Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Article Title: "Citizenship" versus "Birth Place" or "Presidential Eligibility"

discussion not a good faith attempt to improve article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention Wiki-propandists: (1) This article is about "birthers". Starting in the second sentence, the word "birther" appears 30 times in the current article. They are not called "citizenship-deniers. Duh! (2) The image of a bill board at the top of the article reads "Where's The Birth Certificate?" (3) In the latest flare up of this controversy last week, Donald Trump traveled the media circus and demanded to see Obama's birth certificate. (4) The current governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, stated the he intended to settle this controversy by releasing Obama's birth certificate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Abercrombie#Governor_of_Hawaii (5) Mere US citizens are not eligible to President, as the article states in the first sentence they must be "natural born citizens". (6) And so on... seriously, I could continue here ad nauseam. Clearly, the title of article of wrong. It should be something like either "Barack Obama birth place controversy" or "Barack Obama Presidential eligibility dispute". Moreover, to the extent that you can not even get the title reasonablly correct, it clearly shows that you do understand the subject matter and writing in bad faith, political POV and hence systematically violating your own plastic Wiki-rules. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC) That's been raised and discussed here, and probably elsewhere. So far, the apparent (and it is clearly apparent) denigration by implication endures. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC) I've restored this talk page section, which was removed by User:Fat&Happy in this edit. The removal appears to me to be a violation of WP:TPG#Others' comments. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC) You might want to revisit that accusation. The above was originally part of a larger removed post containing personal attacks, and which, by specifically stating an unwillingness to work cooperatively to improve the article was purely disruptive. Neither of those reasons are prohibited by WP:TPG. The post as you re-factored it (is that allowed by WP:TPG?) still contains a minor attack on other editors, but at least consists primarily of legitimate discussion of the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC) It's perfectly fine to delete unacceptable discussions here. I'll go ahead and close because this is not a productive topic to discuss in this way, but in the future please WP:DFTT. Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Inside the discussion above closed by User:Wikidemon, User:Fat&Happy invited me to revisit what was characterized as an accusation by me. The discussion was closed 25 minutes after that invitation was issued, before I had a chance to respond.

Wikidemon — besides being somewhat put out that you slammed the discussion door shut before I had a chance to respond to Fat&Happy, I want to say that I strongly disagree with your stated reason for closing the discussion. That reason was, "discussion not a good faith attempt to improve article". At least on my own part, the discussion certainly was good faith attempt to improve the article. I suspect that this was also the case with the anon who created this talk page section and began the discussion which you have closed. In your edit comment inside the closed discussion explaining the closure, you say, "It's perfectly fine to delete unacceptable discussions here. I'll go ahead and close, but in the future please don't restore inappropriate material here." AFAICT, the material in the discussion is not unacceptable and is not inappropriate. Please reopen this discussion which you have closed. Also, please explain in terms of WP policies and guidelines your reasons for treating this material as such.

Fat&Happy — First, your allegation that I had made an accusation was in response to a statement by me regarding your removal from this talk page of content added by others, saying, "The removal appears to me to be a violation of WP:TPG#Others." I had deliberately cast that as a statement of opinion rather than a flat accusation. TPG#Others says, in part, "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." My opinion is that you did not exercise sufficient caution when removing the material at issue. For the record, please note that objections (plural) to your removals have been raised. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, in a certain sense you are right. There were elements in IP24's comments that could be construed as genuine content issues. Unfortunately the history of this IP should be examined for any rationality. It's pretty much lacking and they were repeatedly trolling the issue here and being unconstructively disruptive by refusing to accept evidence and proposing policy violations. It was blatant advocacy of a very radical conspiracy theory. We're dealing with a conspiracy theorist. I therefore support the hatting of that matter. I'm surprised the troll isn't blocked!

OTOH, there may be parts of it that should be dealt with, but in a rational manner, not in the manner suggested by the IP. The IP was refusing to accept evidence, and we can't use that approach. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following the anon's comments -- which I gather include comments outside of this talk page section. I stumbled into this when one of Fat&Happy's removals of this section showed up on my watchlist and looked questionable to me, and my edits related to this section have been focused on this section and on the now-closed (I think improperly closed) discussion contained herein. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wtmitchell, semantics can certainly be a fun game to play. If someone were to go on TV and say "it appears that Wtmitchell robbed the bank on the corner", do you think most listeners would fairly characterize the statement as an accusation? But if it makes you feel better, and Wikidemon doesn't object to reopening the closed discussion for a moment, I will be glad to go back and strike "accusation" and substitute another noun. Do you have a preference between "claim", "statement", "allegation", "opinion" or some other?

There were objections (plural) to the deletion. Two from one person (though only one of them preceded the restoration). There was also an intervening deletion of much the same content by a second editor, a subsequent closing of the section by a third editor with a comment that it should not have been restored, and another subsequent comment by a fourth editor that the content was generally inappropriate. So OK, I've noted that.

You might also note that in my previous comments I implicitly pre-agreed with Brangifer's statement that there is some material in the post, as last added, which is possibly appropriate for discussion – though previous comments by the original IP poster stretch WP:AGF to the breaking point. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not and am not playing games with semantics. WP:TPG#Others' comments isn't crystal clear, and I didn't spend much time trying to divine its intended meaning at the time I chose (and I did think about it, and I did make a conscious choice about it) to explicitly say "appears to me to be a violation". TPG offers "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" which, AFAICS, don't come anywhere close to resembling the editing (expungement is editing) of others' comments (including mine) which was done in this section. Once again, from TPG, "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and I'm not worried about nitpicking terminology. Leave "accused" the way it is, even though I'm not in the habit of throwing accusations around.

I think that the closed discussion should be reopened. As you probably have gathered, IMO the title of this article is and long has been a bad one, as discussed here -- I agree with the editor there who characterized it as a good example of WP:LABEL. Even so, I don't plan to open a campaign myself to get it changed.

I would still like to know by what criteria in terms of WP policies and guidelines this section was deemed unacceptable and/or inappropriate, but I'll not push for editors who made that determination to provide that information. Hopefully, they'll at least mull the question over. Yes, the anon's opening rant at "Wiki-propandists" was intemperate; when he got down to discussing the article title, though, (following on his topic heading for the section), I don't think he was at all out of line. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not wish to discuss talk page management here, except to note that for the past few years a firm hand has been necessary to keep the Obama-related pages on track. When untended they have gone wildly off track. I have zero interest and little patience for hand-wringing over that. If anyone has a good faith suggestion for improving the article and can present it in a workable way we can have a discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell , the IP started off by making claims(anyone can get a Hawaiin COLB, even via mail, with no proof) that everyone here knows are false([1,2). When asked to provide a reliable source for these claims, the ip responded with "I am not providing any sources for this blatantly fraudulent Wikipedia article...Clearly, you and this Wikicrap you write is political bullshit that is explicitly designed to subvert the US Constitution". Which was then rightly removed by an editor for personal attacks and obviously having no interest in improving this article. The IP then responded with more personal attacks, "Attention Wiki-propandist lemmings...the extent that you Wiki- clowns can not even get the title reasonablly correct, it clearly shows that you do understand the subject matter and writing in bad faith, political POV and hence systematically violating your own plastic Wiki-rules". Which was then removed by another Wikipedia editor. The IP went on to restore(1,2,3) the same kind of blatant personal attacks and battleground behavior, without providing any sources whatsoever. Which was rightly removed again. The you inexplicably restored the comments with personal attacks and blatant refusal to provide any sources at all, and with an accusation of TPO to boot. The offending posts were removed again(along with your comment(I guess explaining this has been discussed before). You then made a partial restore(cherry picking) of the post by the IP, which is in itself a violation of Talk page guidelines. The discussion was closed by yet another Wikipedia editor, but you still felt the need to continue this matter? My suggestion to you is to include this latest bit in the hat above and forget about it. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in this absurd whitewash, but I do want to make clear that I never claimed "anyone can get a Hawaiin COLB, even via mail, with no proof". What I did say is that I have read statements to that effect and that if this article is to be NPOV and thorough, that it should make it clear whether or not such claims were true at the time of Obama's birth. As an avid Wikipedia reader, I would like to come to Wikipedia and have the question of whether such claims that "anyone [could] get a Hawaiin COLB, even via mail, with no proof"definitively answered. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

... and be all of that as it may be, the discussion above in this talk page section relates specifically to the removal, reinstatement, re-removal and re-reinstatement of this talk page section (including removal of a comment made by myself), and the closure of the discussion in this section on what appears to me to be highly questionable grounds. I had not been following what the IP may have done before I saw the initial removal of this section in my watchlist, and haven't tried to look to see what he might commented about outside of this talk page section.

I had put this aside and moved on -- until your comment above brought it up anew in my watchlist.

OK, I've looked back at previous versions...

• My initial involvement in this was when I say this reversion] on my watchlist. The edit summary said, "Revert to revision 423242814 dated 2011-04-09 22:37:10 by Dayewalker using popups". I saw it removing an entire section without much explanation. Truth be told, I didn't notice the additional snippet outside of the removed section but it probably wouldn't have made any difference if I had.
• I reverted that reversion here with an edit summary saying, "Reverted good faith edits by Fat&Happy (talk); Unexplained reversion questioned in light of WP:TPG#Others."
• Here I added a comment in the restored talk page section regarding the talk page section topic and providing a wikilink to past discussion of the topic in relation to this article in another forum.
• Next, this edit reverted the talk page back to (I presume but have not checked) an earlier version. The reversion removed the comment I had just made along with the rest of the talk page section. The edit summary said, "rv personal attack & specific denial of interest in improving article, as stated previously by 2 editors"; I didn't follow that but, looking at the diff, i saw that it removed quite a bit of talk page content besides the section which was at issue for me.
• After one intervening edit, here I restored just the section at issue for me. Apparently, from the edit summary, did that with the +/- tab. The restored section included an added comment which said, "}I've restored this talk page section, which was removed by User:Fat&Happy in this edit. The removal appears to me to be a violation of WP:TPG#Others' comments."
• Here, Fat&Happy responded to the comment I had added, saying, "You might want to revisit that accusation. The above was originally part of a larger removed post containing personal attacks, and which, by specifically stating an unwillingness to work cooperatively to improve the article was purely disruptive. Neither of those reasons are prohibited by WP:TPG. The post as you re-factored it (is that allowed by WP:TPG?) still contains a minor attack on other editors, but at least consists primarily of legitimate discussion of the article."
• As I was preparing a response to this (a response along the lines of the above), User:Wikidemon closed the discussion. From that point on, it played out here, in the talk page section at issue, below the (still-closed) discussion.

FWICS, Fat&Happy and I have differing interpretations of the guidance at WP:TPO regarding what removals of others' comments are allowable -- at least specifically as it relates to the removal of comments by the anon and by myself in this talk page section.

Also FWICS, Wikidemon and I have differing understandings relating to what is necessary to determine whether a talk page discussion (specifically the closed discussion in this talk page section) is or is not a "discussion not a good faith attempt to improve article" in order to close such a discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines follow established and consensus-supported behavior, and it is standard operating procedure to remove or collapse unhelpful commentary, particularly on pages like this. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Various proposals

Requested move Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories -- to "Barack Obama citizenship controversy"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories → Barack Obama citizenship controversy – This article's content does not fit with any definition of "conspiracy theory" (who are the alleged conspirators?) and "conspiracy theory" is not typically used in RS articles on the subject matter, thus it does not meet WP:COMMONNAME policy. Also, now that Arizona has passed a so-called "Birther Bill"[1][2][3] and there is an avalanche of new articles [4] discussing the issue in a serious vein since Donald Trump's recent interviews, the conspiracy theory label has become much too biased to continue its use and it no longer fits the "fringe" category either. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - It was inevitable that Donald Trump's hand-waving was going to bring renewed "interest" in this article, but nothing has really changed since the many previous times this was discussed. Renewed interest in a lunatic fringe theory doesn't make it any less conspiratorial. Tarc (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• This has been proposed before and soundly rejected more than once and nothing has cahnged since then, so it is not worth a full airing of this proposal. There are few if any sources indicating that there is a controversy over Obama's citizenship. Rather, per the sources there are false claims and rumors that Obama is not a citizen. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing has changed, despite Trump's silly efforts to get ratings for his TV show. Also, there are no reliable sources that are "discussing the issue in a serious vein". None. The only "sources" that don't ridicule the continuous refusal to ignore reality by birthers, are other birters. As for the "WP:COMMONNAME" point, that's incorrect too. There are a vast number of sources that refer to the birther efforts as Barack Obama conspiracy theories, even mentioning that these birther attempts are often catered to the fringe of American politics. This seems like a non-starter on many levels. Should be a snow close. Dave Dial (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Arizona legislation[5][6][7] just passed today and that is the single most important new evidence that this issue no longer fits neatly into the discounted "conspiracy theory/fringe" garbage can. It would be awfully presumptuous and psedo-intellectuallish of us Wikipedia Editors to clump the Arizona Legislature into the tin foil hat crowd of "conspiracy theorists" just because they have a different opinion about the worthiness of the challenge to Obama's place of birth. At least that is a point worth considering, I think, before embracing the status quo of this title. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does not at present discuss why the Arizona legislature joined the tin foil hat crowd. However, as the new child article United States presidential eligibility legislation makes clear, a number of state and federal politicans have done so. That is not "evidence" of anything in particular other than that certain politicians have supported the conspiracy theory. We do not evaluate the positions of politicians for evidence that their positions reflect truths about the world. They are the last thing one would take as a reliable source. Anyway, this discussion is a perennial proposal that has been rejected before, so unless there are any new arguments it does not require full consideration again. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are wrong factually and logically to conflate the now fully passed and brand new Arizona legislation with the bunch of "introduced" legislation in other states which are covered by the United States presidential eligibility legislation article. Its like saying Obamacare is not an important development because Hilary Clinton tried to do something similar awhile back. I doubt, once you think about it, that you will retain this "nothing's new" opinion about the Arizona legislation. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikidem, I wonder if you could do me one teeny tiny favor. Since you are undoubtedly an outstanding personification of NPOV, would you please explain to our audience why it is essential for this wikipedia article to characterize the legislature of Arizona as a bunch of conservative tin-foil nutcases, while omitting any mention of the fact that liberal God Chris Matthews has likewise called on Obama to release the damn thing? Thanks soooooo much.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the blasphemy, I will point out that those who have been saying "release the thing" have invariably said it in the spirit of "Give the whiny little crybabies their lollipop and maybe they'll shut up"; not in the spirit of "Maybe there's something there." Opponents of this position believe that such indulgence will instead encourage such nonsense. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the Arizona bill (specifically at the part adding section 16-507.01), I don't see anything there which can be reasonably described as showing that "the Arizona legislature joined the tin foil hat crowd" — certainly not from a NPOV position. Does this side issue bear on this talk page section topic? I think it might, in illustrating the WP:LABEL character of the current article name, and the polarizing effects of such article naming. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is polarized. It's a false claim, not a disputed position with two sides. To describe it otherwise would be inaccurate and introduce bias. Neutrality is a matter of reflecting the sources without injecting opinion, it isn't an effort to find the balance point on every issue however lopsided. Anyway, I didn't start the language about tin foil nutcases, it was added in a mocking tone by Mr.grantevans2 above to argue that it must not be a fringe theory because the Arizona Legislature acted on it. Leaving aside any of a number of easy potshots about Arizona politics, it's clear that it is a fringe theory and that Arizona's law is a response to it. The facts speak for themselves and the article can leave the interpretation up to the reader about just how nutty that is. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as the other times this has been raised. Nothing has changed - the title is accurate and appropriate. Agree with Dave that this should be a snow close. Tvoz/talk 04:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As previously explained, the topic of this article is a conspiracy theory, and attempts to portray it as anything else are misguided. For the last twenty years or so, a "conspiracy theory" is not a literal conspiracy where people A, B, and C agree to undertake a campaign to achieve some objective. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons stated above and in previous discussions, as well as the fact that the proposed title is inaccurate, there being no actual "controversy" in reliable sources. However, if there are objections to the current title on the grounds it is somewhat contrived and not an actual "common name", I might support a rename to a shorter title reflecting a name commonly applied by reliable sources; something like "Birther craziness" comes to mind. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Make it "lunacy" and I might sign on. Tvoz/talk 07:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, The editor proposing this change seems unclear on the term "conspiracy theory." It does not imply an actual conspiracy. Quite the opposite, as in this case and others, it is an unfounded theory that a conspiracy exists. And yes, reliable sources do commonly refer to this as a conspiracy theory, not a "controversy." Donald Trump pretending to run for president as a publicity stunt and spouting some stuff he read on the internet to get attention is not a "controversy" for anyone but him. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Question It's certainly a fringe theory, but is it really a conspiracy theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, I understand the desire to not legitimize the topic in the title, but conspiracy theory doesn't really fit. That name implies a significant number of people working together for sinister motives. Maybe we could come up with something better. Maybe Barack Obama citizenship allegations? –CWenger (^ • @) 18:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That's basically my point as well, conspiracy theory doesn't really fit. I am sure we could come up with a better title (than the current one) if the one I propose is not good enough. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If one were to believe this fringe theory, one would have to believe that his mother, grandparents, the state of Hawaii, the U.S. State Department archive and a host of other entities all conspired together to fabricate evidence that he was born in Hawaii and bury all evidence that he was born elsewhere. And they did this....in the early '60's to insure that some random African-American baby would one day be eligible to be president? Sure, sounds plausible. No wait, actually, it sounds like a classic crackpot conspiracy theory. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Or that he and his top staff forged his birth certificate a few years ago. Not saying I believe it, just that it makes it a fringe theory and not a conspiracy theory. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And that they got the State of Hawaii to collude with them on this? Whatever your definition of "conspiracy theory," how would that not apply? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

They wouldn't need the state of Hawaii to help forge a document... –CWenger (^ • @) 23:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

They'd need their help to "confirm" it though. Ravensfire (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give you that. But it's still not a multi-party conspiracy like most conspiracy theories. I still think fringe theory/theories would be more appropriate. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just splitting semantic hairs (and incorrectly at that). I'm not really following your made-up definition of "conspiracy theory" but how many parties need to be involved for this to be "multi-party"? By your own count, it's up to Obama, his staff, and the State of Hawaii (including the officials quoted in this article). How many more are needed? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

3 people have questioned whether or not it is a conspiracy theory, so it's possible there is some validity here... –CWenger (^ • @) 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A willingness to stick to a position in the face of contrary evidence (and the apparent dismantling of one's own argument) does not lend validity to one's position. Rather, at a certain point, it just becomes another case of "I didn't hear that!" --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You act like I'm suggesting we change the article name to Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen!!!!! I am simply raising the possibility that fringe theory may be more appropriate than conspiracy theory. Both fit, it's just a question of what works better. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you didn't suggest that title. But you did, however, suggest changing it to Barack Obama citizenship allegations. Which seems to imply that the article is not about some fringe theory derided by reliable source after reliable source, every judicial forum commenting on the conspiracy theory, and every Hawaiian Government official that has been forced by birthers to look into this silliness. It's equally as bad of a title as the one you seem offended by above. And by the way, I was on my IPhone earlier when I undid the NPOV tag, and couldn't log in. You are not supposed to use tags as weapons because talk page discussions are not going as you want them to. The explanation for insertion of the tag was ridiculous. Dave Dial (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at my initial comment above, I also said "I understand the desire to not legitimize the topic in the title". Maybe you guys should relax and save your energy for somebody who actually believes in this stuff. As for the NPOV tag, I thought it was unfair to remove it mere minutes after it was added (by another editor, not me), and without a response on the talk page. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It was right to remove the tag. 14+ editors have weighed in on this most recent round about the article title, and if I recall correctly all but two them are in agreement that the title we have accurately reflects the article and should not be changed at this time - reaffirming the consensus that we have reached several times before. Throwing on an NPOV tag is uncalled for, doesn't change the facts, and shouldn't be used to further one's losing position in a talk page discussion. Is this a good time to remind everyone that this article is subject to the ArbCom article probation sanctions? Can we please move on. Tvoz/talk 05:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The state of Hawaii doesn't need to be part of a conspiracy in order to confirm a document. How many birthers actually claim that the Hawaiian government is part of a conspiracy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The theories are not grounded in logic, so it's not terribly helpful to apply logical deduction to finding their basis. "Conspiracy theory" is not a terribly precise term, but it is a term that has been used to describe this. Language usage is what it is. Obviously, "monkey wrenches" aren't used on monkeys, nor do "google bombs" explode in google's offices. The meaning of "conspiracy theory", which has been discussed here, is a statement about the type of theory, not about its implications. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, The editor proposing this change seems unclear on the term "conspiracy theory." FX (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose because it is a conspiracy theory. To call it a non-conspiracy controversy indicates there's something valid on the side of the birthers, but this whole birther thing has been discredited several times. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, this has been done to death over and over. The article is correctly titled as it is 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per the last time and the last time and the time before that. There is no "controversy". PhGustaf (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• oppose - there is no controvesy only conspiracy theories.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no controversy—no serious challenge by scholars and neutral parties—only political sniping by Obama opponents who have no evidence. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The issue is widely described as a "conspiracy theory" in reliable sources. these are some from just the past week.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Concur with Will Beback. --Weazie (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
But in almost single-handedly reviving the widely discredited "birther" conspiracy theory that holds Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, ... Grand old time running out; Republicans flirting with a run for president in 2012 will soon have to put up or shut up Mitch Potter. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Apr 16, 2011. pg. A.28 So if there was a conspiracy it must have begun an awfully long time ago, and it must have involved the Hawaiian bureaucracy. This doesn't deter the conspiracy theorists for a moment. Trump's insane campaign to be the US president; Questioning Barack Obama's origins destroys what little credibility the tycoon has as a Republican candidate James Fenton. Evening Standard. London (UK): Apr 15, 2011. pg. 14 ... a fringe conspiracy theory is now front and center in American politics: the claim that President Barack Obama might not be a natural-born American citizen. The GOP and the Birther Trap Peter Wehner. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 14, 2011. pg. A.17 A state official has stated that such a document exists, and Obama appears to believe that there is no need to give in to conspiracy theorists by requesting its release. Birther Claims Have No Basis in Fact Glenn Kessler. Valley News. White River Junction, Vt.: Apr 13, 2011. pg. A.6 The birthers see a conspiracy, but Abercrombie's predecessor, Linda Lingle, is a staunch Republican and a big booster of Sarah Palin and even spoke on the Alaskan's behalf at the 2008 GOP convention. But to true conspiracy theorists, any evidence that disproves their theory is only further proof of how diabolically clever the conspiracy is. Trump gives traction to discredited rumor Scripps Howard editorial. Journal - Gazette. Ft. Wayne, Ind.: Apr 12, 2011. pg. A.9 ...he seems preoccupied almost exclusively by the so-called "birther" conspiracy that says President Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he claims. Obama faces a new Republican Trump card The Independent. London (UK): Apr 12, 2011. pg. 24 The conspiracy theory invented by Simpson's defenders was every bit as loopy as the fantasies concerning Obama. [..] Perhaps the same is true of any birth-certificate analysis, but consider nevertheless what's needed to hold this conspiracy together: The plot would need to span five decades. Birthers' conspiracy plot: Plants are legion; Huge cast of nefarious players would have been spread quite thin faking Obama's story. Michael Smerconish. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Apr 8, 2011. p. A.2 If only Hawaii made its birth records public, and charged people a thousand dollars a pop to look at them, the state's budget problems would be solved by the conspiracy theorists. Donald Trump Strikes Back; [Op-Ed] Gail Collins. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Apr 9, 2011. pg. A.21

• It looks like "Obama+birth+certificate+controversy" pulls up 973,000 while "Obama+birth+certificate+conspiracy+theory" pulls up 391,000.[8][9] so I think that supports the COMMONNAME argument for a move. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. There are many possible theories as to why Barack Obama's birth certificate invalid. One is the belief in a giant conspiracy including the state of Hawaii, and the paper with the birth announcement. Clearly this is a crazy conspiracy theory. However the belief that Barack Obama's parents filled a false certificate after his birth to get him citizenship, would not be catagorized as a conspiracy theory (as it only involes 1-2 people in the coverup). As such a more general title makes sense to me.134.134.139.75 (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The idea is to increase views to wikipedia articles by naming the articles by what people expect to search for them under.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

But these are commonly referred to as conspiracy theories, so per WP:COMMONNAME we should leave the article title as is. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per both WP:FRINGE and WP:COMMONNAME. Apart from the fringe conspiracy nuts, no one recognizes this as a legitimate controversy. Not to invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but using the phrase "conspiracy theory" here is correct for the same reason that it is correctly used in Moon landing conspiracy theories. To the extent that the title imbues POV, it's unavoidable, and is preferable to the POV that would be provided by labeling it a legitimate "controversy." TJRC (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the "controversy" surrounding this are coming from those who are pushing it. Reliable sources call this a conspiracy theory and there hasn't been anything recently to change that. A possible presidential candidate and also an Arizona "Brither" bill that was recently vetoed by that state's governor does not change the facts here. Brothejr (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire premise of this Article is that the Birthers are a fringe group. It is reported that 48% of Republicans in Iowa believe that Obama was not born in the U.S. and an additional 26% are uncertain. CNN reports that 34% of Democrats and Independents don't believe Obama was born in the U.S.

Time for conspiracy to be renamed controversy.

Even better, the entire Article needs to be deleted. It has probably done more damage to WP's credibility than everything else combined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.116.152 (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support changing title to Barack Obama citizenship challenges. Simply because there is at least one section which definitely does not involve conspiracy theories: the section which discusses claims that Obama is excluded from being a natural-born citizen simply because his father was not a U.S. citizen. However wrong that idea may be, it is hardly a conspiracy theory, but rather an interpretation of the Constitution, since it is an undisputed fact that Barack Obama Sr. was not and never became a U.S. citizen. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, as a quick visit to any birther site will indicate a belief that there is a "true" definition of natural-born citizen that is known, but being surpressed. In other words, not a mere disagreement, but a theory that a conspiracy is preventing the "true" meaning from being known. (Also, the vast majority of these claims do expressly allege a conspiracy; it would be giving undue weight to ignore that.) --Weazie (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. Ng.j (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Birther controversy

How about "Birther controversy", the name used by today's CNN article on the topic?[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The full term CNN used is so-called "birther" controversy. That would obviously be a bad title, and removing the adjective and scare quotes changes the meaning. Beyond that "birther" is a neologism that does not suitably identify the topic of the article to those who don't already know, and "controversy" has been repeatedly rejected as an inaccurate description of the phenomenon because there is no bona fide dispute over Obama's citizenship or place of birth. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your first couple points but it's a bit weird to say that there is no controversy when the CNN article I mentioned says there is. In any case, it was just an idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to section title and document description

What is pictured is exactly what it says it is , a "Certification of Live Birth". so our section title should say that, I think. I was just reverted by Tarc on that point. Reliable sources say there is a substantial difference between a birth certificate and a certification of live birth and even the section itself states that the Certificate is a longer form with more information on it. Also I think reliable sources say that the actual certificate would have a signature. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Q3 in the FAQ list, above. You will find plenty of discussion on how to caption Obama's birth certificate if you search the archives. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize this is unintentional, but the term "birth certificate" in our section heading is obviously (albeit mistakenly) false and inadvertantly misleading to Readers. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It is not. Please read Q3 on the FAQ and search the archives for discussions on the image caption. It's been debated extensively and there is no doubt that the image is Obama's birth certificate. Dave Dial (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand Q3 in the FAQ. But still, why not just say certificate of live birth? It is patently true and nobody can argue with it. –CWenger (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Because, although different jurisdictions print different official titles on their documents, the universally accepted term for such documents is "birth certificate". If the document cannot legitimately be called a birth certificate, then the question "Where's the birth certificate?" takes on a new level of silliness, since Hawaii does not issue a document with that exact title. In response to a request for a "birth certificate", Hawaii sends out the document shown. Calling it something else gives rise to ridiculous arguments trying to make a distinction where none exists. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What if we added a short phrase to the caption to preempt any such arguments? For example: "Scanned image of Barack Obama's birth certificate released by his presidential campaign in June 2008; Hawaii refers to these documents as a certificate of live birth." –CWenger (✍ • @) 07:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer to Q3 on FAQ is misleading at best and is directly contradicted by the content of this very article; Q3 gives the impression that the Certification is the same thing as the Certificate through the use of the word "instead"; "Hawaii has never issued a document with the title "Birth Certificate". Instead, their certificate is titled, "Certification Of Live Birth"." This takes a statement which could have been technically correct (as apparently the term "birth certificate" is not used) and turns it into an outright falsehood since Hawaii does issue a different document (not an instead document) which they call, according to our article, a longer form "Certificate of Live Birth". From our article:"The image posted online at Obama's website is a "Certification of Live Birth" and is sometimes referred to as a short form birth certificate. It contains less information than the longer "Certificate of Live Birth"." I think this whole article needs a fresh review and clean up by Editors who have not been involved before. I notice in the primary Obama article's FAQ, Q4 has a dead link to an image of the "birth certificate". But to stay on point, it is misleading at best for us to knowingly be calling a white rose a red rose in a section title. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of the paragraph? The next sentence states that "The Hawaii State Department of Health no longer issues the long-form Certificate and issues only the shorter Certification upon request." Also, in the lede: "Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii 'does not have a short-form or long-form certificate'" To state or imply that there is another certificate which could be released but hasn't been would be absolutely factually incorrect, as the cited reliable sources indicate. There doesn't seem to be much more to discuss here.--Loonymonkey (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see what you are talking about. Are you saying that there is no long form certificate anywhere for Obama? It is clear that when he was born they had a long form birth "certifiCATE" and it is grossly misleading to our Readers and absurd to be calling a clearly titled "CertifiCATION" a certificate. That's my opinion based upon what I think is common sense and I find the insistence upon calling something titled a "certification of live birth" a "birth certificate" very bizarre. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I went to article source #35[11] which supports what Loonymonkey is saying about the State no loger issuing the long form. That Source clearly distinguishes between certificate and certification and supports my view that the terms are not interchangeable but are to the contrary defined by the State as being distinguishable from each other and I quote from that source;

*"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard

I have opened a [12] discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard and any Editors may comment there if you wish. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Today Show content

Content of an Interview[13] with Donald Trump reverted [14] with an edit summary saying "Trump is not an authority on these matters", meanwhile directly above the reverted sentence is a block quote with the opinion of a National Review columnist whom likely is also not an authority on these matters. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because it did not seem like very good judgment to include such a potentially problematic statement without prior discussion, given the precarious situation of this article. I don't have an opinion of whether Trump is enough of an authority, but the phrasing that you included was clearly problematic. If there is a general consensus that including it is fine by me. But given the discretionary sanctions at this topic I would suggest that you begin by suggesting any potentially controversial changes on the talkpage before putting it into the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, I will follow your suggestion. I suggested adding:

• "Donald Trump, in a Today (NBC program) Show interview on April 7,2011, said that the released "Certification of Live Birth" document is "not even close" to being equivalent to a "real birth certificate".[15]

I think it is reasonable in light of the block quote currently in that "Release of birth certificate" section from a Nastional Review columnist.:

• "Referring to this release, National Review columnist Jim Geraghty, wrote on June 12, 2008:...this document is what he or someone authorized by him was given by the state out of its records. Barring some vast conspiracy within the Hawaii State Department of Health, there is no reason to think his [original] birth certificate would have any different data.[33]" Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is somewhat of a false parallel being drawn here. Jim Geraghty is known for his commentary on political issues for a conservative magazine; both he and the magazine are largely opposed to Obama's policies, and he is cited earlier in this article as having been among the commentators calling for release of a birth certificate copy. His comment is as much on the political issues as the document itself. Donald Trump is known for his commentary on – Donald Trump. He is not recognized as either a political commentator or an expert on the "realness" of a signed, sealed and certified official state document. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Soc. Sec. Number

Being very late to the "party", I am just now discovering the alleged Connecticut SSN aspect of this matter. Has that already been dealt with and put to bed here as well? I quickly see 1 Reliable Source [16] article about it and 1 youtube [17] of a White House press confernece which is interesting to me in the obvious deflectiveness,imo, of Gibbs answer. Has it already been hashed out in previous discussion? I looked in the Archive index but could not find "social security number". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are 2 more articles from Huffington Post and Sonora News:[18][19] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the fringe of the fringe. Sonora News and Huff Post exclusive articles usually usually are not reliable sources, but it's undoubtedly true that a few among the birther advocates - a select group already - have raised an SSN claim. Is it worth including among the many other claims? I guess it depends on the weight of the sources. I know google counts aren't terribly useful, but sometimes they give a first indication of the relative magnitude of an issue, in terms of numbers of published sources. Google news archives gives this one 34 hits[20] versus 6.8 million for the issue overall.[21] On the face of it, this does not seem to be a significant enough part of the phenomenon to cover, but it could grow. Ideally, you'd want some major sources that not only say this claim exists, but tie it to the wider phenomenon. The CSM piece is a start, maybe there will be others. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nordyke Twins Certificate Numbers

Donald Trump mentioned these twins on CNN tonight. There seems to be a question [22] as to why Obama has a later certificate #, according to his # as shown at Factcheck.org, than the twins though he was born before them. I searched the archives but found mothing about it, has this been dealt with before? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

For this and future reference, there is no need to rush to this talk page every time Trump tries to grab a little more limelight with his antics. But if you have some reliably sourced, NPOV material that you feel would benefit this article, by all means, suggest it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is synthesis. (No WP:RS has said birth certificates are ordered by time of birth.) As to this particular claim, it is, too, a subset of not-born-Hawaii claim.) --Weazie (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not going to use WND as a source for any kind of claims on this article. So I think it is a good idea to find a reliable source before bringing any suggestions here. Otherwise, the answer is going to be a quick "No". Dave Dial (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Using WND as a source means just ignore the post. Ravensfire (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Canada Free Press is a Reliable Source. This article came out just a week ago and says, in part, "If Obama was born in the same hospital one day earlier than the Nordyke twins and his birth was registered three days earlier on Aug. 8, 1961, then why does he have a higher certificate number? And why does his certificate number have two extra digits? Even a cub reporter would conclude that there is something wrong with that picture." Is this article ok to look at for possible notable content on the subject matter? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Canada Free Press is most definitely not a reliable source. It's an opinion page for conservatives with no editorial oversight or fact checking. Dave Dial (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What about this Wall Street Journal column?[23] I'm just looking to see if there is anything acceptable. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You could save us all a lot of time by reading WP:RS and learning the policies. Editorials are not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of their author. I would add that there's no small amount of irony in the fact that several articles debunking birtherism (and savagely mocking it) are being proposed by the two or three editors pushing to get birther theories presented as fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read it, but there seems to be so many interpretations and exceptions, I don't really understand how the policy is being applied other than on a case by case consensus basis; e.g. the real time blogs from war zones are RSs with no fact checking at all. But, I will read it again. Thanks for the suggestion, Loonymonkey. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's actually pretty close to a reliable source, except it's an opinion piece by James Taranto. So it could be used as a possible way into the birther claims here, but then we get into a weight issue on a BLP. Of course Taranto disassembles Corsi in his piece, and any addition would just be frivolous based on the wording used here. So I would say right now, there isn't enough significance to be mentioned. Due to lack of reliable sources and weight issues. Dave Dial (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

It appears that the majority here decided at some point to not allow a POV tag to exist on the article. Is there some aspect of any of the WP policies that support that determination? I mean, it seems to me that tag placement, by definition, is often a minority opinion about the state of an article. I have never run into this before, where a number of Editors feel an article is not NPOV but are prohibited by the majority from placing a pov tag. Is it something to do with the probation that disallows a tag? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP doing something here that it doesn't do elsewhere would tend to confirm the Birther Conspiracy Theory.True Observer (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots of reasons, all of which appear in the archives of this talk page. Can we discuss this somewhere else instead of trying to wake a dead horse? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

TrueObserver has a view which could be reinforced if this is an approach applied only to Obama articles; I do not have enough experience to know if it is a unique approach. Wikidemon, are there other subject matters that you know of which have an established prohibition against pov tags? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The tag, as recently placed, did not appear to be attempt to alert uninvolved editors to an article that needs clean-up. Rather, it seemed to be there as a "badge of shame" by an editor or two that didn't like the consensus that had moved against them. It's purpose was more to warn readers than to invite editors. That's not what those tags are for. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any precedent for dealing with disputed tagging of articles subject to article probation on hot button political topics. However, drive-by and sour grapes POV tags are routinely removed across the project if intended as badges of shame. They are to note that a POV discussion is underway, not as a parting shot. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

April,2011 NYTImes etc. article

Are there any objections to including some content from this article from today's NY Times?[24] or this recent USA Today[25]article?Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is also a good politco article that just came out that talks about the history of bitherism. You can find it here - [26] Remember (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just reading it at another site. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Politico article is great material for us to use here. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on just what material you would like to add. Waving one's hand at the entirely of a NYT or USA Today article isn't very revealing. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Right,Tarc, but at this point, it seems more efficient and perhaps would generate less reverts if Editors like yourself have a look and see if there is any content at all which would be acceptable to you given the extensive history of this article. I can see lots of stuff that I find new and interesting and notable, but I do not have near as much experience with the topic or the article background as several other Editors like Wikidemon and perhaps yourself. I will come back with a list if you don't see anything yourself worth adding. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll pass doing the legwork for you, thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, I think these 3 paragraphs have notable content:

A New York Times/CBS News Poll released Thursday found that 57 percent of adults surveyed nationwide said they thought Mr. Obama was born in the United States, versus 25 percent who said he was born elsewhere. Among Republicans, for instance, 33 percent said they thought Mr. Obama was born in America, while 45 percent said his birth occurred in another country.

“It’s not a birther bill, it’s a common-sense bill,” said a lead sponsor, State Senator Rick Brinkley, a Republican from suburbs of Tulsa. “If you’re going to file for office, you should be willing to substantiate that you meet the qualifications.”

“If one state passes, and the Obama administration basically ignores the requirement and does not qualify for the ballot in that state, that would send a very strong signal that we have a situation in the United States where someone who is not eligible is occupying the White House,” said Mark Hatfield, a Republican state representative in Georgia whose own ballot bill failed to get through. If Oklahoma does not go forward, and an override of Ms. Brewer’s veto in Arizona does not materialize, Mr. Hatfield said, “then other states, including Georgia, have a duty to step up.” Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If we were going to include the polling data, we would have to at least provide a summation of the following paragraph which breaks it down along partisan and geographic boundaries. As for the other two, I don't really see what quoting the opinion of people who support birther bills adds to the article (or why you cherry-picked those quotes over the quotes of people who oppose birther bills in the article).--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, the distinction is between conspiracy theory and statement of fact. If 43% of adults are not sure whether Obama was born in the U.S., then surely it is past the conspiracy stage. What if it was 50%? Would it still be a conspiracy. How about 51%. Would that then make the Obama supporters conspiracy theorists? At the rate things are going, that qustion may not be too far off.64.22.216.38 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing "conspiracy theory" with "minority opinion." If 51% of the public believed that the moon landing was fake (regardless of whether any actual evidence to that effect existed) would that mean that it was no longer a conspiracy theory? No, it would still be a conspiracy theory, just one that was widely believed for whatever reason. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

One side doesn't get to decide the truth of facts. This issue isn't as straightforward as you and the other editors are presenting.True Observer (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, it kind of is. The mainstream, conventional point-of-view is that Obama was born in the US and is fully, constitutionally eligible for the presidency. The fringe, out-there point of view is that for varying claims, he is ineligible. What an encyclopedia does is present what outside, reliable sources say on the matter. The preponderance of reliable sources present the subject matter as a fringe conspiracy theory, and thus we reflect that. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

To call 43% of american adults fringe, is really out there.True Observer (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If 51% of adults believed that Obama was not born in the U.S., then that would be the conventional point of view. Also, you don't need outside reliable sources for facts that are incontrovertible. It is a fact that the original source or evidence of Obama's birth has not been made available to the public. From WP: "In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) it is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study." True Observer (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect, that would not be the conventional point of view as expressed on Wikipedia. Surveys aren't used to determine that, rather we use reliable, verifiable sources. The conventional view is that which a majority of those secondary sources say. Sometimes, that's a judgement call, but here it is absolutely clear. Ravensfire (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

TrueObserver, I know how you feel, I think, but Ravensfire is absolutely right. I also have trouble with how most Reliable Sources, politicians and various "political consultants" continually ram a biased pov on this issue and others through their programs, venues and platforms; just like they did in 2002 with "Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction!" (and now they always preface that discussion in 2011 with the excuse "everybody thought he had them"). Its very Orwellian. Even so, here, at Wikipedia, we are confined completely by what these major media sources, and some other Reliable Sources, are saying. What the population thinks, and what fringe media publish, and certainly critical thinking by Editors are not going to have a lot of influence. What we can do is what Remember did (above) which is bring forward that new Politico article which is a Reliable Source with more detailed or different info from what the mass (media) is usually presenting. As you can see, information from that article was readily accepted by Ravensfire. But there has become no doubt in my mind that Ravensfire and Wikidemon and others are correct about the massive weight of disdain and backlash coming out against this theory from Reliable Sources and it is those Reliable Sources, not Editors here, who are aggresively pushing the "conspiracy theory" label primarily through abject scorn and humiliating treatment towards anyone who raises the question. I just started really paying attention to it a week or so ago and all I can say is "Wow!". Its so pervasive that its a bit scary, and when the media folks who most seem to want to push this back under the rug get in a corner, they play the race card; almost every time,especially on CNN; "would anyone even be asking this question if he was white", they say. And its not just this article. The exact same battering ram push has been continual about how the West should be doing more to help the Libyan "rebels" take over that country. So, for this article, what matters is what the Reliable Sources say and the ratio of what they are saying for balance. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Convention means to have a generally accepted point of view. What is being suggested is that you could have: (1) A general public conventional point of view and (2) A WP conventional point of view. While we're at it, why can't we have a lawyers' conventional point of view and an accountants' conventional point of view? There is one and only one conventional point of view and the society (general public) decides what it is. The general public could be wrong and thus the conventional point of view could be wrong. But the society decides what is convention.True Observer (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No, "generally accepted" is not one person (rather, one American - the rest of the world is not moved by this) one vote. By that theory, evolution didn't happen, the earth is a perfect sphere (at least it's not flat), disease is caused by bad spirits, and lots of other stuff. In society, it is what credible people and institutions in the know hold out to be the truth, in transparent fashion without undue self-interest in the subject, after diligent study. Something like that. On Wikipedia it is the preponderance of the best available reliable sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

True Observer; Yes, that is a good observation I think. On Wikipedia you and I are Editors; I doubt most members of the general public would say we are "Editors". And also with lawyers "leading" someone has a different meaning than when its public usage and accountants? "reconcile" means something different when I say it. So, I think you have identified a reality;

• A general public conventional point of view can be different from a WP conventional point of view.

I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but I do think that its reality. The next complicating factor is that neither point of view is carved in stone for all eternity. Either one can and does change over time in relation to almost everything it's possible to have a point of view about. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

USA/Gallup says only 38% believe Obama was born in the U.S. The WP position has just become the minority point of view. As of today, the conventional point of view is that Obama was not born in the U.S. Notwithstanding all the rationalization in this discussion, the average Joe knows that the original birth certificate has not been presented for inspection to the general public and there is no good reason for it not to have been.True Observer (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. The USA/Gallup poll does not say 62% disbelieve Obama was born in the United States, nor any of the other conclusions you have drawn. wp:letitgo. --Weazie (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This Conspiracy Theory originated from Hillary Clinton's Campaign?

I did not know this;

• "That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama's citizenship."Barack Obama's mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,"
• "The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama."[27]

I thought the conspiracy theory came out of the right wingers. Why is this info not in the "origins of the claim" section? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a brief mention of it "During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries ...". That's probably about the right weight, as it was very vague and more innuendo driven in the early stages. I added some additional verbage about where the e-mails during the primary came from and why. Ravensfire (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire, The problem with that current wording(in our article), I think, is that it can be misleading or at least unclear. After reading it awhile back, I just assumed that the origin was from the Republican side and that their timing was during Democratic primaries. I think it should be clear that it originated from Clinton's people; that is very notable and punches a big hole in the perception that many, like myself, have/had that the whole thing was dreamt up by Right Wingers. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, today's Politico article[28] which Remember (talk) mentions in the preceding topic section has much more content specific to Clinton's people's originating the theory whereas the current source we use does not mention Clinton at all, I don't believe. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I just now see you fixed it. Cool. I have to read Editors' comments more thoroughly.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between origins, and when it became widely spread. The NRO article is when it first went mainstream. And, as the article demonstrates, "Clinton supporters" are not the ones maintaining its viability. --Weazie (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The politico piece says "the identity of the First Birther is lost to the mists of chain email", flowery language for saying that the origin was an Internet rumor that got picked up and bounced around by a number of successive opponents of Obama. It also says the following:

The original smear against Obama was that he was a crypto-Muslim, floated in 2004 by perennial Illinois political candidate and serial litigant Andy Martin. Other related versions of this theory alleged that Obama was educated in an Indonesian “madrassa” or steeped in Islamist ideology from a young age, and the theories began to spread virally after Obama appeared on the national stage. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of the madrassa/Islam stuff is in the Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories article. I don't remember Martin doing too much about citizenship back then. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Politico (or, I should say, Ben Smith writing for Politico) conflates the two. They sprang from the source -- the early viral emails -- and they are arguably the same phenomenon, which Smith describes as disbelief that an African-American child of immigrants with a funny sounding name could possibly be the a real American, or the real president of the US. We broke this into two articles for convenience, but Smith writes of the citizenship / eligibility thing as a continuation of the religion thing. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Bill Smith is isolating it to a religious thing but rather a "theories in search of facts" thing. Just for devil's advocacy sake, there could be just a general "where there's smoke there's fire" thing and/or "too good to be true" thing or just plain "smells fishy" thing having some influence with this and other Obama theories. Just because this theory is, imo, silly,unproven and unimportant, does not mean it will turn out to be false. We have to remember there was a similar drumbeat continuation of accusations, rumours, affadavits, suits etc. about B. Clinton's sex activities which were dismissed by most Reliable Sources as unproven rumours and by the Clinton team as "if you drag a $100. bill through a trailor park you're bound to pick up some trash" and "a vast right wing conspiracy" until, amazingly, some retained DNA on a dress was produced. Even then, the woman who was instrumental in providing that evidence,Linda Tripp, was not presented by Reliable Sources as some sort of Truth Finder but rather as something quite unattractive. My only point is, I don't think any of us really knows where this is going to end up, but the fact there has been a continuation of theories which are being categorized as smears, even by the White House, does not, in my mind, mean anything at all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Prescient Obama Comment

I was reading Source #12 from the Lede (the article about O's high school teacher) and almost fell off my chair. I don't know where or how this could fit into the article but it surely would add a lot to it, imo;

"During one class the question was posed “of what should we be most afraid,” drawing answers that included “death,” “hell,” “biological warfare,” “fear” and “isolation,” said Nelson.“I recall Barack sitting in the back of the room,” Nelson said, demonstrating a hands-behind-his- head pose and describing his lanky, outstretched legs.“When he pulled himself upright I thought ‘Bingo. Here we go,’”she said, expecting the discussion to move to a new level.“And he said, ‘Words. Words are the power to be feared most. Every individual has an unmonitored arsenal and whether they are directed personally or internationally, words can be weapons of destruction.”

Isn't that one of the most profound statements you've ever heard? especially from a high schooler? and doesn't it fit perfectly, in an amazingly presient way, within an article about people who 35 years later are using an "unmonitored arsenal" of words against him? I think it should go in the article somewhere; its just too applicable to leave out. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Prescient, yes. He's a genius. It's no accident he ascended to POTUS. However, it isn't really relevant here, and finding a way to shoehorn it in would likely violate WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point about shoehorn and OR. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Denialism

I propose that someone create a link to the article on denialism. The Obama Birth Certificate conspiracy theories are a perfect example of denialism.

Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth:[1] "[it] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".

Also, we could create a link in the Denialism article that uses this Obama Birth Certificate article as an example. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.94.23 (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent suggestion for the future,perhaps, but not today; being neutral about this issue today is similar to being neutral about whether "Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction" in 2002; and unless one is neutral, one can not see the applicability of denialism. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Department of Redundancy Department

In reference to this edit,[29] The article does explain that they're false. Over and over again. Please consider the article in its entire context (and not just one sentence) and you'll see that the language is repetitive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Three bits of information were removed in a series of edits here, here, and here. I implicitly agreed that two of the bits seemed awkward, forced, and unimportant, but do not feel that applies to the one I restored, which is in an introductory passage and applies to an entire set of rumors, some not fully covered in this article. If there is a consensus to remove this fact, which is contained in the cited source, then that's fine. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the edit restored should stay, and the other two edits were fine. But I will say that I went to read the article to get an understanding of what was removed and why, and it just reads very poorly. Most of which is because it seems jumbled with no set order of events. Dave Dial (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that too much redundancy isn't necessary, but I have restored the first of the three edits mentioned above as it's a pretty significant piece of information not explicitly stated elsewhere or covered in this article. It's just one phrase and isn't redundant, so its restoration shouldn't be problematic. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Motivation for people who claim this, and motivation for Obama?

I see very little on this regarding the motivations of people who want to claim Obama is not a citizen or national, and also very little of people explaining why Obama would willingly do this if he were not truly eligible.

Arnold Schwarzenegger never tried to pretend he was born in the US, Mel Gibson wouldn't have to pretend (because Mel was born in the US), just to name a couple of famous people who would be not eligible or eligible.

So the part that puzzles me, and probably needs to be answered more completely, is *why* do people claim Obama is *not* a citizen? For the most part, we are seeing nothing more than a LOT of speculation here, but not a lot of evidence.

And for the other side, why would Obama continue this charade if he were not a citizen? It seems like a rational person wouldn't mess with it. For the *chance* potentially to be president? Is this supposed to have been some pre-arranged plan for the last 50 years? It doesn't add up logically. We've had people rise to very high levels in government who aren't citizens, so it would be silly, no matter how popular you are, to continue down such a path.

So, no matter how many supposedly reliable sources we have in this article, the big bits of evidence are missing completely. We have here a huge amount of fluff with a bunch of laypeople's opinions, most of which have no direct connection to anything, nor any reason to believe they are experts, and yet they are all talking. What is their motivation? Is this simply a political ploy? And if it is, why are they being presented here in the article as credible or reliable sources to something when they have no expertise or background in the subject? -- Avanu (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We have very little reliable information as to why people believe what they do. It's hard enough to figure out what people believe in the first place, much less why - mostly we just know what they say. Why Obama might be committing a fraud if the theories were true is speculation. Even if we had sources, it would be sources speculating. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What might be interesting - if it's not already in the article and sources can be found for this - is Obama and/or his supporters' motivation for keeping the conspiracy theories alive, since it makes these opponents look bad. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Current Pic in Lead Paragraph

I had removed it because it is a pretty biased initial image. It was soon reverted with the comment "Reinstate pic, I don't see how a picture is biased", which seems to be a fairly naïve comment. Words are able to be biased, imagery doubly so (or 1000 words so, according to some). Since the immediate image one sees upon coming to the page says "Where's the Birth Certficate?", it casts a light on the article as being solely biased toward that point of view (See WP:UNDUE). A more neutral image (or none) should certainly be available (perhaps 2 people debating the issue), and would better represent the weight of various viewpoints on this topic more accurate. -- Avanu (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a reasonably emblematic image to me. The article is about the fringe theory that Obama isn't eligible for the US Presidency (and those who believe it), not about the reality that he is. I don't see the problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you totally. The title of the page includes the words "Citizenship Conspiracy Theories," and the billboard is a fine representation of the subject matter. Simply showing a famous billboard doesn't give any more credence to the conspiracy theory. A picture of two people debating wouldn't add any further understanding of the CCT. Dayewalker (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the theories, and not the debate. Therefore, an image such as this is perfect for the article. Kansan (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon. The article is about the birthers as much as the actual controversy, and as such the billboard is "emblematic" of that, to steal a word. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My point is about the bias. An image like http://www.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Birthers.jpg would convey that this is a debate, not a declaration. As for the billboard being famous, this page is the first time I have ever seen it. -- Avanu (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course the billboard is biased, but one would expect it to be as it is a highly politically charged subject. Wikipedia does not shy away from covering and describing, whether in word or through picture, controversial subjects. Again, the subject of the page is the conspiracy theories, not the debate (which is discussed later in the article). Kansan (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon and others that it is a good representation of the topic. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep the billboard image. It will not change a reader's mind so it can hardly be biased. All it does is demonstrate one tactic. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

POSFKBC

The article talks about President Obama's first fake Kenyan birth certificate, but not about President Obama's second fake Kenyan birth certificate (POSFKBC). The POSFKBC was also filed by Orly Taitz in Keyes v Bowen. While the first certificate now carries little support from anyone, the second one is still widely believed by the birther community, even though equally debunked. Although the article is painfully long, I propose adding a paragraph about this fake if it can be properly sourced. Unfortunately the second fake has received less press than the first one.Kevin (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The article says: "These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations,[13] every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials—a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate." The source given for this is a Salon.com article that says nothing about any court addressing the birth certificate. If "every judicial forum that has addressed the matter" cannot be sourced (and unlikely to be sourced since it is not true), then it should be removed. I propose removing it.Kevin (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is in the Lede, which is a summary of the article and is sourced throughout the page. For both of your suggestions see here and here. Dave Dial (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since people seem to be editing the 'dilemna' section a lot

An editor just added a poll source, because the wording has been flipping from "large" to "some", however, the source that mentions the poll also includes the source's interpretation of the poll.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/02/15/poll-most-republicans-doubt-obama-s-citizenship-as-birtherism-becomes-a-screen-for-ideology.aspx

"Does that mean that 72 percent of Republicans think Obama should be disqualified from the presidency? No. It suggests that birtherism has become another screen for extreme partisanship."

If we're going to quote a source, we can't pick and choose, the original meaning in the source needs to be preserved. -- Avanu (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we have sourcing that a considerable percentage of Republicans (and a considerable, but far less considerable percentage of Democrats) either doubt Obama's birthplace or are convinced it is not the US. We also have sources that say that beliefs among some in the Republican base are presenting a dilemma for some Republican candidates. What we don't have is a single source that says that (a) the percentage being large (b) leads to the dilemma. That would be synthesis, and quite possibly an erroneous interpretation. Perhaps a small percentage would also lead to a dilemma, just a smaller dilemma. The other problem is that sources are for facts, not characterizations. Some sources might characterize ten miles as "a long distance" and other sources might characterize ten miles as "not very far at all". At a certain point, descriptive terms are matters of style and tone, not sourcing. They don't get fact checked, they don't have accountability in the same way that journalistic facts do. In isolation we wouldn't look to the sources to say whether 31% (or some other number) is a lot or not. Like I said, what we would need a source for is that the size of the percentage is creating the dilemma. There being a valid sourcing objection to the adjective "large", I would say it stays out until sourced more directly. BTW, this seems to be one of the sillier edit wars of late. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire article looks like it could use a lot of work, but I guess you have to start somewhere. -- Avanu (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

At 1 word per day it will take about 40 years :) - Wikidemon (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I hit enter too soon

In regards to this edit,[30] I reverted because these subsections were already in a section called "claims". I accidentally hit enter before I had a chance to finish my edit summary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I already saw that they were in a section called Claims, but they are spread so far apart, the headings make it appear that these statements are undisputed facts. I added in the additional verbiage to make this crystal clear. -- Avanu (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is also called respond on the Talk page, and you didn't. I put in it because of the reasons I gave. You gave a reason that is pretty minor. Please stop reverting things without explaining fully. -- Avanu (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I work on lots of different articles and noticeboards and policy discussions as my contribution history will clearly show. Please give time for people to respond before edit-warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait a bit longer. I do not believe that as it is written now, that it is NPOV. (See False light) -- Avanu (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to these sort of issues, I prefer to stand on the shoulders of others. Intelligent design is a featured article and it has a similar sections titled Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity, Intelligent designer. It doesn't prefix each section with "Claims of". Although not a featured article, 9/11 conspiracy theories has been named as an example of an article about a fringe topic that is reasonably well-maintained by the quarterly newsletter of the Association for Skeptical Inquiry,[31] and again, it doesn't prefix each section with "Claims of". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Not prefacing every section with the word "claims" does not make it appear they are statements of fact. The article makes it abundantly clear that the whole dispute has been artificially generated. Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I am just trying to be too zealous in making sure it is taken as intended. -- Avanu (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's understandable, but we need to respect the intelligence of the reader. Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the whole point. -- Avanu (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition of statement from Hawaii Attorney General's office

I added a reference from the Hawaii Attorney General's office, wherein a spokesman says that it is not legally possible to release the original Certificate of Live Birth, even to the President. --Mujokan (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So what is the point of retaining it if it cannot be released. If there was a paternity or inheritance dispute does anyone think a judge wouldn't order its immediate release? That's why they're generated in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.116.152 (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"...it is not legally possible to release the original Certificate of Live Birth, even to the President."

This smacks of hair-splitting. Of course it's not possible "...to release the original Certificate of Live Birth". What does that have to do with releasing a "copy" of the original certificate? Several have been posted on the web already, no? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Folks, you will just have to wait on this until 4 August 2036. At that time, according to the Department of Vital Statistics of the State of Hawai'i [32], genealogical requests for the manifold copy of the birth registration will be honored. Set your cel phones and daytimers, please! There is a catch, of course: you will still have to use a genealogist to make your request. In the meantime it can be released to persons with a tangible interest, but it was sealed by those who have such a tangible interest for its own safekeeping. And for all you birthers out there, please please note: the original record does in fact still exist. It is only for new birth registrations that older types of data-gathering fields, such as race of parent, legitimacy, and hospital address, are unavailable because they are not asked for. Hawai'i birth records date back well into the 19th century. These are archival records and are never never destroyed. Genehisthome (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume, then, that you concur that the statement from the Hawaii Attorney General's office is either misrepresenting the governing Hawaii Statute §338-18 Disclosure of recordsor is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a copy of the original (long form) can be issued (emphasis mine)...

§338-18 Disclosure of records.

(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, 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 of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

(b) The 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.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Assume whatever you want about the competence ofthe Attorney General to interpret Hawaiian law. As pointed out below, this is not the place to discuss that question. A reliable source reported what was said in the context of this article so the statement was included. The End. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. As the comments of the Attorney General's spokesman appear to be both relevant and acceptable, surely reportage offered in rebuttal is germane as well.

I propose the folowing rebuttal text for inclusion (hyperlink mine)...

In response to Mr. Tisch's statement, World Net Daily noted that the "...Hawaii Revised Statutes, Paragraph 38-13(a)(sic) specifies that the agency 'shall, upon request, furnish an applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.' Further, subparagraph C allows that copies of birth certificates 'may be made by photograph, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.'"

JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

My gosh, you are proposing to use WND and original research to "counter" the AG of Hawaii? I think not. Also, Obama released a 'certified copy' of his birth certificate. You may have seen it, it's on the main page of this article and Factcheck.com. Dave Dial (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Since WND's reading of that statute is considered here to be unreliable, how about adding 'As of 2011, Section (a) of Florida Revised Statute §338-13 provides, "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.'", following "Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general's office, stated in 2011 that the original Certificate of Live Birth kept in the archives of the Hawaii Department of Health is "... a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody", including President Obama. Wisch added that state law does not authorize photocopying such records.[37]", Citing this primary source in support of the quoted statute? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the recent edit to remove this text; its inclusion is synthesis and original research. (Personally, I think § 338-13 does not contradict what Wisch said; but it is wikipedia, not weaziepedia.) --Weazie (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good, at least we're back to discussing the article. I'm pretty sure WND is generally not considered a reliable source, but can be used as a source for its own opinion. To avoid edit wars, you might want to see how other editors feel about that addition. I'm at the point of being barely awake right now, so I haven't nit-picked closely, but my initial take is that it looks like it should be OK. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not consider WND a reliable source as to WND's opinion because the authors there do not speak for the publication, nor do they always say what they actually believe. The proposition that a given piece of text appeared on WND's website can usually be supported by a citation to that piece of text, if the citation includes a "viewed" date. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

An editor's interpretation of a Hawaiian statute would violate WP:OR. So: no. --Weazie (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Obama "persons with a tangible interest" has had his birth certificate sealed. This is new information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.116.152 (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you folks please take this discussion to the blogs? This page is only for discussing improvements to our article, based on reliable sources. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 00:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no point adding the statute to the article, or interpretations of it from WND. It is speculation about possible legal arguments, which is trumped by the AG's statement, since it hasn't been tested in court. The AG's statement is the best information we have on the actual state of the laws and regulations. The question of "Why doesn't the President just release the original and be done with it" has therefore been answered. It's not legally possible. --Mujokan (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Settled legal matter?

Although I have a high historical agreement rate with User:Wikidemon's edits, I can't see the reasoning behind this reversion, or its edit summary "it's a settled legal matter, not a disputed interpretation". AFAIK, the Supreme Court has never issued a decision in which it asserted or affirmed any particular definition of "natural born citizen". The Snopes article cited with the text dances around the wording. The reverted edit seems to present an accurate, NPOV statement of the current status. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the Supreme Court has not explicitly stated as such, numerous legal experts have stated that is the meaning gleaned from Supreme Court case law on the subject, as reported in numerous reliable sources. --Weazie (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet none of the speculation of those numerous legal experts as to what the Supreme Court "must have meant" are cited cited in the article, and Wikipedia phrases the sentence to sound like anyone who disagrees with the constitutional interpretation of Mr. and Mrs. Mikkelson are in the same recalcitrant category as Holocaust deniers.

Actually, that entire paragraph – using an irrelevant primary source with a non-expert interpretation to refute a position before it is explained – is a travesty of slanted POV and needs to be deleted. Expert commentary on the two theories can be presented following the theories in their separate subsections, not lumped together in the introduction. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The cited snopes article itself cites three scholarly secondary sources. --Weazie (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But the WP article relies on the cited snopes article, not on the three general references cited in the snopes article (those are, 1. "Mr. Hoover's Eligibility for the Presidency" -- from JSTOR abstract, it apparently discusses a question related to the 14-year residency requirement; 2. "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution" -- described by Google Books as, "Analyzes each line of the American federal government's written set of principles and precedents, interpreting the original intent of each clause of the Constitution.'; 3. "The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution" -- according to Google Books, "An award-winning journalist analyzes the Constitution, line by line, ..."). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not seriously suggesting that the Heritage Foundation is an impartial reliable source, are you? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

An alleged bias is no impediment to being regularly cited in WP articles and is an irrelevant consideration. Reliable source? That's an editorial determination to be made.JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Especially since that book was written by Edwin Meese! The third book mentioned? The text you pulled off Google Books is the text of the publisher's blurb: the last word in unreliable sources! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This article does not cite the Heritage foundation book as a supporting source. It cites a web page on snopes.com. That snopes.com web page list that Heritage foundation book internally as one of three general references. The article's citation of the the snopes.com web page as a supporting source has been questioned as using a non-expert interpretation to refute a position before it is explained. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

These types of ultimatums "its a settled legal matter" are very limiting to article development , and give the appearance of micro management of the article's content, at least to me. I must remind myself that in 2002 when Scott Ritter, a former U.N. Weapons Inspector, dared to tell CNN's Paula Zahn that Saddam probably did not have WMDs, he was hit with a pile of scorn and this retort from Zahn "Have you been drinking Saddam's Cool-aid?" It just makes no sense to be absolutist or closed minded in edit summaries or with editing any current and ongoing event, not can the article itself be absolutist and coexist with a Neutral Point of View policy. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Reality is limiting, I'm afraid. It is not Wikipedia's function to challenge established wisdom but rather to report on the state of current knowledge. I would hope that wikipedia as of 2002 was not reporting as a fact that Iraq had WMD but rather that certain us offficials said so. Here in 2011 a novel unaccepted legal theory is not an "interpretation" of the law, it is a position outside of jurisprudence. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's twice you've brushed the question off, first as "settled law" and then as "established wisdom", but the most reliable source presented to support that view is still Snopes. Constitutional interpretation is a bit more complex than alligators in the sewers of New York, and should be addressed by sources with the necessary qualifications. In addition, sources completely putting the question to rest would be a great help over at the Natural Born Citizen Clause article, where they're still bogged down with arguments about de Vattel, sections full of original research, and quotes from Wong Kim Ark (1898) and the Dred Scott dissent. Settled law should be relatively easy to demonstrate. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's separate two things. There's a real question raised on whether this is in fact a baseline legal fact, that if one of your parents is a citizen then you're a "natural born citizen". I truly have not reviewed the issue. I am assuming, based on what I've read so far, that the answer is "yes". Not "yes, but it's a matter of debate" or "yes according to a prevailing legal argument" but "yes". Yes, as a matter of established US law, if one of your parents is a US citizen then you are a natural born citizen. I may be right, I may be wrong. If I'm wrong then, plainly, I'm wrong, and we can say that the matter is undecided. But if I'm right, it would be incorrect to state contrary sources as legal interpretations, because that implies that the interpretations are viable. I could read the US constitution to mean that only men have rights and not women. All men are created equal. Women aren't included. That is not an interpretation. That is a fringe viewpoint. A misreading. What I'm responding to here is Mr.Grantevans2's agitation above that it's somehow improper to try to establish boundaries between reasonable positions and nonsense. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm feeling agitated by your edit because I don't dismiss your words, however over the top or ridiculously pseudointellectually authoritarian I might find them, as "agitations". Plus, you are not "trying" to establish boundaries; you unilaterally establish boundaries with article edits. If you were trying you could discuss the boundaries you want to establish here first. Also, your view of what comprises nonsense seems to, ironically, be so broad as to be nonsense itself. I imagine your use of the term is just an exageration or generalization but you can't sensibly be arguing legal technicalities through generalizational terminologies. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, discussion over apparently. If you have something to contribute to article development please go ahead. Meanwhile, regarding article content the following ought to be clear from my edit summary but I'll spell it out a third time: (1) if it's true that as a matter of established law having a single US citizen as a parent makes one a natural born citizen, then politically motivated objections are not an "interpretation" of law, and (2) if it's not a matter of established law, sorry, my misunderstanding. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I haven't pored through all the existing sources but per this new source[33] the the legal theories by which Obama would be ineligible given the actual facts of the matter are "specious", "incorrect", and "exotic". Unless there's some good sourcing to the contrary, these seem to be the legal equivalent of fringe theories, and again, should not be described as "interpretations" of law. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edited the section to cite to an actual expert who plainly states it's a settled matter. (And references the 14th Amendment, to boot.) The end? --Weazie (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

See this article

what do you think of this article : http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401

"During the course of my employment," Adams states in the affidavit, "I was told by senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division to stop inquiring about Senator Obama's Hawaii birth records, even though it was common knowledge among my fellow employees that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama."

....

Nor does Adams feel the short-form Certification of Live Birth is authoritative documentation proving that Obama was born in Hawaii.

"My basic assumption is that he wasn't born there," Adams said. "Certifications of Live Birth were given to people who were born at home, or to people who were born overseas and whose parents brought them back to the islands. If his parents were U.S. citizens, or if one parent was a U.S. citizen, as was the case with Obama, the family would apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate when the parents came back from overseas. That's normally how you would have gotten on [a Certification of Live Birth] in the 1960s."

Read more: Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401#ixzz1K7wHtPvC

James Michael DuPont (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

worldnetdaily is about as for from being a reliable source as once can get, so their "reporting" on this subject matter is really not useful. Tarc (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not reliable because the Hawaii government site states that a "Certification of Live Birth" just refers to a certified copy of the "Certificate of Live Birth", which is what they call the original birth certificate. Therefore "Certifications of Live Birth were given to people who were born at home, or to people who were born overseas and whose parents brought them back to the islands." is simply false. Furthermore, the head of the DOH verified that the original was on file. This is more reliable than hearsay about "common knowledge". --Mujokan (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No Hawaii official has said that they looked at Obama's Certificate of Live Birth in their records. They have said that it was on file. This could have been done by looking at an index. The Fukino statements are especially interesting. She mixes and matches Certificate of Live Birth and Certification of Live Birth by referring to the document as Birth Certificate. If you parse her written statement, you will see that she never says that she personally looked at the Certificate of Live Birth.True Observer (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Original birth certificate" = "Certificate of Live Birth". These terms are equivalent, as you can easily verify on the Hawaii government website for vital records, where they a mixed and matched in the same sentences and paragraphs. --Mujokan (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

""Therefore, I ...have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said."

Why would anyone use double talk like this to say that they had seen the original birth certificate?

She is saying she saw some record that said it was on record. She cannot report what is on it if she never saw it. Moreover, it could be reported as an original birth certificate and yet not be one since no one has seen it.True Observer (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the world net daily should be checked out(at the RS Noticeboard) as to whether it is a Reliable Source? The basic info seems important. It seems that Adams was the or a Chief Elections Clerk and that he did sign an affadavit. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It actually has been checked several times already here, here, here and here.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

...and here as well. The issue of WND WP:RS is not the settled consensus determination that some purport it to be...and that is reflected as well even in the discussions cited above. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What I see there is a long, rambling, heated discussion propped up primarily by...you. WND is not a reliable source for anything other than its own opinion; any other usage of it in this, or pretty much any other, article will almost certainly be reverted. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What I see there is a long, rambling, heated discussion propped up primarily by...you.

What you also see is a summation of an in depth discussion on the subject of WND WP:RS (written by me as well) which was both unchallenged and apparently deemed acceptable to participants in that RSN discussion.

WND is not a reliable source for anything other than its own opinion...

While you are entitled to your opinion, it runs counter, IMHO, to both the expressions of numerous editors on this subject and, perhaps even more importantly, to the demonstrable willingness of mainstream publications to cite World Net Daily content. For a most recent example, see the Politico article cited below...

"The website World Net Daily, for instance, has written that 'Hawaii at the time of Obama’s birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii.' This is true..."

...any other usage of it in this, or pretty much any other, article will almost certainly be reverted.

There is NO WP:RS consensus that ANY purported source is, de facto, inadmissable under WP:RS just as there is no WP:RS imprimatur for specific designated sources. All purported sourcing is subject to contextual editorial examination for WP:RS.

A carte blanche exclusion of WND content is both detrimental to WP credibility and, IMHO, an unwarranted suppression of absolutely relevant content offered by an entity recognized as one of the primary proponents of the subject purportedly being addressed by this article.

I suppose it might even be legitimate to offer WND as an "authority" on this subject. How on earth can their content be excluded from a credible treatment?JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You suppose incorrectly, because WND is itself not a credible or reliable source. Its use in the current article is limited to simple, factual statements only, and as consensus has determined both here and at RSN, that will be the extent of its usage. If you still feel differently, feel free to roll that ball up WP:RSN's hill again if you really must. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Adams' statement is a classic example of why WND fails WP:RS: Much of what Adams declares simply is not true. A RS would factcheck, and not publish falsehoods. --Weazie (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, WND only seems to reporting what Adams said. Are editors here claiming that Adams didn't say these things? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really, no; WND takes this man's opinion and frames it as certifiable fact. We also have the serious red flag issue that what Adams claims has been long-contradicted by actual reliable sources, i.e. that the hospital he was born in, and such. Finally, the director of the Honolulu City clerk's office has stated that Mr. Adams' actual job was nothing like he claimed it was, and that he did not have access to the records and files that he said he did. This is why WND is deemed unreliable; not because they are partisan but because they lack the fact-checking and due diligence that one finds in legitimate journalism. Note the WPost link I provided, they discuss the clerk's debunking of Adams, but also cite Adams' continued point of view that he is right. I wouldn't hold my breath while looking for a WND article that presents any sort of honest point-counterpoint reporting like that. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; the WaPo article more accurately frames Adams' statement with other facts. Adams' statement, ultimately, is just another claim that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. This article is bloated as it is; Adams' statement lacks WP:N. --Weazie (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between saying, for example, "Nixon is not a crook" and "Nixon said, 'I am not a crook'". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Nixon's notability is not questioned, there were vast amount of sources for the quote, and Wikipedia didn't use a comment on a blog for a source(which is the same credibility WND has on a BLP, especially in this matter) while Nixon was still living. Dave Dial (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what WND reports, concerning this issue and a Wiki BLP, they are not even close to a reliable source. Also, what is the deal with this edit by Wtmitchell. Claims that it was discussed on the Talk page are accurate, but there was definitely not consensus to add it, as several editors stated it was original research and synthesis. Dave Dial (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WND doesn't even slightly fit any of the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" criteria of WP:RS. Quite the opposite, they are well-known for not checking facts before they "print" something and for fudging (or outright making up) facts when writing. Also, keep in mind that in addition to WP:RS and WP:V, this article is subject to the more stringent rules of WP:BLP. WND is not reliable in this context for anything other than the opinion of its author(s). --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

How did we get on WND again? They are part of the subject of this article, not a source on it, as they were one of the parties spreading false information about Obama. I respectfully disagree about the range of their reliability as a source. As I've said before, we should be skeptical that text found on the WND site represents the actual opinion of its authors or what they actually said on a certain date, because in the past they have said things they cannot possibly believe to be true and have made after-the-fact changes to their stories without leaving a record of the change. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

But there appears to be a WP:RS precedent already established in this article. WND is cited in the following text (I haven't yet canvassed the entire citation list)...

At the same time, WND has been urging Obama to release his original long-form certificate, and contends that "Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii",[85]...

Is WND WP:RS limited only to WND content that can be introduced so as to facilitate rebuttal? JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, as stated many, many times already: WND is not a reliable source for anything but the opinion of the author(s). You can cite them for their (often incorrect) opinion, but you can't use them as a ref for any factual material. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, as stated many, many times already: WND is not a reliable source for anything but the opinion of the author(s).

While reserving the right to disagree on your position inre WND WP:RS (which I'll not further entertain here), User:Wikidemon appears to reject even your "WND opinion" stipulation. Assuming a consensus acceptance of your position (and that IS, in fact, the generally accepted consensus position on WND WP:RS), what standard does one utilize to recognize an expression of "opinion" from one of "fact"? Perhaps you might couch a response addressing the suggested edit I made above? JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, to couch it in terms of the suggested edit made above, you are suggesting contradicting a reliable source with an unreliable one (WND). WND has never been considered a reliable source on Wikipedia and certainly isn't strong to make the extraordinary claim that the Hawaii Attorney General is lying or wrong. Sure, it's possible to cherry-pick a few of the (dozens if not hundreds of) discussions on the subject that petered out without resolution or were filibustered. But there are so many other discussions where consensus was established. Just because editors don't want to revisit the subject every couple of weeks, doesn't mean that consensus has changed. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate your reply, it isn't responsive to the question I posed. In light of your previously expressed opinion on WND WP:RS, why, in your view, is the text I offered assumedly an expression of "fact" to be summarily rejected as opposed to an expression of WND opinion? (I'll be offline for the remainder of the day) JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

removed OR

My edit summary kept getting truncated for some reason, but I removed the recently added section that appears to contradict Joshua Wisch, the Hawaii Department of Health spokesman using WP:OR. This was a textbook example of synthesis. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Why was the lead placed in an "overview" section? For an article of this size, a short one paragraph lead is counter to WP:LEAD#Length.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. I saw it one day, editors left it, so I presume there was some sort of editor consensus and collaboration. I did think the old Lead was jumbled and needed reorganization, and the new lead is pretty concise, but it does seem to be as you state(too short). Dave Dial (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, the lede should summarize the contrary evidence; I've added a sentence to this effect. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The old lede is bloated, but it's strange to have a lede for the lede. The "overview" section is now redundant. So I'll go ahead and take it piece by piece. Some belongs above the TOC in the actual lede. Other stuff is redundant, covered elsewhere in the article and too detailed, unimportant, or irrelevant to be in a brief summary. And if I find anything that isn't covered in the main article I'll move it there. Best to have 3-5 paragraphs in the lede, each organized around a particular topic, e.g. the nature of the theories, who holds them, how they arose, the administration/president's response, and the actual facts of the matter. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Done (* whew *)![34] I moved some of the "overview" material up to the lede, just enough to hit the main points. Some other stuff is now in the "early life" and "release of birth certificate" section (and I sometimes had to mash together or reorder sentences so it would fit). And yet other stuff duplicated those sections so I reworded or eliminated duplicates. I've tried to preserve as much of the wording and information as I could, and did not delete any sources. The only fact I remember duplicating is that the newspapers reprinted their old birth announcements - I think it's enough to say that those announcements were made, and then link to the reprint as a source. I hope this is an improvement. In the future, please remember that the lede is not a place for material that needs citations or that isn't present in the body. The first step with new information is to add it to the body with appropriate citations. Next, if it's so important it goes in the lede, please try to summarize it and work it into the content there in a way that doesn't need citations, because the citations are found where the material is covered in the body. Thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Break-Early Life opening sentence

Good job on the lead, but I do believe the sentence that formerly began the "Early life" section should be restored since it clarified that members of the movement dispute some or all of the origins.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the whole article is about the fact that fringe conspiracy theorists don't accept even that which is proven established fact. Trying to color the section with that (less than neutral) language is not only redundant, it gives undue weight to those fringe beliefs, as if it were just two equally valid sides of an argument. We state facts as facts without casting doubt on them at the start. --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I may have precipitated this[35] by removing the introductory sentence from Obama's early life section. I had no POV concerns, I just thought it was a bit awkward as a framing device, rendered unnecessary when I moved some other material in there. I think the article sounds more authoritative without it, by going straight to the facts instead of explaining things. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this brew into a slow edit war, so let's try to resolve this. The sentence was in the consensus version, so the removal should be discussed if there are objections(Which there seems to be). I agree with Wikidemon, there doesn't seem to be any POV concerns, but the sentence does seem a bit awkward as it stands now. Perhaps we can move it to the bottom of the section and/or reword it? I don't think it's vital to the article, as it seems obvious the birthers don't believe the facts in that section, but something mentioning that they deny all or parts of that section might help improve it. How about "Conspiracy theorists reject all or some of these facts."?Dave Dial (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

14th Amendment

The discussion of the 14th Amendment and natural born citizens neglects the most important legal fact: Although the 14th Amendment gives some conditions under which one acquires citizenship at birth, it does not exclusively define it.

Take the theoretical, "Anyone born inside the local chapter of the Lion's Club is automatically a member of that chapter." To construe that statement to mean ONLY those born in the Lion's Club premises are members is obviously absurd.

The 14th Amendment was designed to accomplish something specific, not to set out the rules for citizenship in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.161.145 (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are WP:OR. As professor Chin framed his comment with the 14th Amendment, referencing it helps the article. Finally, Chin said birth within the United States was sufficient; he didn't say it was the exclusive method. --Weazie (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo caption addition

A change is proposed[36] to the main photo caption from:

A billboard questioning the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate and by extension his eligibility to serve as President of the U.S.

-to-

Although Obama's birth certificate was indeed released and confirmed by the state of Hawaii, conspiracy theories about its validity—and, by extension, his eligibility to serve as President of the U.S.—persist, as exemplified by this billboard

It's been reverted back into the article rather than discussed, and to avoid edit warring I won't remove it just yet. I do object fairly strongly and feel this slightly degrades an already weakly written article, for the following reasons:

• Unsourced, and POV: "Although..." - "indeed"... unsourced POV commentary. Connector words like "however", "despite", "although", "nevertheless", etc., work in an assertion that two facts contradict each other, and that one is denigrated by the other. It does so in the voice of the article narration, not the sourced facts. In this particular case it asserts that "Conspiracy theories" persist despite the release of the birth certificate.
• Tone. "Although" and "indeed" are somewhat pedantic and expository in nature, and the voice of articles should be for presentation of facts, not discussion.
• Raises matters not related to photo - the photo is exactly what the current version says, a photo of a billboard questioning the validity of Obama's birth certificate. It is not a photo of the persistence of rumors, as the proposed caption asserts.
• Undated statement about present. If rumors persist, at what time do they persist? When the statement was written? When the reader reads it? To avoid obsolescence, we have to be careful about use of the present tense.
• Muddled and incorrect assertions of facts. The photo is not of the persistence of rumors in the present time - it was taken during the campaign, not now. It is not made clear whether the birth certificate had been released at the time the billboard was erected, something that isn't even all that germane.
• Overkill. This article already says perhaps a dozen times that the rumors are false, that they are smears, that there is no evidence for them, that they are contradicted by all available evidence, etc. With this and another recent edit we add two more. This strikes me and a number of other readers who have commented here as sounding defensive. If it's true it only needs to be said once... or perhaps once to establish the fact, once for analysis, and once to summarize, or about 3 times. Repeating it again and again makes it sound like we're not sure it's true, or that we have to convince a disbelieving reader.

- Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the WP guidance recommended by the "Controversial" tag above, it is rather remarkable that editors would even consider major substantive changes to this highly controversial treatment without preliminary discussion. I have reverted the edit and commend your circumspection on this point. I assume some editorial justification for the suggested edit will be forthcoming. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure... well, to be fair, I wouldn't say it's all that controversial, major, or substantive - it's just a photo caption! I just thought it was an awkward place, and way, to present information that is basically true. Thanks though, let's just remember we're all here to accomplish the same thing, a good article. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

HRS §338-13

In this edit, User:DD2K removed a sentence I had inadvertently duplicated in the article (thanks for that). The edit also removed a couple of direct quotes from Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-13, supported by a citation of a primary source for the text quoted from the statute. The edit mentioned OR. I see no OR. WP:PRIMARY says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The primary source was used here is precisely that manner. I've reverted the removal of this source-supported content. Please discuss here before removing it again. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated the first time you tried to add this, it is WP:OR because it is synthesis. In fact, it almost exactly mirrors the example of complex synthesis given on that page, just substitute the subject matter. "The second part of the paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, [given the applicable Hawaii statues, Wisch is incorrect.] To make the second part of the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on [Wisch's statement and whether or not it is correct under the law.] In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." Please discuss it here first and achieve some consensus before repeatedly adding it again. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, without a reliable source citing this specific portion of Hawaii law and explaining its meaning and relevance to the subject, we have only the editors' and readers' analysis, which will quite likely reach an incorrect conclusion absent further research and statutory interpretation experience. Looking into this a little more, citing and mis-citing this section is a new birther argument rattling around the blogosphere, to accuse the Hawaiian health officials of being part of a coverup. Section 13 incorporates section 18, which limits release of vital records to a small class of people related to the "registrant" barring a court order (which is unlikely to be granted - birhters have failed already). I searched briefly and can find neither reliable sources nor any primary documents that give a convincing answer to whether Obama qualifies as the "registrant" and is therefore entitled to see a certificate that exists but is as yet unreleased. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@Looneymonkey - Frankly, I've not had any occasion to consider the guidelines of WP:PRIMARY and this is novel to me. On the face of it, the following appears relevant to both this citation and your objection (emphasis mine)...

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

As I read the suggested edit, there are no synthetic claims" per se but rather an insertion of legitimate "descriptive text", "As of 2011[update], Section (a) of Hawaii Revised Statute §338-13 provides,...", followed by a verbatim quote subsequent to the prior content. That appears to satisfy the prescribed usage limitations of WP:PRIMARY.

That being said, I believe this is an issue that could (and, IMHO, should be) tabled pending consensus resolution on the WP:RS legitimacy of my earlier suggested (and sourced) edit which is still ongoing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In this situation, the relevant regulations aren't to be found in WP:PRIMARY, but in WP:SYNTH. Again, it's classic synthesis. The editor is presenting a quote by an official and then doing original research (using primary documents) to apparently contradict that quote and make it appear as if the state official is incorrect (or even lying). This is completely prohibited. No original research is one of the most core principals of Wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading further into WP:OR, this would appear to be WP:SYNTH...

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Wtmitchell? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree HRS § 338-13 should not be included, for the reasons stated above. (I also think it does not contradict what the state attorney said.) --Weazie (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What I added was

As of 2011, Section (a) of Hawaii Revised Statute §338-13 provides, "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.", Section (c) provides, "Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health."

The supporting source I cited was "§338-13 Certified copies". Hawaii State Legislature Website. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

• loonymonkey I fail to perceive either OR or SYNTH in the above. If you perceive it, please point it out.
• Wikidemon, that source is a reliable source citing this specific portion of Hawaii law. The language quoted is not complicated -- I think its meaning is obvious. I further think that the relevance to the rest of the paragraph where I placed it is obvious.
• Wikidemon, this source defines the common meaning of the word registrant as "a person who is formally entered (along with others) in a register (and who obtains certain rights thereby)". Other sources contain similar definitions. I think that it is pretty clear that Barack Obama, the person whose birth is being registered, is "the registrant". §338-18, which is referred to in §338-13, lists persons who "shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record". "The registrant" is one of the persons listed there.
• Weazie, venturing an opinion of what the primary source quoted means by the words which it contains is, of course, (in the words of WP:PRIMARY), "making an interpretation of primary source material". I will just observe that Mr. Wisch said of the long-form certificate that it "can't be released to anybody", and said "state law does not authorize photocopying such records". The state law which I quoted from the primary source says, "... 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.", and "Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health." I think I've seen secondary sources opining that there was a bit of a disagreement there but, as I recall, those were generally opinion sources of a conservative bent and, expecting horrified objections here that any such sources are unreliable prima facie, I haven't wanted to open that can of worms by trying to cite them here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of a dry, neutral quote of the relevant Hawaii statutes, free of analysis or interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY. Such a quote would help intelligent readers understand the misunderstandings of those statutes seen in some of the sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this should be included in the article. There should be a clear presentation of relevant Hawaiian laws.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is original research and synthesis. Which may be overlooked when weighing against WP:PRIMARY, except in this case the birthers are trying to cause a deliberate misinterpretation of the Hawaiian law, which has nothing to do with what the AG stated. This is an attempt to confuse the issue and there is absolutely no reliable source that is making the connection between the law Bill is trying to enter in the article, and what the AG stated. Dave Dial (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"There should be a clear presentation of relevant Hawaiian laws." Unfortunately for this position, deciding which laws are relevant, absent a reliable source addressing the subject, requires original research. Even if, say, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Chris Matthews all agreed the (only) relevant law is §338, reproducing the entire section without comment is still original research in that it would imply a lay reading of the law without knowing any relevant court rulings would be accurate and meaningful. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fat&Happy, It appears to me that your ideas about what does and does not constitute OR should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:No original research, the lead paragraph of which says:

"The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists."

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Speaking of cherry-picking. "The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." (emphasis added). Fat&Happy (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone thinking of quoting pieces of law should do that on another website. Only a reliable secondary source is suitable on Wikipedia because including cherry-picked extracts from anything is the defining characteristic of WP:SYNTH. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a non-lawyer, but you're probably right. A good lawyer could convincingly argue either side of any issue. I could probably dig up better stuff than this (e.g. statements by candidates for elective federal positions, reported by non-liberal sources), but I don't want to get into the edit wars which which I think that attempts to introduce such sources would produce. I'm somewhat taken by the assertion, "Common sense dictates that the actual birth certificate filed with the state cannot be released. A certified copy with details will suffice. This will resonate with most people who, like myself, were required to produce a certified copy of my original birth certificate for activities like Little League Baseball." at [37]" Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for my previous post, I appear to have misunderstood the situation. Upon closer observation, I agree that a secondary source should be included to show any contradiction.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As this suggested edit appears to be consensus resolved, I would appreciate further input from any interested editors on my originally submitted World Net Daily sourced edit. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. The policy is that we can't add contentious information without a reliable source. We have no reliable source. WND's smears and advocacy about Obama are part of the subject of the article and are presented as such. Any information about what WND says should be in the context of explaining WND's involvement in the matter. To present them as a third party commentator would be misleading. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your response and intend to reply. However, for the sake of discussion continuity, please consider refactoring your comment to the section I linked above. There are already 2 active threads now dealing with this WND WP:RS subject and all should be consolidated to a single topic. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The thread you linked to has no comment for three days now. WND is not going to happen as a source. WND's accusation that Hawaii's health department is lying, based on their citing Hawaii's legal code, is not a reliable source that would justify Wikipedia's citing Hawaii's legal code. Taking anything WND says as a serious content proposal is a waste of time unless a third party source covers WND's antics as a noteworthy part of the birther movement. Do you want me to flog that horse here or there? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That thread also appears to be resolved (not to your liking, probably, but resolved). The absolute unreliability of WND for any sort of factual claim is well-established. What is left to discuss on that matter? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) For those who don't appreciate the problem with citing laws and other primary documents next to fact patterns, absent a reliable secondary source that ties them together, this would be a good time to learn because it's an issue that potentially affects any article across the encyclopedia, not just matters of political debate. To start, we'll assume that both the law and the facts are fully sourced. Person X did Y, and document A says B. But why put "A says B" into this particular article, in apparent contradiction or support of person X doing Y, instead of, say, the middle of an article about Brussels sprouts or cat agility? Because, of course, a Wikipedia editor has decided that document A saying B has some relevance to person X doing Y. But does it? Consider a few fictitious examples, chosen to illustrate the problem:

"John Candy, in his sleep, snuggled up to Steve Martin and addressed him as his wife.[cite film] According to the Bible, any man who sleeps with another man as a woman is an abomination and must be stoned to death.[cite Bible]"

"Late for their meeting with the governor, the diplomatic delegation from China sped by with police escort at 85 miles per hour.[cite newspaper] According to the laws of the state, anyone who causes a private vehicle to be driven on a public street in excess of 20 miles per hour over the speed limit is presumptively guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor, punishable by confinement to county jail for a period not exceeding 6 months.[cite state highway code]"

"The corner liquor store was selling Barefoot Cellars Chardonnay for $15.95 per bottle.[cite news] According to the National Beverage Commission, any wine that sells for $15 per more is 'super-premium', representing 'a superior, exceptional, or emblematic example of its class'.[cite beverage commission bylaws]"

I hope that's illustrative. Even if information is verifiably true, it is a matter of consensus whether to include it in a given article. If the reason for including it is that Wikipedia editors claim that it relates to a given topic, and there is no secondary source that ties it to that topic, it can reasonably be rejected as unsourced. To say that the rule applies to the fact is WP:SYNTH, a form of WP:OR. To say nothing, while encouraging the readers to make that connection, is also SYNTH. This kind of legal argument by juxtaposition is common in all kinds of partisan political contexts, and particularly so in the birther world. The accusation that Hawaii is lying about its laws as part of the conspiracy is just the latest birther claim. It's not clear at all, reviewing the code, that it applies to this case. If we just splash the code next to the statement, it's unlikely that the lay reader would have the motivation, much less the legal sophistication, to dig to the bottom of the situation, something that even journalists haven't done yet. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This stuff is Wikipedia 101. You are entirely correct, and I am surprised that some editors are having such a problem with it. Rumiton (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikidemon, re a tie between specific assertions about what the law provides and the text of applicable statutes, I think that the connection is clear and that an argument that it is unclear is ludicrous (even with entertaining off-point examples). The article quotes Mr. Wisch making a couple of specific assertions about what Hawaii state law provides. I think that it is a useful clarification to quote applicable portions of the statutes and to provide a link to the full text of the statutes -- especially as the language is plain and the quoted snippets are brief. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding SYNTH is fundamental Wikipedia content policy. The illustrative examples are not intended to argue a point about this article, just trying to help people who don't get the policy. It may seem ludicrous to you, but it's obvious to me that (1) the code section is not applicable to third parties, there being a later section that explicitly says so, and (2) it is not possible to know whether it's applicable to Obama himself, or to know whether the question is decided, without a review of any rules and regulations, court decisions, and additional facts of the matter. Further, juxtiposing an official statement against a law that seems to contradict the statement but that probably doesn't apply in the way a casual reader would think, needing specialized interpretation skills and off-Wikipedia facts not immediately available, is misleading. Perhaps you disagree, in which case the very fact that we're debating the facts about the case is exactly the reason why we shouldn't add isolated facts without sources tying them to the subject at hand. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Cherry picking a seemingly "clear" law doesn't explain the law in context of other laws, and the juxtaposition of the law next to the state attorney's quote leaves the impression that the state attorney is wrong (or lying). If there's a WP:RS with an expert saying the state attorney is wrong/lying, that would be acceptable. But we don't, so it isn't. --Weazie (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise concur. The null hypothesis, that it is OK to insert sections of legislation into articles to illustrate or bolster a point, opens the way to something like madness. Rumiton (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet and Saturn's reasoning about allowing the information, thereby allowing our Readers to judge and follow up for themselves if they wish. There is no compelling reason given so far for keeping it out and the non-compelling reasons are too esoteric for me to even get a clear understanding of them. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal of this source-supported content. Please reach a consensus here for removal before removing it again. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's clear synthesis. The cite provided makes no mention of the subject of this article, and its relevance to the article subject is only as suggested by the editor adding it. This addition has been challenged many times before, so it should only be added if consensus is reached to add it, not the other way around. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me try a different tack. This is synthesis because it infers that the statute sections cited are the ones relied on by the state officials involved, (or that they should have relied on), even though the cited source does not say so. Absent a citable source attributing that position to the state officials, or a suitably expert secondary source analyzing those sections of Hawaii law, then it's not usable in the article (in this fashion). It doesn't matter whether the proposed text would support or undermine the state officials' position. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(@ the group) Honestly, if this is really relevant, there's going to be some analysis and commentary in multiple secondary sources. Find those. Ravensfire (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there are other reasons for excluding it, but I don't see it being synthesis at all. There is no 1+1=2 and I do not see a "therefore", instead I see 2 conflicting data points. The Readers can follow up on it if they wish to form their own opinions as to which is correct or if somehow both are. It is only an assumption that some Editor is trying to show a conclusion, I see just the opposite; that there is no definite conclusion from looking at those 2 bits of content. I think it's a good example of the contradictory information which abounds in both Primary and Secondary sources and is certainly better than just leaving Wisch's comment unchallenged. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Others do; no consensus. --Weazie (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

True, but I thought sourced content was allowed unless there is consensus to exclude, am I wrong about that? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong about that. In any debate over contentious material, it is up to the person wishing to add the material (not those removing it) to get consensus for inclusion. Anyway, it's a moot point. No original research is a non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the first of what will probably become a tsunami of third party RS on the misinformation disseminated by the Hawaiian Attorney General's Office. From CNN earlier this evening (emphasis mine)...

Obama could file a Freedom of Information Act request to view his original birth certificate and make copies. CNN

That should satisfy RS criteria for article content, no? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Now this is just getting tedious. You know full well, that the issue in this discussion has never been WP:RS, but WP:SYNTH. And it's not at all clear where you're actually proposing to add this single sentence that you cherry-picked without context (ironically, from an article which completely disproves these fringe theories, but you choose to ignore those parts of the article). If you're proposing to add it in the same place after the Wisch quote, well, it's the exact same issue. Just go back and read through this thread for an explanation of why you can't do that. Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you really, really aren't getting the concept of WP:SYNTH. Either way, I really don't see what's left to discuss on that point. "No original research" is non-negotiable policy. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of hurling insults based upon your assumptions of just how I might propose incorporation of this content, you might try being responsive to the question I posed.

Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you really, really aren't getting the concept of WP:SYNTH.

On the contrary, I acknowledged the validity of a WP:SYNTH objection earlier. Apparently you've overlooked it.

If you're proposing to add it in the same place after the Wisch quote, well, it's the exact same issue.

That's premature. I'll pose the question again. Does that information satisfy WP:RS criteria for content inclusion in this article.? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's under this section, discussing the relation between Hawaiian law and the AG statement. Where, in the source you provided, do they mention the Hawaiian Attorney General's Office? If not, it's still synthesis. Dave Dial (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Per your objection, it's now in its own section, Original Birth Certificate - FOIA Availability. Interested editors are invited to comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this in a new discussion section at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Synthesis by juxtaposition. I've tried to do this in neutral manner. My intent here is not Wikipedia:Canvassing, but rather (1) possibly to get some more policy-focused eyes on this, and (2) possibly to get OR policy to explicitly address synthesis by juxtaposition. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

State of Hawaii Official Response

I think what the birthers really want to see is what Dr. Fukino refuses to show the public: the original record of birth from the time that Obama was born. I understand that the State of Hawaii says that as a policy they will not show the original to the media or others unrelated to Obama. But could Obama request that the State of Hawaii show the original record to the media? And if he could, why has he not already done so? I think this is the only really valid argument that the birthers have, and it could be so easily refuted if Obama would request the State of Hawaii to show the media the original record. Or is Hawaii refusing to show the original record, even if Obama requests that they do so? I wish the Wikipedia article would answer these questions. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. This talk page is only for discussing specific improvements to the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read my comment more carefully. I clearly say "I wish the Wikipedia article would answer these questions." This is clearly a comment focused on improving the article. Please refrain from labeling as general discussion comments which are clearly focused on article improvement. --Westwind273 (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We only report what's in reliable sources. So if that question isn't answered by a reliable source, it won't be here. There is a comment in the article already pointing out that even showing the original certificate won't shut the birther's up. Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. That is what I am discussing. I think the article would benefit from some reliable source material that would answer the questions I posed above. I see it as a big gap in the logic of the article. As for what will please the birthers, that is not what a Wikipedia article is about. It is about presenting the best article possible, based on reliable source material. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny how the latest birther argument always seems like the last unanswered question. If there seems to be a hole in the article it's because there's a hole in the facts, or else it's not much of a hole but the birthers are making it into one. I looked yesterday and there was no discussion among reliable sources on the question, which could mean that they don't consider it very important (even if the birthers do). Or it could just mean they don't know. One can imagine a number of possibilities: Fukino is right that Obama himself is not entitled to an original version of the document (perhaps absent a freedom of information request, as CNN seems to say); Fukino misspoke or was misinformed (birther claims of a state conspiracy to lie about it seem farfetched); or Obama has requested his birth certificate and that the official version is the only version they give out (i.e. you can request the document, but you cannot tell them how to prepare it). If Obama were entitled to request something other than he already has (a big if), why hasn't he? Perhaps only he knows, but speculation includes the conspiracy explanations, that Obama doesn't know better, that he is brushing it off as silly or unimportant, that it is undignified or shows he gives into political games for a US President to file a freedom of information request against a state government, or even that it's to his advantage to keep the birthers speculating because they embarrass and divide his Republican detractors. One popular explanation, which the CNN article suggests but is entirely speculative, is that no logical explanation will satisfy the birthers so there's no point trying to satisfy them. We are pretty far afield if this is the final issue that will settle things once and for all. Hasn't that been said half a dozen times already, and each time the question is answered the line just shifts. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that CNN is,ironically, pushing a theory within a theory; CNN's theory being that the release of the long form,more detailed birth certificate would accomplish nothing becuse all of the people with questions would just find something else to question. CNN's theory is even more speculative and outrageous, I think, than the "conspiracy"theory in question. Yet I heard a White House spokesman today put forth that exact same theory. Its strange when people use theories to address theories while ridiculing the existence of the theory they address. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I did some searching and found this MSNBC article that appears to mostly answer the points I raised: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics It seems that individuals (including Obama) are not allowed to request any kind of viewing, showing, or photocopying of their original Hawaii birth record. I think the article would benefit greatly from including this information from the most recent interview with Dr. Fukino. Theoretically, I guess Obama could file a FOIA request with the State of Hawaii to see his birth record, but I think most would agree it is rather ludicrous for a sitting President to do this to a state government. So the issue really lies more with the State of Hawaii than it does with Barack Obama. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A modest proposal

If we include any of the suggested additions, I would swiftly propose that the article include a link to and analysis of this material, where Obama plainly states that he was not born in the United States.[38] Lemuel G. Wolfowitz (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, so nice to see that again! Excellent timing! Ravensfire (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete

question asked and answered; no viable proposal for improving Wikipedia content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With today's USA Today/Gallup Poll finding that only 38% of the public believes that Obama was born in the U.S., the WP position has become the minority one. If WP wants to retain any kind of credibility, it needs to delete this entire Article.True Observer (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC) A WP:POINT-ey suggestion that cannot be seriously considered. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC) This is like a triple-whammy; red-linked name, no substantive contributions, and some form of "true" or "truth" as part of the username. Pay it no mind. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC) And he doesn't even get the poll right, since the comparable number who "believe" Obama was born outside the US would be only 9%.[39] The number of people who believe Donald Trump was born in the US was slightly higher, at 43%. Of course, the number who believe Trump was born on another planet was higher, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC) That's the part I was loving - only 43% believe Trump was born in the US? Ravensfire (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I think True Observer has made some thoughtful comments about content while not making any disruptive edits and he has not attacked any individual Editors. He seems like a newbie with potential, to me. I have seen very little new content suggestions from the anti-Birther group here in the past week even though the real world is abuzz. I hope more Editors like True Observer come here and stick around in the face of being bit by the same folks who like to quote policy (like Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers) Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Original Birth Certificate - FOIA availability

The current article contains the following text...

Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" or "long form" birth certificate, but rather a redacted "short form" version. It has also been claimed that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to a "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations,[7]...

The currently cited reference, purportedly debunking "argument #1", has absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the text of "argument #1" as written which is, I'd submit, not an "argument" anyway but a statement of fact that might be easily stipulated (even without sourcing) by anyone familiar with this issue.

I believe this thus far uncited text (and section) presents an opportunity, via copyedit, for an incorporation of the FOIA information recently referenced by CNN...assuming, of course, there is no objection raised as to the WP:RS validity of the CNN content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Claim has indeed been debunked by numerous sources, if you want to add some here you can. Object to FOIA mention anywhere for now as speculative and irrelevant, per source, which poses it as an irrelevancy. The point the source makes is that Obama has released his birth certtificate To use it to suggest otherwise misstates the source Here it would be SYNTH and/or a POV argument to use the hypothetical of a FOIA suit as supposed proof that there is a different form that hasn't been released. If availability of FOIA recourse becomes yet another birthed rallying point and we can source that to be of due weight then it can be mentioned as such, togrther with any contrary discussion, but it does not seem that way (yet). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I will, of course, respond...but I'd be interested in the view of other editors before doing so. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is notable and should be included. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think a word like "debunk" should not be used except in a quote (for npov purposes). At the very least, "debunk", outside of a quote, seems to me to be a type of SYNTHESIS by Editors. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The possible availability (via a FOIA request) does not alter that President Obama was born in Hawaii, and thus eligible. Not notable. --Weazie (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cherry-picking a single sentence out of context to imply the opposite of what the article is stating is just tendentious. I have to hand it to you two, though. You're completely undeterred even after reading article after article debunking the theories (and yes, the word is debunked). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Debunking may be the intent of these articles but that doesn't mean we should use that term. Its a more appropriate term for exposing a hoax and is too judgmental especially on top of the article title. It's the same as saying that WNT 's articles "prove" the theory. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What? Are you kidding or does your mind really equate WND/Birthers with CNN, CBS, Factcheck.org, numerous high ranking Hawaiian officials, a certified birth certificate, etc., ect.? It is a hoax, it has been debunked by many, many, many sources. If you can honestly read through these sources and still try to push these false equivalences, you might want to take a prolonged break from any conspiracy theory article. Dave Dial (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Related

For the record, CBS News is now making note of the CNN assertion...

The article points out that the president could request to see and make copies of his original birth certificate under the Freedom of Information Act,...[CBS News] JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article points out that CNN wrote about it. It does not endorse that it's an issue. CNN reported it as a hypothetical response that Obama's team chose not to pursue because it would not deter the birthers. When you look at it, it's far afield. The President could hypothetically file a request to a state that he expects the state will deny, enforceable only by bringing a lawsuit against the state as a private citizen. All to prove that the state isn't lying when it confirms where he was born. Strange days indeed. Anyway, nether the CNN nor the CBS articles support adding this to the article at this point, because it has not been reliably sourced as part of the fringe theory or its aftermath. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, what actually happened makes a little more sense - Obama (or most likely, his people) asked informally, and the state informally agreed, saying they were making an exception for his case. The FOIA thing is now moot - as many speculative hypotheticals turn out to be, once actual events play out. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Long Form Birth Certificate released

See [40] and [41]. Someone should Add the image to this article ASAP. Op finish them (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)