenship

The article states "However, Kenya's constitution prohibits dual citizenship in adulthood. Obama had therefore automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 23, in 1984, by failing to formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.[42]"

I think this is not quite correct. I cannot comment on Kenyan citizenship; but at the time President Obama was born, his father was a British citizen - there was no such thing as Kenyan Citizenship. UK citizenship laws would determine if, according to the UK, President Obama is a British Citizen. If the UK's law determine that President Obama is a British Citizen, then that is unaffected by Kenya's laws.

The relevant UK law is the British Nationality Act 1981 and the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.

There are two classes of citizenship that may be relevant: "British Overseas Citizen" and "British Overseas Territories Citizen". Prior to Kenya's independence, there were two regions of Kenya: the interior was "Kenya Colony", and the coastal strip was "Protectorate of Kenya". It may be that President Obama is either a "British Overseas Citizen" or a "British Overseas Territories Citizen", depending on whereabouts in Kenya his father was from. But as President Obama is unlikely to take advantage of his British Citizenship, it seems irrelevant exactly what category of British Citizenship he is declining to take advantage of.

This has no bearing on his eligibility for the Presidency; the USA does not recognise dual citizenship, so as President Obama is a US citizen, the USA ignores what any other country's laws state about his citizenship.

Tim2718281 (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin...

...has now joined the ranks of the people asking "where's the birth certificate?". Albeit in a way she can say she never did. Might be useful to add into the article, as she's to the Great Unwashed as the Virgin Mary is to Catholics. Although it's HuffPo, it's still a useful source. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but reading the article, and her "clarification" on Facebook, indicates she's not saying anything new, just that (to paraphrase) 'the people have a right to ask'. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

She sounds like another one of the left's favourite guilty pleasures to watch, y'know... Sceptre ^(talk) 17:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think she's (yet?) a notable actor in this subject. We shouldn't include everyone everywhere that weighs in their opinion, and she hasn't yet established herself as a birther "campaigner", oft quoted critic, etc. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is certainly notable, and the comment was said in the context of a potential run for the presidency in 2012, and the fact that she said that the McCain campaign should have done more with the birth certificate is very notable. Her "clairfication" can be added in the same manner that the "clarifications" of Roy Blunt and Dick Shelby have been added. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed she's notable, but is she a notable within the context of birtherism or is she just a famous person who weighed in an opinion ala Chuck Norris [13]? Please note that per WP:BRD, the process is to discuss and see what consensus develops before re-reverting your addition. --guyzero | talk 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please discuss, don't edit war. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

She's more notable than Dick Shelby, Roy Blunt, and Jean Shmidt. They're mentioned. Why is there an edit war to remove her? Victor Victoria (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually Shelby, Schmidt and Blunt are more notable than Sarah Palin. Much less famous, much less popular, but more notable. They are sitting members of Congress, who have completed several terms in Congress. They also have some jurisdiction over this issue: the Congress could theoretically hold hearings and (although this not the Congress's style) take action. All a half-term ex-governor of Alaska can do about this issue is talk about it, and it is unclear why her opinion matters more than that of any other random celebrity.15:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. That speaks specifically to whether or not a topic is notable enough to merit an article about it but, in the absence of gudelines on notability requirements for mention of material in an article, The notability guideline points listed there are probably useful. Coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject (which hits most of those guideline points) is necessare for verifiability. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, no one is denying the assertion that she's notable. She's notable. Could you please address my question above with regards to whether she is notable within the context of birtherism? We don't know yet if her statements are going to make any difference within this subject - or if it is just an opinion given by a notable person that flutters the blogs today and has no real impact on the subject. I'm not sure the Blunt, Shelby, and Shmidt, sections belong either for the same reasons I give above. A difference between them and Palin is that some of them have voted on amendments related to this issue. --guyzero | talk 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question lacks merit. There is no such thing as "birtherism". There are no "card carrying birtherists". The question that needs to be asked is is she a notable enough believer in the conspiracy theory to be included in an article about the conspiracy theory. Given that Palin ran against Obama, for her to say that she believes the conspiracy theory (and then provide a "clarification") is certainly notable and certainly belongs in the article. The fact that she says that the McCain Campaign should have played the birth certificate conspiracy theory increases the urgency of inclusion. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you check the article, you'll see I didn't invent the neologism "birtherism". Anyhow, there certainly are representatives of the birther movement. The question I keep repeating is, "Is Sarah Palin not merely notable but a notable factor of the birther movement?" Is this comment made going to have any impact on the subject beyond the context of her not yet announced 2012 campaign? Is she or her comments important to this subject?? I think we'll need to wait and see if any of that becomes reality. With regards to urgency, there is no deadline. --guyzero | talk 20:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, per WP:BRD, once Boldly made, then Reverted, the next step is Discuss, not restore, as you did. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Your question lacks merit." play nice
• "urgency of inclusion" There is no deadline --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think that saying that a question "lacks merit" is not nice. In fact, I thought it was a polite way to say "the question is completely irrelevant", and that would not have been nice. If anybody was offended, please accept my apologies. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

None taken, thanks. Others answered my question below.. --guyzero | talk 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the Palin story should be included unless it was picked up in mainstream secondary sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Politico.com is a mainstream secondary source. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My issue is not with sources. It is policy - get WP:CONSENSUS, please. - <and possibly with WP:UNDUE:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

I'm uncertain about due weight, which is why I'd like to see others' viewpoints.

• On the one hand, Sarah Palin is quite notable.
• On the other hand, what she said wasn't very relevant IMO to the conspiracy theories (essentially, "Questioning his place of birth is a valid question") as it and her clarification on Facebook (again paraphrasing: "I meant to say its as valid a question as those asked by the left wing when they hounded my lawyer and doctor with questions about whether my last child was really my own, or my daughter's") are to herself. I see this issue being very appropriate for one of her article's (might be there already), but not so for this article. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If Palin has sided with the birthers, I see this as pretty darn relevant to the article. Please don't tell me people are reverting additions simply because they were not discussed ahead of time?!? Friday (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(ecx4)No, sorry for the confusion... this was discussed by three editors (myself included) above prior to the addition. I performed the first revert but I think BRD has been more distracting than helpful in this case, which I regret. --guyzero | talk 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do the initial revert. The other editor did so per WP:BRD (see [14]), which says that additions may be reverted to then be followed by discussion until consensus is formed. I reverted the restoration per WP:BRD ([15]). Not to put too fine point on things, the original editor's restoration without discussion, when the revert was flagged as per WP:BRD in the edit summary ("rv good faith addition of sarah palin per WP:BRD. please see talk"), was not per policy. The initial revert was quite reasonable, given there was already a discussion underway prior to the addition (this thread) in which consensus to date was undecided at best as to whether it was appropriate to add. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that Palin herself is notable, but simply saying that she's got questions about where Obama was born isn't at this point. The theory was raised a long time ago, and Palin is hardly the first, or even early on the list, of proponents. This isn't a list of people that have expressed one or more of these conspiracy theories, it's about those theories. Her statement doesn't add anything new or useful to the article.

Beyond the early proponents of a theory, we should focus on the details of the theory, not the people saying them. Palin's quote should go in the Sarah Palin article, and link to this article. Ravensfire (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Washington Post has now picked the story. It says that, "Palin is among the most high-profile members of the GOP to encourage doubts about the legitimacy of the president on citizenship grounds.", which would make it notable for inclusion in our article. But perhaps, we can wait a day or so to see what other media reports say. Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the sources should be our best guide. To me it's already clear that this is a highly relevant thing to the article, but if a few days time helps make this more clear, that's fine too. Friday (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Palin's remarks are clearly notable to the topic for several patently obvious reasons. Her very high media profile. Her anticipated run for POTUS means that this issue will not go away soon (for the Republicans). Her mainstream position in US politics, evinced by her Veep nomination in 2008. Her remarks show the continued relevance of Birtherism to the very core of mainstream US political discourse. — goethean ॐ 20:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Her remarks show the continued relevance of Birtherism to the very core of mainstream US political discourse". OK, I'm convinced. I do think the discussion is worthwhile (and I'm not declaring WP:CONSENSUS, just my opinion change). Thank you, everyone. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If a leading voice (perhaps the only voice) of one America's major political parties dips her painted toe into the birther waters, the notability is unquestionable, IMO. So saith the Barracuda, so it must be done. Tarc (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be included. Palin legitimizing (or "flirting with") the birther "inquiry" is already being reported as a significant item in media such as the Associated Press[16], Washington Post[17], and Salon.com[18]. And not just by liberals: here's conservative columnist Rod Dreher focusing on the issue.[19]--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this should be included. It has set off a firestorm of news reports and such, so it definitely is notable enough for inclusion on this article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you have to add the fact that Palin was outraged when some on the far left were questioning the birth of her son(Trig) and how absurd and deranged she thought the questions were? It should also be mentioned that the fact that President Obama has produced his birth certificate and all of those 'questions' have been answered beyond all reasonable doubt, just how it can still be a 'fair question'. There are many stories by media outlets and blogs out there right now, and there are sure to be more. Let's not just cite the quote as if it's some reasonable statement. It's absurd. DD2K (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are misinformed. Only the short-form birth certificate has been released. The original form given upon birth has NOT been released. And Sarah Palin's child is irrelevant to this page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh no, you are misinformed. There is no 'short-form' or 'long-form', and there is a reason why this subject is under the conspiracy and fringe tags, because it's absurd and has been proven false. Also, Palin made reference to her child in this discussion. DD2K (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's "short form" and "long form" even if the state does not use those definitions. The "original" has not been released, and that's the argument of birthers. If that is not understood, then you're missing the whole point. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is no 'long-form' or 'short-form', and the original has been verified by dozens and dozens of officials and reliable sources. There is no 'controversy', only a fringe conspiracy. Unless you have some new information from a reliable source, I suggest you read the FAQ and the archives on the consensus of this article. I would suggest that any person that doesn't understand that this is a fringe conspiracy theory and all the evidence and facts prove that President Obama was born in Hawaii should be ineligible for not only any political office, but also not reliable enough to be an editor. DD2K (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The document released by the Obama campaign is the form released upon request for a birth certificate in Hawaii, however in many states this form is considered the "short form," as opposed to the "long form," which shows more detail. It is not the original, it remains unreleased. The original was claimed to have been seen by the Governor, but birthers dispute that it states he was born in Hawaii. To say this viewpoint disqualifies someone from editing wikipedia is a highly intolerant approach. This is not a forum, but I had to show that your assertion was false. Words like "fringe" and "conspiracy theory" can be thrown around, but I think you are not grasping the complexity of the issue, and that it actually does have a basis. I am not proposing anything new, the last time I read this article all of the above information was included here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Words like 'fringe' and 'conspiracy theory' are not 'thrown around', they are the descriptors of this article and the people who believe in this fringe conspiracy theory. That's not just me stating that fact, it's the consensus. Not only on Wikipedia, but the real world too. And yes, if you are a 'birther' and believe in that fringe conspiracy theory, I think it should disqualify you from being a wiki editor in many subject areas. At the very least, it should disqualify a person from being on staff or editing any articles pertaining to that fringe group. I would say the same about anyone who believed that George Bush directed, or allowed, the planes to fly into the Twin Towers on 9-11. Both groups of people are unstable and unhinged. DD2K (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it is a conspiracy theory per the sources. It is fringe per the Wikipedia standard and some of the sources, although it is widely subscribed to. Is something that 10 or 20% of the population believes truly "fringe"? Much of the population believes in astrology, ghosts, shaking Polaroid pictures, and other things that are not terribly well supported by evidence. I disagree that holding such a belief disqualifies one from editing an article about it. We are all supposed to check our biases at the door, however mainstream or minority. That's how we get good articles, through an exchange and debate of differing proposals, not by enforcing a single view and disqualifying everyone else from contributing. Rhetorically, I like black licorice, a candy that I acknowledge 90% of the population detests. Does that mean I should not edit an article on licorice? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points, but I think the conspiracy theory of the 'birthers' lays more in the comparison with those of the 'truthers' than with ghosts or astrology. Given the fact that it's not a harmless belief but one that targets a victim(Bush/Obama). When all evidence to the contrary fails to persuade you to a known fact, it's not only a question of judgement but of ones ability to reason in a intelligent manner. In other words, it's more of a derangement than a superstition. In any case, you are more than likely right as far as an official policy(about editing), but I have my doubts personally. Which doesn't mean much. DD2K (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The only common denominator between the two issues is the "birth". In my opinion, unless you can show secondary references linking the two issues would be original research. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)::Palin herself makes the connection in this interview. [20] [21] --guyzero | talk 21:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And here. [22] --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Now it's included. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The story has now gone mainstream, Palin is featured on "Psycho Talk", so it is valid to add it. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Online polls are not opinion surveys

Online polls can be gamed(or 'Freeped) and they are not opinion surveys. As for the question put firth by 4wajzkd02, WND can be a source of information if they have actual reliable information. So far, especially in the case of the Birther conspiracy, they are not a reliable source. DD2K (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the edit-conflict addition of the new section, below. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, 4wajzkd02. It seems we reverted the edit on the main page at almost the same time too. I didn't even get an 'Edit Conflict' warning. heh-heh DD2K (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

AOL Poll addition to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Opinion surveys

Pardon me, it is my understanding that WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source. Consequently, per WP:BRD, I reverted this addition ([23]) to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Opinion surveys. In addition to the issue of WP:RS, I do question the validity of an online poll, which are in general easy to stack (some allow multiple votes, or at most just change your IP address to vote again, etc.) versus the validity of more rigorous methods employed in other polls. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See discussion above --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Not only are online polls meaningless, but WND is never considered a reliable source for anything other than their own opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

The current edit war seems to be getting into the use of blogs as sources. I've seen edit summaries about partisan sources, blogs, or - but not much on this page. This article has a pretty large list of references, and quite a few of them are from blogs. From the summaries, I guess we should just yank all blog references and the information from they article they support. And, of course, don't discuss it. Ravensfire (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I try not to pay attention to edit wars, much less participate. You're referring to this?[24] I think it has bigger issues than coming from blogs. Why are we talking about bloggers scoring rhetorical jabs on Sarah Palin in an article about Barack Obama? But that's a different story. My opinion is that if you're going to say that "several blogs say X" then you need a neutral third party reliable source to verify that this is indeed what the blogs say, and show appropriate WP:WEIGHT that it's worth covering. For example, if the New York Times says that "several influential bloggers opined that X", and contains enough context that it seems relevant and noteworthy for the article, then subject to consensus we could repeat what the New York Times said, being careful only to mention those blogs that the Times mentioned. If we get this information because we as editors read the blogs, we find that useful, and we summarize the content of the blog, we're really doing our own analysis (a form of WP:OR) on primary sources. So yes, that becomes a BLP problem. As a final note, some reliable sources like newspapers and magazines hire professional writers to write blogs. Often those are the same people who write the articles. They're more like columns than conventional blogs. Those are explicitly discussed in the policy, and allowed to the extent they're reliable... but not where they get into the realm of speculation, opinion, or advocacy. Every citation is potentially unique, and reliability isn't an on/off switch for an entire publication. It depends who is writing it, on what subject, how they write it, what it's being used to say, and some other things. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

When you write "My opinion is that if you're going to say that "several blogs say X" then you need a neutral third party reliable source to verify that this is indeed what the blogs say, and show appropriate WP:WEIGHT that it's worth covering". That's what I did. I cited The Week with that exact heading. The Week is not some Zine, as described in the Wikipedia article which says that it's short for 'fanzine' and has a circulation of 5,000 or less. [[The Week] is one of the fastest growing magazines and has a circulation of over 516,000 subscribers. I think the revert was without explanation and the editor left no room for debate with his demands. Which is not the way Wikipedia works. Or should work. DD2K (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the use of blogs per se, I'm just perplexed as to why Andrew Sullivan's conspiracy theories about Sarah Palin not being the mother of Trig belong on a page about conspiracy theories regarding Obama's citizenship. Even if we assume she belongs under the heading of "Campaigners and Proponents," I'm not sure why there needs to be a colloquy about what other people think about her original statement. The article doesn't spend time talking about the criticism heaped on the other three individuals listed under this section, so I'm not sure why it's relevant for her.Leuchars (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't add the Andrew Sullivan portion, but he is not promoting that stupid Palin-Trig conspiracy theory. He was making an ironic point and an observation. Meaning that Palin was very, and rightly, offended when there were rumors on the internet about her really being Trig's grandmother, but yet now believes that it's a 'fair question' about Obama's birth place. Sullivan's call for her to produce Trig's birth certificate was a double point. One, she's never produced the document(Trig's BC) and yet President Obama has went above and beyond proving he was born in Hawaii. Neither are 'fair questions', yet Obama has answered his critics beyond all reasonable doubt. DD2K (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I would argue that he is absolutely promoting the Palin-Trig conspiracy theory - he's one of its most noted proponents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan#Palin_pregnancy_rumor. Moreover, regardless of what his purpose was or what Palin has failed to produce, I still don't see how that has anything to do with the conspiracy theory about Obama's citizenship. I just don't understand what it adds. We already know that what Palin said was dumb - that's why she's listed on this conspiracy theory page. Leuchars (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Palin herself mentioned Trig comparatively to this situation during the radio interview where she announced her birtherhood. It adds further context to her comment. --guyzero | talk 09:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I consider myself pretty much well-informed about politics, but had no idea that Sullivan was promoting that conspiracy theory. Most likely because I tune out all that crazy crap. My apologies, I thought he was making fun of the issue as pertaining to the stupid 'Birther' craziness. My point of adding the other links to is show just how absurd most people think the fringe 'Birther' conspiracy is. We can't have just a statement from Palin without the reaction. I'll withdraw for a bit and let others decide on how best to accomplish that. I will add that I never wanted to tag that theory to Palin and think it's absurd. It's no better to allow that kind of conspiracy to Palin than it is to allow any credibility to the 'Birthers' for Obama or the 'Truthers' for GWBush. Thanks for the information. DD2K (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it does matter whose blog it is. Sullivan is a well-known journalist. If he said these things in print or on TV, they would undoubtedly be notable enough to be wikipedia-worthy. Even though a blog is an informal medium, his opinion (as expressed in the blog) still carries more weight than that of ordinary bloggers. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Palin's comparison of Trig's maternity with Obama's citizenship

These two sentences keep getting deleted for various reasons.

“ The linking between the question whether Trig is her son to Barack Obama's birth certificate issues has been heavily criticized.["Sarah Palin revives 'stupid conspiracy' of Obama's birth certificate". Los Angeles Times. December 4, 2009.] Andrew Sullivan, in specific, wrote "Palin has never produced Trig's birth certificate or a single piece of objective medical evidence that proves he is indeed her biological son".["Palin Puts The Trig Question Back On The Table". December 4, 2009.] ”

The latest reason: weight. I contend that the first sentence saying that her comments were criticized is not undue weight, and a single followup sentence with an example of the criticism is also not undue weight. Anybody care to argue otherwise? Victor Victoria (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I will agree that there definitely needs to be something there that cites the criticisms that Palin received because of her 'Birther' statement. You can't leave out the reactions to politicians that make absurd claims. On the other hand, I don't believe Andrew Sullivan should be cited in any passages that involve Sarah Palin. He has promoted the crazy Palin-Trig-Paternity conspiracy. I don't think anyone would believe WND or that Farah guy should be quoted in anything that had anything to do with President Obama. Personally, I thought the portion that was there before ChrisO reverted it was better. Sans the Sullivan quote. DD2K (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the 'birthers' would complain even more if 'all newborn infants theoretically qualified to become American President' (ie allowing for dual nationality and all other issues raised) are chipped (as with pets), to be renewed every few years (so that there is no alignment to other countries through long residence), which would be the only logical solution and allowing for all the possibilities - eg children of American citizens born abroad and, for example Leslie Lynch King, Jr.. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)