Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Kerchner v. Obama

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

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

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

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

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

The Globe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sonoran News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest conspiracy theory

I have run into another one not covered here. It apparently originates from a youtube video[1], and is covered by some of the right wing blogs and websites. Is this the same one that was used to 'punk' the birthers last time or is it the same? As far as reliable sources go, I cannot find any covering this, but apparently, this particular one was first mentioned back in September of '09. Is this covered in the article or is it just not one of the less notable/verifiable ones? Eik Corell (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Senator Vitter

David Vitter has called for birther lawsuits: [2]. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

MMfA link violates RS and LINKVIO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion pieces and blogs as supporting sources

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

Opinion pieces and news blogs used without inline attribution

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

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

Blogs cited as supporting sources

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

• [18] published by this, apparently a personal blog.

Other

• [19] is a WND article which is attributed inline as an opinion piece by a notable author. That looks OK to me. I mention it here because it appeared in the normally-excluded WND.
• [20] is another WND article, cited from article segments which discuss WND articles inline.
• [21], a YouTube video. WP:RS says, "Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited.]
• [22] WND again -- attributed inline.
• [23] is an unexcluded WND article cited without inline attribution from text which describes WND publisher Joseph Farah as a conspiracy theorist. The article on farah says, with support, that he is among those who have questioned Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen. Does WP:BLP require support here for the characterization?
• [24] an unattributed audio file used as a supporting source.
• [25] looks like a piece on an anti-FoxNews blog. Probably not a RS.

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

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

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

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

I know that Salon, Politico, and others are considered to be reliable sources for this article's topic. However, in light of JournoList revealations, there seems to be a conspiracy theory (the term is described in its article as a pejorative reference to any fringe theory which explains an historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning, citing [26]) that some liberal journalists may be skewing reporting in media sources considered to be reliable sources for this article's topic. CNN says,

Documents were obtained by online magazine "The Daily Caller" showing that liberal journalists tried to prevent stories about their favorite candidate (Obama) from gaining any traction.[27]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hutchinson News?

While the editorial opinion of The Hutchinson News (a local newspaper in a Kansas city of 41,000 (2000 census)) is mildly interesting, and possibly comforting to those opposed to these theories, it doesn't seem particularly notable. It seems to set a precedent – slippery slope, if you will – for inclusion of comments by any small-town paper in the country, something which would probably not improve the article. I'm going to revert for now, but would welcome additional comments on the issue, either pro or con. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sr. vs. no suffix & Jr. vs. II?

I've changed the reference to II (as per his birth certificate) from Jr. These are not interchangeable suffixes, even though the relationship is the same. Also, I believe we should consider replacing the Sr. reference with no suffix, unless it can be documented that the elder went by this name. Sr is not added to your name by default by having a son with the same name. JackOL Sr. aka JackOL31 (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)