Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

The main problem

Is that those involved in the registration of the birth did not have a crystal ball and see that Obama would become President and get all the paperwork sorted out to solve problems (g). (And with the JFK discussion the problem is that Lee Harvey Oswald did not leave a detailed manifesto of his motivation etc - and all those claimed variously to have been involved would have had as good a motive to make use of revealing his private life to manipulate him, and the payback would have been less if it had been revealed - apart from the theoretical alien base on the moon, trying to thwart the moon landing program (this being a fiction plot device not serious).)

Given that he started campaigning at the beginning of 2008, and nothing was found between then and November, while, when he was born, records management was still paper based rather than involving computers with the possibliity of manipulation thereof, the balance of proof is that he is a legitimate US citizen.

There will always be ambiguities in history, and #things not recorded or left in a scattered arrangement because they are not seen as relevant at the time#. There will always be people willing to see such absences/confusion in a negative light - and others who merely see such things as the basis for creating an interesting detective story (g). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Vaguely similar to the Apollo hoax nonsense. If NASA had known there would be these lunatics claiming they never went to the moon, they might have pre-empted the questions somehow. But then they would raise other questions. As someone was kind of suggesting earlier, we can't let our lives be dictated by the crazies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the Apollo hoax nonsense is "human greed and stupidity": given the number of people involved if there had been a cover up (beyond tidying up photographs, and equivalent processes to WD-40) if there had been a hoax-coverup, "somebody or several" would have seen a way of making megabucks/getting their 15 minutes of fame by selling the story - or there would be misplaced and forgotten documents (as seems to happen regularly in other contexts).

Perhaps the "point of interest" is #which# topics generate such "arguments for conspiracies"/ attempts to apply a negative version of Occam's Razor/"create your own version of six degrees of separation - has anyone claimed that the Martian landings are fakes? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course they don't, because those are current events, and such a claim would draw universal ridicule. Conspiracy theorists operate from kind of a "safety zone" where total and absolute disproof of their claims is unlikely. The Apollo hoax claims didn't gain much currency until after it was certain we weren't going back for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." JBarta (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sometimes I'm so smart, it actually frightens me." Yup. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the correct response would have been "Wait 'til I get going!" [1] JBarta (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Inconceivable!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is probably a similar discussion to this in the alternative universe where Obama was born three years earlier (before Hawaii became a US state) and remained there (g).

I think the most that can be said is (a) "the lack of a crystal ball syndrome"; (b) while there is some ambiguity about the situation, there is insufficient evidence for most people to start doubting Obama's qualifications; (c) while most people enjoy 'creative history and research', detective stories and suchlike, and there are some conspiracies and opportunities for discovery of large scale connections not previously suspected (as with the Icelandic volcano - date anyone?), conspiracy theories tend to involve more creativity (and in some cases more negative claims) than is generally acceptable; and (d) while there was good reason (as far as the Founding Fathers were concerned) for the Presidential nationality test, there is a case for amending the rule (but it probably could not be made retroactive (there not being a national emergency to justify it).

Are there any other countries where there is a birth-nationality requirement? (And in the EU it would be feasible for the heads of several states to contest an election to become a member of the European Parliament in a country of which they were not residents.) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The theory that Barack Obama was born 3 years earlier, before Hawaii became a state, is immaterial, because people have held the office of the Vice President that were born in U.S. Territories that later became states. Research Charles Curtis, who was the Vice President for Hoover. He was born in Kansas about a year before the state entered the union. Because the 12th amendment says that the requirements of the Vice President are the same for the President, that means that Charles Curtis can be used for precedent for births in territories that later became states. This would have also allowed Barry Goldwater to assume the office. Oh, and Al Gore proves that residents of D.C. are Natural-Born Citizens.

The two big questions would be would someone born on foreign soil be considered a "Natural-Born" citizen? That would have been solved if John McCain was sworn in. My gut would say yes, but it would ultimately have to be determined there. And would someone who was born inside a U.S. Territory have to wait for that territory to become a state before they'd be considered a U.S. Citizen? For instance, could someone born in Puerto Rico be currently considered a Natural-Born Citizen, or would they have to wait until Puerto Rico became a state? Dunstvangeet (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A military base, where both parents are under orders and obedient to United States authority, both US citizens themselves, is rather different than the suspicion of birth records existing for Obama, under whatever name, in Mombasa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.159.15 (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Article misleads about Hawaii law

Since December 23, 2008, the article has had some variation on the following highly misleading passage:

People such as Alan Keyes who are questioning Obama's birth location point to a Hawaii statute that allows births to be registered for children born out of state; however, that law was only passed in 1982 (21 years after Obama's birth registration) and its text does not indicate that out-of-state births will be listed with a Hawaiian place of birth.

The major issue with that paragraph is that it falsely implies that the date when the law was added matters and that Obama would not be eligible under that law. However, the law itself refers to parents who gave birth while declaring as their residence the "Territory or State of Hawaii". Because it mentions the "Territory" of Hawaii - which was dissolved in 1959 - the law was clearly meant to be retroactive to those born before 1982. Details here.

Since the article has been misleading people for over two months, simply making a quiet edit doesn't seem like enough of a cure. Does Wikipedia have some sort of newspaper-style corrections page? ZXY4931 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're proposing we use your original research about what was "clearly" the intent of that law's drafters. No need for a change or correction. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is making an implicit statement about the law. Is that implicit statement backed up by a "reliable source" (the NYT perhaps)? There's certainly an alternative to using my opinion about the law, but I'm sure it will be much more convenient to simply leave it in its current, misleading state. ZXY4931 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem with your theory is that even if the law was retroactive it wouldn't have been applicable in this case. The law seems to indicate that it requires the parents or legal guardian of a minor child to submit the application. Obama was either 20 or 21 in 1982 (depending on what date the law went active), so wouldn't seem to meet the criteria of being a "minor child". But then, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know? :) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking the part about minors out of the law will make it clearer: Upon application of an adult... the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult... That means that an adult who was born outside Hawaii can apply on their own behalf and get a certificate for themselves. ZXY4931 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Except it's irrelevant here. We know from the COLB that the original certificate was filed with the registrar four days after Obama's birth. We also know that a birth announcement with the same information appeared in two Honolulu papers within ten days of his birth.--75.42.93.227 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? There are no reliable sources for any of this, and it hardly seems relevant. his birth certificate was issued at the time of his birth in the US state of hawaii. This is a useless digression that's wasting our time. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Since the end of 2008, the article has been implying that when the law was passed matters. Whether you agree with that interpretation or disagree, the article is stating a legal opinion. Where exactly is the "reliable source" for that opinion?

2. Here's the actual Hawaiian law; if those who watch over the article were interested in a balanced treatment one way would be include the relevant portions in the entry pointing out the use of the word "Territory": link

3. I'll be taking this to the "Editor Assistance" section next; hopefully I'll get more assistance than I did the last time: link, although I doubt it. ZXY4931 (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Title Bias

Use of the word conspiracy in the title is an implied condemnation. When coupled with theories the overall thrust approaches purposeful marginalization of alternate viewpoints. In the end the treatment is similar in effect to parading the defendant in handcuffs and shackles before the jury.

This title is therefore not content-neutral and should be reworded. My suggestion is as follows:

Barack Obama citizenship inquiries (new section)

--Knipper (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. See the last 10 or so discussions on this matter for my reasoning. It boils down to -- these are all conspiracy theories (they all hinge on some vast deception involving the hawaii dept of state, the hawaii newspapers, obama's family, and various government officials over a period of decades, hence calling them conspiracy theories is most accurate and clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone really cares about what is shaping up to be the 5th (6th? more?) straw poll on obscuring the issue with a title change, here's an archive of one of the recent failed efforts. Since nothing has changed vis a vis the way these fringe beliefs are portrayed and understood by the preponderance of reliable sources, this latest exercise seems disruptive and time wasting. The discussion is collapsed at the link. Just click "show" to read it. [2] Bali ultimate (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is marginalized, as it is a fringe, discredited theory. See; Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. There is broad precedent to use this naming convention when such wording is supported by reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose any change. In view of the history of multiple recent discussions of this subject, I respectfully suggest that anyone wishing to launch yet another RfC or straw poll should notify every editor who has previously commented in favor of the current title. Otherwise, there's a distinct aroma of trying to win through sheer persistence rather than logic, hoping that at some point the editors who favor the current title will stop watchlisting the article. JamesMLane t c 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What we have seen is modest majority of editors wishing to retain the title and a bit of a minority seeking a change. To imply some sort of underhandedness on the part of those editors is inaccurate. And for the record, if one defines "consensus" as the vast majority of a group, then it's pretty clear there is no consensus to keep the current title. As long as a very significant number of editors see the title as needing a change, then the issue will rear it's ugly head from time to time. It's not going to just go away. JBarta (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Where, exactly is the conspiracy? While there may certainly be some allegations of conspiratorial actions in regard to this, there certainly is no “conspiracy” as a whole here. CENSEI (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the subject of the article. It's about conspiracy theories, not a hypothetical conspiracy. The theories exist but the supposed conspiracies have been widely debunked. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I support Barack Obama citizenship challenges. Simple, accurate and neutral as air. JBarta (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support the above, or Barack Obama presidential eligibility inquiries (as some acknowledge citizenship but still claim ineligibility). John Darrow (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Barack Obama presidential eligibility inquiries Besides the inaccurate "conspiracy" label, The title and the entire page are misleading about the primary argument. "Citizenship" is not the issue at hand, but rather "Natural Born Citizen", as the U.S. Constitution requires. "Citizen" and 'natural Born Citizen" are two different things, and placing emphasis just on "Citizen" is missing the entire point of all the controversy and lawsuits. One can be a "Citizen" without being a "Natural Born Citizen", which is exactly what is being argued as to Obama's status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.194.20 (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

← N.B. This same thing is being discussed a couple of sections up, and of course has been discussed many times in the past. Some people may have commented here, some above, and others may not weigh in again on the same matter on which they've expressed their views repeatedly. I tend to agree with JamesMLane's comment.Tvoz/talk 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Like she said. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since this has turned into a !vote. Opposed and unless otherwise specified by myself, my opinion on all other current and future !votes is Opposed. This article is about a conspiracy theory as identified by reliable source and the content of this article has been linked to the conspiracy theory by reliable sources. In instances where a person is specifically called a "conspiracy theorist" or any other defining terms, that defining term is sourced to an "exceptional source" as required by WP:BLP. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose and change in title. First, Sceptre's gambit here was to agitate another round of discussion, so this round is rooted in bad faith provocateur actions, which should not be rewarded. Second, Sceptre's the one who has initiated numerous prior attempts to change, and has been rounded rebuked before. repeatedly. he should not get infinite do-overs. Finally, as demonstrated, the vast majority of the material here is CT. the Few legalese wranglings by idiotic panderers in a few states and the House can go to a 'governmental reactions to the claims' section, instead, thus reassociating them properly with the asshattery behind them. (The representatives in question have stated they're acting on the will of constituents, who apparently fell for this nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The question has to do not with whether Obama is a citizen, following his childhood in Indonesia, but that if he is a citizen, does he qualify as natural born according to the norms of that era? making him then eligible to be POTUS - regardless of the fact that he was elected. Anyone wishing an unbiased, encyclopedic view of this would necessarily approve a change in title away from something like - conspiracy theory. If anything, the fair title would be The Obama Conspiracy - or coverup. That's the pattern of behavior. The pro-Obama bias and idiotic pandering to the left shown in this discussion, and the article, is plain for all to see. And it stuns me that those controlling the content, here, think they're pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. It's an insult to anyone's intelligence to claim that those like Paglia who wonder where the original certificate might be are necessarily unreasonable 'theorists' simply for their doubts. This is something Obama himself could have cleared up very easily, instead of spending so much time and money on legal teams attempting to close and oppose efforts to look into his past. What so many see isn't a conspiracy of accusation, but of behavior. The term cover-up comes to mind, stonewalling, all the terms people used to associate with Nixon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.158.36 (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally would support a project-wide policy that the term "conspiracy theory" never be used in article titles. If you launch a serious effort to make that general change, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll support you. Under our current use of the term, however, the subject of this article eminently qualifies. JamesMLane t c 10:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer "crackpot theories", "fairy tales", "bollocks" or "utter nonsense"? Conspiracy theories is accurate and non-inflammatory, relative to the alternatives. Of course the pro-conspiracy POV pushers would prefer something more weaselly, but Wikipedia is not here for them to use as a soapbox. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer simply stating the facts and letting the reader decide. We don't need to tell the reader "This theory is bollocks" any more than we need to say "This theory is a brilliant truth that's been unjustly ignored or belittled by the media." Where you and I disagree is in your assessment of the term "conspiracy theories" as non-inflammatory. I think it connotes disparagement. The official U.S. government explanation for 9/11 is that it was a conspiracy -- a conspiracy among some Moslems, most Saudis -- but no one ever calls that explanation a conspiracy theory. The term isn't used descriptively, but solely to express the opinion that the adherents are crackpots. JamesMLane t c 15:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing two different ideas/terms that use the same word in them. A conspiracy in legal definitions of crime is a different beast from a conspiracy theory. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm well aware of the difference. In fact, that's my whole point. If the phrase "conspiracy theory" were used in an objective way, referring to theories that allege a conspiracy in the legal sense, then it would be NPOV. It's not used that way, though. In practice, some theories alleging conspiracies are called conspiracy theories and some aren't. The determining factor is whether enough Wikipedia editors want to brand a particular POV as crackpottery. Offhand, I can't remember something being labeled a "conspiracy theory" here where I disagreed and thought it wasn't crackpottery, but I'd prefer just to drop the term project-wide. JamesMLane t c 01:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a legitimate, serious definition of "conspiracy theory", which has nothing to do with the legal sense of conspiracy (crime). The idea that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax is – objectively, factually stated – a conspiracy theory. If you think this label and characterization is just some social construct of Wikipedia, we are as far apart as the Earth from the Moon. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a legitimate use of "conspiracy theory" and I'm not in favor of eliminating it's use project wide. (Certainly we are all big kids and can be trusted to play with matches.) Unfortunately the term is overused and has morphed from a descriptive phrase into a derogatory phrase. This fact is even made perfectly plain on Wikipedia's own article on conspiracy theories. It's my opinion that all who are keen to show all this "nonsense" as "asshattery" etc by clearly labeling it as the "conspiracy theory that it is", are doing Wikipedia a great disservice and are clearly violating the whole idea of NPOV. A neutral point of view is just that... a neutral point of view. And it's fairly plain that the point of view of quite a number of editors (including at least one administrator) is anything but neutral. JBarta (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It also points out the fallacy of the NPOV itself. It is what 'they say' it is. So the worst sort of bias is NPOV if someone says it is NPOV. There's no agreed standard. And it becomes very one-sided and politically self-serving. And people aren't fooled by it. It's so clear in an article like this, where prejudiced labelling and leading language is employed to sway the naive reader. If anything, the fair title would not be 'theory' - but rather The Obama Coverup. That brings in the established fact of his stonewalling, of his expenditure of hundreds of thousands in legal fees to fight discovery of the certificate, his Occidental records and much else. The candidate of transparency is the President of obscuration. Again, the fair and reasonable title isn't 'theory', but stonewalling. Since the Nixon era, it's a term widely used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.159.10 (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that parroting a non-neutral point of view is not itself a neutral point of view. JBarta (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WastedTimeR wrote: "If you think this label and characterization is just some social construct of Wikipedia, we are as far apart as the Earth from the Moon." Well, I don't think that, and never said that, and never said anything remotely comparable to that, so I don't really have much to add. By the way, the label and characterization "right-wing nutjob" is also not some social construct of Wikipedia. Does that mean it's OK to use in describing people? It's OK for me to set up Category:Right-wing nutjobs and start adding that category to pages like Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann? No, it's not OK, because the test isn't whether a phrase is in wide use outside Wikipedia; the test is compliance with Wikipedia policies, notably WP:NPOV. JamesMLane t c 02:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: A parallel debate, with regards to the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, is going on at the NPOV board. Abecedare (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the title change. They are conspiracy theories, pure and simple. That's what reliable sources call them, therefore that's what we call them. The proposed title change is an attempt to lend legitimacy to this nonsense and Wikipedia policy won't stand for it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Which suggests simply a political point of view, a very violation of what NPOV OUGHT to mean - but never does on wiki. The proper unbiased title for this article should be - Barack Obama: Natural Born Citizen Question. Just that simple.

• Comment - FYI, this is an old topic, not a recent one. There is no validity to a pseudo straw poll that has been rambling on for 6 weeks now. There's no point in "voting" at this time, really. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Error in lead

The lead was recently edited to insert the following: "Hawaii State law offers no provision to have such released, and HRS §338-18 stipulates that '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.'" The citation is merely to a state statute. There is no indication that other laws and statutes bar release of a birth certificate if the person in question consents. According to an article in the Honolulu Advertiser, state law does allow release of the document:

Under state law, such copies may only be released to those who have a "tangible relationship" to the person whose record is being sought, said Janice Okubo, state Department of Health spokeswoman....Okubo said, "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."[3]

Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that that article says nothing about a hospital-generated certificate of live birth. And neither does the statute.--75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Advertiser piece says the person was trying to get "a copy of Obama's birth certificate, and related files and records."[4] I find it difficult to believe this did not include a copy of the original long-form. In any event, the present Wikipedia article does not say the person was trying to get a copy of the long-form.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure you realize that what you "find difficult to believe" is not the same as accurately portraying what's in a newspaper article. And although the Wiki article doesn't presently say the person was trying to get a copy of the long form, I see you criticizing someone on this page as "misinterpreting the statement of Hawaii officials" when he or she pointed out that the newspaper article didn't say that either.--Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, would people please chill out, and just try to present a neutral article, without trying to slant the facts? If a neutral presentation of the facts supports and bolsters Obama, then just let the facts speak for themselves. This isn't the place for spin and persuasion, okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, a more pertinent statute is this one, which says: "The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record" (emphasis added).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The piece is talking about getting a certified copy. The article in the Honolulu Advertizer, the person was just trying to get the normal copy normally issued, not the orignal or a copy of it. The Advertiser piece is therefore irrelevant. 74.233.157.218 (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Advertiser piece says the person was trying to get "a copy of Obama's birth certificate, and related files and records."[5] I find it difficult to believe this did not include a copy of the original long-form. In any event, the present Wikipedia article does not say the person was trying to get a copy of the long-form.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's good that you have finally come to the talk page. However, you are linking to statutes and giving them your own interpretation, and that's a no-no at Wikipedia. See WP:OR. Your interpretation is wrong, but even if your interpretation were right it constitutes original research. You have linked to a statute and asserted in the lead of this Wikipedia article that “per Hawaii State law HRS §338-18, there is no provision to have [the long-form] released.” That's false, and original research to boot.

Statute 338-19 specifically authorizes the State of Hawaii to prepare "photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office" (emphasis added).

Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it authorizes the department to make copies when the original records are in such a condition that they cannot be consulted or used without resulting in injury or destruction of the record. It isn't an authorization or requirement to release any sort of document. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Statute 338-13 also authorizes photographic copies of any record. That includes original long-form birth certificates.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that provision is subject to the requirements of Sec. 338-18, among others. And you notice that Sec. 338-18 restricts the release of records "except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health." Do you happen to know what the DOH rules might provide? --75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And statute 338-18 specifically says that the state can release that copy if "it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record." In any event, it's not our job to provide original legal analysis in the lead of this article. Look for reliable and neutral sources that analyze the Hawaii statutes.

I recommend that you also take a look at WP:BLP. The burden is on you to justify insertion of added material in a biography of a living person.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a biography of a living person. It is a discussion of various conspiracy theories. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You’re not only misinterpreting Hawaii law, but also misinterpreting a statement by Hawaii officials. A plaintiff wanted to see Obama’s original long-form birth certificate.[6] In response, Hawaii officials said that, "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."[7]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're quoting from two different articles. The "response" from Ms. Okubo was not made in response to Andy Martin's request but to a reporter's question. That second article went back and forth between references to "birth certificates" and "vital records" and the only quote from Andy Martin was wanting to see a "copy from the state" rather than an online copy. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The second article says the person was trying to get "a copy of Obama's birth certificate, and related files and records."[8] I find it difficult to believe this did not include a copy of the original long-form. In any event, the present Wikipedia article does not say the person was trying to get a copy of the long-form.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Other reliable sources have also confirmed that Obama could release the long-form.[9]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Where exactly in that article do "reliable sources" confirm any such thing? Be specific, please. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The article says, "If the long-form birth certificate were released...." That sure sounds like the author realizes it could be released. But it's not cited for that principle in this Wikipedia article, so we need not quibble about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article says, "If the long-form birth certificate were released, with its unequivocal identification of Hawaii as Obama's place of birth, the cycle would almost certainly continue." That sure sounds like the author isn't making any observations about the legal requirements for release of long-form certificates, but arguing that even if those particular demands were met, the accusations would nevertheless continue. Hardly a "confirmation" of anything, and certainly not from more than one source, reliable or not.

No, it's not cited in the Wiki article, but cited here to bolster your argument. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Because you've inserted false and disputed info into the lead of a BLP, I'm going to revert your edit one more time. You’re going about this the wrong way. You need to build consensus here at the talk page, instead of edit-warring. See WP:3RR. This is a 3RR warning.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this article is not a biography of a living person. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This article contains biographical material about living persons, and so WP:BLP applies. I'll try to respond to your other comments later today or tomorrow.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But the insertion you objected to, whatever other problems it may have had, was not in a portion of the article containing biographical material. It was in the lead para, dealing with the conspiracy theories themselves. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the sentence in the lead said: "A common complaint of those questioning Obama's eligibility is that he has not released a photocopy of his original, official certificate of live birth—only the shorter official summary certification&mdash." You wanted to add to that sentence, in order to make it sound like those complaints are ridiculous and baseless. They may well be ridiculous and baseless, and those questioning Obama's eligibility may in some cases be morons, but they are still living persons. Therefore WP:BLP applies.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't make that edit. Second, that para is still not biographical material within the Wiki meaning of the term. Finally, your point about those questioning Obama's eligibility being living persons makes no sense in this context. Perhaps you want to restate your point? --75.42.93.227 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 74.233.157.218 made that edit. Sometimes, IPs shift around. If it wasn't you, then I retract anything I said that implied it was you. Perhaps if you get a user name there will be less confusion. In any event someone made the edit, and that's why I mentioned BLP, and I really don't have time now to get into a longer argument about it. Whether BLP applies or not (and I think it certianly does), this article needs to be accurate.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just created a user name for this article, to avoid confusion. I have another user name but prefer that it not be connected to an IP address, as has happened here. I will of course only use this name in our discussions.--Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder to all editors that this article is under probation, and the IP and Ferrylodge are on the verge of violating WP:3RR.
To IP, yes this article is covered by WP:BLP insomuch as it deals with living persons such as Obama, the litigants, etc; however this edit does not seem to be an obvious BLP issue that would justify ignoring WP:3RR or invoking WP:IAR (by either sides!). Could the issue be discussed here instead, perhaps with more editors being involved ? Abecedare (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I've tried rephrasing a sentence in the article in order to satisfy the IP (rather than reverting). IP, it would be best to talk about stuff here at the talk page, instead of going back and forth with article edits.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to get into an edit war with you either, and I thought my earlier point about quoting officials in articles might have been sufficient. At any rate, your latest edit is really not "as precisely accurate to the source as can be." That would be an actual quote and nothing more. I think it constitutes synthesis/original research to say Fukino's statement was in response to a question or questions about what the original BC says; the reporter's editorializing is not a question. And absent an actual question and answer format, there is no indication what this statement was in "response" to. You can't just skip around an article and draw your own conclusions. BTW, Fukino is the director of DOH, not just a "spokeswoman." --75.42.93.227 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a news report from a reliable source. It's not proper to pick out the parts you don't like, and call them "editorializing." I'll admit that some news reporters do subtly editorialize in reliable sources (and sometimes not so subtly), but I see no indication that that happened here. The reporter said what Fukino was responding to, and if you don't believe the reporter then please supply a contrary reliable source. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither is it proper to collapse the parts one likes to make one's own point. That is called synthesis, and it is original research. The reporter made a stylistic choice. He didn't say what he asked Fukino, neither does he say it was in direct response to a claim about a Kenyan birthplace on the birth certificate. And the edit as it now stands certainly is not "as precisely accurate to the source as can be." --75.42.93.227 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(Undent)No, I've not engaged in either synthesis or any other kind of original research here. The cited source says:

“ Berg responds that nowhere does the press release say this original certificate is actually American. Instead, he says, the certificate in Hawaii's vaults is from Kenya. Hawaii's answer to this will surely fuel more fires. "Unfortunately the way state laws are written we are not allowed to confirm vital information and vital records," said Janice Okubo, a spokeswoman for Hawaii's department of health. "I cannot confirm individual information because that is against the law." ”

This Wikipedia article merely offers a concise and straightforward summary:

“ In response to questions about what the original birth certificate says, a spokeswoman for Hawaii’s department of health asserted that state law does not allow her department to confirm vital information and vital records. ”

Your arguments might be more convincing if you had tried rephrasing instead of repeatedly deleting. But in any event, your arguments are not persuasive.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the definition of synthesis.

Once again, we do not know exactly what question was posed to Ms. Fukino. She could have been responding to an entirely different question, and reporter believed it sufficed as an "answer" to Berg's claim or to questioners in general. It is inaccurate to say it was a "response" to Berg. A straightforward quote without any interpretation of the material is what would be "as precisely accurate to the source as can be." --75.42.93.227 (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not offering any alternative wording, and none is needed. As you can see above, the cited source says that Fukino gave "Hawaii's answer to this." The "this" was an inquiry about what the original certificate says. This Wikipedia article just says what's in the news report. If you'd like to cite a contrary news report, then I'll be 100% in favor of including that in the present Wikipedia article too.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is the reporter's interpretation of what "this" is...and it could be the certificate question in general, Berg's claim, or his own question about verifying records. It is not accurate to say Fukino's statement was "in response" to anything but a reporter's unknown question.

As to alternative wording, it would be more accurate to simply say, "In response to a reporter's question on the birth certificate issue, the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, [first name] Fukino said ..." A direct excerpt from the article would be most accurate of all, and would show the context. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer is virtually meaningless without describing what it is an answer to. As people can see above, the news article is crystal clear that it's an answer to assertions/questions about the "original certificate" and the "certificate in Hawaii's vaults". There is no ambiguity whatsoever. If the news report is wrong, then please supply a reliable reference that gives contrary info. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't meaningless at all. It is completely accurate to say that the represenative has said she cannot comment on vital records, period. The article isn't "crystal clear" at all...crystal clear would be if the reporter reported exactly what the woman had been asked. The rest is merely the stylistic choice of the reporter, because once again we don't have the actual context of the statement. To extrapolate it into some sort of factual assertion for a Wiki article constitutes synthesis. If you want to be accurate, include the entire excerpt, including the Martin quote.

Furthermore, by collapsing the second quote from another article into the same paragraph, you have given the inaccurate impression that the spokeswoman was talking about releasing the certificate of live birth in the same article:

" ... a spokeswoman for Hawaii’s department of health asserted that state law does not allow her department to confirm vital information and vital records.[39] The spokeswoman says: '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.'[40] "

That should be corrected as well.--Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The news reporter describes (without quoting) what the spokesperson was answering, and reporters paraphrase like that all the time; it doesn't mean it's unreliable. I don't see anything to call the reliability of the paraphrasing into question. I understand that you don't want this article to be misleading, and neither do I. But it's not feasible to repeat verbatim everything that we're relying on from all of the cited sources, or to insist that the cited sources provide verbatim quotes instead of paraphrasing. The fact that we provide two different footnote numbers indicates that we are using two different sources instead of the same article, and the reader can confirm that it's not the same article by simply looking at our footnotes. Just to be on the safe side, I've clarified in the article that the two statements by the spokesperson were on different occasions.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you clarified that the spokeswoman commented on two separate occasions; however, it still seems to imply that she was talking about the certificate of live birth.

I didn't say the article excerpt had to be quoted verbatim, I said it should be accurate, and the present extrapolation is not (see prior discussion). Quoting verbatim is only one option. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

On the second occasion, a person was trying to get "a copy of Obama's birth certificate, and related files and records."[10] And the state said they could only release stuff with Obama's permission. This makes sense to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you elaborated on that in the footnote. But I still think the two sentences together imply that she was responding the second time on the question of "what was on the original." In any case, as I've said, it is the prior sentence that is the real problem, because there is nothing in the article saying she was "responding to questions" at all. In fact, Martin's statement about the Kenyan birth certificate wasn't a even a question, but a flat out statement of "fact." So aside from stating a conclusion, the sentence is not even accurate. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the prior sentence, I've just edited it to track the cited source even more closely, and also I put the full verbatim material from the source into the footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that effort. However, it's still conclusionary, and despite the footnote, the second sentence still seems to imply it's about what's on the certificate of live birth, when the issue was who could obtain documents at all. So here's some suggested language:

"According to the Honolulu Advertiser, Hawaii's answer .... . On another occasion, the same spokeswoman elaborated on state policy for the release of vital records: " [quote]" ....

Just a suggestion, but maybe you see what I'm getting at here. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We aims to please, so I'll put in part of your suggested language. But I disagree that there's any need to say "According to the Honolulu Advertiser...." The whole point of using and citing and footnoting reliable sources is so we don't have to preface everything with language like that. People can look at the footnote for details, IMO. Also, saying "According to the Honolulu Advertiser...." would make it sound like its an editorial or something.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that edit to the second sentence. Still, the first sentence is picking up the reporter's stylistic choice and using it as fact. As I said, we don't have any idea of the real context of Ms. Okubo's statement. It's not as if she said, "Here's my answer to those concerns ... ." So, maybe as a compromise, we could agree to an edit like this: "Hawaii's reported answer to concerns ... ." While I would prefer a more literal change, I think this at least informs readers that this comment was reported in that context, not that it is a proven fact. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Saw your most recent edit. Looks nice, thanks. Whew! --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the current wording[11] a bit weaselly. Either the State of Hawai'i said that they are not allowed to the info on vital records or they didn't. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent for everyone's sanity)The state of Hawaii said that they are not allowed to verify the info on vital records, according to the reliable source. If you want to remove the word "reportedly" then that's fine with me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To Bobblehead: If you follow the long discussion between me and Ferrylodge, you'll see it's not a question of whether the state said they don't verify info on vital records or not. It's a question of whether that statement was really given "in response to concerns about what's on the original birth certificate" (paraphrasing). Because that requires extrapolating from how a reporter chose to describe it rather than evident from the statement itself, we agreed to say it was "reportedly" in response to those concerns. I see that the way the edit was done may have lead to the impression that the state was "reportedly" saying something; I would suggest an edit that makes it clear that it was "reportedly in response to concerns." I think that would be the most accurate portrayal of the statement.

I do NOT agree with the most recent edit, which leaves no qualifying language. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Agree completely with, " it would be best ... with article edits." !

From what I have read in the above discussion the whole issue is rather lame, so I'll keep out of this discussion personally; but I am sure you can get other regular editors involved ,or use WP:30 etc. Getting blocked over this (IMO) very minor issue would be a shame. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ferrylodge on this one. The Hawaii statute on "vital records" obviously covers birth certificates. The comments in the Honolulu Advertiser story are, IMO, clearly relevant here because said comments treat birth certificates as a specific instance of the kinds of vital records covered by Hawaii law and dealt with by the state Department of Health whose spokesperson's comments were reported in the story.

Also, in an effort to help readers, I replaced the original URL given for the Honolulu Advertiser story with the actual URL of the story on their web site (rather than a search result page). This should help other editors to find the article, read it for themselves, and determine whether it is or is not relevant to any disputes regarding Obama's birth certificate. Richwales (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're addressing my disccusion with FL, the question as I understand it is whether the comments were referencing original hospital-generated certificates of live birth. The term "birth certificate" seems to be used interchangeably throughout the articles. And to say a DOH official is describing a hospital-generated certificate of live birth when she mentions "vital records" is drawing an unwarranted conclusion. --75.42.93.227 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This really seems like nitpicking to me. Almost no source is going to be absolutely perfect with Vulcan-level precision — and if we were to hold all sources to such a standard, there really wouldn't be much of anything available for us to use anywhere in Wikipedia. If you can find an even better source to use here — or other, reliable sources supporting contrary views — that would be wonderful, but my current opinion is that the given source (used in the way it is being used) is perfectly fine for our purposes in this article. Richwales (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that the source is unreliable, it's that it's being used to assert a fact it doesn't really show. And for such a high-profile article, precision should be the standard, don't you think?

As far as nitpicking, I don't agree. There is some anecdotal evidence that the COLB is all Hawaii will send you if you request a birth certificate these days. From one website, for example:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/why-doesnt-he-show-the-damn-thing/comment-page-4/#comment-6062

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/why-doesnt-he-show-the-damn-thing/comment-page-5/#comment-6437

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/birth-certificates-101-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-6278

That may be wrong, but until anyone has dispositive proof one way or the other, I think Wiki editors should be especially careful not use sources in such a way that they imply something not actually said. Even if the original research rule didn't apply.--Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Keyes v. Bowen

• I edited this section, the part talking about the outcome of the case should have been after the part stating what the case was. I moved it in accordance with the way the other sections are writen. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• I then propose we rewrite all the other sections, about the litigation, and begin them all with a sentence about the current state of each case. There is no reason to subject Wikipedia readers to the drivel that passes for the "legal" argument of each of these conspiracy loons er litigants whithout informing them, in advance, that the cases have been dismissed, or are in various stages of dismissal as they work their way to the trashbins of various courts. Judges are pesterred with the inane mumblings of these lawyers and their, even more clueless, clients. That comes with the job. Anybody can file a case. It is bad enough that this article exists here at all without providing the conspirators-without-a-clue some legitimatecy by attaching the words "Filed Lawsuit" and "Court" especially "Supreme Court" to their theories. If we are to do that, then we should at least do so with the word "Dismissed" attached to the front, not the back of the line. IMNSHO Bluespaceoddity2 (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of hammering away at the point in each section like that, it would be more succinct and more informative to the reader for us to include a blanket statement at the top of the litigation section. After the summary reference to where the suits have been filed, I've added: "No such suit has yet resulted in the grant of any relief to the plaintiffs by any court." For some readers, that will save them the effort of reading the detail subsections that describe the separate cases. JamesMLane t c 20:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't help readers that are here for a specific case and selects that case from the table of content. They'd skip the info in the section header and go right to the case section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Trouble is, that's treading on synthesis: obvious as your conclusion is, it's a conclusion you've made yourself, and not one from a Reliable Source. The call is close enough that I'm not going to strike the change, but I am going to poke around and see if I find a source mentioning the whole pile of lameass litigation. PhGustaf (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobblehead, you're right, but a reader who's here for a specific case will probably read the entire paragraph about that case, regardless of the order in which the facts are presented. Hence, while my solution isn't perfect, it will benefit the general reader while not affecting the reader concerned about one case.

PhGustaf, if it's OK to say that Case A resulted in no relief, and it's OK to say that Case B resulted in no relief, then it's not an improper synthesis to say that neither Case A nor Case B resulted in relief. (Otherwise, the rule would push us into an infinite regression along the lines of "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles".) Then the only question is whether it's improper synthesis to state or imply that the cases we've looked at are all the cases. I believe that, with or without my sentence, our article clearly implies that no court has granted relief on any of these causes of action. Of course, if your poking produces a good source, so much the better. JamesMLane t c 06:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the Wikipedia rules on primary sources but it seems patently absurd to have conspiracy making headlines in the article when the court files show that not a single one of the litigants made a coherent legal argument. It can not be that Wikipedia rules are enforced so strictly that even references to the court rulings are to be excluded in the absence of media attention. Keeping the article would be an even greater farce than it is already if this were true. So, while continuing to search for additional sources, I propose that text from the court opinions is placed verbatim in the article with the least amount of further interpretation.

It is my intention to once again edit the Keyes v Bowen entry but this time -with a more serious approach- along the lines mentioned. In a biography article you don't wait until the last line or paragraph to indicate whether a person is dead or alive. Next to the name the date and place of birth and when and where the person died are the first things mentioned in any properly written Wiki biography. Date filed, Date dismissed and last court involved can be used here in a similar manner, in a properly constructed first sentence, as a brief introduction for each case. That isn't intrusive or complicated. It shouldn't even require more than one line.

It could be something like this: On March 13, 2009 Cal. Superior Court. Judge Kenny, dismissed the lawsuit filed by Keyes on Nov. 14, 2008. Keyes' contended... etc

Or something like this: On Nov. 14, 2008 Keyes filed a lawsuit against Sec. St. Bowen. The case was dismissed March 13, 2009... etc. Keyes contended... etc

A timeline and summary can then follow, if so desired.

I also support the explanation in the general introduction to the litigation. I personally don't care if the arguments are explained over and over again for each individual case. Noting the differences where the approach differed slightly would suffice. This could be achieved by grouping similar litigation together. Often the cases are repetitive and simply exist only because there are many different states. Looks to me that writing a general litigation introduction was achieved by JamesMLane without breaking synthesis restrictions. Let's try to find the line without crossing it rather than threading to cautiously leaving a decidedly POV article slanted towards providing a soapbox for conspiracy loons. Bluespaceoddity2 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Rule 11 sanctions against conspiracy theorist lawyer

I've seen a report that the plaintiff's lawyer in Hollister has been subjected to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for frivolous conduct. [12] Although the lawyer could have been fined, the judge let him off mildly, with a reprimand. I haven't added anything because I don't have time right now to pursue the initial report (from a political message board, not a source we can cite for something like this). JamesMLane t c 01:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: [13] A reprimand with no fine. --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for providing this link. Judge Robertson's opinion is a good read, but the part that might be most relevant to us, those of us who have invested time and effort trying to maintain a legitimate page on this fraught topic, is this:

John D. Hemenway is a lawyer and a member of the bar of this court. The dispute that he attempted to litigate here was about whether or not Barack Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” and thereby qualified under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution to be President. Many people, perhaps as many as a couple of dozen, feel deeply about this issue. [italics added by me, a bit sheepishly]

I guess that puts us in our place! :) Also interesting to note in this opinion the fact, which I had not seen mentioned elsewhere, that Mr. Hemenway is 82 years old. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

The following primary source:

Alan Keyes (2008-11-12). "Request for Writ of Mandate" (PDF). radaronline.com. Retrieved 2008-12-10.

is used as a reference 6 times in the article. While it is perhaps okay to use this source in conjunction with reliable sources to support statements reported by the latter; I don't think it is acceptable to report arguments from this (or other similar) documents, unless secondary sources have thought those arguments to be noteworthy enough to discuss. Therefore, I think the following statements in the articles need secondary sources, or to be removed:

People such as Alan Keyes who are questioning Obama’s birth location point to a Hawaii statute that allows births to be registered for children born out of state;

Keyes also alleges that block 7c of the long-form Certificate of Live Birth contains the word "country" in its label proving foreign-born children could be registered

Keyes counters that, prior to 1972, a birth certificate could be obtained in Hawaii based on "uncorroborated testimony of one witness, up to one year after birth."

According to Keyes, elections officials currently require only a presidential candidate to provide a signed statement attesting that they meet qualifications. Keyes says, "This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of when requesting a California driver's license."

Keyes' petition also says that "the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth".

Note that the article not only quotes from Keye's petition, but also then synthesizes arguments against it. For example, in the following :

People such as Alan Keyes who are questioning Obama’s birth location point to a Hawaii statute that allows births to be registered for children born out of state;^[42] however, that law was passed only in 1982 (21 years after Obama's birth registration) and its text does not indicate that out-of-state births will be listed with a Hawaiian place of birth.^[43] Keyes also alleges that block 7c of the long-form Certificate of Live Birth contains the word "country" in its label proving foreign-born children could be registered,^[42] but block 7c is the usual residence of the mother, not the location of birth (the location of birth is in block 6a, which has no "country" label).[citation needed] Obama's published short-form certificate specifically says that he was born in Honolulu.^[15] Keyes counters that, prior to 1972, a birth certificate could be obtained in Hawaii based on "uncorroborated testimony of one witness, up to one year after birth."^[42]

where reference [42] is the keye's petition; [43] is Hawaii statute 338-17.8 (again a primary source; but at least a state law is less POV that a court petition, which is basically 1 man's complaint); and reference [15] is a Factcheck article that pre-dates the Keye's petition and so obviously doesn't mention it.
I think we need to go through the article and remove such instances of violations of WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:Undue, which only cause unnecessary article bloat. Any comments or suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As you say, the Keyes brief is a primary source. It's a reliable source about what Keyes' arguments are, but picking through it for quotes may be original research. I don't see any problem with keeping the Request for Writ of Mandate in a footnote, and the sentence in the text could merely say that he made a number of different arguments in a court filing.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a primary source question, but I wish to add this after one of Keyes' statements:

Keyes counters that, prior to 1972, a birth certificate could be obtained in Hawaii based on "uncorroborated testimony of one witness, up to one year after birth.{citation} However, according to the Hawaii State Department of Health, the former program only applied to persons born in Hawaii who were one year old or older.[14] --Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So, if somehow it was "revealed" Obama wasn't born in the USA . . .

Wouldn't it mean that Joe Biden would become President of the United States? 67.149.24.80 (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite likely, yes, though Constitutional experts debate the particulars of the chain of events in such a scenario. What's your point? Tarc (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the 25th amendment to the US Constitution says "Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. " Which confuses me immensely - it's not like John McCain would magically become President, the Democratic Party won the Presidential election, and a Democrat would still be in power. (Maybe not the policies of Obama, but still close enough to them.) 67.149.24.80 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Which confuses me immensely..." It may be confusing to you because you're looking at the issue through a partisan lens. You are assuming a single simple motive for getting at the truth, when in reality there are other motives, not the least of which is to simply lay the facts bare, whatever they may be, and let the chips fall where they may. For me personally, I would not want to seek his removal from office, nor would I have sought to see him disqualified in the first place. That said, I would prefer all the facts come out and the issue dealt with by Obama in a more forthright manner... expecially after his frequent promises of transparency and honesty. JBarta (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking at it through a partisan lens, but most of the people who seem to be "looking for the truth" are definitely anti-Obama anyway. It really seems to be code for saying that they don't want a Black man as President. 67.149.24.80 (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan Keyes doesn't want a Black man as President?! John Darrow (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, racists and regular nutbars then. 67.149.24.80 (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there could be a legitimate tie-in here to the article. Since at least one challenger to Obama's legitimacy — Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation — is reported here to be planning to mount legal challenges to "each and every one of Obama's actions as president", it probably is appropriate to say something about the question of whether or not Obama could be legally ousted from the Presidency if it were determined at this point that he is not in fact a natural-born citizen. I'm not going to elaborate further, lest I be accused of indulging in OR or otherwise abusing the talk page, but can anyone find citable sources addressing this issue? Richwales (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You will need to find a reliable source to back up any claims regarding what would happen if Obama were found to not be a natural born citizen while in office. I'm not sure you'll be able to find one though. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just in passing, re Kreep "planning to mount legal challenges to 'each and every one of Obama's actions as president'": It's really sort of amazing he (evidently) hasn't bothered to research the long-established officer de facto doctrine, which "confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient" [15]--Screen Name Goes Here (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not a lawyer but I see that the case you cite is one in which SCOTUS held that the judges' actions were not valid de facto due to circumstances specific to that case which appear not to apply in Obama's situation. A more on-point case would probably be Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no constitutional expert, but my understanding would be that the only way he could be removed (absent his resignation) would be for Congress to impeach him. There's no mechanism that I know of for the courts to remove a president from office. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's a case of obliviousness rather than conspiracy (despite the title of this article), then resignation would certainly be an option, I imagine.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reference one could possibly find would be speculation by a constitutional lawyer. (Hey, Obama's one! Ask him.) And I think all the lawyer could say would be "It depends". As far as the Dickensian-named Kreep goes, he'll become notable if and when a court responds to one of his suits without laughing. PhGustaf (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that we (the editors of Wikipedia) are not supposed to be engaging in personal analysis here. If we can find reliable sources out there that discuss the issue of what might happen if Obama were determined not to be a natural-born citizen after all, then we can (and should) report what those sources say, in a balanced and neutral fashion. But we can't include our own original research or synthesis in the article. Discussion here, on the talk page, of the various possibilities may be useful if it points the way to possible sources of information, but we're not supposed to use a talk page for general rambling / debate of issues (i.e., a talk page is not a bboard or a newsgroup).

Legal scholars say a lot more than "it depends" all the time — read any law journal for examples. And there could very possibly be reports in the press talking about such-and-so person saying this or that (indeed, that's the kind of secondary source which is preferred in Wikipedia). But any material in this Wikipedia article on the question at hand has got to be backed by sources, or else it'll quickly be removed per WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. And discussion of the issue here (in the talk page) is appropriate if, and only if, it's reasonably likely to lead to appropriate material being added to the article. Richwales (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with much of Richwales's comment, I'd say that we're not restricted to legal scholars in addressing the issue of what would happen if Obama were found (by whom?) unqualified. We can report facts about notable opinions. It's possible that Keyes or some other prominent conspiracy theorist has said something like, "If Obama isn't qualified then his electors' votes don't count, and McCain becomes President by a vote of 173 to zero." If so, we could report that ("He added that, if his position were accepted, then McCain should become President"). Of course, we should report such a position without adopting it. JamesMLane t c 06:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If this happens, clearly millions of Americans will immediately enlist in Michele Bachmann's New American Revolutionary Army. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And other millions would flee President Biden to the land of Bachman-Turner Overdrive.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is

still that whatever the seeming ambiguity of the situation (through lack of a crystal ball), it appears that 'most American electors' thought that Obama was not disqualified by locality of birth, and so chose to vote for him.

Much of the 227 kb of this talk page seems to be veering towards the speculative/'he said, she said' reported discussion.

Perhaps the question should be - what proportion of the US population think that Obama is theoretically disqualified (rather than 'something slightly fuzzy'), and what proportion think that 'something should be done.' The result, should such persons' claims go to court, is likely to be quite different to what they imagine (as tends to be the case). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The article now includes some poll results about whether people believe he's qualified. I agree with you that reliable polling information about a "what should be done" question should also be included if available. Because this is a fringe belief, though, it understandably doesn't get as much attention from the companies that do scientific polling. Especially on a subject like this one, I have no problem with a "he said, she said" discussion. Per WP:NPOV, we should strive for a fair presentation of each major point of view. JamesMLane t c 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussions were at some points going towards the theoretical - and my last sentence was a reference to the law of unintended consequences.

There is/was a stronger case against John McCain being disqualified by his place of birth. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hospital

In the section on "Early Life", I think it should be mentioned that the hospital where he was born is difficult to document. See Hoover, Will. "Obama's Hawaii boyhood homes drawing gawkers", Honolulu Advertiser (2008-11-09): "the hospital where he was born is difficult to document".

Although many sources assert that President Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital, some sources say otherwise. See Guira, Bennett. “A New Face in Politics”, Charter Schools Rainbow Edition Newsletter (November 2004). See also “Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois”, United Press International (2008-11-04).

This ambiguity about the birth hospital has been fussed about by lots of conspiracy theorists and other litigants (Corsi, Berg, Marquis, et cetera), but their fuss has not been picked up by reliable secondary sources. So, we probably should not mention that fuss here in this Wikipedia article.

However, a reliable secondary source has pointed out that "the hospital where he was born is difficult to document" and some reliable sources have said he was born at the Queens hospital. So, I think that's legitimate and relevant to mention in the Early Life section. I'll give it another try, and see how it goes. The Honolulu Advertiser, the University of Hawaii, and UPI seem like reliable sources.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there are three different issues here, which we should be careful not to conflate:

1. Corsi, Berg, Marquis, etc have raised a fuss about which hospital Obama was born at. Since no reliable secondary source has picked this up, as Ferrylodge says, it is of no relevance to this article.
2. The statement, "the hospital where he was born is difficult to document" in Honolulu Advertiser does not refer to the alternate hospitals Obama could have been born at. It only talks about how HIPA (HIPAA ? §) regulations prevent Kapiolani Medical Center from confirming Obama's birth there. Our article already covers that issue (using the same reference): "A hospital spokesperson at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children says that their standard procedure is to not confirm or deny that Obama was born there, citing federal privacy laws."
3. Now the issue of which hospital in Hawaii Obama was actually born: we have an overwhelming number of sources (including Barack Obama himself )stating that he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center. On the other hand, so far we have one UPI article and a highschool newsletter (!!!) saying that he was born at Queen’s Medical Center. In my opinion, that means that the latter bit is simply undue. Even if other editors disagree on the dueness, this trivia should be included (at best, as a footnote) in Barack Obama or Early life and career of Barack Obama, since its relevance to Obama's citizenship has not been established or even mentioned in any reliable source.

§ Side issue: I don't know what the Honolulu Advertiser reporter means by Health Information Privacy Act of 1999, since as far as I know that never became law. The governing rules are the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA, of 1996), which is what I assume the hospital spokesperson was referring to. Just curious... not an issue to debate here :)

Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the newletter. I hadn't realized it was written by high school students. As far as the UPI article that says he was born at the Queens Hospital, it seems like there ought to be a way to work that into this article without giving undue weight to it, perhaps as a footnote in the Early Life section. But I'll leave that to others. I'm about conspiracied out for the time being.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So, because UPI screwed up in reporting where Obama was born it should be included in this article? Seems like a bit of undue weight considering the predominance of reliable sources list him as being born at Kapiolani... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - I removed that mention from the article for just that reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge and Abecedare state that the conspiracy theorists have been fussing over the "which hospital" question but that we should omit it from the article because it hasn't been picked up by reliable sources. For the vast majority of articles, I would agree. This article, however, is the one about the fringe conspiracy theories. We don't need to wait until some sensible person says, "Well, ya know, there might be something to that." We should, instead, present the subject views fairly, even if they're fringe views.

If something like the following is accurate, it would merit inclusion: "There is some ambiguity in the records concerning which hospital Obama was born at. Such authors as Corsi and Berg have pointed to the ambiguity as evidence that he was not actually born at any of them and that his foreign birth is being imperfectly covered up." I'm not sufficiently steeped in this stuff to know if that's accurate; it's just the impression I get from the foregoing discussion. JamesMLane t c 02:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely obvious point, and I am being snarky by even pointing it out: the future President and his mother must have been in the same place at the same time at the moment of birth. It's a basic fact of biology. If he was born in Kenya, Ann Obama would also have been in Kenya at the time (unless of course you want to theorize that someone else was his mother.) Even if we can't prove which hospital he was born at, we still can prove that she was in Hawaii on August 4,1961. Even if we never prove she was in Hawaii, it is highly unlikely that she would have been in Kenya at the time. And, it is even more unlikely that we could ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was in Kenya. Unless someone proves otherwise, we have to assume she was somewhere in the United States. The existing evidence that he was born in Hawaii is very, very strong. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I missed this, but what is the strong proof she was in Hawaii on Aug 4 1961? JBarta (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is that birth certificate. For all the nitpicking being done by the conspiracy theorists, it is indistinguishable from an authentic birth certificate. The State of Hawaii has explicitly said that it is authentic. There is also that birth notice in the paper, which was based on official records. We also know for a fact that Barack Obama Sr. was enrolled at the University of Hawaii for both the spring and fall semesters. We also know that Ann Obama was in school right up to the end of the spring semester. Although the absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it is significant that there is no evidence whatsoever that she traveled to Kenya during the summer of 1961, or that she traveled anywhere at all outside the USA that summer. Finally, her parents were living in Honolulu at the time, and she was on good terms with them, whereas her husband had many reasons to stay away from his hometown (like, he had another wife back home, there was a civil war going on, and his relatively small fellowship wouldn't have paid for a trip back home.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then from my perspective there is no strong proof and I didn't miss anything. JBarta (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding the assertion above by TimothyHorrigan that "... there is that birth certificate", I'm moved to ask "What birth certificate?"

As I understand it, the document in question is not a Certificate of Birth (COB), but rather a Certificatation of Live Birth (COLB) (for some informal info about the difference between Hawaii COBs and COLBs, see here). The COLB does have a "County of Birth" field but, as I understand it, the content of that field is taken without verification from the information provided by the applicant (presumably Obama's mother). A COB, in contrast, contains more detailed information, including signatures of doctor(s) and witnesses. For some purposes, a COLB is considered insufficiently reliable, and a COB is required (there is an example of that at that just-mentioned link).

As I understand it, Obama's COB has not been made public. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Extremely obvious points are given no credence in conspiracy theories. But anyway, discrepancies in press accounts always occur. I've done detailed early life biographies of a dozen people here, and every single time I've run across cases where most reliable sources say something happened in year Y but one or two say it happened in Y-1 or Y+1, or most sources say someone when to one school but another says they went to a different school, or most sources spell a child's name one way but a few spell it another way. This is just natural human fallibility at play: someone at a newspaper gets told something wrong, or makes a typo when filing a story, it gets repeated in a biography that wasn't careful about fact-checking that one item, etc. I pick the one that the most sources support or that best fits the other available facts and I use that and I move on. To stop and belabor the point that one or two sources have something wrong would just derail the narrative for no gain to the reader. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In deciding which version is more likely to be true, I wouldn't always pick the one supported by the most sources. You have to look at where they got the information. If there's an initial error in a source that happens to be widely relied upon, that error may propagate through several other sources. In any event, for Wikipedia purposes, if there's some significant information that contradicts the general view, it's appropriate for us to let our readers know, with a phrase like "He was divorced in 1991 (although some sources say it occurred in 1992)." JamesMLane t c 16:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My "best fits the other available facts" statement was meant to handle the case where the majority sources are wrong. In other words, I try to figure out what actually happened and use that in the article. I only use the "some say X, some say Y" formulation as a matter of last resort; it's the coward's way out ;-) The value-add we bring as WP writers is to sort all this stuff out for readers and form a coherent narrative; otherwise, we might as well turn articles into extended link farms. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

It's bad enough that the article is titled conspiracy theories and the first line of the article repeats conspiracy theories and at other points in the article is mentioned conspiracy theories. Aside from the fact the phrase conspiracy theories is overused and is arguably inaccurate and largely inappropriate in the first place, is it really necessary to make the words conspiracy theories bold? Geez guys, is not Wikipedia's reputation bad enough? Can we at least appear to be just a little impartial? I suppose I should be thankful the BLINK tag doesn't work anymore. JBarta (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look carefully, the bolded bit is the phrase conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship, not just the expression "conspiracy theories". The phrase reflects the title of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

JBarta, I don't think this is intended to imply any editorial comment, it simply follows the WP:MOS standard at WP:BOLDTITLE#Format_of_the_first_sentence: "As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence and should be in boldface".--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I should add that it's conventional to use and bold a phrase similar to the wording of the article title if the title itself isn't suitable for use in the opening sentence of an article. That does sometimes happen for descriptive titles such as this one. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, couldn't the first sentence be: "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are questions and conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship..."? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That wording is pretty horrible, I'm afraid - it treats "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" in its entirety as a noun. When writing the first version of this article I had to go through a few attempts before I found a form of words that worked grammatically and stylistically (see [16]). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, after looking at other articles it would seem that the bolding in the first line is normal. And yes, it did appear to me as yet another bit of editorializing. I'll take back the outburst (about the bolding only) and will take a moment to unbunch my panties. JBarta (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have twiddled the bolding in the lead sentence a few times, but this is my first comment here.

Let me call attention to Wikipedia style guideline WP:LEDE and, more specifically, to WP:LEDE#First sentence. Going a bit further, let me point to the article Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, which is used as an example in that Wikipedia style guideline.

OK, let's go back to WP:LEDE. It says, "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable". Let's look at the current lead sentence of this article:

Questions and conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship, and other challenges to his eligibility to become President of the United States, circulated before and after his victory in the US presidential election of 2008.

As to the question, "What (or who) is the subject?" , well, one guesses that it probably has something to do with questions about Barack Obama's US citizenship status.

As to the question "Why is this subject notable?", the answer is obvious.

At the risk of starting a war here, I suggest that the lead sentence of this article be changed to something like, "Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen of the United States has been questioned by some persons and organizations." The article might go on to report on arguments for and against that, of course citing supporting sources on both sides of the question. The article might also go on disparage the questioning and to denigrate the the persons and organizations which have brought the questions, also citing supporting sources. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)