Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 11

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Another image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the HonoluluAdviser notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Document titles

Read the titles of the below documents

Can anyone see the difference?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama campaign'sFightTheSmears.com website---

Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a forum

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

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

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

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

Law passed

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

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

Now gone

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

DISPUTE - Campaigners and proponents

This section currently contains the following content...

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

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

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

Birthers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and then reduce the later existing sentence to:

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

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

more birthers

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

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

Disruptive editing reported

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

Manning's "trial"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title of Article Should be Changed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Adams

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

WND reported it, of counrse,[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=165041], but that'll never get past this article's gatekeepers. MediaMatters reported about WND's report;[5] perhaps that'll get past the gatekeepers. The Indiana Times quoted part of the MediaMatters report;[6] perhaps that'll do. If not, perhaps something else will surface which the gatekeepers will let it past. Audio of the Tim Adams interview is available between the 4:45 and 10:43 points in a file located at http://www.libertynewsradio.com/shows/tpc/tpc20100605c.mp3 (That's the third hour of a three hour show broadcast on June 5. The show is called "The Political Cesspool", Feel free to take that as an indication of its level of reliability—or not.) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Did you read the Criticism section of the CC article? SPLC calls them racist: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/council-of-conservative-citizens. Here he is retracting, on June 11, and on June 13, he retracted his retraction: [7]. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

How small is a "fringe" opinion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This in particular, but [8] in general. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Barry Soetoro"

Is there even any evidence that Obama was once called "Barry Soetoro"?

All I can gather from this article and the links is that: 1) Berg claims Obama was adopted (changing his name in the process) and thereby lost his citizenship. 2) The Supreme Court says (via Perkins v. Elg) that that would not make him lose his citizenship.

A name change would presumably be legally irrelivent, but did it even take place? The article says "Berg's claim relies on the fact that Obama used the name "Barry Soetoro" when he lived in Indonesia", but there is no citation for this "fact". Is it a genuine fact (in which case it needs a citation), or is it just part of Berg's allegation? Wardog (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Berg's claim relies on the fact that Obama used the name "Barry Soetoro" when he lived in Indonesia, and ignores the Supreme Court case of Perkins v. Elg, which states that minors cannot, as a result of actions of their parents, lose U.S. citizenship obtained at birth". There is no reference for this text (the footnote is a link to the Perkins case) and I will therefore remove it as unsourced and synthesis. If someone wants to re-insert the material please use a reliable source. TFD (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Obama was called "Barry Soetoro" comes from a registration card completed while he was in school in Indonesia: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp Berg (and birthers, generally) claim that Obama must have changed his name upon being adopted because non-Indonesians were not allowed to attend school in Indonesia during the 1960s. The veracity of this claim, as well as the possibility of other explanations (e.g., Soetoro lied about adopting Obama so he could attend school), are left to the dear reader. --Weazie (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The source you provide does not mention Berg. TFD (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I cited snopes to show the registration card. The Obama-lost-his-citizenship argumenent started with Berg; it is in his first suit, Berg v. Obama: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/we-all-came-out-of-bergs-suit/ The court documents from that lawsuit could be cited in the main article if the use of court documents wouldn't raise the ire of another editor. --Weazie (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dailymail confirm "Barry Soetoro" is Obama. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1258543/Meet-chubby-boy-curly-hair-New-photographs-Barack-Obamas-childhood-Indonesia-emerge.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.32.202 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't confirm anything. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

transcript & Executive Order sections

"Occidental College transcripts"

Obama has declined repeated requests to release copies of his transcripts[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=100613] from Columbia College [9] and Occidental College[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=76504]. This was seased on by critics who alledge that Obama is not elligable to hold the office of Presient, in an internet email hoax, Obama was said to attend collage as a foreign national from Indonesia as an undergraduate.[10] College officials have contacted Obama's lawyers, who argued to the court that the election was over and that future concerns should be addressed to Congress.[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=100613]

"Executive Order 13489"

Om January 21, 2009 Obama's first full day in office [11] he sealed all "Presidential records" of his past with Executive Order 13489.[Executive Order no. 13489, Presidential Records, 74 FR 4669 (January 21, 2009)][12]

So a few editors have taken issue with the above sections I have tried to add. I have added MANY reliable references and tried to represent the facts correctly, so what is the problem(s)? If my words do not suit some of you change them, edit them, but to simply delete the "whole" sections then accuse me of all sorts of non-seance is not showing good faith or helpful. --Ducha mps_comb MFA 02:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"Obama has denied repeated requests..." POV, news-ish wording, unencyclopedic language.
WND - not a reliable source.
NY Times source http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html verifies that Obama "declined" (as opposed to "denied repeated requests") to release his transcript but describes it as a matter of being tight-lipped about his undergraduate days.
"Seased on[sic]" - unencyclopedic language
Snopes - verifies that there was a Obama trasncript hoax but not that it has to do with his refusal to release the transcript or people seizing on anything. Also, though snopes is probably reliable enough to add to the discussion of a story being untrue, because it describes so many rumors it does not by itself establish that a rumor is of due weight to be worth noting.
WND again, not reliable source
sealing records - not cited to secondary source. Guardian only establishes the date of his inauguration; mining the presidential records for acts done as president is using primary sources, which is not helpful for determining if something is worth covering

-- 0% salvageable here, because nothing is properly sourced or shown to be of due weight. If proper sourcing could be found, this one particular hoax could be added to the article (it's already in an external link) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of that, and would just add a couple things. One, the editor completely made up this edit, listing sources that did not state what they claimed they stated. How could anyone assume good faith after such devious tactics? And the other thing. The executive order 13489 was to release records for the public to see more about the office of the President and the men who occupy that office. The editor stated "Om<sic> January 21, 2009 Obama's first full day in office he sealed all "Presidential records" of his past with Executive Order no. 13489 Presidential Records". Which is a complete lie, and then the editor put in a reference which again made no such claim. In fact, Fox News wrote about PO 13489, which lauds Obama for clearing "the way to open these presidential records" and "This action allows the American people to view historical records relating to the presidency and judge for themselves the actions of federal official". Again, nonsense. This editor should not be able to edit Wikipedia, much less Obama articles, for blatant misrepresentation of facts. I would use the real word that describes the editors actions, but I am trying to be civil. Dave Dial (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with DD and Wikidemon above. This one doesn't even seem close to usable. Dayewalker (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to top off things, 13849 repealed Executive Order 13233, which had a similar purpose but was more convoluted. If anything, he's simplified the process. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Globe

Oh, God: http://www.globemagazine.com/ Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, this appears to be the front-page headlining article to which M. Proudfoot is referring: http://www.globemagazine.com/story/520 — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Guess their numbers were low in red states. Hmmm, so does getting front page in a trash tabloid enhance the fringey status or not ... Ravensfire (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the Globe's first rodeo: The Shocking Secrets That Could Destroy Obama's Presidency!; Michelle Obama's Tears (over Obama's gay lover). --Weazie (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And somehow I suspect we'll see more in the future! Ravensfire (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I miss Weekly World News. They used to have George Bush Senior holding summits with aliens, complete with pictures. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't The Globe the same publication that kept reporting on how Laura Bush had moved out of the White House and into a hotel because of W's "infidelities with Condoleezza"? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sonoran News

I have removed all refs to the Sonoran News, as they are not a reliable source, but a political website with an anti-Obama axe to grind. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. They're a weekly newspaper in north Maricopa County, covering North Scottsdale, Cave Creek, and Carefree. Sure they're conservative and anti-Obama but this by itself would not make them an unreliable source. I agree that we probably do not need to cite them in this particular case, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done a sandbox to check this out, but I wonder what this article would look like if all the refs to political websites with a pro-Obama axe to grind were removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which "pro-Obama axe to grind" sources you are refering to, but unless they include the vast majority of reliable sources that are used all over Wikipedia, the article would look much the same as it does now. Since any source that could rationally be construed as "pro-Obama" state mainly what the rest of the reliable sources do. Now, if we are talking about the so-called "liberal media" or the claims made by some people that Factcheck.org and Snopes are "pro-Obama", that's a different story. Dave Dial (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, indeed. The birthers have been overwhelmingly criticized and condemned by both sides of the political spectrum. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes. They are specifically anti-Obama and therefore do not constitute a reliable source. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Political orientation does not dictate reliability. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but entries like this, with the "basically..." and "in other words..." stuff makes it more of an opinion column interpreting the news of the day rather than simply reporting it. A bit WND-ish, IMO. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And I cited that specific article not for its opinions, but for the (undisputed) fact that the case was decided, and that a sanctions order was issued; statements of facts that can verified by the primary source, i.e., the decision itself. --Weazie (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case, why don't you just use the decision itself as your source? Henrymrx (t·c) 21:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the best solution. The decision is readily available here. Citing to the Sonoran News means only that the reader gets part of the decision, not the whole thing, and gets it with the right-wing paper's snide comments. We don't need to consider whether the self-described "conservative voice of Arizona" is a reliable source, because FindLaw is indisputably a better source for the undisputed facts. JamesMLane t c 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I did cite the original decision as well. There are other editors who believe citing to court cases violates WP:BLP. The point to citing the Sonoran News was a nod to that (as well as WP:V). --Weazie (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone say that citing to court cases violates BLP. Obviously some assertions in an article might violate BLP, regardless of how cited. Perhaps you're thinking of objections to addressing unconfirmed allegations? Some editors might argue that "Joe Blow was accused of murder" violates BLP if Joe was acquitted, but that would be the case whether the citation was to the court decision acquitting him or to a newspaper article reporting the court decision. As for a nod to WP:V, there is simply no way that citation to an advocacy publication like the Sonoran News adds anything to verifiability when the full text is available through FindLaw. JamesMLane t c 22:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I recall an assertion that this policy in essence precludes the use of court citations. I disagree with that blanket assertion, but was trying to abide by it as to avoid unnecessary reversions. (The Sonoran News reference was a nod to this policy.) If people are fine with court-only citations about court cases, I have no desire to otherwise use this source.--Weazie (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you in disagreeing with that blanket interpretation. The cited passage refers to trial transcripts, where you might have one witness asserting "I saw that guy rape a nun" and that's not enough to support including it in the article as a flat assertion of fact. A judicial decision is different -- "In 2010 he was convicted of raping a nun and the conviction was upheld on appeal" is a simple statement of fact. If there's a published court decision to that effect, then the statement is true -- and is true even if he didn't actually rape the nun. I think you ran into another instance of the overprotectiveness about BLP's that (IMHO) afflicts many Wikipedians. JamesMLane t c 04:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not necessarily reliable. A court document verifies the truth of the fact that the court issued that document, and that's about all. There is often procedure that overturns, hides, or otherwise contradicts the original document. It takes a specialist's knowledge to know what various legal documents mean. Without third-party interpretation, we're into original research territory there. We can look into public records and find all kinds of things - crime convictions, restraining orders, losses in civil suits, legal findings, arrests, and so on. But Wikipedia isn't about mining public records for things to say about people. If a particular person was sanctioned in some court case having to do with Obama, the only way to know that it's actually relevant and worth reporting is that a source says so. Some things are so obvious we can just assume they're noteworthy. When David Vitter, a U.S. Senator, recently joined the birther camp, it's a pretty safe assumption that this is going to be a noteworthy thing even if the initial content was added with a weak source. Sure enough, there are sources galore a day later. But if those sources never appeared, one could reasonably question whether it's important enough to report here. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You make several very good points, but I'm not sure they entirely apply to this topic. For example, after Obama's election, several court cases were filed, and that was covered by the media; they are in this article. But many of these case are of the "me-too" variety, and really aren't notable; they just happened to be filed when the media attention was hot. And the OC Weekly has a decidedly anti-Taitz bias; it has no problem publishing about her antics. While that's great for those here who cite to those articles, it really isn't objective proof of notability. In other words, an overreliance on letting secondary sources determine notability is not necessarily the best answer either. --Weazie (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, it's one thing to consider media coverage as one factor in an AfD discussion about whether we should have an article on a particular subject. It's another to say that media coverage is the be-all and end-all of editorial decisions about every particular point in the article. The factors that tend to produce copious coverage -- factors like scandalousness, involvement of a celebrity, the unexpected, and compatibility with the media owners' political ends -- aren't the same as those that make a fact noteworthy for an encyclopedia. Of course, extensive coverage may itself create a notability mountain out of a factual molehill, and then we have to include it, but we're not limited to what the media decide will titillate their audience. As for court decisions, some are arcane, but some are of the "defendant's conviction is affirmed" variety, and no original research is involved. This example is of that type. The opening paragraph of the Kerchner decision states:

Appellants challenge the District Court's order dismissing their complaint. We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants' counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal.

According to WP:NOR, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The Kerchner passage quoted above, however, requires no interpretation. JamesMLane t c 17:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea Tarc, that struck me as something you would see at a right-wing blog or WND too. I can't think of a reliable source that would take such a clear cut decision, and indisputable facts, and fluff them off the way the Sonoran News writer did. I have to say, I at first thought "Why wouldn't this be a reliable source"...until I checked out the site and read what they "write". No doubt that if there is editorial control, it's completely biased. Dave Dial (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Senator Vitter

David Vitter has called for birther lawsuits: [13]. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Here´s another source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/13/vitters-birther-comments-draw-heat/?fbid=qXkO8tzrLQF#more-112885

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Kerchner v. Obama

This red-headed stepchild of birther lawsuit never received any WP:RS coverage. Today, however, the Third Circuit issued an opinion not only affirming the dismissal, but set an order to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed for filing this frivolous lawsuit. Would it blow anyone's gasket if the court documents were cited? --Weazie (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd "blow a gasket", but since it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article anywhere, I'd prefer holding off until it receives independent mention elsewhere. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I found this article in the Sonoran News. This source has been cited elsewhere on wikipedia; however, it has also been questioned as not being WP:RS. --Weazie (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Kerchner is notable because the attorney who brought the suit is going to be sanctioned for bringing it. As for the Sonoran News, it has been cited elsewhere on wikipedia; odd how that source is WP:RS for other articles, but not here. But most importantly, I also included a cite to the actual case. It is really undisputed that there was this case, and the plaintiffs lost, as the existence and results of this case are readily verifiable. It seems rather strange to say this case isn't WP:V when there is a valid primary source, and a secondary source that has been cited elsewhere on wikipedia. (And, aside, the references to this article are full sources that are either not WP:RS or are primary sources. -- it is really inconsistent standards.) --Weazie (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The court has decided not to sanction the attorney. Given that, I don't think the threat of sanctions makes this case particularly notable. But I also think several of the cases listed in the article aren't particularly notable; they were filed when the media attention was hot, but their inclusion makes the article less encyclopedic, and more of a list. --Weazie (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Latest conspiracy theory

I have run into another one not covered here. It apparently originates from a youtube video[14], and is covered by some of the right wing blogs and websites. Is this the same one that was used to 'punk' the birthers last time or is it the same? As far as reliable sources go, I cannot find any covering this, but apparently, this particular one was first mentioned back in September of '09. Is this covered in the article or is it just not one of the less notable/verifiable ones? Eik Corell (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same guy who gave Taitz that forged birth certificate that got laughed out of existence. Weigel was one of the reporters that reported on it. Dave Dial (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This time, pay attention. We DO NOT use YouTube videos are justifications to include material in this or any other article. Please try and comply with regulations in the future. User:Smith Jones 20:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Smith. I am well aware of the WP:RS policy. All I sought was clarification. Also, thank you for that! :) Eik Corell (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

MMfA link violates RS and LINKVIO

I have been asked to bring to the Talk page the removal of a link that violates both RS and LINKVIO.

First, the edit I made was in compliance with WP:RS and WP:LINKVIO and had no political intention or overtones in any way.

Second, regarding the issue of LINKVIO, I urge people to participate in an active, ongoing discussion on that topic on another Talk page. Warning: the conversation is proceeding on the issue of LINKVIO in an extremely friendly fashion by me and another editor opposed to what I have done on that page, or at least willing to discuss it. I say this because the first person to have reverted my proper removal of the ref is known to me to be someone who uses personal attack to make his point, as he did on the history comment he left given the space available (it would have been worse had he more space), and I really hope he does not go there and use the same attack style for WP:SOAPBOXing. Given that, I encourage people to participate in the MMfA LINKVIO discussion on the Talk page of ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy.

Third, regarding the issue of RS, the MMfA ref was used to support this:

"It purports to have been issued by the 'Republic of Kenya', when in fact, such a state did not yet exist at the time of Obama's birth as indicated on the document (Kenya was a Dominion of the British Crown until 1963)."

1) MMfA is not a RS for something such as this. There are actual RSs. Find them and use them, not the MMfA link. MMfA does not have researchers making investigations on this issue and reporting. All MMfA does is display a video clip that may violate LINKVIO and add a POV title. That is not a reliable source by any stretch of any imagination. 2) There already exists another ref that already supports the statement. The MMfA link is not needed, and especially since it is not a RS and may violate LINKVIO. 3) The MMfA ref at http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908030053 says, "From the August 3rd edition of MSNBC's The Ed Show:" then says "previously", and that's it. So the RS here is MSNBC's The Ed Show, not the MMfA clip of MSNBC. 4) The MMfA ref does not even disclose its author. How reliable is that? 5) If the MMfA ref is removed, it does not remove MMfA's view of things since that view is in the text, a ref supports it, and so MMfA is not being set aside. That is not the point of compliance with RS and LINKVIO, and I did not remove the text associated with MMfA's ref. I have no problem with MMfA, per se, but it still has to be used in compliance with Wikipedia rules including RS. 5) Since MMfA link used here violates RS, the issue of whether it violates LINKVIO may be moot. Given the above, the MMfA link violates RS and may violate LINKVIO. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to address the reliability of MMfA overall, because it's not a simple case. It would be best to resolve this by finding a better source, in which case we can just swap the sources and the question is moot. Unfortunately, the conservative(?)-leaning "below the beltway" site is not clearly more reliable than MMfA, being much smaller organization with far lower readership (it looks a bit like a self-published blog). It's such a simple factual claim - can we find a more solid mainstream source for this? We should be careful to avoid synthesis, however. Any cite that the Republic of Kenya started in 1963 would have to do so in the context of describing this document. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As a follow-up, it seems as if you (L.A.E.C.) are removing MMfA citations in serial fashion, something that may well be controversial. A few here and there is not going to cause a fuss and I wouldn't object, particularly in clear cases where a far better source is available. However, where there aren't better sources, or we're getting into mass-edit territory, we really do have to address the question of MMfA as a source and that's better done beforehand in a centralized discussion rather than de-facto via a lot of determined edits from a single editor. Surely this subject has been discussed before. Is there a discussion in the reliable source notice board archive or an RfC about that? If not, perhaps time to start one. Probably a rocky discussion, but that's how things are around here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to devote to this right now, but let me just say that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is mass removing MMFA sources all over Wikipedia. Even though the editor is well aware(and has participated) of the fact that Media Matters has been confirmed as a reliable source ..., in many situations. I don't have a problem disusing whether the situation warrants inclusions or not, but the serial removal of sources all over Wikipedia needs to have consensus. In this instince, websites like WND and other birther outlets are cited here for inclusion of fringe conspiracy theories, which most mainstream outlets do not cover for obvious reasons. So to counter the absurd accusations, editors sometimes need to cite other outlets that are, while not mainstream, reliable. Dave Dial (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing MMfA on a larger basis. However, I have only removed MMfA where it violates RS or LINKVIO. For example, look at the Rush Limbaugh page. It had 6 MMfA refs. It now has 3, or something like that. Some of the refs were RS, some were not. Look at the Debbie Schussel page. There I did not touch the MMfA refs because they were RS, but I edited other stuff that was simply wrong. In one case on another page, a MMfA ref was cited and an author was given who has weight but who simply was not the author.

What is controversial is not that I have noticed MMfA continues to be used again and again as a non-RS. What is controversial is that MMfA seems to be used by the hundreds as a RS for something it cannot possibly be a RS for. I mean aluminum tubes? There are so many other topics that it is simply ridiculous that MMfA is a RS.

Not once have I removed any of the statements made that MMfA was used to support, unless in the rare instance that it was clearly appropriate to do so. So no one can say I am whitewashing info on any page.

Further, I am editing pages of any political stripe. Politics is not why I'm here. The issue is whether MMfA is a RS. From my experience, in most cases, the MMfA is not a RS.

Further, the MMfA is sometimes used to source some minor point or something that is not controversial at all. So you go to the MMfA link and you find not only support for the assertion, but also the typical MMfA spin that simply has nothing to do with anything other than a POV.

But the MMfA link almost always discusses some news source that itself could be the RS, barring SYN, and that may contain RSs as links, but the MMfA article itself is simply not the source. It simply discusses the source, and then with a spin.

This being Wikipedia, we all, fortunately, have the means to ensure compliance with Wikipedia rules in a way that defeats conserted efforts to insert POV into various articles.

It happens to be that MMfA is used again and again in a way that promotes the MMfA POV in a manner that is not compliant with Wiki rules. If I happen to have noticed this and am working to remove this, that does not mean, as Dave Dial says, "the serial removal of sources all over Wikipedia needs to have consensus." There is already consensus to remove non-RS and LINKVIO refs. That's the consensus. I am just complying with that consensus.

I must say one MMfA ref I removed was wrongly removed, though I did not realize it then until I was corrected. Pobody's nerfect. But all my other edits have been accepted, except the one here.

Let me turn this around. Instead of looking to me to explain why I am removing non-RS refs that may also violate LINKVIO, how about if we all work together to ensure Wikipedia is RS/LINKVIO compliant, and MMfA links happen to be about 90% non-RS, so by looking at them we can make significant improvements and fast. If we all work together, it won't be one editor making the moves, it'll be a bunch.

Look, I have nothing against MMfA. It is simply that almost all MMfA refs violate RS and/or LINKVIO. Lets work together to ensure MMfA are used in compliance with Wiki policy.

Consider also that the person opposing what I have done (DD2K) has made arguments about issues that have nothing to do with the specific non-RS being addressed here, and his arguments about my efforts to remove all MMfA links are both incorrect and ad hominem in nature. I challenge him to stick to the issue at hand and explain how the MMfA ref in question is a RS as used on this page, without broadening his argument to multiple other straw man arguments.

And will someone explain how MMfA refs never reveal the name of the author? --21:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, WP:LINKVIO is about copyright, isn't it? That's not at issue here. Media Matters has every right to reproduce the source it's critiquing, and if it's exceeding its fair use rights that's an issue for them or perhaps for the copyright notice board, not here. When it's just a question of point of view, that's not a strong argument for removing citation links. Sometimes we link to Fox News as a RS to support uncontroversial facts, and while there the reader gets all kinds of POV. Similarly, we sometimes link to Al Jazeera, Wall Street Journal, Jerusalem Post, and so on, all of which will expose readers to their particular bias. A statement was made at the notice board that POV is never a reason for disqualifying a source as reliable. I wouldn't go that far, I would try to make sure we don't over-link to one particular source, that we favor the neutral sources, and that we try to be fairly diverse and inclusive when deciding when to link to sources that, although reliable for the fact cited, also contain editorial spin regarding other things. I would also consider the source's editorial bias on a given issue when deciding how reliable it is, but if it's the best source for a citation I wouldn't disqualify anything over POV. What's the bottom line? I think there are plenty of cases where it's best to swap out an MMfA citation for a less controversial one... but I do think that doing so on a large scale is going to raise some hackles, and perhaps introduce a different kind of sourcing bias. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A vital point is missing from the above: If this topic were the history of Kenya, the source in question would not be suitable. However, the topic is conspiracy theories (made-up nonsense) so the source is entirely suitable. First, the source relates to the specific claim discussed in this article (I'm assuming that as I haven't examined the source): it would be WP:SYNTH to find a reliable history that has nothing to do with this conspiracy theory and use extracts from the history to refute a claim about the theory. Second, WP:PARITY spells out the obvious: serious reliable sources very rarely bother examining and refuting a conspiracy theory, and we do not need a gold-plated peer-reviewed source to refute nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is consensus otherwise within a reasonable amount of time, I will remove the MMfA link for lack of compliance with WP:RS as described in detail above.

It appears setting aside the LINKVIO matter means Wikidemon concurs. It also appears Johnuniq concurs since "the source relates to the specific claim discussed in this article (I'm assuming that as I haven't examined the source)" is false as the source does not relate to the specific claim except to the extent it rebroadcasts another source that does--otherwise the MMfA source adds nothing but a title and more non-RS links to itself. The only opposition is DD2K who is the person who restored the non-RS link in the first place and whose only argument does not refute the MMfA ref as used here is not a RS, choosing instead to make comments about me and about other sources.

Wikidemon said it best: "It would be best to resolve this by finding a better source, in which case we can just swap the sources and the question is moot. .... It's such a simple factual claim - can we find a more solid mainstream source for this? We should be careful to avoid synthesis, however".

Exactly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, that's several times you've been going around accusing me of actions that are not true. Combine that with your infatuation with a certain sock puppet(1,2,3,4), and now claiming consensus when there absolutely is none, is all too familiar. Dave Dial (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of encouraging a certain someone, he *is* one of the more amusing and convivial of Wikipedia's many sockpuppets - and quite prolific of late. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha*. Well, if history is any indicator, one can look forward to many, many more. Not to give away the kit and caboodle, there are others already in place. :-P Dave Dial (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave Dial, I am happy to see you in good spirits. In that spirit, would you please provide specific reasons why the MMfA ref I removed here and you reverted back to life is a RS? Please do not address my actions on other pages or vis-a-vis other editors. As to consensus, I count 3 in favor of removing MMfA, given what they said and my interpretation thereof, and 1, you, in favor of keeping the ref, but you have not as yet provided a specific reason. Please, I ask you to provide a specific reason why the MMfA ref you restored should stay on this page as a RS. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A point of clarification. If I had to come off the fence I would favor removing the link if a better source can be found. I think "below the beltway" is actually a weaker source because of its bloggy-ness so I wouldn't remove it just yet. But frankly, it's an uncontroversial claim and neither site is especially problematic as I see it, so I don't really care a whole lot either way. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Then let me add that I agree with you on the other link. A better source is needed to replace both. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion pieces and blogs as supporting sources

I went through the cites in this article trying to do a rough audit of source suitability on a couple of points. The results of that follow, along with some cites I saw along the way which looked questionable but which didn't seem to fit into my two target categories.

Opinion pieces and news blogs used without inline attribution

The following sources currently cited in this article appear to be opinion pieces not properly attributed inline as required by WP:NEWSBLOG:

[15] begins, "If you want to stop Barack Obama from becoming president, there's still time." The cited source reads like a derisive attack piece.
[16] begins "Ever wonder what happened to all those right-wing loonies ...". It doesn't read like straight news to me.
[17] lead para reads, "Barack Obama can't be president: He wasn't really born in Hawaii, and the certification of live birth his campaign released is a forgery. He was born in Kenya. Or maybe Indonesia. Or, wait, maybe he was born in Hawaii -- but that doesn't matter, since he was also a British citizen at birth because of his father, and you can't be a "natural-born citizen" in that case. (But then, maybe his "father" wasn't really his father; maybe his real dad was an obscure communist poet. Or Malcolm X.)" and doesn't strike me as straight news.
[18] appeared in their Political Radar blog.
[19] -- The author describes himself here as "a University of Virginia law student, a marine, extreme political activist and a citizen journalist." He has a "a University of Virginia law student, a marine, extreme political activist and a citizen journalist." He has a link labeled "Get email alerts from this blogger" on that bio page.
[20] appeared in what the author describes here as a column about political theater in the capital. I'm not sure whether to class it as a news or an opinion piece.
[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106220] is a WND article. WND articles are normally ruthlessly excluded by gatekeepers of this article. I'm guessing that this one was not excluded because of its content.
[21] clearly labeled as an opinion piece, but sourced without inline attribution as such.
[22] in the "Skeeter Bites Report", Online since December 11, 2005. SKEETER SANDERS, Editor and Publisher.
[23] A politico.com blog piece, cited once without inline attribution and once with.
[24] is an unmarked outdated link, but the page it redirect to lists the author, saying that he "blogs about politics for the Post-Dispatch." Cited without inline attribution as an opinion piece.
[25] an apparent RS blog item not attributed inline.
[26] begins "Sean Hannity embraces the worst of the birther scum, a former reservist who volunteered to go to Afghanistan merely so that he could file a lawsuit claiming President Obama is not an American citizen] is a Daily Kos piece which begins, "Sean Hannity embraces the worst of the birther scum, a former reservist who volunteered to go to Afghanistan merely so that he could file a lawsuit claiming President Obama is not an American citizen: ...". Doesn't look like a straight news piece from a RS to me.
[27] -- the cited source has a link laneled "about the blog" on it. It's cited without inline attribution.
[28] has "/blog/ " in the URL but not attributed inline as an opinion piece or news blog

Blogs cited as supporting sources

The following sources currently cited in this article appear to be blogs which to not meet WP:SPS exception criteria for inclusion as reliable sources:

[29] published by this, apparently a personal blog.

Other

[30] is a WND article which is attributed inline as an opinion piece by a notable author. That looks OK to me. I mention it here because it appeared in the normally-excluded WND.
[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84065] is another WND article, cited from article segments which discuss WND articles inline.
[31], a YouTube video. WP:RS says, "Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited."
[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86011] WND again -- attributed inline.
[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103464] is an unexcluded WND article cited without inline attribution from text which describes WND publisher Joseph Farah as a conspiracy theorist. The article on farah says, with support, that he is among those who have questioned Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen. Does WP:BLP require support here for the characterization?
[32] an unattributed audio file used as a supporting source.
[33] looks like a piece on an anti-FoxNews blog. Probably not a RS.

I've probably got some cites listed above which shouldn't be listed, and I've probably missed some which should be listed. At the moment, I'm not going to edit the article to try to correct the perceived problems I've mentioned above. If anyone else wants to do so, feel free. It would probably be useful to mark items listed above Done as they're reviewed, and it's OK with me for this comment to be edited to do that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We have to work with what there is. First, Obama is the POTUS, so it would be a very big claim to suggest that some document shows that Obama is not elligible. Accordingly, WP:REDFLAG requires very good sources to support the plainly-false claim (if there were any truth in the claim, Obama's well resourced and highly motivated opponents would have had a legal victory, but they haven't even tried). However, this article is about a fringe theory, so very good sources are not required to illustrate the fringe theory. And, per WP:PARITY, the refuting sources do not need to be particularly good either. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above. Although we don't absolutely require sterling mainstream sources to refute these theories, and in many cases those sources are not available because we are off in the fringes, that shouldn't stop us from trying to find the best sources we can and using them carefully. I spot-checked Wtmitchell's list and found it excellent, helpful, and even-handed. This article would be improved half a grade-level if we could go down it one by one, and in each case see if there is stronger sourcing available and if we can be as precise as possible in our use of sources, attributing blogs, opinions, and so on in the text. In a few cases we'll probably find the sourcing too weak, minor, or opinionated to stand for what we say it does, in which case we might have to err on the side of caution. For example, Alex Koppelman's 12/5/2008 Salon piece (the one that starts with the cheeky "Obama can't be President" lead) is used three times in the current article. The first one is in the lead, used in tandem with another source to stand for a very broad point that there were 3 separate Supreme Court filings over the issue, but it doesn't actually enumerate all three, just one. Perhaps there is a more authoritative source, perhaps not (long shot cases that the court turns down do not always get mainstream coverage). The second two uses note the source and seem just fine. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that most of the citations are any problem at all. The whole reason this article is even on Wikipedia in the first place is because of all the birther attempts to add these fringe theories to Obama articles, and the insistence of many on the fringe to keep making these claims through mass emails and court cases. The reason many sources don't cover these fringe conspiracy theories is because it's like covering a bunch of people who insist that the sun is the moon, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Which is why the sources that are cited are filled with derision and mocking. I agree with John that this article is about the President and a living person, and if we are going to include these fringe conspiracy theories, we should be able to use the opinion pieces and sources that cover them that are mainstream. I can see that almost all of the so-called problem citations are not problems at all and are very much reliable sources that absolutely should not be touched. Politico, Slate, Salon, The Star Advertiser, all are reliable sources, and per Parity would strongly oppose any attempt to remove them. Dave Dial (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that Salon, Politico, and others are considered to be reliable sources for this article's topic. However, in light of JournoList revealations, there seems to be a conspiracy theory (the term is described in its article as a pejorative reference to any fringe theory which explains an historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning, citing [34]) that some liberal journalists may be skewing reporting in media sources considered to be reliable sources for this article's topic. CNN says,

Documents were obtained by online magazine "The Daily Caller" showing that liberal journalists tried to prevent stories about their favorite candidate (Obama) from gaining any traction.[35]

, citing http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/, which says,

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is not the place for you to argue what are long established as reliable sources, there are other venues for that. Is "The Daily Caller" a reliable source? Isn't that run and operated by Tucker Carlson? In any case, one has nothing to do with the other, and this isn't a platform to spout even more conspiracy theories that are unrelated to the fringe theory that the article is about. Dave Dial (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course, de jure. I keyed off of "I disagree strongly that most of the citations are any problem at all"; I saw an apparent de facto problem. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is still my position, most of those citations are absolutely reliable sources. Most of the reason being, this article is too damn long. I would cut out most of this article. The whole conspiracy theory can be summed up by the first 2-3 sections. The problem is, people keep wanting to add more and more, and since the additions have to do with the fringe conspiracy theory, other editors insert explanations by the best source they can find. Most mainstream outlets just ignore this silliness these days, so the sourcing suffers. I will say this, if any of the sources were to be removed, the subsequent claims by the birthers would be struck out too. This is a BLP article, despite the fringe tags. Let me just end by saying that even though you've seemed to be irritated by some of my edits, I have nothing against you on a personal level and think you have handled yourself well throughout the talk page of this article. Dave Dial (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a POV on this, but I try not to let it effect my editing (I probably don't always succeed in that). I also think this topic is blown far out of proportion. I'm not located in the U.S., so I'm not immersed in U.S. political culture; AFAICS from afar, the so-called "birther movement", as a "movement" is pretty much a figment of the imagination of the liberal media. One thing which rang my chime above was "Is 'The Daily Caller' a reliable source? Isn't that run and operated by Tucker Carlson?", which to me implies that, to the writer, conservative==unreliable. It also appears to me that the editors who have pretty much taken ownership of this article feel that liberal==reliable. I see that as a problem. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh—one other thing ... I haven't suggested above that any of the sources I've mentioned be removed (though at least three look to me like they should be). I've merely suggested that opinion pieces be attributed inline as required by WP:NEWSBLOG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

When you've got sitting US Senators and large numbers of state legislators questioning the citizenship of the President of the United States, when you've got TeaParty protestors carrying "where's your birth certificate" sign and slapping bumper stickers on their cars, when Orly Taitz is running for Secretary of State of California, it's hardly "a figment of the imagination of the liberal media", whoever that is. Whenever I see people referring to the "liberal media" I keep wondering just who owns the media outlets. Sure look like conservative Big Corporations, to me. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a "movement" anyway? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WP's Political movement article says that a political movement is a social movement in the area of politics [which] aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take action on the issues and concerns which are the focus of the movement. I've seen no indication that an organized "birther movement" exists.

Dave Weigel says here that there was a fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president; Johnathan Kay says [36] that debunked conspiracy theorists not only have created a large Internet-based movement and have managed to convince some Republican members of Congress that there is real doubt about the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency; [37] says, "'Birther' Movement Reeks With the Rotten Stench of Bigotry"; [38] says that Arizona voters have watched Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) mock his challenger, JD Hayworth, by tying him to the birther "movement". I'm not familiar with most of that stuff but all the articles I've just linked and quoted from are cited as reliable sources in this article. In this NY Daily news article, Michael Sheridan says "Obama White House dismisses 'birther' movement as 'crazy' Internet conspiracy"; here, The Guardian reports, "Anti-Obama 'birther movement' gathers steam"; writing in Politico, Ben Smith said here "Courts across the country have summarily rejected the movement's theory" (I must have missed those court cases which were heard by a tryer of fact); here, CBS News says, "Hawaii Seeks Relief from Obama Birther Movement"; Fox News figured it out here, announcing "Obama's to Blame for the Birther Movement'; The Atlantic said here "The birther movement may be premised on a fictional belief, but it is savvy" and that "At least nine members of Congress have cosponsored a birther bill that would require prospective presidents to affirm their U.S. citizenship.". I've said that AFAICS the so-called birther movement is a figment of the imagination of the liberal media. After looking at the above, it looks to me like the so-called "birther movement" is a figment of the imagination of the media in general and of some politicians.

Honestly, I'm not sure what a "birther" is. The term doesn't seem to have a firm definition (just ask Tracey Mann (see [39]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the candidate for Congress from Kansas, is not yet notable enough to have his own article. The link Tracey Mann currently redirects to Tracy Mann who is an Australian actress. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

[1]