Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Keyes v. Bowen and name of this Wikipedia article

All the cases in lower courts were dismissed on technicalities. They were dismissed because the courts indicated the person didn't have standing to bring the case, but Alan Keyes does. The case goes beyond conspiracy theories (which that in itself has a negative and biased connotation) and thus deserves its own individual article separate from this one. I'm more than willing to engage in further discussion if it is deemed appropriate to move that section. But, I rather not spend my time putting a lot of energy into an article only for it to be dismissed as a result of extreme political bias...which has become rampant on wikipedia. If you support my idea, please respond here. thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the majority view that the cases are frivolous, but I do agree that a more NPOV name should be sought. How about "Barack Obama citizenship challenges"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but I hope some more people will respond to my original idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The title was discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard. As mainstream sources do describe the issue as one of conspiracy theories (see e.g. [1]), and the matter is fundamentally about Obama being purportedly responsible for a conspiracy to represent himself as eligible, it was generally felt that "conspiracy theories" was appropriate (compare 9/11 conspiracy theories). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. I think at this point it's quite ignorant/naive to dismiss the entire investigation of Obama as conspiracy theories when there is some (not a whole lot) of legitimate arguments. Your comparison of this to the 9/11 conspiracies is kind of insulting..Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But the crux of the article now is not just about the theories, but about the litigation that has resulted from them. I think this may warrant reconsideration of the title. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You put your finger on it - that's the crux of the article now, not the crux as it probably will be in the very near future. There's more weight on the litigation simply because litigation-related material has been systematically merged in from other articles. The theories themselves are covered fairly lightly. There is room for expansion there, and I anticipate that editors will seek to add quite a lot more to that section. It's not impossible that the litigation section might in due course have to be split off if the article as a whole becomes too long (it's currently around 30 Kb). I would suggest leaving the title alone for a few days and seeing how the article develops. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Donofrio lawsuit does not seem to have involved any conspiracy. Donofrio was not among those who claimed Obama might have been born in Kenya. See Orr, Jimmy. “Whew… Obama can still be President - Supreme Court declines case”, The Vote Blog, Christian Science Monitor (2008-12-08). Thus, Donofrio did not suggest that Obama was misrepresenting himself. That seems to be very clear, and so I would not support keeping the title as-is even temporarily. BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, I thought Donofrio's lawsuit was frivolous.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Newyorkbrad that 'Barack Obama citizenship challenges' might be a more appropriate title, given that the article as written focuses on the litigation rather than the conspiracy theories more generally. ('Barack Obama ineligibility allegations' is another possibility, but a bit clunkier.) I don't think titles like that necessarily imply the challenges have any validity. Terraxos (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would instead suggest "Barack Obama eligibility challenges". As I read Donofrio's lawsuit, he did not challenge that Obama is a "citizen" but only that he's a "natural born citizen". But, the title "Barack Obama citizenship challenges" would certainly be better than the present title.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse that proposal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What about "Barack Obama citizenship questions"?... or "citzenship issues"? To suggest the issues are conspiracy theories or "fringe" detracts from the legitimacy of questions posed. Of course some would argue "that's the point... they are not legitimate, now shut up and go away". I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia policies to determine where legitimate becomes illegitimate and vice versa. But to me, there's enough legitimacy in the issue to treat it thoughtfully, seriously and objectively. Jbarta (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Or even "Barack Obama citizenship controversy". Jbarta (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't find any of the challenges to be compelling, the use of "conspiracy theories" is problematic at best. While the concerns may be fringe theories shared by a majority of Americans, the term conspiracy theory is inappropriate. I would support "Barack Obama citizenship challenges", which provides a factual description of the article, without making any presuppositions in the title. Alansohn (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The main alternative seems to be "Barack Obama citizenship challenges." There seems to be a consensus for that. Anyone have any further input about it?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes,I object to this change - it seems to give legitimacy to what is, despite the best efforts by some here, still fringe conspiracy nonsense. The current title is fine. Tvoz/talk 00:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, a huge percentage of the press has been about the Donofrio case. What conspiracy was Donofrio alleging? He was simply saying that Obama was born in Hawaii with dual citizenship, which he said contradicted the Natural-born citizen clause. He wasn't alleging any conspiracy or wrongdoing or dishonesty on Obama's part, was he?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I also object to any change. The only notability these things have, en masse, are as a fringe/conspiracy meme. These things have even made it on to snopes.com and their urban legend debunking pages.[2][3] Even though Donofrio isn't challenging a 'conspiracy', the only notability of his lawsuit is that given by the blogosphere, WND, and other conspiracy theorists. Priyanath ^talk 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a closer inspection of one of those snopes.com articles you mention reveals that it contains a fairly significant inaccuracy... claiming that Omama made an image of his 1961 birth certificate available on the internet. Inaccuracies like this only perpetuate the common myth that Obama HAS in fact released his original birth certificate, when in reality he has not... and that's what much of the fuss is about. Jbarta (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Snopes isn't a reliable source, so it's not surprising. They do give a good idea of what reasonable people are thinking about various frauds, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories. The fact that Obama has released a certified, legal version of his birth certificate is enough for the courts, and for reasonable people. Priyanath ^talk 23:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also objecting to changing the title. While the individual Donofrio case may not have been completely about a conspiracy theory, when you put them all together and look at the big picture they all look like conspiracy theories. Also changing the title seems to be an attempt to legitimize fringe theories which have been repeatedly debunked by a variety of reliable sources. Brothejr (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Donofrio was implicitly claiming a conspiracy as well, that all the legal scholars and politicians and media were wilfully ignoring the obvious fact that Obama's father's British subjectude (or whatever it was) made his son ineligible to be president. In other words, for the entire nation to go through a massive two-year election with saturation media coverage and a billion dollars spent, only to discover that the winner was ineligible all along, clearly requires a conspiracy. So the title is appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Well, thanks for the input everyone. I guess we'll keep the title as-is. Though I'm a bit skeptical about the idea that everyone with a frivolous legal argument is a conspiracy theorist.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, then, for Donofrio's lawsuit also. Conspiracy theories all. Priyanath ^talk 01:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Each of these lawsuits might -- repeat, might -- have reflected conspiracy theories from people pushing POV in filing these suits. Calling the article "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" is pushing POV on Wikipedia's part. I disagree with every one of these suits, but it's clear that labeling the theories of those we disagree with as "conspiracy theories" reflects poor scholarship on our part, if not a rather clear bias. The term is appropriate in Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, where the issue is that the involvement of anyone other than Oswald would mean a conspiracy. As ludicrous as these suits may appear to be, they are not conspiracy theories. The use of "conspiracy theory" violates WP:NPOV. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Al. The problem with this article is not all of the mentioned cases fall strictly into the "conspiracy theory" closet. This article was created to essentially house all the cases challenging Obama's presidency, but in doing so we failed to differentiate between what constituted conspiracy and an actual merited challenge. Obviously 80% of the people on this article are pro-Obama, so sealing the deal on this discussion based on such a concentrated and partisan group of users seems rather ignorant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

These are, in fact, theories of conspiracy. If the "short form" birth certificate doesn't accurately reflect the original one, then multiple state officials of Hawaii are implicated in perpetrating a falsehood. If Obama was really born in Kenya, then he, his family, his advisors, his biographers, etc. have all been concealing this ever since. And so on. The title is accurate. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Donofrio made neither of those claims. Additionally, the present article says that a "spokeswoman for Hawaii’s department of health asserted that state law does not allow her department to confirm vital records." So, if the certificates are not entirely consistent, that would not contradict anything the Hawaii officials are now saying.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think quite a few people ARE in all probablity perpetuating a falsehood. The justification being very similar to the justification shown in these disscussion boards... "he has complied with the law and produced a birth certificate that will suffice in court... anything is else is either irrelevant and/or nobody's business". Anyone can be honest... but to be honest when being honest is most difficult, that can be a problem. And I think that's what we see here... for a person who simply wishes the birth certificate issue would go away, being honest about it is difficult. Jbarta (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia

There seems to be a lot of Indonesia-related nonsense out there which is not really currently covered by this article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See my point above - the theories are covered quite lightly at the moment, there's plenty of room for expansion there. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Just want to say, despite my belief this article will inevitably deteriorate under the weight of the crazies, that it looks great at this point in time. Don't know who all did the work, but very nice job.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's generally a good job. Well done ChrisO. The title does still need some work, as described above.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The title can be easily and accurately fixed by replacing the word "conspiracy" with "nutjob". Wasted Time R (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, WTR.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper announcement

The Weigel article (ref 2) says that an announcement of Obama's birth can be found in a 1961 Hawaii newspaper. That seems like pretty much a clincher if true, so I would think it deserves a mention. Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It certainly appears to be compelling evidence that he was in fact born in Hawaii, but it doesn't clear up the issue of Obama's original and still unavailable birth certificate. It seems to me that something about it is troubling to Obama or it would have been produced long ago. It's easy to simply claim the original birth certificate is irrelevant or a private document and therefore nobody's business, but it doesn't satisfy the curiosity of those who wonder what is it about that orginal birth certificate that has Obama keeping it under wraps. And those who wonder, despite fervent claims to the contary, are not all "wackos". Jbarta (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, it's possible that Obama could have been born abroad, but registered as a home birth in Hawaii, either before or after he and his mother returned to Hawaii. If that extremely unlikely event happened, then the state would have sent the birth notice to the newspapers automatically. Only one catch: there is not the slightest bit of solid evidence for this theory. But I agree it is odd for Obama to not release the original 1961 form.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Obama team clearly enjoys watching bloggers' and WP editors' heads crack and leak oil. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. Have some fun with this, WTR, I am. It's kind of fun to implement all of the usual Wikipedia policies on a subject this bizarre. And don't worry, Obama will be inaugurated on January 20. And he might even be a great president. Here's hoping.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The subject doesn't strike me as bizarre. Actually, it seems pretty simple. Obama has chosen to make his original birth certificate unavailable and some people want to know why. At it's core it's not much more complicated than that. Jbarta (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree he should release the form, but I don't expect we'd learn much from it.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact that it is being kept under wraps tells me the contents (if the document exists at all) would prove a little surprising and quite an armful of trouble for Obama. If all of a sudden it were released and everything were in order, I would be quite surprised. And that's not the ramblings of a nut... that's just common sense. Jbarta (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Why would Obama waste $1 million of campaign money to prevent the release of his original and authentic birth certificate. I'm sorry, but simply believing what the head of some hospital in Obama's home state says is absolutely and utterly ignorant. Obama is seeking the highest office on this planet, and leaving something so simple and easy to prove to chance, is...well, absurd. Lest you forget, the media practically demanded McCain prove his birthright beyond any doubt, it seems fair we give Obama the same treatment. Dismissing this complaint as conspiracy theorist mumbo jumbo makes me believe people no longer feel the need to scrutinize politicians, even in the simplest of matters. I know, how dare I criticize our perfect President-elect, what am I, an evil crazy neocon fundi nutjob? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably. ;-) The head of the state department of health is a high-level public official, btw, not just "the head of some hospital in Obama's home state". See [4] for a biog. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to me, that the issue with the Hawaii Dept of Health Director is not her integrity exactly, but the interesting wording of her statement on the matter. She doesn't precisely say that they actually have Obama's original birth certificate. She says it's "on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." To me that could very easily mean that the data is in their computer and nothing more. I think reasonable people would agree that's not too much of a stretch. Again, if the original birth document exists and is in order, why not simply produce it? Jbarta (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the rest of that one-page document you link to above, you'd have the answer. State law prohibits the release of a live birth certificate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, SheffieldSteel, the present Wikipedia article quotes state officials as saying: "If someone from Obama's campaign gave us permission in person and presented some kind of verification that he or she was Obama's designee, we could release the vital record."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that the Obama campaign is over, perhaps that is not going to happen. On the other hand, if a court case ever gets passed the "laughed-out-of" stage, perhaps a long-form birth certificate will be produced. But, speaking as someone who has had to produce one in the past, even a long-form birth certificate is not necessarily an original document, so it will probably not satisfy the true believers. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there will always be skeptics and loons. Donofrio, for example, would remain skeptical of Obama's eligibility, seeing as how he did not challenge the birth location. However, from what I have read, the vast majority of current skeptics are simply asking for the long-form to be released, so I think that releasing it would defuse a great deal of the controversy/lunacy.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It won't do any good. If it was released for examination, it would generate claims that it is faked. Nobody in their right mind would allow the actual original long form birth certificate into the hands of the lunatic fringe, so they will never be satisfied. Also, it is worth pointing out that there is no "controversy" - it is not controversial that Obama hasn't produced his long form birth certificate, since the short form is more than sufficient evidence - and there is no conspiracy either - only claims of conspiracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just an aside: Skepticism is not the same thing as "dismissing the preponderance of evidence in favor of a completely unsupported theory." This note just part of my little crusade to reclaim the term from the tin-hats.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It really bothers me how smart, intelligent, informed people manage to rationalize and justify Obama's resistant in releasing his original birth certificate. Just considering his familial history it seems more than reasonable that the President-elect should prove his birthright BEYOND a doubt. the questions being asked are legitimate, thoughtful, and yes, kind of crazy, but dismissing the skepticism as fundamentalist lunacy is the ultimate form of ignorance. Why would Obama spend over 1 million in campaign funds to prevent the release, why? Why is it such a big deal? He's in Hawaii , right now on vacation. He could go over to the hospital he was allegedly born in, pay the $25, and release it to the public. He had no issue exposing himself in his wonderful autobiography, so I can't see why this would be a problem. Naturally some people will continue to believe Obama was born in another country regardless of evidence introduced, but people will also continue to deny the holocaust, accept 9/11 conspiracy theories, and support the belief that America is collectively responsible for x issue. Citing crazies unwillingness to accept facts as a reason for Obama to not answer reasonable questions is downright absurd. I know, on this Earth, wonderful selfless people like Barack Obama don't lie. Of course.  : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

More sources

Another couple of sources for consideration:

• Milbank, Dana (9 December 2008). "President Alien, and Other Tales From the Fringe". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
• "Obama's birth certificate: Final chapter". Politifact.com. June 27, 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-09.

Also, the wikipedia article does not seem to mention Obama's birth announcements in Honolulu Advertiser and in Honolulu Star-Bulletin in Aug, 1961. See:

• "Born in the U.S.A." FactCheck.org. August 21, 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
• "Obama's Hawaii boyhood homes drawing gawkers". Honolulu Advertiser. November 09 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

66.253.202.164 (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The birth announcements are already fully covered in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That as quick! They weren't in there when I started composing my post. Cheers. 66.253.202.164 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I used the same time machine that Obama used to plant the notices in the newspapers.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A blog with a good summary and analysis of the birth announcement and birth certificate issues:

• "Obama was likely born in Hawaii — does that mean he's Eligible?". June 23, 2008. Retrieved Dec 10, 2008.

Sorry, blogs are not usable as reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Printed on June 6, 2007

Any objection to adding "printed on June 6, 2007" after "Certification of Live Birth" in the first paragraph? It would make immediately clear that this is a recently printed document. Jbarta (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I once had an old, crumpled copy of my birth certificate. It had creases all over the place, so many that some of the letters were a tiny bit obscured. This copy itself was a fax page of an older photocopy. I lost my passport. That fax of the copied non-original birth certificate stating that i was born in new york plus an expired drivers license were enough to get a new passport from the US embassy. In Kuala Lumpur. Shocking, I know. But, BY ALL MEANS add a sentence that it was "recently printed." Seems like a clincher. This article was created specifically for you. Happy editing.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious, why do you prefer "recently printed" over the exact date when the date is so explicity available right on the document? Jbarta (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Jbarta, you're right. Date it, use a timestamp if you can find one (if the time stamp has seconds, use those too). See if you can find out the chain of custody from the printer to the fax machine to the secretary in obama's office who received the fax to the guy who digitized it and put it on the website. Print their names and investigate their backgrounds. Start stubs for them... see if there are any "worrisome" patterns in their past political donations, those of their spouses, or of their dogs. Expand stubs. If all of this information isn't made available to you and fast (the people have questions!) write something like "troublingly, details of the handling of this document have been withheld, raising doubts as to whether the original was altered or replaced and making it possible -- nay likely -- that Obama is not a US citizen, the Free Republic investigative journalism rapid-response team reported."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bali Ultimate that you can add that it was "recently printed."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Heaven's knows, the fact that it was printed on June 6, 2007, is valuable information that has to be documented in the article. Heh. OMG, it's not the original? That proves that it's a fake! *sigh* I couldn't even tell you where my original birth certificate is (Not even sure where the copies I've gotten over the years are). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There's some other stuff in this article that's not exactly valuable information. A little more wouldn't hurt. But I would draw the line at including an image of your birth certificate, Bobblehead, if you find it.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How is the date it was printed relevant? Whenever a copy is requested it carries that date at the time it was produced. This is the same with all certified copies of birth certificates (long or short form) and has no bearing or significance to what the certificate is for. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The date when the short-form was originally produced seems relevant. Before June 6, 2007 there was not any short form. On June 6, 2007 the short form was produced. On various dates after June 6, 2007 the short form was copied. As Bali ultimate indicated, it would be okay to just add that it was "recently printed."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it relevant? What difference does it make? Is it in the interests of Wikipedia to include non-relevant, personal information in articles? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The date is relevant to the "conspiracy theory" because for accuracy's sake, it's important to clarify that the birth certificate that was released is not Obama's actual original birth certificate (as is likely assumed by those not as familiar with the issue as ourselves). Ignoring pertinant and potentially embarrasing facts does not make them just go away. Jbarta (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay... Color me curious.. How is releasing a certified copy of his certificate of live birth embarrassing to Obama? <sarcasm>Let me tell you.. I live in constant fear that someone will find out that the next time I need to replace my driver's license I will have to order a copy of my birth certificate from my birth state.</sarcasm> --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To my thinking, the biggest clue that it would likely be embarrasing to Obama is the fact that despite the controversy, it's being stubbornly kept under wraps. As far as what exactly could possibly be there that is embarrasing or troubling, I couldn't say for sure. Theories have been presented of course, the most likely being that it may show he was not actually born in Honolulu. I'm sorry to say that I'm not well versed in the specifics of those varied theories. What I am familiar with however is that his original birth certificate is being withheld. I for one would like to know why. Is that too much to ask? Jbarta (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A more important question I think is... let's suppose it IS shown that Obama is inelligible to become President. Then what? That could be messy. As a supporter of Obama I find this situation to be monumetally troubling, the potential ramifications etremely disturbing and of course a very large part of me wishes to do what so many others have done... sweep it under the rug and just dismiss it as nonsense. Approached honestly, it's a tough issue. Jbarta (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the constitution covers this issue.. If the President is unable to fulfill the duties of his post, then the Vice President becomes President. Problem solved. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• comment ...adds bobblehead to my plot file. sigh.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Added the date it was printed to the article:[5] See how long that lasts.. Ferrylodge, June 6, 2007 was when the copy of the short form Obama received from Hawai'i was printed. It does not mean that a short form birth certificate for Obama did not exist before that date. Every time a copy of a birth certificate is created by the state it is stamped with the date of that printing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already removed it. That date carries no significance, so including it is unnecessary (and against WP:BLP) -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Scjessey, as sad as it may seem, part of the conspiracy theory is that the date stamp on the birth certificate being almost exactly 1 year before it was released on the smears website is part of the conspiracy theory mythos. I believe the theory goes "OMG!!! It's so fake they got the year wrong!!!" --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead: It's clear now, and it pains me to say this, that scjessey is part of the plot. Why else would he be using silly policies to suppress The Truth?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Bali ultimate. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Obviously it is because Scjessey is a plant of the Obama administration or worse, the World government. </sarcasm> --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I just don't want to see Wikipedia being used by fringe theorists as a way to legitimize their obviously very silly notions. What is being conveniently ignored is that reliable sources (not WorldNet Daily) are writing about the fringe theorists themselves, not the legitimacy of Obama for the presidency. By ratcheting up the level of detail in this article, such as with this argument over the date, certain editors are going way beyond what is being reported by reliable sources into the realm of synthesis, thus legitimizing the activities of the lunatic fringe. This article, which shouldn't even really exist, will become a rallying point for all these fringetards. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research or synthesis. FactCheck.org wrote: "The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign."[6] It's just typical, bland information that Joe Friday would expect us to provide him with.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory itself is notable (lots of reliable sources documenting the crazies), so I'm not sure how it can be prevented from having an article. The article includes an entire section about the more notable people that are pushing the conspiracy theory forward and some of the other nuttery they believe in. If you have concerns about this article being used to legitimized their conspiracy theory, then perhaps you could add content that will better disprove their theories? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) - Wait a second. FactCheck.org is being used to provide detailed information in the manner of a primary source, rather as a piece of investigative journalism in the manner of a secondary source. FactCheck.org is not an opinion source, and therefore it shouldn't be misused as such. There is no reason to report each and every detail (such as the date) when the reference is sufficient. My contention is that these details are being used to legitimize the fringe theories, which Wikipedia should not be doing. Find a reliable source that states why the date is important, and I could be persuaded to think differently. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, the Factcheck piece not only is exactly like investigative journalism; it is investigative journalism. Nothing whatsoever wrong with that. Can we please focus on bigger things? The FactCheck quote above already explains why the date is important: "because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign." Can we please move on instead of bogging down on this?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)The Factcheck piece also includes a bulletted list of why the conspiracy theorists think the short form is a forgery.[7] One of those bullets is: "The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008." To which Factcheck provided the answer that Ferrylodge quoted above. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is important to the conspiracy theorists, it should be included in the "Birth certificate rumors and claims" section, with context and explanation. But not without context and in the lead. Priyanath ^talk 22:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already there.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally - a reasonable point of view. Priyanath is correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Why they think the short form birth certificate is a forgery isn't actually in the article. The FactCheck article would be an excellent source for the claims and the counter-evidence. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) - It still doesn't explain why the date is significant. You are essentially synthesizing a reason by remarking about the time between when the copy was created and when it was released. That presupposes the copy was produced in anticipation of answering the fringe theorists, when it may have been produced for some completely different reason. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, the date is important to the conspiracy theorists because when Obama's campaign put up the scanned copy of the short form, the date bled through from the backside of the document where it was stamped. The conspiracy theorists incorrectly made the assumption that because the date that bled through was June 6, 2007 and not June 6, 2008 (approximately when the image was released on the site) that the document was a forgery. For whatever reason it didn't cross their minds that perhaps Obama had requested a copy of his birth certificate prior to them jumping to the conclusion that he wasn't actually born in Hawai'i. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Whenever a document is discussed, it's appropriate to say when the document was produced. We do it, every scholarly article worth its salt does it, and that's what FactCheck.org did. No huge mystery. Here's what they said: "We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and 'all the records we could get our hands on' according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship." I don't see anything there about the date being particularly important to conspiracy theorists.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Read further up in the article, Ferrylodge:

“ Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:

The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal.
It isn't signed.
No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.
The certificate number is blacked out.
The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008.
The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."

”

The "2007" that is bleading through from the back is from the date stamp of the certification. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC) I heard the original is in red ink, which everyone knows makes a birth invalid.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think FactCheck mentioned the date of the document, for the reason they provided: "because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign." Refuting some nonsense about the time lag from 2007 to 2008 may have been a factor, but not much of one.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're both saying the same thing, Ferrylodge. The explanation for the 2007 that is seen on the front of the document is that the date is when Hawai'i officials produced it for the campaign. So it's a two-for explanation. The 2007 bleed through isn't proof of forgery, just proof of when the state released the document to Obama's campaign. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Printed on June 6, 2007 - a different approach

Seeing as this article is currently titled using the words "citizenship conspiracy", and the fact that the birth certificate and its printing in 2007 figures prominently in arguments pertaining to that conspiracy, and since that date is plainly available and not disputed, I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the date of that certificates' printing be made at first mention of that certificate. The objective is not to pick and choose facts according to our liking, the objective is to accurately convey all known facts and present the "conspiracy" honestly. And while placing the date further down in the article is honest, I think placing it at first mention of the birth certificate is MORE honest given it's importance in the conspiracy we're trying to accurately describe. Another important consideration is the fact that most people, when they hear "birth certificate" automatically assume it is a photocopy of the actual birth certificate drawn up at birth. Unless this distinction is plainly presented early on, the issue is again not presented honestly. Jbarta (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, because the context and reason for the date are all-important, and are apparently part of the 'case' made by some of those pushing this thing along. No need to have it in the lead, absent context. And the lead, as a summary of the article, is not the place to present the context, and the arguments for and against the birth certificate 'conspiracy'. Priyanath ^talk 23:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You make a strong point, but I'm a little unclear what you mean by "absent context". Can you explain? Jbarta (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait, the whole above section was about including the date in the lead? In that case, Priyanath is absolutely correct. The print date is not necessary for the lead. It is just another detail in the "forgery" meme and is better covered in the body of the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The date is not exactly needed for any "forgery" issue. That was a sorry distraction. I think it IS important however to immediately draw the distinction between a birth certificate that was drawn last year from a computer database and an original birth certificate created at birth. Without drawing that distinction early on, most readers may simply assume that there is only one form of birth certificate. And since the distinction is important in describing the "consiracy"... Jbarta (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Absent context" means that the date, by itself, without the background story of why the date is so important to some people, is irrelevent. For the lead. There is no reason for it, except in the context of 'oh, this was printed recently' or 'oh, this was printed a year before it was presented on their website' or whatever new conspiracy-meme-of-the-day. Along with an explanation of why the date is irrelevant. All of that can go in the "Birth certificate rumors and claims" section. But the date of the document, by itself, is irrelevant otherwise, i.e., "absent context." Priyanath ^talk 23:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you support the wording "recently printed" next to the first mention of the birth certificate? Something like "Obama campaign also released a recently printed official copy of the candidate's Certification of Live Birth which summarizes" ?? Jbarta (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get the feeling that the date of the printing of the short form was important in the "short form vs. long form" debate, but rather that the short form is not the long form document and thus, not the "original". From a legal standpoint, the short form document is a certified document that the long form exists and the information presented on the document matches the information on the long form... So if the short form says he was born in Honolulu, the long form will also say that he was born in Honolulu. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If the released short form simply contains the information on the original long form, why would Obama choose to keep the long form under wraps? To me, that's biggest clue that something is probably not right. And while I'm not familiar with details and can't substantiate it, I tend to believe that there is a good chance that occasionally what is on the short form is not exactly what is on the long form. It would take some investigation into birth certificate practices of the time and place. Jbarta (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A quick check of the Hawaii Dept of Health web site has a little on ammended birth certificates. Jbarta (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Why would Obama choose to keep the long form under wraps"? That should be obvious to anyone with any claim to be a conspiracy theorist... it is a red herring!... It creates a "conspiracy" for people focus on... one that will distract us and keep us from discovering the real conspiracy. The real conspiracy, of course, being that Obama is <REDACTED>. Tell the world!! Blueboar (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Retitle

Several users have proposed a more neutral title for this article. It is clear some sections (not all) don't necessarily define conspiracy theory, so it is my opinion that we revise the title to something more neutral: Barack Obama citizenship challenges as proposed by Ferrylodge. Or perhaps "Criticisms of Barack Obama's citizenship"....I don't know. I just feel that the current title doesn't properly represent the majority of the article. I can't seem to compare this article with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Whether you disagree with this, people post your questions/opinions/suggestions here. Those who support the retitle, please kindly end your post with "I endorse." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is already under discussion at the top of the page - here - I don't see the need for repeating the arguments. Tvoz/talk 03:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ah, didn't notice the updates. last time i checked there wasn't much of a discussion. sorry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's ok. Tvoz/talk 20:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse. I'd like to see "Barack Obama citzenship challenges" or "citizenship controversy". I believe it's more of a controversy than a conspiracy theory. Especially in light of what little actual evidence has been provided to refute some of the basic questions. Seems to me there is an attempt by many to avoid and dismiss the issue as nothing more than the ravings of a few fringe lunatics. One might disagree with Alan Keyes and possibly he swerves on the slightly wacky side from time to time, but I would hardly characterize him as either fringe or lunatic. And if I recall, one of the court cases was not exactly "laughed out of court". It was rejected because the court said the only one who can access Obama's original birth certificate is Obama himself. These are not the makings of a conspiracy theory like the Apollo moon landing hoax or that the Jesuits poisoned William Henry Harrison. Jbarta (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The current title is entirely appropriate. When I was researching this from scratch, it became clear that there is no mainstream controversy. Mainstream newspapers and other media outlets are unanimous about the issue, as are major blogs on both left and right. I've been unable to find any mainstream politicians - Republican or Democrat - supporting the claims. Most of the media coverage over the past few months has been driven by the litigation, rather than the merits (or otherwise) of the claims. When you look at who is actually making the claims, the people involved appear to be confined to (a) a number of well-known nutjobs - Keyes, Martin etc; (b) a limited number of conservative talk-show hosts; (c) some fringe websites; and that's it. This entire business is being driven from the fringes, and the views they are propagating not only meet all the criteria of a conspiracy theory, they've repeatedly and explicitly been described as such by multiple reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris, let's assume for the sake of argument that the people involved are confined to (a) a number of well-known nutjobs - Keyes, Martin etc; (b) a limited number of conservative talk-show hosts; (c) some fringe websites. Let's further assume that they are totally outside the mainstream. None of that is relevant to whether they are alleging a conspiracy. Alleging a conspiracy means accusing people of getting together to purposely commit wrongdoing. Please show me where in this petition signed by 180,000 people (myself not included) there is any accusation that Obama is conspiring with anyone to commit wrongdoing. It's just a request for more proof of citizenship. And people like Donofrio are happy to assume that Obama was born in Hawaii, so what is the conspiracy that Donofrio is alleging?Ferrylodge (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to a rename in principle, I am concerned that any new title might mis-represent the nature or standing of these claims. If multiple reliable sources are describing them as conspiracy theories, it's probably not a good idea to apply a different term of our own devising. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A controversy is something where there are reliable sources in dispute. Here, the great preponderance of reliable sources, perhaps even a unanimity of reliable sources, state that the "theory" is completely false. Wikipedia is not for generating new knowledge. The idea that Obama was not born in the US has no basis in fact. It is a fringe view, not a controversy. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Anything involving the word "controversy" would be grossly inaccurate, in any case. There is no controversy over Obama's citizenship. A more accurate title would be "Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories", since not all of the fringetards allege a conspiracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough of them do allege a conspiracy that I think the title is appropriate... but I would accept "Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories" as a compromise alternative. Definitely not "controversy" as I agree that there is no controversy. Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories" is an acceptable alternative, though the current title is best, IMO. Priyanath ^talk 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, the existing title is best. "Fringe" would be ok, except that it is less immediately understood, in my opinion, by the public than "conspiracy theories" which is a well-known meme. So I'd stay with it as it is. Also, per Bobblehead below, preponderance of sources call it thus. Tvoz/talk 20:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) I would support Scjessey's suggestion ("Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories") as a big improvement over the present title.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would leave it as is as per Tvoz's concerns above.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinion pieces need to be identified as such

See Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed collumns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

An advantage (or disadvantage) of slapping the "conspiracy" label on this article

FYI, this article is now on the template for conspiracy theories.[8] Also, check out "What links here".Ferrylodge (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Like a hand in a glove. Priyanath ^talk 06:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

When you apply for a driver's license, or a bank account, or a job, you often have to present various forms of ID. For the most powerful job in the world, asking for the original birth certificate does not seem excessive or paranoid or conspiratorial. Sure, there are elements of conspiracy-theory here, but tarring the whole shabang with that label seems very wrong in my view. Are most of these people very nutty? Very much so. Fringy? Plenty of that too. But are they making accusations of a conspiracy on Obama's part? It seems more to me like Wikipedia editors are accusing them of conspiracy.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ferry - He has satisfied everyone in a position to to verify his eligiblity that he is indeed eligible. No other president has been asked to go to door to door to the homes of thousands of crazy citizens and show them his original birth certificate (which, of course, they will find problems with and make new "demands"). Why on earth should there be some special standard for this man never applied to any other president? Oh, because "there are questions." And why are there questions? Because they popped into the heads of crazy people with internet connections, in the absence of ANY evidence to support their insanity. What crap. Anyone can ask a question, and it's good practice for any public figure not to address the frivolous crazy ones more than neccessary. He's satisfied the electoral registrars of the US, his republican opponent, the party that nominated him and he will get a stamp of approval on his eligiblity from the Supreme Court the day they swear him in. The crazies fact-free assertions have found their rightful home and they aren't "owed" anything (accept addition to the conspiracy theory template; nice work).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory because it requres belief in the falsity of both the birth certificate and the birth announcement, either of which, if they could be validated, would suffice to prove citizenship by virtue of having been born on U.S. soil. This in turn requires belief in the existence of a vast conspiracy to falsify these, stretching over decades and including members of multiple organizations. Not all conspiracy theories are false; just occasionally, one turns out to be true. But the vast majority are not only false, but unfalsifiable: the true believer just adds anyone with evidence of, or arguments demonstrating, their falsehood or untenability to their list of members of the conspiracy.

For example, in this case, even if the original full-form birth certificate were to be publicly presented and validated by officials and forensic examiners in the presence of impartial observers, true believers can be expected to counter this with claims that it was either forged so well as to pass any conceivable examination, and/or that the forensic scientists, officials and observers that validated it are all also members of the conspiracy... -- The Anome (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"conspiracy" best, "fringe" ok other wordins above like "issues" (what nonesense) not ok.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also fair to call this a conspiracy theory because a preponderance of reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Tvoz/talk 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I would support "Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories" as a much better title. And I disagree with Bobblehead that a preponderence of reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory. There are too many variations on the theory to make such a blanket statement, and moreover the vast majority of those "reliable sources" are actually opinion pieces and editorials rather than news or other purportedly objective statements. People who merely think more ID should be presented by presidential candidates are not conspiracy theorists. People who believe that the "Natural Born Citizen Clause" of the Constitution does not encompass children of foreigners are not conspiracy theorists. People who think that original birth certificates are usually more accurate than summaries printed 45 years later are not conspiracy theorists. Et cetera, et cetera. There are indeed many conspiracy theorists involved in this thing, but we shouldn't over-generalize.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also in looking at the template you can see how incredibly undue this article is, or atleast it's title. Grsz¹¹ 22:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what you think the WP:UNDUE issue is? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel looking at this affair that the retitling of this article is just an attempt to legitimize all the different theories. Sooner or later this article will be renamed for something more supportive of all the theories to give them more undue weight. I prefer the conspiracy title as it was more appropriate to the article. Brothejr (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Um, may I ask why the articles were renamed when there is no apparent consensus over the change? Brothejr (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the clear wording "conspiracy theories". None of the sources call them "fringe theories". That's just Wikipedia-speak, and somewhere here we have a policy about not being self-referential. The preponderance of reliable sources precisely and correctly label these theories as conspiracy theories. I am going to move the article back to its proper title right now. Please don't edit war over this or else I'll get an admin to start issuing pagebans under the Obama article probation. Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Jehochman here. And stuff like claims that the birth announcement just shows how far in advance plans were laid... dougweller (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the birth announcement, the present Wikipedia article says: "A birth notice for Barack Obama was published in two local newspapers in August 1961. Such notices were sent to newspapers routinely by the Hawaii Department of Health." The present article also says: "WND contends that 'Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii....'"

Additionally, neither the Donofrio lawsuit, nor the Wrotnowski lawsuit that SCOTUS will dismiss today, contend that he was born outside Hawaii. There are no reliable sources that contend that Denofrio or Wrotnowski are accusing Obama of any conspiracy. Zero.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse your move. No other consensus evolved and I was honestly surprised about the first move.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Justmeherenow is notorious for page moves, quite frankly. Also not a fan of "Show preview", it would seem. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse restoration of correct, consensus name.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't endorse this "consensus" name. There is no consensus for this existing name. I just approved of the restoration of the original because the page was moved without consensus. I still think using "fringe" instead of "conspiracy" is more appropriate, since the use of the latter introduces the suggestion that there is actually something to these wack-job fringe theories, which of course there isn't. Certainly further discussion is worthwhile. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I mispell something again?

Since everybody apparently is looking at me I feel I should say something. OK how's this? No real malice aforethought; was wikisurfing and, after remembering something Ferrylodge had said, made an itsy- NOW-I-see-is-unwelcome change in your article's title. Sorry. To self → And hmm maybe this "'Fringe'-is-self-referential-Wiki-speak" contention is valid! Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 17:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz

This case is being considered by SCOTUS today - the relevant section of the article will need to be updated accordingly when the case's disposition is announced.

Also, it looks like an Oklahoma Republican legislator may become the first mainstream politician to jump on board the conspiracy theory bandwagon. [9] -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He's using innuendo to launch a political attack. He has not asserted that Obama isn't a citizen. Jehochman ^Talk 17:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

An Ohio Republican is doing something similar. I've added a section on legislative action covering these - it's quite possible there'll be more to come, since there seems to be a lot of lobbying going on at the moment. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I changed the lead to indicate none of these cases actually was heard by the court before I saw this section. I assumed it was reffering to Donofrio, I've been out of the loop for a few days. Anyway, sorry if I stepped on your toes, please feel free to change it back if they do hear this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)