Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Another image

Here's another image for this article. It's discussed in this newspaper article about President Obama. Cheers.96.32.11.201 (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is personal information posted here? Does Wikipedia have permission from this person to post their private information? If permission was granted and on file, I still go back to my original question, why is personal information posted here? At the very least, the private information should be redacted. Is this image in violation of any Wikipedia policy? JackOL31 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would presume that Eleanor Nordyke gave permission to the Honolulu Advertiser to use her daughter's birth certificate in their article, linked above. While I'm uncertain if there's a need to display it in this article, there shouldn't be a concern for privacy, given the self-release here. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but WP has some pretty extensive policy statements regarding biographies of living persons, use of public records, and privacy concerns, especially regarding people who are not themselves notable. A distinction is also made between information published in scholarly (presumably long-lasting) tomes and "brief" appearances in news media. The names, addresses and other personal information displayed in the image add no value to the discussion beyond what could be obtained from a fully redacted (and renamed) version. Should go. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Name and birth date redacted, though they are publicly available from the source newspaper article. Also redacting names of parents. Refresh your browsers if you do not see redactions. Relevance is indicated by the the newspaper article mentioned above; this is the type of birth certificate that the "birthers" are seeking. Please note that nothing is redacted in the image at the top of this article.96.32.11.201 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The referenced article is an external site, not relevant to this discussion. In order to retain this image, I would say the signatures and the certificate numbers should be redacted, too. Otherwise, I believe it should go. JackOL31 (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Refresh your browsers again.96.32.11.201 (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, better. However, I can still see the signatures, especially of the mother. The three signatures need to be redacted. JackOL31 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict] If you refresh again, you'll see that the Mom's signature is redacted. Redaction of the other signatures is not possibly necessary, involves no privacy infringement, and detracts from the value of the image ("birthers" complain that they want to see a doctor's signature). Please note that we would be fully entitled to put the doctor's name in the caption, because it's printed in the newspaper.96.32.11.201 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, except the home address of the mother needs to be redacted. After that, I have no further objections. JackOL31 (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Refresh again.96.32.11.201 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as positioning the image is concerned, there are two main choices. First, we could put it adjacent to the image at the top of the article (either side-by-side or below), for ease of comparison. Alternatively, we could put it at the top of the section titled "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii." Any thoughts?96.32.11.201 (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not for including this image of a Certificate of Live Birth in the article. I think you should get consensus from the long time IPs for this article. I'm just a johnny-come-lately. I believe it will not enhance the article since one valid birth certificate is as good as another, but again that is my opinion - others may see it differently. JackOL31 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, anyone is invited to comment. But tell me this: do you think the Honolulu Advertiser was wrong to include such an image? It seems to me that they did so because it's what this controversy is all about. "Birthers" want to see one of these for Obama, and they're not the same as what Obama has released. Showing that seems like an elementary thing for this article to do, in order to comply with NPOV and stuff like that.96.32.11.201 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the altered image should be included anywhere in the article. It does not have anything to do with Obama, no reliable sources claim it has anything to do with Obama, and the image is altered(not referring to the redacted portions) from the original file. DD2K (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I'm sorry. I forgot that this is a POV article, rather than an NPOV article. The Honolulu Advertiser made a bad editorial decision to include this image in their Obama article, and since we're a reliable source and they're not, our good editorial decision trumps their bad editorial decision. My apologies. Carry on.96.32.11.201 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

After glancing at the 9/11 conspiracy theories article for guidance (e.g. do we provide proponents of fringe theories a platform for content that could "support" the theory), I think a redacted, properly named version of the original (negative) image published in the Honolulu Advertiser, in an article on the conspiracy theory, has some probative value as an example of the type of form, and information, the "birthers" are demanding to see. It would be better if we could clarify, in accompanying text, the source of the image (Hawaii DOH? The mother's copy, saved since 1961? An older form issued by the state in, say, 1975? A purloined copy, like the Pentagon Papers?), and include any relevant statements about current policy and availability on such copies. But it does have bearing on the topic. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If I take a negative, and press a button to make it a more readable positive, that seems okay, no? It's not like I'm drawing a mustache on someone. Cropping is no different, IMO. Do you know of a policy on this? And if people want details about provenance, wouldn't it be best to have those at the image page?96.32.11.201 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems like the pertinent policy.96.32.11.201 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The positive image is easier to read, but the negative, as in the newspaper article, conveys an impression of the type and source of the "form" shown, just as the security paper and computer printing on the current WP image does. The provenance of the image isn't what I'm curious about; it's a question of the age and source of the document which was used to produce the image. If it was mailed by DOH in response to a request for birth certificate in 2009, that says something. Same with the 1975 example. If it was issued to the parents in 1961, all it says is "this is what we did 50 year ago", and has less bearing on the current discussion. And the Pentagon Papers example, while a joke, would tend to discount it as a document generally available to the public. If no information is available, we need to assume at least 2nd worst, if not worst, case – that the form was used 50 years ago, was saved by careful people, but is no longer available. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the newspaper article says that the form for Obama (just like the one for Nordyke) still exists, but it's unclear whether Obama has a copy, and also unclear whether the State would even give it to him if he asked. But the State does have it. Certainly, we could quote the newspaper article on this point.96.32.11.201 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the caption accordingly.96.32.11.201 (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Which POV do you think including/not including this image promotes?

Looks to me like that including this image would demonstrate that there's nothing of relevance here that the birth certification that Hawaii issues today doesn't already include -- unless there's some smoking gun to be found in the name of the hospital or physician.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article presently says: "Robert Gibbs replied, 'It's on the Internet', to which Kinsolving responded 'No, no, no – the long form listing his hospital and physician.'" Those who wish to denigrate people like Kinsolving deny that such a thing exists, or deny that it's a meaningful distinction. So, by omitting the image in question, Wikipedia would be taking the side of Gibbs against the side of Kinsolving. We'd also be overriding the editorial choice of a reliable source (the Honolulu Advertiser).

I hasten to add (as I've said in other venues) that I think the birthers are stark raving mad, and I am 99.99% sure Obama was born in the USA. At the same time, we need to maintain NPOV. That doesn't mean giving equal weight to nutty claims, but it does mean covering the claims even-handedly so that the facts will speak for themselves.96.32.11.201 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think one point here is that WP does indeed have a different editorial policy than the Advertiser, for very practical reasons: the Advertiser has more resources to defend against defamation/privacy suits than WP does, and the Advertiser also had explicit permission from Nordyke to publish this image in the context of one article, while WP does not.

I agree with you that a representation of what a 1961 Honolulu birth certificate would look like would be a worthwhile addition to the article, since there's all manner of nonsense out there as to what such a certificate might have that the record Hawaii has been issuing for the last several years does not.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, it's a microfiche copy and could not be used to establish any legal determination. Not to mention the fact that the image is altered purposely to make it seem as if it is not a copy on paper of a microfiche. Add to that the fact that there is no reliable source that I've seen that discusses the document in relation to Obama's birth certificate, or where it was even received from. So again, I say it's a no go. At least until all of those points are addressed. DD2K (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia instructs us to alter images to make them look better. And if you haven't seen a reliable source, then you haven't looked at this.96.32.11.201 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see purpose the image's inclusion in the article would serve. What point is it making? Tarc (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not making any point, other than describing the most detailed reliable news report on this issue, which reports that a form like this still exists for President Obama.96.32.11.201 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it still exists or not. What the department gives out when a birth certificate is what we already see in the article now. It is a complete birther myth that there is a 2nd document that shows anything substantially different than what we have now. That's been the whole point here all along. This is what I meant by the "for all intents and purposes" in the earlier section. The old "distinction without a difference" saying has an apprpriate ring to it for this case, too. Tarc (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is with the Honolulu Advertiser and Wikipedia policies, not with me. What the birthers want to see is a form like this for Obama. Illustrate this is all I'm saying.96.32.11.201 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are attempting to use it to illustrate a difference that really does not exist. Tarc (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the image at the top of the article right now has a doctor's signature, and names a hospital? If not, then it is different from the image being discussed here.96.32.11.201 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It shows the birther claim that there is a difference between the "original" birth certificate and a certification of live birth.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It not only shows that there is a difference, it shows that the difference is pointless. Which I think is worth illustrating, since the birthers claim is that there is some kind of information on the proverbial long form that Obama the Hawaiians and, I don't know, the Greys, are trying to hide. Illustrating what the original birth certificate would actually look like helps to establish that this is not the case.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've inverted the image, as requested. Any objections now? The image page has details about when this was copied from paper onto film.96.32.11.201 (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Again, you are attempting to use it to illustrate a difference that really does not exist." I honestly don't see it that way. It illustrates a difference which is not meaningful, but the difference exists nonetheless. I don't really understand the mindset of a birther, but there seems to be some theory that the absence of a doctor's signature and specific hospital listed brings the validity of the birth certificate into question. The image, and the news article from which it came, support the contention that such a document should or could have existed in August 1961. Whether it's relevant to anything in the real world doesn't matter; it's relevant to the conspiracy theory, and that's what the article is about. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's better, but still what's the point? It's a microfiche copy that is not valid for any legal means. Also, eluding that Obama has a copy like this is absurd, not to mention the fact that the State of Hawaii has not stated that a microfiche copy like this one is available for Obama, only that his vital records are on file and have been verified. Still, it's better than before. DD2K (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we know one way or the other what legal validity a microfiche copy might have. It probably depends upon what certification accompanies it. There's really no need to speculate about that. If people read this article, see the image, and assume (like you) that it has no legal validity, then that will help them understand how completely insane the birthers are. And you want that, right? My point of view on this is the same as fatso's.

Incidentally, I don't think the newspaper is off-base to speculate that Obama might have a copy of the signed document. He wrote about this subject in "Dreams of My Father."[1]96.32.11.201 (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As noted on FactCheck.org, "...The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate." So we know that they have the "full" birth certificate. However, showing the format of the full birth certificate will prove nothing. Birthers don't believe there is special information contained in the full version. They believe it doesn't exist, otherwise they could obtain all the information they need from the "less filling" version. This image will add nothing, birthers only want to see whether Pres. Obama's full birth certificate exists or not.

Along those lines, whether Pres. Obama has a copy of the full birth certificate is irrelevant. If he has one, he has no need to show it. Indeed, as this article points out, it would be to his detriment to show it now.

BTW, in Dreams from My Father the line reads, I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. He graduated from HS in 1979, so it would have been a photocopy of the full version. Whether he still has it or not, who knows? JackOL31 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, whether birthers want to see the signed certificate, or instead want to prove that he doesn't have one, still the point is that what they're asking the President to produce is a certificate like the one shown here in this comment thread. And that makes this image very well worth showing in this article. It's what they're asking for.

As to whether birthers hope Obama cannot produce one of these things, I think you're wrong about that. My understanding is that most birthers think that the state did issue one of these signed forms in 1961 for Obama, which would account for the state's automatic placement of notices in local newspapers. But, the birthers suspect that the certificate may have been obtained by making a sworn statement to the Hawaii Department of Health, rather than by a hospital birth as Obama has claimed. But that's all beside the point. The main thing is that this article should make clear what document this whole fuss is about, just as the Honolulu Advertiser has done, and for the exact same reason.96.32.11.201 (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You said, "showing the format of the full birth certificate will prove nothing." Images at Wikipedia don't have to prove anything. Usually, they just illustrate an article. Of course, if you want an article to hide and minimize the existence of something, then it might make good sense to exclude an image of it; but, I'm not sure what WP policy encourages that sort of thing.96.32.11.201 (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Dude, are you kidding with that? Who is to say that the document he is referring to was not very similar to the one presented at the top of this article? I swear that birthers and those who sympathize with them must have never lost or damaged their birth certificates, drivers licenses or social security cards and had to get new ones in their lives.

As for the newspaper speculating that Obama has some kind of copy, they did not. It was an obvious typo that WND and Freepers are latching onto. The quote is:

"Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations," Okubo said. "With that form, you can get your passport or your soccer registration or your driver's license."One thing that remains unclear is whether Obama has a copy of the original 1961 Certificate of Live Birth, or if he would even be allowed to see it if he asked.Hawai'i's disclosure law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes 338-18) states that "it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part on any such record .

It's obvious that the bolded Obama should read the State or Okubo. It should read-"One thing that remains unclear is whether there is a copy of Obama's original 1961 Certificate of Live Birth, or if he would even be allowed to see it if he asked." So, that's just one more thing wrong with this image and the caption. Besides the points I already pointed out. DD2K (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Again, I forgot that we're entitled to edit reliable sources to say what we want them to say, and that neutral information that is not favorable to the President of the United States must be removed from this Wikipedia article. Have a swell life DD2K. I have nothing further to say to you. Cheers.96.32.11.201 (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And sooner or later, the proponents always devolve into "OMG CENSORSHIP!" I'd say it's fair to wrap this up now, as there is no agreement to include this image into the article. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, please hurry up and archive this before any neutral editors arrive. Thanks.96.32.11.201 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you believe that--> "One thing that remains unclear is whether Obama has a copy of the original 1961 Certificate of Live Birth, or if he would even be allowed to see it if he asked." makes sense and isn't a mistake, we are done. It's obvious the writer was not surmising whether Obama had a copy or not, why would Obama refuse to let Obama see his own papers? Silly. DD2K (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus appears to favor inclusion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I count 43% for exclusion, 57% for inclusion.96.32.11.201 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not for including the image, perhaps we should have a section that deals with the differences between the two. Below are the two formats as best as I could make out. I put brackets around the common items.

CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH (2001 and prior)
{FILE NUMBER}
{1a.} Child's First Name
{1a.} Middle Name
{1a.} Last Name
{2.} Sex
3. This Birth [ ] Single [ ] Twins [ ] Triplets
4. If Twin or Triplet, no. Child Born [ ] 1st [ ] 2nd [ ] 3rd
{5a.} Birth Date Month Day Year
{5b.} Hour xx:xx A.M./P.M.
{6a.} Place of Birth (City, Town or Rural Location)
{6b.} Island
6c. Name of Hospital or Institution
6d. Is Place of Birth Inside City or Town ????????
7a. Usual Residence of Mother's City, Town or Rural Location
7b. Island
{7c.} County and State or Foreign Country
7d. Street Address
7e. Is Residence Inside City or Town Location
7f. Mother's mailing Address
7g. Is Residence ?? a Farm or Plantation?
{8.} Full Name of Father
{9.} Race of Father
10. Age of Father
11. Birthplace (??????, ???? or Foreign Country)
12a. Usual Occupation
12b. ????? of Business or Industry
{13.} Full Maiden Name of Mother
{14.} Race of Mother
15. Age of Mother
16. Birthplace (??????, ???? or Foreign Country)
17a. Type of Type of Occupation Outside Home During Pregnancy
17b. Date Last Worked
18a. Signature of Parent or Other Informant
18b. Date of Signature
19a. Signature of Attendant
19b. Date of Signature
20. Date Accepted by Local Reg.
21. Signature of Local Registrar
{22.} Date Accepted by Reg. General

CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH (2001 and after)
Certificate No.
CHILD'S NAME
DATE OF BIRTH
HOUR OF BIRTH
SEX
CITY, TOWN OR LOCATION OF BIRTH
ISLAND OF BIRTH
COUNTY OF BIRTH
MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME
MOTHER'S RACE
FATHER'S NAME
FATHER'S RACE
DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR

Well? JackOL31 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The main difference cited by the "birthers" or "conspiracy theorists" is that the original 1961 document lists a hospital and physician. That's mentioned in the proposed caption. It's also already mentioned in this Wikipedia article (e.g. see the colloquy between Kinsolving and Gibbs). So, I don't think we really need to get into a lot of detail about the other differences (those differences would be visible by merely comparing the two images).96.32.11.201 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your caption is wrong. Hawai'i does have it on file and they have said everything is in order. They have not destroyed the old documents. Please see my post prior to this section. Hawai'i's rules do not allow them to release the personal information. Please do not update with that caption. JackOL31 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the thought, let's see what others think. BTW - I don't think a nearly 50-50 split is consensus. JackOL31 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, please read the caption above carefully. It does not say that Hawaii does not have it on file. It also does not say that it's unclear whether it's on file. It merely says that it's unclear that they would allow Obama to see it.

Additionally, please note that this Wikpedia article already says that CNN has reported Hawaii does NOT have it on file anymore, but the Hawaii Advertiser says differently. The caption above does not take sides about that.96.32.11.201 (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

From FactCheck.org (updated Nov 1, 2008): "The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino (Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health) as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate."

"Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Speculation regarding whether Pres. Obama has a copy of the 1961 version does not belong in the caption. Speculation regarding whether he would be allowed by the state to see it does not belong in the caption. The only thing the caption can specify is that it is a COLB from the same timeframe and from the same hospital. You can glean some facts here if you step around WND's bs and innuendo.

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347

BTW - as I stated earlier, he at least had a copy of an older format, as noted in the book Dreams from My Father. JackOL31 (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Hawaii Advertiser has reported that it is unable to find out whether Pres. Obama has a copy of the 1961 version, and is also unable to find out whether he would be allowed by the state to see it. This seems notable to me, and certainly was notable to the Hawaii Advertiser. No other reliable source contradicts what the Hawaii Advertiser said. Fat&Happy said above that we should "include any relevant statements about current policy and availability on such copies." That's all I'm trying to do here. Neither this image nor the proposed caption in any way contradict any statement by Chiyome Fukino.96.32.11.201 (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not my point. Whether or not Obama has a copy of the old format is irrelevant to the caption. My comment regarding him having an old copy is just a btw - I'm not suggesting anything. Again, the caption should read what the image is, no speculative comments about something else.

As the HonoluluAdviser notes:

Hawai'i's disclosure law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes 338-18) states that "it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part on any such record ... "

The law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."

Pres. Obama has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The last speculative phrase in the caption is clearly incorrect. In the caption, "female's" should read "Hawaiian" and "naming Hawaii" should read "includes the" (or some other improvement). When revised and ready, I'd still like to check consensus.

If you find the other speculation relevant, create content for the article and post for review, comment and consensus. JackOL31 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
JackOL31 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the word "female" should stay in the caption, because it makes extremely clear that we're showing the certificate of someone else other than the President. So, the caption looks okay to me.

I would be more than happy to modify the caption to say that President Obama can get access to the signed certificate from the State of Hawaii, but I'm not sure that's correct. If you can find a reliable source that says so, then we can change the caption. However, we cannot just assume that we can interpret the statute better than the Hawaii Advertiser interprets the statute. I have no personal preference about it, and would be glad to change the caption if you provide a reliable source. Hawaii law says: "A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record." If Hawaii considers the short form to be a certified copy of the vital record, then it may be under no obligation to provide further documentation even to a person with a tangible interest.96.32.11.201 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've found a reliable source, and modified the caption accordingly.96.32.11.201 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you are intentionally misrepresenting a source to further your own agenda. "A Hawaii spokesperson has said: "we could release the vital record" is simply acknowledging the fact that if Obama or a designee granted permission, then the Dep't of Health could have released a copy to Andy Martin. It does not mean, as your caption indicates that they could somehow magically reproduce the original 1961 as-is certificate, if granted permission. This entire topic of yours is predicated on nothing but a bad synthesis of original research. Tarc (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That is an absurd accusation. I found a source that supports the position that JackOL31 was taking. Does he have an agenda?

From the linked article, it appears that Martin was seeking "a copy of Obama's birth certificate, and related files and records." The title of the article says: "Foe of presidential candidate wants birth certificate, related files." Are you saying that the signed certificate is not a related file? Are you saying that the State would provide a copy to Martin but not to Obama himself?96.32.11.201 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's bullshit and you know it. You cannot obtain documents like that anymore. Period. And that has been stated over and over and is known. By the way, Do any of these topics fall onto any of the areas where you are not supposed to be editing? This sure seems like a Hell of a lot to go through just so you can make it seem like Obama has some hidden birth certificate that he won't release. This is just getting ridiculous. You don't even care that much about the image, you just want to make a point that isn't even reality. DD2K (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, we can put that source in too, and I've just done so.96.32.11.201 (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If the caption says more that this, "Copy of a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth issued in 1961 which provides for additional detail including hospital and physician information", I will have serious issues with it. Any other content should be in the article AND NOT in the caption. Sorry for the bolding, but when I think I'm clear I find out I didn't get my message across.

Next, "It is disputed "whether Obama has a copy of the original 1961 Certificate of Live Birth...", is INCORRECT. It is unknown, not disputed and it's a big who cares. Again, not caption material.

Then, "or if he would even be allowed [by the State] to see it if he asked", is INCORRECT per my previous post, if we are to believe Hawaiian statutes, St. 338-18. Not sure why you ignored what I had said.

Lastly, "A Hawaii official has said, "we could release the vital record,"[2] but will no longer issue copies of paper certificates", is poorly written and not germane. Again, it doesn't belong in the caption and it is more clearly stated that someone who is primarily concerned with the birth record (or a court order) could authorize it's release. What your saying is true for anyone, they could authorize the release of their bc, and Hawaii would print off the current form. (I would bet they could issue a copy of the 1961 record if the party requesting it really needed it. That's not to say they necessarily will.) That's a general statement and not Obama specific. Again, not caption material. JackOL31 (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I did NOT ignore what you said about the statute. I wrote above: "Hawaii law says: 'A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record.' If Hawaii considers the short form to be a certified copy of the vital record, then it may be under no obligation to provide further documentation even to a person with a tangible interest." Why do you think I ignored you?

Fat&Happy said above that we should "include any relevant statements about current policy and availability on such copies." Maybe the caption is not the best place to do that, although I think it would help the reader to have that material in the caption (including all three footnotes). Anyway, if we get rid of everything in the caption after the first period, would you support inclusion? Incidentally, you make a good point about the word "disputed" and so I've fixed it to track the cited source.96.32.11.201 (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that the sentence from which you excerpted the above quote began "It would be better if we could clarify, in accompanying text, ...", drawing a distinction between article text and image caption, which should be limited to an identification of what the image is of. Without going back to parse every clause, I pretty much agree with most of what JackOL31 has written; I would probably not object to adding a brief phrase to the caption such as "containing hospital name and attending physician's signature", as long as it doesn't make the total caption too long. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've truncated the caption. That means that we'll probably have to put it next to the paragraph that begins: "The director of Hawaii's Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino...."96.32.11.201 (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The caption now says verbatim what Jack requested.[2]96.32.11.201 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Because only half as many editors have indicated any serious problem with including this image, compared to the number that support inclusion, I'll go ahead and include it at the location indicated.96.32.11.201 (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In truth, most editors had serious problems with the image, as you first presented it. I won't contest the addition anymore, and think it looks fine where it is with the present caption. DD2K (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll move it to the top of the article later, when you're on vacation. Just kidding!96.32.11.201 (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Document titles

Read the titles of the below documents

Can anyone see the difference?

For those who notice the difference. The reason is explained here --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignorance is rampant on this discussion page, isn't it? Eegorr (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of fun. One is a newly created graphic, the other looks like a scan of an old microfiche, redacted with a computer brush tool? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

They are both birth certificates. The content of that Wikipedia article is incorrect. See a previous post of mine for more explanantion. If one believes for Hawai'i there is a short form and long form, they are sadly mistaken. Since 2001, all information is collected electronically and stored in a computer file and only the CERTIFICATIONs are issued. Prior to 2001, they obtained the information from the old CERTIFICATES to populate the computer file and upon completion, the only use the computer files and print only the CERTIFICATIONS. They haven't issued a CERTIFICATE in almost a decade. There is NO long form for anyone born in 2001 (or about) and after, nor will there ever be. There is ignorance on this talk page, but it's not where you think. JackOL31 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a birth certificate the name given to the orginal record, which is filed with the state? Both of the above documents are copies of the original, with one being a photocopy. To be conclusive evidence these copies must be certified. So they are then certified copies of certificates. TFD (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The info stored by Hawai'i (and most likely others) is all electronic. They then print out a document which gets certified. JackOL31 (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A "Certification of Live Birth" is different from a "Certificate of Live Birth," to argue otherwise is wrong. This article needs to represent the arguments put forth by birthers. They do not question the validity of the certificate on the left because they are ignorant of Hawaii's laws, Hawaii's laws have no sway to them. It is a misrepresentation to say there is no difference. The document on the left was not handed to Obama's parents upon his birth, the document on the right was handed to that individual's parents.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have read the earlier posts here discussing the issue before making the same arguments over and over and over and over. Particularly this portion---

When one goes to get your birth certificate, that is what they give you. It's regarded as your original birth certificate(with the raised seal), and that is what is recognized by every official outlet.As described by Hawaiian law:
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.(b) 'Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original...

And since all certified(raised seals) copies are to be considered the original birth certificates, with the Statenever issuing the old versions The document released is Obama's birth certificate.

Those that have studied the document all have it listed as Obama's birth certificate. Factcheck.org --

FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.

Obama campaign'sFightTheSmears.com website---

Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate

One would think that experienced editors would be able to see the above fact, listed numerous times on this very talk page, and stop insisting on something that is not true, instead of claiming other editors have a"pro-Obama bias". One doesn't have to be "pro-Obama" to see the facts and realize the fringe conspiracy theorists that insists on ignoring all facts and making erroneous claims that have been disproved too many times to count, one just has to not have such a strong bias against Obama that it clouds their ability to reason. There are a number of editors here that, no matter how many times the facts are put before them, ignore the facts and insist on making false claims over and over. These editors should, if this continues, have a topic ban placed on them. This is not a forum and the facts are there. Dave Dial (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WSS - They are both birth certificates, to argue otherwise is wrong. I hope you will finally realize your error. I agree that birthers want to see a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH (only possible for someone born prior to 2001). I've never asserted there was no difference. I merely asserted, quite correctly, that they are both birth certificates. It would be a misrepresentation to suggest one is less of a birth certificate than the other. You CANNOT say one is a "birth certificate" and the other is a "CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH". They are both birth certificates (gosh, I'm tired of saying that) -or- one is a CERTIFICATE (old style) and the other is a CERTIFICATION (new style). To allude otherwise would be incorrect and mislead the readers. JackOL31 (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

DD2K, was the document on the left given to Obama's parents upon birth? I'm not arguing about the legality of it, I'm arguing that the birthers question the "legitimacy" of it. There is a major difference between legality and legitimacy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You were also arguing one was a birth certificate, the other was something different.

It shows the birther claim that there is a difference between the "original" birth certificate and a certification of live birth.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make a distinction, you must refer to the titles. Not infer one is a b/c, the other is not. Also, I would strongly suggest consensus before change due to the nature of this article. JackOL31 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the titles should be used. That's why I pointed out the distinction. Maybe they are not legally different, but there is the legitimacy issue stemming from the difference in title, which I pointed out in the previous post. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mesh with my previous post. I'm not going to argue with you, I am aware of what you were trying to say. What needs to change? The images and titles speak for themselves. JackOL31 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The captions need to reflect the image titles so the readers can better understand the issue. As it is presently presented it gives the impression that birthers are ignorant of Hawaii's laws, which is actually irrelevant to their arguments. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. JackOL31 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

William, no, the document on the left was not the document given to Obama's parents. One like it may have been given, but not that particular document. In any case, it does not matter, because the document displayed on the right is not a legal document and one could not give that as proof of birth, while the birth certificate on the left is Barack Obama's legal birth certificate. I don't understand why we are playing these convoluted birther games over and over. The facts are the facts, and why anyone would want to label the legal birth certificate as something other than what it is on a encyclopedia, I don't know. The birther argument is in the body of this article, and they have more than one. They have been proven incorrect by every judicial, government, media and independent forum, and have been given way too much space here with their own article. I don't know if there is an article for people who believe the moon is made from cheese or not, but if there were, would you insist on labeling picture of the moon in different manners, and then support having equal space for pictures that were drawn by someone who claimed the moon was cheese and insist on the captions of those pictures describing it a "cheese moon"? After all, how do we know the moon is not made of cheese? Dave Dial (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"instead of claiming other editors have a"pro-Obama bias""-Jack
It's ironic that nobody here has called you biased towards Obama(largely because your actions, while misleading appear unintentional and don't actually support Obama's case), yet you claim that we have called you biased. What do you think that means?

"If one believes for Hawai'i there is a short form and long form, they are sadly mistaken." It is, however, common vernacular to refer to the later version as the short form and the original as the long form. As in this line by Factcheck.org "a "certification of live birth" is, in fact, a short-form official birth certificate. "

" I've never asserted there was no difference."
Well that's not what Tarc believes:
"There is no difference between the two, despite the birthers desperately trying to find one.". It's just so easy to conflate all your guys' opinions together, I visualize you all as being three heads sharing the same brain.
Anyways, there is a difference and we need to highlight that for the reader. :)
Ink Falls 02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe my phrase of choice is "distinction without a difference". There is no substantive difference that needs to be highlighted for the reader; what difference there is lies on the birther fringes. Tarc (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, that is 100% your opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion, but you must represent why the birthers highlight the distinction. It's not because they are simply a fringe group that ignores facts, it's because they do not recognize the scanned form to be legitimate. Therefore it is necessary in the spirit of NPOV, to show the readers the distinction to show why the birthers believe what they do. The scanned form is not the same document that was given to Obama's parents. It is the "certification" of that. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment much now, but I will tonight. But for now, it is incredible that you still don't understand. It is not a certification of the birth certificate. It IS his birth certificate. Say it until you understand. The green scanned document you see in this article is BHS II's birth certificate. It is not a certification of such. You are incorrect in that assertion. It is merely the new format of the birth certificate. JackOL31 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Er... I've pretty much sworn off commenting here, but I'll make an exception in this case. One document is titled "certificate of live birth". The other document is titled "certification of live birth". The second document is a certification that the first document exists, and reports partial information about the content of that document. The "certification of live birth" document attests that the limited information which it contains is supported by the more complete information contained in the unreleased "certificate of live birth" document. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ink Falls - I'm not going to discuss things with you - your convoluted thinking and misreading of statements makes any reasonable discussion with you impossible. Also, are you attributing a statement made by DD2K to me? JackOL31 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Last summer I got passports for the kids. I had lost the birth certificate for son #1, so I sent away for a new one, and the registrar sent me a freshly-printed slip of paper with the words Birth Certificate written in large, friendly letters on the top. There's no hospital information, but it lists the date of birth, date of birth registration, and date of printing of the form. For daughter #2, I provided her birth certificate, which is the original one I got after she was born, and has the same general appearance as the replacement I got for son #1, with the words Birth Certificate in large, friendly letters on the top, and a list of dates. The clerk advised that it was not good enough. Because daughter #2 was born out of wedlock, I had to provide the long-form birth registration in order to prove that I was indeed her father. I don't think I was given this when she was born and registered. I don't have one like it for the other three children, and I had to send to the birth registrar for it. I received a certified photocopy of the form which was filled out by hand by the doctor.

Obviously, I can't understand why the birther folks regard the recently printed form to be in some way deficient as a birth certificate. By their reasoning, there's no such thing as a Hawaiian birth certificate. If that's the case, why are they even complaining about it? JethroElfman (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, if you think it's impossible to argue with people who don't agree with you, then just don't post.

"By their reasoning, there's no such thing as a Hawaiian birth certificate."

Your misrepresenting their argument. They believe his original birth certificate is a birth certificate, they believe it's a better verification that he was born here and that there are ways to get a certification of live birth without actually being born here(which you can, but it won't say you were born here, but they probably think that part was forged). Ink Falls 21:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they believe. I think what your problem is is that you are confusing an article that advances the birther's point of view (e.g. the Conservopedia) with an article that, rightly, frames their claims within the large context of a fringe activist campaign, i.e. this one. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If an article doesn't clearly show the point of view of the movement it's about, it fails the readers. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter what they believe, then don't start talking about what they believe because then I will respond to it. It's not a birther point of view that the "Certification of Live Birth" is not his original birth certificate. Because that's all I'm arguing, that as it's currently worded visitors mistake the the certificate of live birth as being his original birth certificate. Ink Falls 23:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a forum

It may be time to invoke WP:NOT#FORUM because I do not see new arguments based on reliable sources being mentioned above. This page is to discuss how the article may be improved, but continually restating opinions is disruptive. Per WP:REDFLAG, the arguments that there is some defect in the current article will need very good sources because Obama is the President, and has many well funded and highly motivated opponents, yet no significant opponents are taking the birther claims seriously. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The forum rule is there to ban discussion on the general subject like, "What's your favorite thing about Barack Obama" or "Did you know Obama doesn't like beets?" it's not their to stop legitimate discussion about the article itself, as is going on here. See the discussion on whether to call Obama a professor or not for an example of an argument with a rehashing of the same opinions that doesn't move forward. Ink Falls 23:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Johnuniq. I do have improvements for the article which I will compile and present in a few days on the talk page. JackOL31 (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

plus, it doesnt matter. any discussons outside of scope of article should be automatikally archived User:Smith Jones —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 6 May 2010.

Law passed

Done Tarc (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone update-128.119.51.64 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Now gone

The theory that Mombasa was part of Zanzibar has now gone. It was attacked by me some time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC) See my remarks of 28/8/2009, in Archive 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

DISPUTE - Campaigners and proponents

This section currently contains the following content...

This apparent reversal prompted MSNBC's Keith Olbermann to declare WND's Joseph Farah to be his "Worst Person in the World" for January 5, 2009.^[1] Farah asserted in July 2009 that "I have never challenged the certification of live birth as a forgery."^{[citation needed]}

I take issue with both the accuracy of the Olbermann allegations and their inclusion in this section and have commenced discussion of this edit within the WorldNetDaily article "talk". Comments of interested editors are both solicited and welcome within that discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Obama website graphic is a scan of the same document from the Factcheck.org website. They are the exact same documents. The only difference is that the Obama and DailyKos versions are scans, while Factcheck.org presents digital pictures of the document. This all seems like circular logic debating a distinction without a difference.(re-posted from WND talk) Dave Dial (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Birthers

I boldfaced "birthers" in section 0, following WP:R#PLA:

After following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about [birthers]. Why has the link taken me to [Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories]?". Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.

"Birther" is (aqain quoting WP:R) a redirect other than mis-spellings or other obvious close variants of the article title. User:Tarc reverted, commenting No, the term would not be bolded in this case. Why not? --The very model of a minor general (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me it would be better to use {{Redirect3|Birther}} or something like

{{Redirect3|Birther|This is a common term used to refer to a person who subscribes to a conspiracy theory about the citizenship of Barack Obama}}

. Better still, I think, would be to have Birther redirect to Birther movement (which currently redirects here) and to have that article be a soft redirect to this article, a stub about the so-called "Birther movement", or a full-blown article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As an alternate name used in a redirect, it probably should be bolded; my initial reaction to the original edit applying bold-face was that it appeared too late in the lead to be particularly useful, and so distracted more than it helped. I would change the first sentence to something like:

Conspiracy theories about the citizenship of Barack Obama, proponents of which are often known as "birthers", are ideas that reject the legitimacy of President Obama's citizenship and his eligibility to be President of the United States.

and then reduce the later existing sentence to:

The term "birthers" parallels the nickname "truthers" for adherents of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Fat&Happy (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

more birthers

Something should mention that there were and are conspiracy theories about john McCain 's birth too. What is good for the goose. ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.169.198.91 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would that possibly be in this article, and not in John McCain's article? Anyway, see John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Eligibility. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing reported

I have reported the recent spate of disruptive editing by the SPA IP user 76.98.33.130 (talk · contribs) on the edit warring noticeboard. I have also requested semi-protection of this article. Richwales (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Manning's "trial"

The "trial" being conducted by James David Manning has received some media attention. Include? --Weazie (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(This is primarily for Furtive admirer.) What Manning conducted was in no way a "sanctioned" trial. There are no such legal creatures as a "10th Amendment trial" or "citizen jury trial." I think Manning's dog-and-pony show does merit inclusion, but we're limited to WP:RS. --Weazie (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a brief (1-2 sentence) mention should be included, sourced to reliable sources, but only if we can find some sources that link this to the broader birther phenomenon. Otherwise this article lists becoming a list of unrelated events rather than an article about a single phenomenon. Please note that Furtive Admirer is indefinitely blocked at this point. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention to the current Manning claims, although I have watched the videos he released during the 2008 campaigns(primary and general) with some amusement, but do not remember Manning making claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii. If he is/was making those claims, then perhaps a mention from a reliable source may be appropriate. Of course, the claims I've heard previously have not met much notability because they were so outrageous reliable sources have not taken them seriously. So it may be hard to include such fringe claims because of undue weight or even because it has nothing to do with the current topic. One thing is for sure, the portion that Furtive admirer was adding was way off base. Dave Dial (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There's this reportage from Salon.[3][4] It's the only reliable source I could find on the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just bizarre. I can't even find the words to comment on that. Dave Dial (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This coverage reads like satire and farce though, not front-page serious journalism. This is like something you read in a "News of the Weird" section, or one of those Jeannie Moos segments at the end of the news cycle on potato chip pantsuits. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This appears to be even more of a fringe effort than Orly Taitz's dog-and-pony show. Not worth covering IMO, unless it gets more mainstream coverage (which looks unlikely). -- ChrisO (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

we should gather the sources maintstream before we consider even including them in this article. ideally, this artice should only document things that have gotten signifant coverage in the Mainstream media and not just every crazy thing someone says. User:Smith Jones 04:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Title of Article Should be Changed

The title of the article should be changed. A better title would be "Obama eligibility controversy". Although some of the theories discussed here are reasonably called "conspiracy theories", Donofrio's challenge to Obama's eligibility is not a conspiracy theory but a straightforward legal argument based on the Constitution, its history, and on a fact that Obama has acknowledged: his father was not a citizen of the USA.

Also, the term "campaigner" should not be applied to Donofrio and to the others so characterized here. It suggests connection to electioneering preceding a political campaign, but the controversy has endured well past the election. What those mentioned as "campaigners" here all have in common is that they "challenge" the eligibility of Barack Obama. I therefore suggest calling them "challengers".

The use of "proponent" should also not be used for the challengers, because most of the conspiracy theorists are obvious opponents of Barack Obama, but challengers of his eligibility.

Unless someone complains soon, I'll make the suggested changes. 201.215.236.57 (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An article name change is unlikely to ever happen. The actual "controversy" was propelled by the very far-right fringes of conservatism and really never made a ripple beyond their own little echo chamber. The article is not a vehicle to promote the birther point of view itself; rather, it is an article about their conspiracy claims and how they (all) were easily turned aside by common sense, facts, and reality. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a controversy because no serious source has ever challenged the details of Obama's birth. TFD (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article should be changed. A better title would be "Obama eligibility controversy".

I strongly concur and suggest further that this rather blatant POV title is representative of a more general "laissez faire" Wikipedia approach of indifference to "attack articles" that is both pervasive and corruptive of this (cough) "encyclopedic" experiment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Current title seems appropriate - if anything, this article may be giving too much weight to a collection of politically motivated fringe theories. ClovisPt (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WP should never try try to "make law" -- that is, it should use the name closest to what is commonly used for the topic at hand. In this case, "conspiracy theory" is the most commonly accepted term to collectively address the various ideas proposed.

Even Donofrio's challenge falls under this collective name: first, because this is how it is most commonly viewed, and second, because his screeds do have a clear "the world vs. me" tone to them.

I also think the idea that any of these challenges stem from a purely clinical Constitutional point of view rather than as various degrees of indirect attack on Obama himself is disingenuous at best.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the closest fitting and most descriptive title that has so far been proposed for the various conspiracy theories surrounding Obama's birth, citizenship, and eligibility. Calling it a controversy would attribute undue importance to the theories. I'm afraid that to those who give this kind of stuff credence, Wikipedia is part of the cover-up, and that can't be helped. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article has been questioned so many times that this exact suggestion is addressed in the first question of the FAQ at the top of this discussion page. --Weazie (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Now WHY didn't I think of that. Yes, that "Faq" is certainly definitive and determinative (just disregard the man behind the curtain)</sarc>. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "man behind the curtain", except in the frothing delusions of birthers and those that sympathize with them. As has been documented ad nauseum by many the reliable source. Dave Dial (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep the title as it is. As to the other points raised by the anon, "proponents" is clearly correct because those so characterized are proponents of the theories described in the article. I don't see "campaigners" as a problem, because the word doesn't apply solely to election campaigns, but "activists" would be an acceptable alternative; the point is to identify people who don't merely espouse the theories, but who try to get action taken as a result, whether by courts or by state legislatures. JamesMLane t c 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just create an article titled Birthers or Birther Movement, and include information on both John Mccain's questioned birth status alongside Barack Obama's? I think that would be a lot more clearer for people visiting Wikipedia. Ink Falls 21:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is probably not going to be a popular view, but I'm going to say that I think the title should be changed to something along the lines of "Barack Obama presidential eligibility controversies" or "Presidential eligibility of Barack Obama".

I am emphatically not a "birther" — and I happen to believe it is self-evident that Obama is eligible to be President — and I do believe many of the anti-Obama arguments are conspiracy theories, but not all of them. The arguments questioning whether Obama was really born in Hawaii, etc., are clearly conspiracy theories because they allege over-the-top secret attempts to hide the facts. However, the arguments stipulating that Obama was born in Hawaii but insisting that he is still not a "natural born citizen" (on the grounds that "natural born citizen" supposedly means something more than "born with citizenship" or "born on US soil") are not really conspiracy theories in my opinion, except in cases where people are specifically alleging a conspiracy to deceive people by twisting the proper meaning of "natural born citizen".

And even if the current "conspiracy theories" title can arguably be justified as NPOV, it's going to continue sapping our resources as new people encounter the title, question whether it's fair, and have to either be talked into accepting that it is fair, or else be overruled time and time again in debates such as this. I see a kind of variation on WP:DUCK — if it looks like a duck, people will keep on assuming it is a duck, and the convincing arguments proving that it's not a duck will need to be made over and over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. We would, IMO, be better off changing the article's title to something that is going to be accepted as reasonably neutral by as many people as possible, and then concentrate our efforts on documenting the various theories and (where appropriate) reporting the ways that these theories have been rejected. Richwales (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't alter our article naming conventions just because some newbie gets their panties twisted here after they've been riled up by the latest WND or Orly Taitz.com screed. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We would, IMO, be better off changing the article's title to something that is going to be accepted as reasonably neutral by as many people as possible, and then concentrate our efforts on documenting the various theories and (where appropriate) reporting the ways that these theories have been rejected.

Whaddaya trying to do? Disrupt this masterpiece of POV coatrackery by suggesting an encyclopedic approach? You must be mad I tell ya...mad. (well said BTW...but you'd best head for the bunker...INCOMING !) JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If all you are going to contribute to the discussion is gutter-sniping and snark, it would be best for all concerned if you just remain silent. Tarc (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies? There are no controversies. There are conspiracy theories without any merit at all being promoted by fringe groups. The vast, overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to these delusions as 'conspiracy theories'. To change the title to a "controversy" would be a major POV|POV violation in favor of the fringe birthers. Dave Dial (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the title is appropriate. It is an article about theories, of a conspiracy by Barack Obama or the Democratic Party, or whoever, to deceive the public as to Obama's citizenship status. "Conspiracy Theory" is factually correct. Controversy isn't appropriate because it isn't one. --Pstanton (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just make a birther article with info on both Barack's and Mccain's conspiracy theory? I knownpeople probably don't want to do the work to change it, but it seems a lot more simpler for people looking for info on the birther movement. Ink Falls 04:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no equivalency. McCain was born outside the US in American-controlled territory to two US parents. Whether or not he is an "American born citizen" is a matter of law, the facts are not in dispute. The body that interprets the law is the US Senate and their word is final. TFD (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the assertions being made, but agree with the conclusion there's no equivalency. And "concerns" about McCain's purported ineligibility are adequately covered by the articles about his campaign. --Weazie (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with some of the detailed points which The Four Deuces made, but this page is not the proper place to discuss those issues. I agree that the McCain situation was materially different from the Obama situation, because AFAIK, no one was alleging any sort of conspiratorial coverup regarding McCain — it was strictly a case of disagreement over the proper interpretation of the law, the true meaning of "natural born citizen of the United States", etc. As I said before, in Obama's case, some of the arguments have to do with what a "natural born citizen" really is, while others are crackpot fringe claims alleging that Obama's origins were falsified from a ridiculously early age in order to groom a newborn baby to eventually usurp the Presidency. If (as appears likely) the title of this page is going to remain unchanged, I would feel better if the challenges arising from disagreements regarding the commonly accepted meaning of "natural born citizen" could be moved to the article devoted to that topic (and mentioned here only in summary form). Then, this page could concentrate on the true conspiracy theories about Obama. Richwales (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

^^Agreed. Ink Falls 16:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what Richwales wrote, I disagree with the conclusion. The birther interpretation of "natural born citizen" is routinely included as a backup position to the not-born-in-Hawaii claims; both issues are cited by those who think Obama is ineligible to serve. And if you poke around enough, the birther interpretation of "natural born citizen" does start to rise to the level of conspiracy (i.e., the explanations of why the courts have gotten it wrong). With respect to McCain, I see no problem with a link in this article directing to the article discussing "concerns" about McCain's eligibility. (And there were some allegations about where McCain was really born, but this isn't the place for that discussion.) --Weazie (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, there are no "nice" birther conspiracies to break out to a different article. Quibbling about natural born citizenship and allegations of birth certificate forgeries are just different shades of the same color. Tarc (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Tim Adams

For those who don't follow birthers regularly, Tim Adams is the latest flavor. He was a temporary clerk in the Hawaii Department of Elections during the summer of 2008. He claims an unnamed supervisor told him there were no birth records for Obama. I doubt this story will be picked up by RS's, but it could nonetheless creep its way into this article. --Weazie (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WND reported it, of counrse,[5], but that'll never get past this article's gatekeepers. MediaMatters reported about WND's report;[6] perhaps that'll get past the gatekeepers. The Indiana Times quoted part of the MediaMatters report;[7] perhaps that'll do. If not, perhaps something else will surface which the gatekeepers will let it past. Audio of the Tim Adams interview is available between the 4:45 and 10:43 points in a file located at http://www.libertynewsradio.com/shows/tpc/tpc20100605c.mp3 (That's the third hour of a three hour show broadcast on June 5. The show is called "The Political Cesspool", Feel free to take that as an indication of its level of reliability—or not.) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Temper tantrums about presumed "gatekeepers" really won't get you very far, so please, knock it off. When/if reliable sources cover the actual Adams accusation, and not just ridicule the story itself as Media Matters did, then there'll be something of substance to include. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not having a temper tantrum, just taking note here. I don't think that this presently has enough media exposure to get past WP:DUE, but at some point it might. Re gatekeepers, my impression is that in this article WP:RS evaluation is closely related to the political viewpoint of the source, but I'm not inclined to argue about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The comments came at the convention of a white supremacist organization. Adams has retracted the claim then re-stated it. Just having made the claims doesn't rate any mention in this article unless it becomes news, not just a blip. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The interview took place at the 2010 national conference of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). I'm not familiar with the group beyond having just taken a look at the WP article on them and at some items linked from there. From what I've just looked at, characterizing the group as "a white supremacist organization" is a considerable exaggeration. The WP article on the group says that it supports white nationalism and white separatism. From the definitions of those terms in the WP articles on them, I don't think that even those characterizations are strictly true. The group's Statement of Principles does clearly say, though, that they believe that the United States is a European country, that Americans are part of the European people, and that they oppose all efforts to mix the races. This looks like guilt by association and argumentum ad hominem to me.

You say that Adams has retracted the claim then re-stated it. I hadn't seen that reported and would be interested if you can provide a source (even one which the gatekeepers of this article wouldn't allow). At this point, I don't think that this has enough prominence of coverage to put it in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the Criticism section of the CC article? SPLC calls them racist: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/council-of-conservative-citizens. Here he is retracting, on June 11, and on June 13, he retracted his retraction: [8]. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting. The person portrayed as identifying himself as Tim Adams in the article you point to as him retracting is quoted there as having said in an email, "I believe Pres. Obama was born a United States citizen, and is eligible to hold office, I find the idea that because he was probably born outside of the U.S., he must be some kind of alien to be basically racist." That, of course, directly contradicts what was said in the interview. 5m55s into the file containing the complete interview audio at the URL which I mentioned above, the person identifying himself as Tim Adams there says, "... the question came up about the birth certificate and about President Obama's birthplace. umm. In our professional opinion, Barack Obama was not born in the United States and there is no Hawaii long form birth certificate." (emphasis his) It looks to me as if ~~that~~ someone, somewhere is trying to pull a fast one here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

is there anyone who the SPLC doesn't call a racist? I think Wikipedia's standards require a little more proof before we tar and feather people for their views like that. 04:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

When mainstream media cover something it can be included. The reason stories not covered by MSM are excluded is notability - if MSM does not cover it then it is not notable. There are sites that cover stories ignored by MSM and if one thinks this site should be one of them then the proper approach is to obtain agreement to change policies. TFD (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yar. This does not appear to meet WP inclusion criteria, as I understand those criteria. WP:DUE says that neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint (...). As I understand this, viewpoints reported by sources which do not meet WP:RS inclusion criteria are not worthy of reportage in WP, nonwithstanding that under-reporting of material critical of BHO in MSM sources is sometimes reported in sources which would pass WP:RS. Them's the rules. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

An WaPo online column covering Adams (or, more specifically, Hawaii's denial of Adams' claims): Honolulu city clerk debunks new 'birther' theory --Weazie (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting article. Even more interesting is the embedded video clip. Adams (presuming that that is Tim Adams), comes off as pretty reasonable, as speaking from his past experience as he remembers it, and not as a wild-eyed idealogue. He may or may not be misremembering, and an assertion regarding that without a supporting source would be OR.

My guess is that this Washington Post article and embedded video clip might possibly pass the gatekeepers of this article on RS and Notability grounds (I could be wrong about that). Adams may misremember re his claimed 2008ish assurances about the nonexistence of the long form birth certificate. If he does misrember, his errors could be easily refuted. As a side-issue, as I understand the immigration law in force as of the birthdate shown on the released COLB, the legal opinion which he offers in the video (not the hypotheticals he offers near the end of the video clip) would be incorrect under nitpicky interpretation of U.S. citizenship law in force on Obama's released birthdate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Adams' claim made it (briefly) into the article. --Weazie (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I must say that while reading this article in its entirety, one is repetitively conveyed that anybody who partakes in these theories must be a looney, conspiracy theorist, with a hell bent objective on defaming Obama. There are many quotes and phrases that allude to precisely this. While quoted people have used the terms "fringe, conspiracy theorists, etc." have a valid place in the article, one is left with a very one-sided presentation that anybody who associates with these theories is evil, and is some nutty whack job. I am not trying to say whether these theories are true or not, but am rather pointing out the POV tendency that this article imparts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.168.236.120 (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The citizenship conspiracy theories are unsupported by any reliable sources. I notice you added a POV tag. NPOV however dictates how fringe theories are treated and you have not explained how this article violates that policy. We do not provide equal weight to views that are totally unaccepted by reliable sources. Please do not re-add the tag without explanation. TFD (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Stated another way: If you believe these theories are in fact accepted as valid (or possibly valid) by people in the mainstream, you are more than welcome to find reliable sources saying as much, and then add appropriate material to this article that is supported by said sources. Wikipedia's neutrality policy (WP:NPOV) does not mean that only one, officially blessed "neutral" viewpoint is allowed and all other viewpoints are to be marginalized. On the contrary, it says that what we write "must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." You must, however, make sure your sources are in fact reliable. Read the policies on verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS) very carefully and thoroughly. You may also want/need to read the guideline on fringe theories (WP:FRINGE). Richwales (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How small is a "fringe" opinion?

Fringe implies a very small minority. In one of the polls cited in the article, 25% of student believed Obama was not a US Citizen. That is far from fringe. The other polls were in the 10% plus range. I'd say 10% and over are "minority" opinions and not "fringe" opinions. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No it means that it is not accepted by any serious sources. TFD (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV 96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have. It says, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". TFD (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fringe does not imply a small minority for the purposes of Wikipedia article. No reliable sources support this particular fringe theory.--204.75.125.135 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We do, however, need to be careful not to fall into circular reasoning — "this is a fringe theory because no reliable source supports it" ⇔ "this is a fringe theory, so any source that supports it cannot be reliable". Richwales (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

snopes .com may not be up to wiki standards as a reliable, verifiable source

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/politics/forum/topics/how-accurate-is-snopescom?commentId=2117179%3AComment%3A1085073&xg_source=activity&groupId=2117179%3AGroup%3A105954

Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it -kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago – and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research" 96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Snopes' reliability has been discussed here. --Weazie (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Been known for quite a while, that information is not something new. Ravensfire (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This in particular, but [9] in general. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The snopeses are hobbyists, and good at it. But this article falls under WP:BLP, and they're nowhere near a reliable source under that constraint. PhGustaf (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PARITY which covers the fact that since the article is about a fruitcake fringe conspiracy theory (with zero reliable sources), it is entirely adequate to use a less than gold-plated source to counter the fringe theory. The Snopes usage is supported by WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This article presently cites snopes exactly twice, and for rather noncontroversial statements. It could be easily rewritten to address this IP's "concern." --Weazie (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no need. Snopes is a reliable source for these types of issues. Not only do they list the research, but have direct references. Snopes is also cited by reliable sources for exactly these types of conspiracies. Dave Dial (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP needs to bring this up at WP:RS if he/she really feels that Snopes is an unreliable source. Of course, the birthers dismiss everyone from the Republican-controlled Hawaiian government to Media Matters to anyone in the MSM on this issue. However, Snopes *does* in fact qualify on an issue like this.--204.75.125.136 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Mikkelsons are "not" hobbyists. Did you read the FactCheck.org article? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What is really ridiculous here is that the anon ip is using one of the mass emails, full of false claims, that go around as proof. This is just absurd, and the fact that a link to a post on an internet message board is being used as "proof" should be clue number one here. Factcheck.org already debunked this bull here. Snopes also has received praise for there work from many other media outlets(1,2,3,4,5) If someone wants to discuss the reall BLP implications here, try looking at the post that started this thread and realize that Snopes is run by living persons and is being accused of falsehoods that have been debunked by reliable sources. Dave Dial (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, that was an interesting read. Let's make sure we've fixed the errors she notes in our article on Snopes! Beyond that, nothing here to see. People who believe these fringe theories are basically holding their hands over their ears and refusing to listen to mainstream and reliable accounts, so it's no surprise that the small subset who find their way to the Wikipedia article dismiss both Wikipedia and the sources it's based on. It looks like just a case of the truth being too liberal for some people's taste. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What errors? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the factcheck.org article, "That Wikipedia entry mentioned in the e-mail? Not only was it not the first place to reveal the Mikkelsons’ identities, but it contains several factual errors...it says that he works "part-time" on Snopes.com. That was never true..." I double-checked, and the snopes.com article has since been corrected. It's a fun passtime, everytime you notice someone criticizing Wikipedia in the media for having an error it it, to first check out to see if it's really an error and, if so, whether it's still in the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if the answer is "yes" and "yes", WP:SOFIXIT! - Wikidemon (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

^ "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", MSNBC, January 5, 2009.

[1] "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", MSNBC, January 5, 2009.

[1]