Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Proposed changes

I'm again reverting this change again in part,[1] per WP:BRD (minus the "vague" tag) as the language proposed does not improve the article. Calling the rumors "false, disproved" rather than just "false" is erroneous in three senses. First, it is not supported by the source cited, which uses neither "false" nor "disproved" to describe the rumors. We can infer that they are false from that and other sources. However, the sources do not say they were proven false. Second, it is illogical and probably untrue. The sentence is about how the rumors started. It seems unlikely (and there is no source support) to say that the rumors were already proven false at the moment they were created. Before they existed, there was nothing to disprove. If "disproved" is supposed to refer to the fact that after the rumors began circulating they were refuted, that's not clear from the language and it would be out of chronological order - later parts of the article make clear that the rumors were refuted. Third, (and apropos of my dead horse comment), this sounds like the argumentative language that sometimes creeps into the article and has to be regularly pruned. The point of this or any article is to lay out facts about the world as described by sources. It's not to argue for or against any disputed proposition, even a proposition as fringe-y as these conspiracy theories. The article is about the theories, not an exercise in proving them wrong. The same reasoning applies to the out-of-place quote that investigators determined there is "not one shred of evidence" for the theories. That would be something that also happened later, and it is not supported by the source, which flatly says that there is no evidence but does not speak of investigations. If it's not abundantly clear from the totality of the article, and specific places calling them "false" more than once, we're not going to convince anyone by adding yet more assertions of their falsity to sundry article sections. Rather, that actually weakens the point by (correctly) making it seem as we are trying to prove something. It's also not relevant to that section. The source article made that as a general background statement about the conspiracy theories overall, as part of an exposition of how the rumors got started. We do that too, elsewhere. It is background to the entire article, not just this section, and already adequately covered elsewhere. I should also note that it's not a fully reliable source for that kind of statement, based on the tone and purpose as a "perspective" piece. I'm removing the "vague" tag as I had already restored "origin, religion and birth certificate" as the subject of the rumors, which had replaced the less informative "background". - Wikidemon (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so my question is answered here. Probably a better place. heh. Sorry for not responding quicker, I've been gone all weekend. In any case, while I mostly agree with your assessment and my intentions to make the the entry more specific and remove the "vague" tag are met, I say that the source provided is a definite reliable source to make the conclusions stated. A Pulitzer Prize winning piece from Politifact.Com(The St. Petersburg Times) who most certainly did investigate not only the birth certificate claims, but a variety of all the claims made by the fringe conspiracy theorists. In which the source states "PolitiFact has researched all of these accusations and none of them are true." The section is titled "Origins of the claims", so I thought adding the portion you removed fit the section. But I'm not going to keep insisting the portion be expanding, especially considering the sections below to trim the article, which I agree with. Dave Dial (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I can hardly think of a more reliable source. It should be used liberally. Is there a problem here? I'm not familiar with the background. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article clearly has a right wing slant to it. For only 11% of the country believing he isn't American, this article overly represents that view point. We have a lot of opinions from Republican who think he isn't American compared to Democrats or Independents who dispel those rumors. Look at the pictures, 4 are non citizen related while 0 are citizen related. CTJF83 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone responds to this, note I'm headed to work so won't provide a response for 9+ hours. CTJF83 02:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your issue. This is not an article about Barack Obama or the facts of his birth and childhood. It's about a fringe set of conspiracy theories. The goal of the article is to explain the theories as advanced by their proponents while still making it clear that they are fringe, not mainstream. A similar article might be Flat Earth Society, which mentions, almost casually, that overwhelming scientific opinion says the Earth is "round", and then proceeds through the rest of the article to discuss the Society and its history, beliefs, and leadership. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, per F&H. The article is about the theories and it must discuss and explain them. Since they are untrue and the RS prove that to be the case, the RS are clearly used to full effect, so I see not problem. If there are other aspects or other RS that can be used, please suggest them, but don't tag the article before seeking to resolve the matter here first. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, You are leading me to your thoughts, but I'm not quite there....how does this being a wacko fringe theory affect it being neutral? CTJF83 12:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I share F&H's thoughts in that I don't understand your concern. This article is about fringe, wacko theories, the 11% who believe them, and the ones who have been lying to them. That means it would naturally be mainly about them. That's obviously not a neutral presentation of the whole big picture since we aren't dealing with the big picture here. Like a psychiatrist who specializes in mental illness and/or disturbances, we're not looking at normal people, but delving into a fringe, wacko way of thinking and documenting it. That's the nature of these types of articles. What saves it is that NPOV requires inclusion of the opposing POV, so we have plenty of well-sourced facts and opinions that rebut the nonsense.

This is the proper approach to dealing with all conspiracy theories at Wikipedia. No one should be in doubt about what's fringe supposition and lies and what's fact.

IMO, in the end I suspect that most "reasonable" people should come away with a clear impression that some people just aren't qualified for public office, and in this case it's those who repeat this nonsense. In fact some have ruined their credibility. This subject is political poison and suicide. Unfortunately not all people are "reasonable" and insist on believing and repeating this stuff. If there were an article devoted to figurative Darwin Award recipients, lots of those mentioned in this article would fit there. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

By analogy, let's take the politics out of it and imagine a completely different type of false belief, held in this case by certain children: there is Santa Claus, Bogeyman, the Tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny. The articles go into considerable detail to describe the supposed appearance, activities, origin, etc., of these folkloric figures - with nearly 100% bias in favor of describing the phenomenology of the believers, and nearly zero critiques or rebuttals. I haven't checked all of these, but if you look in other realms like phrenology, spontaneous generation, and the loch ness monster, you'll probably find similar results. It's only when we get to contemporary political conspiracy theories that currently have many adherents in the English-speaking world (climate change, 9/11 truth, etc.) that we sometimes feel the urge to present both sides of the case, and sometimes actually advocate and argue for the mainstream position. I think that's a mistake because it plunges Wikipedia into the fray, instead of simply describing what the sources say. This article is about the conspiracy theories themselves, not about a supposed controversy on the subject (which the sources would say is not a bona fide controversy, because there are not two viable sides to it). - Wikidemon (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in partial agreement that there should not be an overkill of proclaiming the fringe theories "false" over and over. But let us also remember that a vast difference remains between an article that covers the Easter bunny and one that covers Barack Obama. The two immediate differences that come to mind are that this falls under the BLP and article probation guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that this is a "controversy" AND a "conspiracy theory" article. The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, etc. are in a very different class. There is no controversy or conspiracy theory, and no serious harm to society from them. This article deals with a subject that potentially destabilizes the political system of a country and inspires potential internal terrorism and assassination attempts. Remember that the Tea Party includes many zealots who openly sympathize with Timothy McVeigh. When Sean Hannity, while speaking in front of Tea Party members, called them "Tim McVeigh wannabes", they cheered him(!), so this is no joke or bedtime story. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You could choose conspiracy theories that have serious consequences - like Jews poisoning the wells, the (name tribe in country) secretly practicing black magic and needing to be slaughtered, or vaccines causing Autism, and it's the same thing. We cover the phenomenon on fringe beliefs, rather than doing a point-counterpoint. I do not agree that there is a controversy over Obama's birthplace or citizenship anymore than there is a controversy over whether childhood vaccines cause autism. The simple answer is they don't, and beliefs to the contrary are considered a social phenomenon rather than an argument to be critiqued. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand....the article is about the wacko theories, not discussing if he was born here or elsewhere. CTJF83 20:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of this being different from the Easter Bunny, etc.; however, what's with the remarks about the Tea Party? I've been to Tea Party rallies and have seen no such sympathy for Timothy McVeigh. The Sean Hannity clip was taken out of context (and there are other videos that show this). He was speaking in jest because that is how the Tea Party is portrayed by others. - 75.81.1.78 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Length

Vis-a-vis the other tag, I think this article is getting a little long. Per WP:PRESERVE I hesitate to simply delete stuff. My suggestions are as follows:

• Break the list of lawsuits into a separate subarticle.
• Break the state-by-state roster of legislation into a separate subarticle. I had proposed this or the one above several weeks ago (I forget which) and got no objections.
• Round up all the proponents and put them in a single section. They seem to be strung across 2-3 sections. Possibly make a separate subarticle, but I think not. That's more directly related to this subject.
• Condense the "criticism" section. It has too many long quotes and expositions. Perhaps the same thing could be said in half the words.

I think the first three can be done very easily, basically by shuffling around existing content with little change. Once it's in more manageable pieces it will be easier to edit things further for quality. Any thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How about starting with a trial version of a condensed criticism section and placing it here? Let's look at it. Your idea may have some merit and a consensus version might prove usable. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Stricken as this section should really be prominent. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How about putting lawsuits and state legislation in one article, called maybe Results of Obama citizenship conspiracy theories or something similar. CTJF83 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I second Ctjf83's idea. These two sections could be split off into one article leaving the lede from that article and a "main article" link as the sole content of a section here:

• Eligibility litigation
• Legislative initiatives and responses

This would significantly shorten the article. I'm not sure about the suggested title. Maybe Reactions to Obama citizenship conspiracy theories? It should be similar to the remaining section heading here. I'd like to hear more suggestions. Once that is done, we can see if more is necessary. That might be enough. Let's start there. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be two articles, not one, because of a slight apples and oranges problem. The eligibility litigation specifically targets Obama, under current law, based on these conspiracy theories. It therefore falls entirely under the subject of this article and is a good child article here. The legislative initiatives are for the most part inspired by this issue, but are changes that would apply to all future candidates but not Obama specifically (and presumably would not retroactively apply to Obama, for the current term at least). Their proponents would claim that they are not singling out Obama, but rather ensuring that all presidents meet existing eligibility criteria or else change those criteria - and some distance themselves from making overt fringe claims about Obama. They are also a little closer to birthright citizenship issues and are related to wider perennial attempts to exclude children of non-Americans from citizenship. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as they shorten up this article, either is fine for me. CTJF83 19:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree generally with your points. As this issue "matures," it appears to be less about what is true, and more about who believes it. The proponents and criticism sections are mostly about people's beliefs (and how that affects politics), whereas the lawsuits and bills sections are rather fact based: i.e., when a lawsuit was filed, its decision, etc.; who sponsored a particular bill, how it fared in the legislature, etc.

At this point, I would suggest the "main" article be about people's beliefs, and the secondary article be the "treatment of the eligibility issue by legislative and judicial branches" or "legal ramifications of the eligibility issue." (But something less unwieldy.) --Weazie (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind that both types of content are legitimate. We document what RS say regardless of whether they are fact, fiction, true or false, opinion, whatever. The article is about the subject from every imaginable angle. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - but it has been getting so long that it is hard to read and even harder to edit. There's a lot of valid content, and it's better to find a place for it all than to reject things just because we don't have room for them. I've gone ahead and moved the litigation to its own article. I'll wait a bit to see if that broke anything or if anyone objects, before I do the same with the legislation. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Look good to me, and I agree this article is much, much too long. And yes, there is a lot of "valid" content in both the litigation and legislative sections, so agree that they should be moved to their own articles. As much as I think all of these things are silly wastes of time, there isn't much doubt there is enough coverage and actionable legislation to deem them worthy of encyclopedic value. Now, about the celebrity mentions and such. They should either be deleted or put into the person mentioned article, if sourced and weighted. Dave Dial (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, next step. I've branched out the legislation into a new article, United States presidential eligibility legislation. I deliberately gave that article a broader focus rather than including solely the legislation directed at Obama or arising from these conspiracy theories - that special focus would be less encyclopedic IMO than a survey of the entire subject, and has bigger POV issues. However, there isn't much content on the encyclopedia as yet about pre-Obama eligibility legislation. I know there has been some over the centuries, so that would be an interesting area to flesh out. Also, I couldn't come up with a good lede so that needs to be done. Hope that's okay. Final step in my cleanup work will be to organize all the proponents into one place. Frankly, we could create a list article "list of Obama citizenship conspiracy theory proponents". I think the current list is fine but it's a little selective and incomplete. If you do a wikipedia search on Obama citizenship you'll find far more people and organizations advancing these theories than we cover here. In terms of organizing the information and providing a service to the readers a list article (or category, or template) could be a good navigational tool. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Doesn't most of this stuff belong (if anywhere) on the article about Trump, or if he does launch a serious presidential campaign, in that article? This article is long enough as it is (see previous discussion), and any irony or criticism regarding Trump's own life situation is just a journalistic riposte, not really related to Obama conspiracy theories. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the irony/criticism should be cut. Trump is a potential candidate and suddenly a major spokesperson for these issues; he deserves to be mentioned. Also, Trump just released his "long form" certificate. Completeness would dictate that the release of his first certificate also be noted, but brevity would dictate only this last one be mentioned. --Weazie (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree Trump should be mentioned as a johnny-come-lately member of the birther brigade. Publicity stunts he chooses to stage with his own birth certificate have no relevance to this article, though. Trump was born in New York City, which has different forms, rules, and procedures than Hawaii – and for that matter, than the State of New York. Trump released the birth certificate he had from New York City; Obama released the birth certificate he had from Hawaii. If we're going to start mentioning everybody who releases a copy of their birth certificate, should we not also have a section listing the 35 men who served as president, from Van Buren to Bush, whose birth certificates we have not seen? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's any part we should keep as most relevant, it's how his birther remarks have been received. That's why they are notable. Per the section heading, Trump is a notable Republican who has plopped right down into the dilemma as if he didn't know it existed, which has made him a target for some pretty strong ridicule.

As to the length of the article, I thought we were reaching agreement that we'd split much of that content off into a fork. Are we there yet? Let's just do that and forget about cutting good content because of length concerns. That's an irrelevant concern since we're going to split the article anyway. Some of what was removed was done in a manner that, if it had been done by a drive by IP, I'd have called it blatant vandalism. Since it wasn't, I won't, but it did seem a bit rude (but the length concerns are a mitigating factor , so we can deal with it later). Anyway, please be a bit more careful with deleting carefully sourced content.

Let's split the article. Can we do that now? Then we won't have these types of situations. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, his comments are (marginally) notable because, as mentioned, Trump is yet another Republican who decided to enter the fray, augmented by the fact that, unlike Chuck Norris or Luke Scott, he has publicly expressed an interest in entering the race for president – something he has the visibility and resources to do if he chooses. This was the reason accepted by several editors to include a brief statement on his expressed opinions, even before the personal insults started being thrown around by a couple of news anchors and a partisan politician in Obama's party. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm....F&H.....are you forgetting which article this is? It is only his remarks about "this topic" that are relevant here. The fact that he's entering the race for presidency is of no direct relevance here. That only influences his notability as a Republican and public person. It's his remarks that relate to the conspiracy theories that are relevant here, and especially their reception by the media and other notables.

Thus the various criticisms and ridicule he's received are highly relevant here and their deletion by you is very problematic. They aren't my words and they don't violate BLP. The thing that makes his birther remarks most notable is the reaction to them, and there have been many and they've been strong. What I quoted was mild. We aren't allowed to whitewash things. If a source is disparaging or expresses ridicule, we aren't allowed to diminish the POV expressed in the source. That's POV editing. NPOV REQUIRES that we cover the subject from all POV expressed in RS, and leaving out a POV is a violation of NPOV. To avoid BLP problems we cite RS and quote the source. That's exactly what I did, so I don't see any policy-based reason for your deletion of the very part that was relevant in this article. Please explain. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a misconception about reliable sources in evidence here. Being reliably sourced is merely the minimum requirement for content inclusion. There is no policy that all content appearing in a reliable source must be, or even may be, included in articles. None of the people quoted are recognized experts in identifying someone as a "joke" or a "fool", or an opinion as "ridiculous". Those are merely personal opinions by non-expert – and in one instance partisan – sources; as such, I contend their inclusion is a violation of BLP policies. Additionally, the personal opinions expressed add nothing to an understanding of the conspiracy theories which are the subject of this article. So to put it in the Wikilawyering terms you ask for, my policy based reasons for removal of the comments are that they violate BLP by including personal insults from non-expert and partisan sources; even if it were not a BLP violation, it is purely ad hominem commentary, adding no insights to the article topic. The content, contentious on its face, was boldly added and subsequently reverted. Now under discussion, it has yet to gain a clear consensus for inclusion. If you dispute the contentiousness of the content, or my assertion that it is a BLPvio, you are, of course, free to seek alternative opinions through an RfC or at WP:BLPN. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that in the removed material Trump obliquely criticized Obama, and then Ben Smith criticized Trump's criticism. WP:BLP says, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.", and goes on to say, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; ...", wikilinking WP:DUE, which says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." I gather than both Trump's and Smith's viewpoints have received substantial media attention (perhaps Trump's more than Smith's). Given that, it seems to me that the Trump's viewpoint should be represented, and perhaps Smith's as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ben Smith portion was a pure undue weight issue, more regarding Trumps actions than Smith's response, as discussed (far) above in the third paragraph of this section. I'm still not sure of the relevance to this article of Trump releasing any version of his own birth certificate, but the Smith article was probably a proportionate response if the stunt is to be included. (I really don't follow The Donald stories all that much – has there been quite a bit of third-party commentary on the Smith article?) The larger disagreement centers around what had been the section's third paragraph, regarding the CNN discussion. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

F&H, the CNN discussion was significant coverage and the part that was relevant here (about Trump) got deleted, but the part (not about Trump) that was only generally relevant was kept. It's relevant that the CNN anchor had been to Hawaii and interviewed people who knew Obama as a child, but that's not relevant to the Trump section. When media like CNN comment on Trump's birther statements, that's notable enough for inclusion. Opinions, including disparaging remarks, are okay when properly sourced, which specifically makes them NOT a BLP matter. If unsourced it would be different. (That applies to Trump's opinions about Obama - which would be a BLP violation if unsourced - and to others' opinions of his opinions. It works both ways and we include both.) Are you here to defend Trump? Just how far are you prepared to go in whitewashing him by refusing to include negative media reactions to his comments? Would you act the same if they had been positive reactions? I'm really wondering if this is worth taking higher up or if we can settle this here. I don't see why you're making such a big deal about a RS like CNN. Anywhere else we'd include it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. The retained portion, regarding interviews with people who knew Obama as a child, is directly pertinent to Trump's claim that "growing up no one knew him." That's actually the only bearing it has on the subject of this article, since memories of him as a child could be just as vivid if he were born in Kenya, Germany, or Antarctica. Unsupported opinions that Trump is a joke or a fool add nothing. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But they do add something. They show how his statements have been received. That's very encyclopedic information. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that banter about his statements adds anything to the understanding of the conspiracy theories. And the entire Trump fiasco is hopelessly overblown – for the current 15 minutes, at least. But if we must submit to this round of recentism and pump the story, rather than relying on cheap personal shots from the usual suspects, we would be better including surprisingly rational commentary from an unexpected source or possibly even an attempt at (gasp) intelligent analysis of the situation. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence (2)

I keep having my addition to this Talk page deleted for no valid reason. I was told that my addition is being deleted for "discussing the subject, and not improving the article". I AM NOT DISCUSSING THE ELIGIBILITY/CERTIFICATE/THEORY subject, I AM TALKING ABOUT IMPROVING THE ARTICLE BY CLARIFYING THAT ENTIRE ISSUE IS A FRAUD AS ANY LITERATE PERSON CAN SEE!

As I previously posted here: THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE IMPROVED by making it clear in the opening statement that the entire issue is a fraud upon the public since there is no "natural born citizen" requirement that is applicable today. That is fundamental to an informative relevant foundation to the article, not a matter of opinion, and a matter of grammatical fact.

If I say "No animal except a mouse, or a rat, at the time I give the signal, shall be captured", then I am saying only mice and rats shall be captured AT THE TIME I GIVE THE SIGNAL. My order has no validity at any other point in time. Similarly, the requirement for "natural born citizen" only applied AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION. It does not apply today, and the following clause should be part of the article, since it is the clause at the foundation of the issue in the article:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

209.112.188.15 (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Your suggested edits violate WP:NPOV. If you want more info on this, read the Barack Obama FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

IP209, please read 'Natural Born Citizen' clause of the U.S. Constitution and Birthright citizenship in the United States, then throw your personal opinion out the window since it's not a reliable source here. Your rather limited interpretation isn't shared by any authorities, the Supreme Court, or Congress. If the current legal interpretation gets changed, we'll change the article, but not before then. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Denialism"?

I'll admit, I have a hard time taking these "theories" seriously, but isn't adding the "Denialism" category to it taking it just a wee bit far?
The other two categories certainly fit: It's certainly a "conspiracy theory" - that's totally objective, and it's related to Obama - kooky theories about Obama clearly relate to Obama.
But adding 'Denialism' is a value judgement. It's the difference between me calling it absurd, and Wikipedia calling it absurd. Frankly, NPOV rules don't allow the latter.
I'd strongly suggest removing the category. Not because it isn't true, but because it's a gross POV violation to actually say it. 139.57.100.63 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)