Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama

Birth location

Closing per FAQ Q1/A1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article states that Obama was born in Hawaii. However, the cites for this claim are BarackObama.com and a press release from Obama. Are these considered reliable sources? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to avoid first party cites and use independent third party cites. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC) The copy of Obama's birth certificate IS provided by a third party source--the third party being the Hawaii Department of Health. That it is displayed on Obama's website does not change that. If you're going to quibble with that transitive argument, then you must understand that the only way to obtain a copy of someone's BC in Hawaii is through direct authorization by the person whose name is on it--barring that person's death, in which case(I believe, but am not 100% sure) the authority falls to his next-of-kin or parent. So the only way you're going to get a true copy of Obama's BC is if Obama presents it to you. So if you don't agree that the Hawaii DoH, via transitive authority, is providing the BC, then there IS NO WAY of accessing it via an "independent" third party. So we rely on the first party source in the absence of any third party sources. The only alternative is to delegitimize the existence of the BC altogether, which is nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.162.125 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Obama's own grandmother, brother, and sister all say he was born in Kenya. According to the airlines, his mother was unable to fly out of Kenya because she was so far along and was ofrced to have Obama in Kenya. She then returned to Hawaii after his birth and had a certificate of birth issued. It has been reported that Hawaii did provide certificates of birth in such a manner at that time. It should also be discussed/mentioned that there are numerous legal challenges to his legitimacy as President, petitions with hundreds of thousands of requests for validation of his citizenship, and - after promising to run the most transparent administration ever - Obama refuses to produce any further evidence than the certificate of birth that has been assessed to have been 'phot-shopped'. Instead, Obama has a large legal team that continues to attempt to keep documents requested under the Freedom of Information act sealed and all records regarding his citizenship hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easyt65 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC) That is all fringe theory nonsense, I'm afraid. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC) "Fringe theory nonsense" that President Obama (if he is indeed Constitutionally eligible) could end in all of 5 minutes if he would simply authorize the release of the long form birth certificate. When it is so simple to clear this up, yet he refuses, the theory begins to lend itself less to conspiracy and more towards credibility. If by "Grandmother", you mean Sarah Obama, his stepgrandmother, you do know that the audio tape on which that is based on has her stating repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii, right? PatGund (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Certificate of Live Birth and Birth Certificate vs. Certification of Live Birth

There are significant differences between a certificate of live birth and a standard birth certificate both in form and function. The former is a short document that only lists parents, birthdate and time, birthplace, and a few other minor details. A birth certificate goes into much more detail. For this reason, certificates of live birth are generally unacceptable when it comes to registering a child for school or sports, for getting a driver's license or passport. The additional detail provides many more facts that can be verified to prove authenticity. That's why a standard birth certificate is being sought and that's why I specifically identified the document in question as I did. Please don't change it unless there's a good reason to do so. A COLB is not a standard birth certificate and is generally not accepted as such. Furthermore, Hawaii would accept registrations of babies not born in Hawaii. That is one possible explanation as to how a certificate of live birth can be issued by Hawaii that seems to suggest birth in Hawaii when it really is not the case. Frotz (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the argument that is often used by the fringe theorists who like to claim Obama was not born in Hawaii. A birth certificate can take many forms - it varies from state to state and from country to country. In this case, the "certificate of live birth" can be regarded as synonymous with a "birth certificate". This is especially true because the term "birth certificate" is used by the vast majority of the reliable sources that have referred to this particular document. Continued attempts to change this established terminology will be viewed as disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Scjessey (or anybody else who knows this), does Hawaii issue both certificates, ie live birth cert. vs plain vanilla birth certificate? TIA --Tom 15:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask them. Incidentally, even the Hawaii Department of Health referred to the document as a birth certificate: source. This really is getting silly, people. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You have their number? Just kidding :). If there is no difference between these two documents, then the image caption as is is correct. If there are two different certificates, then they should be "labelled" as such. --Tom 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a picture of the long-form. Like the short-form one issued to Obama and publicly released months ago, it is titled "Certificate of Live Birth". It really is exactly the same thing as it would be if it was titled "Birth Certificate". There is no difference between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate, these are just different names for the same thing. And as wikipedia's article on birth certificates notes, where a State includes the names of the parents on the short-form, it is as acceptable as the long-form in all the situations noted above (registering for school, getting a driver's license or a passport, etc). I hoped this and all the other conspiracy theories would end once the election was over. Guess not. --The Bruce (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• This issue is now notable for inclusion, multiple reliable sources http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/anti-obama-frin.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/12/obama-birth-cer.html and [more http://news.google.com/news?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hl=en&tab=ln&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1277730331] Patcat88 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No. It is only notable for inclusion if the bullshit allegations turn out to be true. The story is about fringe theorists and their stupid activities, not Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The image in this article is neither a "Certificate of Live Birth" nor a "Birth Certificate," so the above is irrelevant. What is represented in the picture is a "Certification of Live Birth" and it is significantly different than a "Certificate of Live Birth." From the website of the State of Hawaii: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are: * A certified copy of Certificate of Birth; * A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or * A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth. ... In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

Therefore the label under the photo is absolutely incorrect and misleading. Simply by looking at the image of the document you can see the heading on the document itself reads 'Certification of Live Birth.' This cannot be disputed, so I'm correcting the label to accurately reflect what is represented in the image. --Kactas (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All of your original research aside, your point is moot. Different states have different names for what is commonly called a birth certificate (just as a driver's license often actually says "License to operate a motor vehicle") . The fact that Hawaii's birth certificates are called "certification of live birth" across the top is irrelevant. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, in reading the quote, it seems to say that this "Certification" versus "Certificate" point only means that the certification was generated to represent a valid certificate, so yes it is the same as a "certificate of live birth" and therefore a birth certificate. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would read more closely the Hawaiian government website, it becomes clear that it's not a matter of different names for a birth certificate. A "Certificiation of Live Birth" and a "Certficiate of Live Birth" are two distinct documents. A certificate is more legally binding than a certification. From http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl : "This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." To extend your driver's license analogy (though somewhat imperfectly), it like the difference between a learners permit and a driver's licence -- they are related, but of different legal weight.

This is all besides the point of what is clearly visible in bold type when looking at the image -- it is labeled 'CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH' not "certificate." For what it's worth, it also happens to be in the image name. This to me makes the matter rather cut and dry. It cannot be argued that in the image, the document itself is labeled 'CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH.' Why then should not the image label accurately reflect this fact when there is according the a State of Hawaii a substantial, legal distinction? --Kactas (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Both long form (what Hawaii calls "certificate of live birth") and short form (what Hawaii calls "certification of live birth") documents are "birth certificates", see birth certificate. Per above, precisely what these documents are called varies by state. Are they different documents? Yes. Is it wrong or incorrect or misleading to identify this image as a "birth certificate"? No. Anyone who looks at the image who knows the difference can readily see it is a short form document. On the other hand, is identifying this image as anything other than a "birth certificate" (including what it is technically called by the state of Hawaii) misleading? You betcha. It creates the distinct impression that this document is NOT what would generally be called a birth certificate. Since this document is exactly what is generally called a birth certificate we wouldn't want people thinking otherwise, would we? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning the difference is trivial. It would be equivalent to providing an image of Obama's Driver's License and then noting "This is distinct from his 'license to operate a motor vehicle'." If the distinction serves no useful purpose, mentioning it serves no useful purpose, and thus omission is warranted.

The only way to argue otherwise is to prove that there are MAJOR differences between the two forms, and that both serve very different purposes. I see no proof of that. There are allegations that a 'Certification of Live Birth' is not acceptable to parties requesting a "birth certificate" in a great number of cases here--but no proof. If you can find proof, then the distinction should be given some thought. Otherwise mentioning serves no useful purpose, except perhaps to subtly subvert the legitimacy of the provided document through baseless innuendo in order to let fringe theorists get their foot in the article's door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.162.125 (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

From HRS 338-17.8 http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm -- There's a clear distinction here for children covered by this law, and whether a long-form birth certificate (including birth location and delivering doctor) would be available, or merely the 'certification' that has been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.146.199 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

HRS 338-17.8 was not in effect when Obama was born. Weazie (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole COLB/BC distinction is irrelevant, because the short form lists the location of birth as being in Hawaii, so he's a natural born citizen regardless of what doctor delivered him or whatever. The only defense to this is to claim that the "Short Form" or whatever contains false information despite being an official Hawaiian document. 98.236.191.219 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Although George Romney was born in Mexico, he himself was a naturalized citizen because his parents were citizens. [1] What about the mother of Barack Hussein Obama? Was she an American citizen? If so, then BHObama was a citizen also. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. In order to become president, Romney would have needed to be a natural born, not a naturalized, citizen; the common understanding – disputed by some at the natural born citizen article – is that someone who is a citizen at birth is a "natural born" citizen. However, according to U.S. law in 1961, if Obama had been born in Kenya (or Indonesia, or Pakistan, or even Canada), he would not have been a citizen at birth because his mother was not old enough at the time to have lived in the U.S. for five years following her 14th birthday. Unless she was not legally married; if she was an unwed mother, IIRC, the five-year residence requirement did not apply. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Klein March 8, 2009 WorldNetDaily article

Zookeeper29 has repeatedly:

1. 04:27, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Career 1992–1996)

2. 05:06, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Career 1992–1996)

3. 05:18, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (Undid revision 275972218 by Newross (talk))

added an inaccurate, misleading, contentious, unsourced quote:

"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge."

from an extremist and fringe source:

Aaron Klein (March 8, 2008). Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility. Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned. WorldNetDaily.com

Neither Aaron Klein nor WorldNetDaily are WP:Reliable sources, especially for a WP:BLP, as exemplified by the inaccuracies in the quote from the above article:

• Obama did not serve alongside Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago -- their service on its board of directors overlapped for three years from December 1999 to December 2002.
• Obama served on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002; Ayers never served on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation.
• Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002 and served as its founding chairman and president from 1995 to 1999 (not 1991); Ayers was one of three co-authors of Chicago's winning Annenberg Challenge grant proposal; Ayers was not "the founder" of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, was never on its board of directors, and was never the director of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (Ken Rolling was its only executive director).

Zookeeper29 then:

4. 05:23, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Career 1992–1996: Added documentation reference)

deceptively added:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html (Michael Dobbs - February 19, 2008 - Obama's 'Weatherman' connection - Washingtonpost.com)

as the "source" for the inaccurate, misleading and contentious Aaron Klein WorldNetDaily quote they repeatedly added to this article.

Zookeeper29 also:

5. 05:13, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Childhood through high school)

changed the photo caption of Obama's official State of Hawaii certificate of birth from: "Obama's birth certificate" to: "Certificate of Live Birth, which is not a Vault Copy Birth Certificate."

Zookeeper29 also twice:

6. 05:35, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Certificate of Live Birth and Birth Certificate vs. Certification of Live Birth: Corrected Scurrilous comment about those who do not believe in Obama's birth country)

7. 06:09, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (Undid revision 275975659 by 68.190.159.119 (talk) Reapplied correction to fight the PC police)

improperly edited talk page comments of another editor with whom they disagreed. Newross (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor has been warned of Obama article probation. Following the warning they have not as of now made any contentious edits other than some soapboxing, and also creating a user page that casts some concern as to their intentions here. Anyway, the article talk page is probably not the best place to discuss user behavior. I would just treat it as any difficult editor on an article probation page - make them aware of article probation, ask and advise them about our policies, and hope they show some willingness to edit constructively and collegially. If not, there are forums for dealing with user behavior. Wikidemon (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in the wake of the Aaron Klein March 8, 2009 WorldNetDaily article have not been confined to Zookeeper29's edits.

The Aaron Klein March 8, 2009 WorldNetDaily quote is a 18:27, 24 February 2009 edit by Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs).

• The Jerusalem21 Wikipedia account was created three years ago.
• 59 minutes after creating their Jerusalem21 Wikipedia account, Jerusalem21 created the Aaron Klein article.
• For the next 3 years, Jerusalem21’s only edits were to the Aaron Klein article.
• Until February 24, 2009, when Jerusalem21 made three disruptive edits within 28 minutes to Barack Obama.
• 4 minutes after their third disruptive edit to Barack Obama, Jerusalem21 was blocked for 72 hours by an administrator.
• The administrator said Jerusalem21 should be happy they were not blocked indefinitely based on previous complaints about their editing.

1. 15:38, 16 March 2006 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (New user (Talk | contribs | block))
2. 16:37, 16 March 2006 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (New page) Aaron Klein
3. 39 edits by Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) to Aaron Klein
4. 18:16, 24 February 2009 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (added birth certificate)
5. 18:27, 24 February 2009 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (added ayers)
6. 18:44, 24 February 2009 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (readded eligibility. this is NOT a POV issue)
7. 18:48, 24 February 2009 Wizardman blocked Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing)
8. 18:49, 24 February 2009 Wizardman (→Blocked: new section)

Newross (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to citizenship conspiracy theories article

I've added a "see also" link to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. That article links to this one; it was also created specifically to keep birther nonsense out of this and other articles. I suggest that, given the disruption that we're seeing on a virtually daily basis (and now from the WorldNetDaily nuts), it would be useful to channel the birthers away from this article. And contra Scjessey's view, it's hardly "unrelated" material. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly object to ChrisO's contentious addition of this article's first section template:
  • a prominent See also: template link at the beginning of the Childhood through high school section to the WP:FRINGE article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories they created on December 9, 2008 as an outgrowth of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Obama born in Kenya discussion.
• The contentious addition of a prominent See also: section template link to a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory article is undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV policy, which is especially egregious in a WP:BLP.
• It may be appropriate for a WP:FRINGE conspiracy article like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories to have a Main article section template link to this WP:BLP article at the beginning of its Early life of Barack Obama section.
  That does not make it appropriate to add a prominent See also: section template link to a WP:FRINGE conspiracy article like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories at the beginning of this WP:BLP article's Childhood through high school section.
  It is not appropriate.
• The burden of gaining consensus for any contentious addition to a WP:BLP rests on the editor adding the contentious material.
  If there is no consensus, the contentious material must stay out of a WP:BLP.
• ChrisO says the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article they created was "created specifically to keep birther nonsense out of this and other articles."
  How does adding to this article a prominent See also: section template link to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories "keep birther nonsense out of this article"?

Newross (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not censor the truth by attempting to marginalize those who are exposing it. Terms like "birther nonsense" and "conspiracy theory" are used only by those who do not have evidence to back up what they wish were true. Even the State of Hawaii does not accept the Certification of Live Birth that is displayed in the article with the erroneous label of "Birth Certificate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.20.170 (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's a fringe theory, and -- while not complete "nonsense" -- it's hardly credible, and barely notable. I think that even a link on this page overweights the issue, given its lack of credible coverage in legitimate sources. Unitanode 02:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"by those who do not have evidence to back up what they wish were true. Even the State of Hawaii does not accept the Certification of Live Birth that is displayed in the article with the erroneous label of "'Birth Certificate.'" Oh, the irony. Hawaii doesn't accept its own COLB? Please. Weazie (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To ChrisO: You will not be pleased to know that your 'See also' link has been removed. And the prior edits here are old, from 2009. The issue comes up again in 2012. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection proposed

Editors may wish to be aware that the Arbitration Committee is proposing that all Obama-related articles be indefinitely semi-protected (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Proposed decision#Articles semi-protected). In view of the repeated POV-pushing that is occuring on this article from new users and IPs, I propose that it should be semi-protected for a period of at least one month - i.e. until the current Obama arbitration case has been closed - and then, if the proposal passes, it can be lengthened to an indefinite semi-protection. It will at least prevent the kind of disruption that we've seen today. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Spurious articles such as this one nearly ensure that semi-protection will be necessary.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And the WND is not a RS??? Bachcell (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

worldnetdaily is about as unreliable of a source, per Wikipedia standards, as one can get. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Did he write a thesis paper?

If so is it public record?

I read a rant by a nut who claimed he didn't go to college and his "proof" was that Obama didn't have a thesis paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.0.253 (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Birth certificate" caption

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The caption that says "Birth certificate" should be changed to "Obama's short form birth certificate was printed in 2007." Grundle2600 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WND attack article.

It seems that WND's article over the additions of WP:OR over the birth certificate controversy has caused a variety of accounts to come out of the wood work to add the material to the article. Should we do something to protect this article until this blows over? I ask this after the last time WND did a specific article on the Barack Obama article and various editors rushed in to try and add a controversy/criticism section.Brothejr (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea. WND has a history of creating "news" by changing Wikipedia entries and then writing about them. The fact that WND jumped on it this quickly seems to suggest their involvement. PatGund (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WND had nothing to do with this. I started the edit because I enjoy spreading the truth about Obama and then sent WND an email informing them about the article. Keep up the suppression of truth you left-wing ObamaManiac Wiki-geeks, I'm sure Obama will eventually thank you for your efforts by inviting you to the white house or something cool like that. There will be no confirmation of his eligibility until the birth certificate has been seen by the public. There is no way getting around it. A computer generated certification of live birth with no specific and verifiable details such as the doctor's name and hospital's name will NEVER be sufficient. BenSpecter (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This garbage of yours was debunked at least 6 months ago. You guys are so far behind the curve, you can't even see the curve. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't "garbage," carrots. It's the truth. Until Obama's genuine, original, long-form Hawaiian Birth Certificate is available for public inspection, it will be a reasonable speculation that Obama was born in Kenya, and that speculation will remain at least as good (and perhaps better) than the other speculation that he was born in Honolulu. On your side, there's that dubious Certification of Live Birth, which, even if it is genuine, doesn't carry the evidential weight that Obama-supporters say it does. You're aren't going to convince anyone through repetition. Repetition is useless. That is, it won't work. Get it? A COLB is merely prima facie evidence, which actually isn't evidence at all, but merely an assumption made by courts UNTIL any other sort of evidence comes to light. Credible testimony is one form of such evidence, and credible testimony that Obama was born in Kenya has come independently from several of Obama's African relatives and from one of Kenya's official diplomats.

You Obama-supporters wouldn't know what to do if you were somehow prevented from using pejorative terms: "conspiracy theorists" and "fringe thinkers" -- heh. Your side has quite the penchant for using labels as a form of argument. But it's Obama's doubters who are most likely correct. No sane person would depend on tattered and failing propaganda cover when a revelation of the facts, were they in his favor, would put an end to the necessity of depending on tattered and failing propaganda cover. Obama's doubters aren't going away. This issue will remain active until the truth is brought out. Until then, it remains a reasonable suspicion that Obama is an illegal alien currently in adverse possession of the office of US president, that he isn't a legal president, but is, rather, a criminal pretending to be a president. Jenab6 (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you think Michelle Malkin is an Obama supporter, too. Referring to Obama as an "illegal alien" only further proves that we are accurate in describing you as conspiracy theorists and fringe thinkers. Even if Obama was born in Kenya he would be at the very least a naturalized citizen. You give a bad name to conservatives who want to be taken seriously, just like the 9/11 truthers did for liberals.Euphgeek (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Baseball Bugs. You see Bugs, I can repeat what you just said verbatim and it would have exactly the same effect on you as it had on me - which is nothing. You gotta at least state something that means something. Watch this Bugs... This garbage of yours was debunked at least six months ago. You guys are so far behind the curve, you can't even see the curve. See that? Completely meaningless. Empty statements like that mean nothing. Now to make a meaningful response to your meaningless statement, Bugs, I'll say this: You cannot debunk the fact that he has never released his original birth certificate which is the ONLY document that can confirm his eligibility. You cannot debunk that because it is what it is, as El Rushbo says. A computer generated print-out (COLB) is a confirmation that a birth certificate exists, and so far that's all we've seen, but it is not the original birth certificate and without that we will never know if he is constitutionally eligible. BenSpecter (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/01/obamas-birth-certificate-final-chapter-time-we-mea/

Yawn. Weazie (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

articles to watch

Could volunteers please watchlist The Queen's Medical Center and Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children, as some of this conspiracy theory crap is spilling in. Additionally, the main articles clearly list one hospital as the birthplace, where editors have been trying to place doubt regarding which hospital in these smaller, less watched articles. Your help is appreciated. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yuck, going to be one of those days. Thank you, Andrew, for highlighting the additional problems. I'll help out. Otumba (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will watchlist those too. I recommend checking the contributions of the editors responsible to see if they're hitting any other articles. Sadly it's good evidence that WND's readership are just as nutty as their writers (no surprise though, I suppose). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of talk

Please be aware that I will be removing comments that are not focussed on improving the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we all agree on something here - EVEN IF HE WAS born somewhere other than Hawaii, it changes NOTHING about the "Early life and career of Barack Obama" (ie, the subject of the article) and as such, any discussion should simply be removed immediately and the poster referred to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories? I think that would cut down on a lot of the traffic. --B (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging with Barack Obama in Hawaii, please do not remove information

An AFD is in progress for the Barack Obama in Hawaii article. That article covers specific notable Honolulu locations and buildings related to Obama. The AFD seems to be leading to a merger and redirect to here.

Please honor this forming decision and do not delete the information merged to this article. It is improper to call for a merge and then remove the merged information. Doing that would be a delete, which is not what seems to be the result of the AFD.

I have done the merge because it is a complex process of intertwining information that most people will not be willing to do. User F203 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Material about "hospital not confirming" removed. First, see the archived discussion below and the FAQ at the top. Second, see WP:UNDUE - no hospital is allowed to confirm the birth of anyone per HIPAA. Statement as written strongly implies something wrong. As my comment said, that belongs in the article for it. Consensus here is squarely against inclusion of such theories.

I'll hold comment on the rest of the material - it seems a bit chatty and too much minutia, but that's just me. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Too chatty? Then have the separate Barack Obama in Hawaii article! User F203 (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at this link. Unitanode 18:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, believe me, it isn't just you. I've taken a few quick passes at it and snipped some of the more tabloid-ish material (ice cream eating, girlfriend rumors, and similar silliness). More editing is sorely needed. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the new Camelot image is his ice cream eating in Hawaii (shave ice, I think they call it). Maybe the merge was incorrect and it should have been merged with Honolulu as I suggested? User F203 (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A possible solution is to off-load some of the information to Makiki, Obama's old neighborhood. Massive off-loading, however, is prohibited as the AFD discussion was clearly a merge. Suggestions to merge with Honolulu were soundly defeated.User F203 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• You should probably take portions of it and put it in the places where it fits best. The old neighborhood article is probably a good starting point. Unitanode 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth place inclusion

Sources don't merit inclusion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ENOUGH WITH THE SWEEPING THIS UNDER THE RUG This topic was "archived" because it became a forum. I took MY own time to clean it up so it can be discussed, and now you are trying to sweep it under the rug. NO, that is not going to happen. Below I have *clearly* and *concisely* (as concise as possible with everything involved here) presented the facts of both sides of this case. These facts have NOT been disproven beyond any reasonable doubt. Until someone shows me where these facts are incorrect, and DISCUSSES it, not just pulling the Stasi Secret Police method of hushing it away somewhere by saying "I'm archiving this"... I've said it multiple times, I AM PLAYING BY WIKIPEDIA'S RULES, and yet you folks seem unwilling to discuss this on the TALK page, per Wikipedia guidelines. You claim it has been discussed and is moot, I have just SHOWN YOU that these facts have NOT been disproven, and that they are legitimate concerns from an average, unbiased person. Calling everyone involved a "conspiracy theorist" or "kook" or whatever else is doing nobody any good. --Barwick (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Let's review the facts, and talk about this in a civilized manner. I am bringing forth nothing but facts, and raising the question for discussion as to the pertinence of this information. Note: If you love or hate Barack Obama, I don't care, that's not the point of this, do not come on here and say stuff about "lefties", "conspiracy theorists", "Obama lovers", or "wackos", because we will delete your ranting. Take stuff like that to | Yahoo Answers or something. FACTS & SUPPORTING INFO Wikipedia needs to rely on information that can be verified to be factual. Wikipedia cannot write an article on every single event in all of humanity, and only can discuss [[WP::NN|Notable]] topics or people. Just because 400 people belong to the flat earth society does not mean that every reference to the earth needs to mention it may be flat. Here are the facts that have been brought forth, are they true? It is in fact possible to obtain a Hawaiian Birth Certificate while being born outside the United States. A Hawaiian Long Form Birth Certificate (LFBC) can be of different types, including: Original Birth Certificate - Only given at a hospital when a baby is born at that hospital. Amended Birth Certificate - Can be amended to show changes such as name, parent's name, sex (in event of a Gender Change), etc. Late Registration Birth Certificate - Given up to one year after birth, in event birth took place outside a hospital. Can be given based on testimony of the parents, who supply the required information. A Short Form Birth Certificate (SFBC) displays most of the information shown on the LFBC. A SFBC does not reveal what type of Long Form Birth Certificate a person has. Therefore, it is impossible to verify what type of Long Form Birth Certificate (LFBC) Barack Obama II has, without seeing the actual LFBC. As near as I can tell, none of the above facts are in dispute, and they don't prove anything either way. Here is where the dispute comes in, based on the above facts: A SFBC is insufficient to remove "beyond a reasonable doubt" any charges that Barack Obama II was born outside the United States. An original LFBC (from the hospital Barack Obama II claims to have been born at) would be more than sufficient to prove Birth in the State of Hawaii. Question solved, other than unlikely theories about how space aliens possessed the doctor and made him sign a false Birth Certificate when Barack Obama II was really born on Mars. We can go ahead and leave the place of Birth listed only as Hawaii. Obtaining and releasing the LFBC, under Barack Obama's "Open Government" policy, would be a simple matter, and would dispel any of these questions immediately. The fact that Barack Obama has not done this raises questions in some people's minds as to "why not just release it if there's nothing to hide?" An amended or late registration Birth Certificate, even if it displayed Hawaii as the place of birth, could leave the question up for debate, due to the following reasons: Amended or Late Registration Birth Certificates can be obtained based on the testimony of the parents. There is in fact motive for Barack Obama II's parents to falsify the place of birth. Barack Obama II's mother had lived in the United States as a citizen, but was a few months short of the required time that would have make Barack Obama II automatically a US Citizen regardless of his place of birth. If Barack Obama II was born in the United States, he would automatically be a citizen. An amended or late registration Birth Certificate could have been obtained by Barack Obama's parents within one year of his birth, and applying for a Late Registration Birth Certificate. What hospital this would show (if any) is unknown. As evidence that this is a notable event, roughly 400,000 people have requested to see the complete (implying Long Form) Birth Certificate (see the petition hosted at, yes, the supposedly unreliable World Net Daily)[2] - Wikipedia:Reliable Sources says "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Whether you think WND is unreliable or not, it is highly unlikely that they generated 400,000 signatures on their own (and detractors would be the ones speculating in this case, and bear the burden of proof). Done, now let's discuss this in a civilized manner. --Barwick (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC) There is nothing to discuss. This has been hashed, rehashed, and rerehashed. Consensus has long been established against the birther conspiracies being included here. Unitanode 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Ok, so Wikipedia is all about telling the truth by researching facts. I spend an hour and a half concisely writing them so we can discuss them, and you come back with "this has been hashed, rehashed, blah, blah..." and go on about Consensus. I just showed via FACTS how this truly is a Notable event to mention, how it is wholly a legitimate concern via FACTS, and how it could be simply resolved via FACTS. Why don't we discuss these FACTS instead of saying "eeeeeverybody knows that ______" because the Consensus that you say is there obviously has a large amount of people who disagree with that supposed Consensus. Maybe that Consensus isn't there? --Barwick (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The thing is, none of those "facts" are backed up by any reliable source. Where is the direct reliable source explicitly saying exactly what your saying. The majority of the argument above involves original research and synthesis. We are not here to argue "facts." We can only report what reliable sources report. If you feel that WND is a reliable source, then please take that up with WP:RS/N. A simple example of a reliable source would be a widely read print news paper or news organization. Further examples/explanations, please read the RS policy. Brothejr (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I move to speedily close this section before it gets out of hand again. Brothejr (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I'm on my way to a few meetings right now, but I'll supply the sources when I return. Suffice to say, the majority of them are from the State of Hawaii's own website. --Barwick (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC) DJ CLayworth: I'm sorry, but I've tried discussing this with you on your talk page, I've played by Wikipedia's rules, and you guys continue to ignore them yourself. I bring up a topic on the talk page for inclusion, and when it gets to the point where you can't just dismiss me, you say "oh this is irrelevant, we've talked about this issue already, 99% of people think the issue is dead". To which I reply "Oh really? It seems 400,000 people (out of probably less than a few million who've seen it) have actually signed the petition requesting the full Original (Long Form) Birth Certificate, seems like less than 99% of the people think it's a dead issue. And also, I asked you to please reference where someone has disproven what I wrote above", to which you say "you look it up". I'm sorry, but YOU are the one making the accusation, it is up to YOU to prove your case, not me. Finally, everyone, is what I wrote above fact or not? If you say not, show me where I went wrong. I'll (hopefully) have more time tomorrow to add all the appropriate links for references from the State of Hawaii, etc. --Barwick (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) COLB is a valid legal document, and there's no competent evidence challenging it. It is impossible (without resorting to fraud) to be born outside of Hawaii and obtain a COLB listing the place of birth as Honolulu. That you (or others) want to see the vault certificate does not create any factual doubt as to where Obama was born. Thay you (or others) can't fathom why Obama ignores this issue doesn't mean he's hiding anything. Weazie (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you for discussing this, it's good when two (or twenty) heads come together, gently at least. Nobody is disputing that the COLB is a valid legal document, but the fact remains that the COLB does not show the entire picture. As I have mentioned above: A SFBC does not reveal what type of LFBC exists The type of LFBC would resolve the issue in one of the two following ways: If it is an "Original LFBC", as it must be for him to have been born at the hospital he claims to have been born at, he is most definitely telling the truth. If it is ANYTHING other than an "Original LFBC", then he could not have been born in a *hospital* in Hawaii. We all know what that means. It is as simple as that, those two things. THAT is why it matters, because the SFBC would be the same in either situation listed above. --Barwick (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC) The COLB, under Hawaiian law, derives its information from the long form. So if the COLB says Obama was born in Honolulu, the long form will also say Obama was born in Honolulu, regardless of whether Obama was born in a hospital (and most U.S. presidents were not born in hospitals, BTW). What are you implying is that document fraud occurred, but there are no facts to support that conclusion. You can speculate all you want about the possibility of fraud occurring, but such conjecture does not belong in an article. Weazie (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Where other presidents were born is irrelevant. I'm not disputing that the LFBC will say "Born in Honolulu", please re-read what I am saying, if it is anything other than an Original LFBC, then by definition, he could NOT have been born in a hospital as he claimed, and he *lied* about his place of birth, period. That is what is in contention. So if he comes back with an amended or late registration LFBC, he was NOT born in a Hospital, which means he lied. And right now, the SFBC is a "one-to-many equation", one input (the SFBC) leaves multiple outputs (the LFBC). --Barwick (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Your "contention" is pure speculation, and not a fact. That's why it isn't in this article. Weazie (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Finally, finally, from the FAQ, how is the location of his birth NOT relevant to his early life? I swear, we play by Wikipedia rules and you guys just find some back woods way to do whatever you decided to do long ago ANYHOW. *sigh* --Barwick (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Let me be clear about this. Wikipedia is not here to debate the truth of Barack Obama's birth location. The fact that you don't consider the case proved is irrelevant. For the overwhelming majority of people the cases is closed and that is what Wikipedia reports. Your posting was a clear attempt to reopen the debate about Obama's birth, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. That and anything else not related to improving the article will be removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC) If the article leaves out a key piece of information, and we provide that information, by definition we have improved on the article. Ignoring it doesn't make the article better. --Barwick (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. Consensus on Wikipedia is that this piece of 'information' should be omitted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Do you have any reliable sources for any change you are advocating? Nothing should go into any article on wikipedia without reliable sourcing. WND is not a reliable source per WP:RS. It would be helpful if you would provide a SHORT description a single change you want made to the article, with the reliable sources to back up that change. Make sure you read WP:UNDUE for some guidance on how we usually treat this type of issue. Further presentation of unsourced conspiracy theories like "there is motive for the parents to falsify the place of birth" will be reverted as BLP violations. --guyzero | talk 19:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC) To Back what Guyzero is saying, those sources must say exactly what you are claiming, there can be zero synthesis or original research. Also, if you are claiming that the Hawaii law allows something, you must point to the exact law, section, and line that says exactly what you mean, plus a reliable mainstream news article that is not an editorial or blog that says exactly what you are saying, to back that law interpretation. I'm striking this through this as I agree with DJ Clayworth's points down below this comment. Brothejr (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC) No,no,no. Laws themselves are primary sources, and so not allowable as references. The fact (if fact it be) that Hawaii does this is not relevant to the life of Barack Obama. It's like saying "many black people have been born in Kenya, clearly that indicates that Obama might have been". This discussion is closed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Endorse closure. Wikipedia does not decide what is the truth, Wikipedia reports what reliable sources report, and that policy is one of the few policies Wikipedia has that is non-negotiable or not open to compromise. Otumba (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why you won't find a "reliable source" asking for the LFBC

Closing per FAQ A1/Q1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lou Dobbs, though he believes President Obama is a US Citizen, has asked for him to release his complete Long Form Birth Certificate[3]. For doing so, he's been attacked from multiple sources, including the LA Times, has been called a "racist", etc. Why? He's a journalist reporting on something legitimate, but he's attacked. This is exactly why no "mainstream" "reliable source" will continue to run stories asking for the LFBC. This is exactly why Wikipedia needs to allow independent sources on matters like this when their facts can be verified, as has been pointed out on here numerous times. Unless Wikipedia is afraid of being attacked by other media sources. --Barwick (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Worldnetdaily's caterwauling about poor Lou Dobbs has nothing to do with the "Early life and career of Barack Obama". Fringe sources have no place in this project, and your continued insistence on such is only going to lead to sore disappointment. Tarc (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC) This is getting ridiculous, seriously. First people claim "there's no reliable sources", then I bring up Lou Dobbs who's reporting on this, and they say "that has nothing to do with it!!!" Folks, wake up, you claim to be the bastions of tolerance, quit calling people names like "conspiracy theorists" or "fringe sources". If we were using some backwards reasoning to make our case, then there might be some merit, but come now, this is pretty straightforward... --Barwick (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC) These ARE conspiracy theories, and they ARE fringe. This is very straightforward. These ideas are far from what's commonly accepted and believed - that's fringe. They are suggesting, if not out-right alledging, that multiple people are involved in what's happening - that's conspiracy. And since these are just guesses, they are theories. Or more simply, fringe conspiracy theories. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC) And there we go... They ARE conspiracy theorists because I say so. You are making the assertion, burden of proof is on you. Now, using WP:RS, prove it. I'll watch for your proof. --Barwick (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Er, no, they "ARE conspiracy theorists" because that is how most reliable sources describe them, much the same way as they describe 9/11 truthers or faked moon landing proponents. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Barwick, please look through the source in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. Many, many of those sources describe these as "fringe" and "conspiracy theories". I'm starting to get a sense of WP:IDHT here ... Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Lou Dobbs "reporting" on these "hard questions" is not evidence of birth elsewhere than as stated in the article. Weazie (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC) No, of course it's not, but it's evidence that not everyone agrees that it's a closed matter, and that's what Wikipedia "reports on". Even you have to admit that. --Barwick (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Literally "everyone" ? No, you're never going to find complete unanimity on any issue. But the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do not give this fringe issue coverage. The Wikipedia does not give equal footing to minority POVs, as you have been told several times over now. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Lou Dobbs' comments are evidence of a dispute, not evidence of birth other than as stated in this article. When Dobbs holds up a Kenyan birth certificate on CNN, let's talk. References to Dobbs' beliefs are more appropriate for the conspiracy theory page. Weazie (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Bingo - hence the existance of said conspiracy theory page. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC) World Net Daily is not a reliable source and is never used as such. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC) There's some fun stuff from the conspiracy theory article's talk page. talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#New Assertion from Hawaii II Which is, you know, where this stuff belongs. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of muslim heritage?

Obama's father was a muslim. Obama's grandfather was muslim. Obama's stepfather was muslim, and he took Barack to mosque with him. Why the total scrubbing of "muslim" from this article even if Barack claim, he himself was never a practicing Muslim?? The "why no muslim" treatment does not explain why Obama's muslim heritage in itself mut be completely scrubbed from the WP. Bachcell (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Except this article is not about recording all details of Obama's family, but about Obama himself. If the religion of his father or step-father was notable to Obama (beyond the conspiracy theory secret muslim nuts), we'd cover it in more detail, but religion was not important to both fathers, so why spend valuable space in a high profile article covering it? After a single WP:BRD revert against semi-controversial content you added without reliable sourcing, I'm sad that the next step is to come here and complain of whitewashing and scrubbing. The relation of Islam to Obama (or his family members) are mentioned in all of the appropriate places. Edits such as this one, while perhaps factual, are totally WP:UNDUE as it is at best minor trivia. Please propose your edits, get consensus for them, and then make them --guyzero | talk 23:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right, guyzero. It might be reasonable to record that Obama attended mosque with his stepfather, if it were the case. However you would need a reliable source for it; several in fact, since we already have a source saying that his stepfather was "not very religious" and only went to the mosque for big community events. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The article appears as if it has been scrubbed of the word "muslim". Even these contributions leave out this word that must not be spoken, but were still reverted as "undue trivia" which require consensus or subject to immediate deletion. Even articles which purport to debunk the notion that Obama had any association with Islam record that he was registered as a muslim, his stepfather was a Muslim in a largely Muslim nation The article for Lolo Soetoro asserts he was a non-practicing Muslim, even though he sometimes took Barry with him to pray in the Mosque. If his sister says he was "not very religious" and friends said he wasn't pious, does that mean he was non-practicing?

Barack Obama has already been elected president, so this issue is more a matter of accurately guaging his claim "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim", practicing or otherwise, so it is not simply a matter of "trivia" whether or not his grand/step/parents were Muslim, enrolled him as a Muslim, or took him to Mosque to pray. The way the articles are now appear to accept there is a universal consensus that Obama's official statement is correct, well as not documenting any of the controversy, even though WP is supposed to be neutral on controversial topics and there is not as of yet any universal agreement of whether claims he was Muslim, or of Muslim heritage are correct, any more than WP can state as a matter of fact whether or not the world was created in 7 days, or creationists are in error.

The world "muslim" is completely absent from this and many related articles despite the brouhahah over assertions over this background. The fact that his father, grandfather, stepfather were Muslim, he was identified by his parents as Muslim in school registration and lived in largely Muslim nation were completely absent from this article, even if Obama himself was never a practicing Muslim. Is this "trivia", or something very significant that's been deliberately edited out of the story to follow a point of view? It treats Snopes, which appears to side with Obama as the ultimate reliable source, but any magazines or newspapers with a conservative bent is dismissed as not a RS even though the New York Times and CBS run completely false stories all the time but are "reliable". Bachcell (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

During his time in Indonesia, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, from ages 6 to 10, where classes were taught in the Indonesian language. He first attended St. Francis Assisi Catholic school for almost three years, where he was registered as the same religion of his stepfather.

Obama's 3rd grade teacher recalled that his stepfather rarely took Barack with him when he went to the mosque to pray, while his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng remembered her father as "not religious", and "never went to prayer services except for big communal events".

Your statement of our need to "accurately guaging(sic) his claim "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim", practicing or otherwise" sounds like WP:SOAPBOX which is absolutely the wrong way to approach WP:BLP articles. Yes, what his parents put on a school form when he was in the 3rd grade is trivia. The "TRUTH must get out there or you are all censors" agenda does not fly on Wikipedia. There is no debate on this "secret Muslim" issue outside of WP:FRINGE sources. We document that the controversy occurred in the Public Image and/or Campaign articles, but trying insinuate that there is a rational debate about this ongoing is not supported by reliable sources. thanks, --guyzero | talk 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a fringe source? Barker, Kim (March 25, 2007). "Obama Madrassa Myth Debunked". Chicago Tribune http://www.dc50tv.com/chi-070325obama-islam-story-archive,0,4165671.story

When he was at a public school for a year, he learned about Islam.

At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Because Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said.

In their first neighborhood, Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said."Sometimes Lolo went to the mosque to pray, but he rarely socialized with people," said Fermina Katarina Sinaga, Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family. "Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo."

Which of the facts do you dispute? Whether or not they contribute to a "myth", are they or are they not a) true and b) relevant. It is a fact that Obama was registered by his parents in both catholic and public schools as a muslim. It is a fact that both his teacher and his neighbors saw Obama accompany his father when he went to the mosque to pray. It is also a fact that Obama issued a statement that he has always been a christian and has never practiced any other faith. If these are facts, then they cannot be a fringe theory, regardless of whether they give credence to a fringe theory. The fringe theory is only that Obama is not a muslim, not whether by any definition he has never been a muslim, since it is pretty clear that at least his parents thought he was a muslim, his father gave him a muslim name, his mother married two muslim men in a row, his stepfather took him to the mosque with him for prayer, though evidently we don't have proof he actually prayed with his father. Obama has also stated that his stepfather was a non-practicing muslim, even though his stepfather went to pray in the mosque. Is it even possible that Obama's statements could be incorrect or at least only a partial truth or distortion? How could any fact that could be a direct contradiction of a public statement be "trivia"? Trivia is whether a TV show mentions Barack Obama, or whether a certain car was driven by him, not whether his parents told the school that he was a muslim when he has stated that he has never been a muslim under any definition or understanding of the term, or whether his father was practicing Islam by praying at the mosque when he told http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/726619,obamafalsani040504.article

his stepfather was a non-practicing muslim.

Given the amount of speculation and controversy over the muslim issue, why is it and how can it be made a "consensus" that no mention of speculation of his being a muslim, and no mention of even his heritage can be made? It's pretty obvious that Obama is America's first president of muslim heritage, whatever he may have personally practiced, Islam was practiced by his grandfather, father and stepfather (who told the school that he was muslim, but then his stepfather is not a RS???) No one here has or can dispute his school registration or that he walked to the mosque with his father. You can only dispute whether it is appropriate to mention that fact anywhere in the wikipedia. Could you possibly suggest someplace more appropriate where it could be placed? Bachcell (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't create a new section each time you post within the same topic.

"The fringe theory is only that Obama is not a muslim.." is your POV and is not shared by non-fringe reliable sources, so we won't be pushing these theories into this article per WP:BLP WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. That he "rarely" followed his stepdad to mosque and that his stepdad signed muslim on a 3rd grade form are trivia -- they are factoids that just do not matter, so including them would violate those policies listed above and do the reader a disservice.

It is true that conspiracy theories have circulated, which are thoroughly documented here: Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008#Controversies.2C_allegations.2C_and_scandals_during_the_primary_campaign which is an appropriate location as it was during the primaries that these theories circulated. There is no ongoing controversy over this issue outside of weird fringy sources. --guyzero | talk 05:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace

Closing per FAQ Q1/A1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Obama birth dispute needs to stop. We need to state the facts and let the reader decide if he was born in Hawaii or somwhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawesome98 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. The "birth dispute" is extensively documented at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎. --guyzero | talk 16:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Correct. The birther questions are considered fringe views by the vast majority of reliable sources. The continuing saga of cases that are dismissed with harsher and harsher language demonstrates this as well. As such, in this article, we cover the consensus view, which is that Obama is born in Hawaii and is a NBC of the United States. The other article covers the various other theories. Ravensfire (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Please note that in the light of Jawesome98's repeated violations of article probation over a sustained period of time, I have proposed that he be banned from editing Obama-related articles under the terms of the existing article probation. See WP:AN/I#Article probation violations by User:Jawesome98 for the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

School registration in Indonesia

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/ny-obama-making-2,0,6697655.story

Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia, despite being listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school, Strada Asisia, where he attended 1st through 3rd grades. At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Because Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said.

"Sometimes Lolo went to the mosque to pray, but he rarely socialized with people," said Fermina Katarina Sinaga, Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family. "Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo."

Is this not an established fact? 01:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Bachcell (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you bringing to the table that was not discussed the last time ? Tarc (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious - just rehash the same arguement over and over, and hope that they'll eventually wear people down. Ravensfire (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The original source was to a Chicago Times article that was no longer active. This link can easily be confirmed. So what _is_ the objection to inclusion of this rather important fact? Bachcell (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The same that were mentioned in the section above --guyzero | talk 17:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Marquis Who's Who as a source

[4] is used as a source several times in the article, the cite tag says that it was retrieved June 6, 2008. It appears that one must be a paying subscriber ($700?) to be able to look up entries in this collection of biographies which presents a challenge to the reader to verify the sourced text. Fortunately, in many cases this source is used alongside another source, so hopefully we can find new RS's for the other uses and phase out the use of this one. cheers, --guyzero | talk 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama Spent Part of Third Grade in Hawaii, not only in Jakarta

This article inaccurately states that "Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, from ages 6 to 10." However, it has been confirmed by the President, and with photographic evidence, that Obama spent at least part of third grade back at Noelani Elementary School. In December 2009, the Honolulu Star Bulletin published a story with a picture of Obama with former third grade Noelani classmate Scott Inoue, who confirmed that Obama was there for at least part of 1969. The article also notes that Obama signed the photograph and sent Inoue a thank you note:

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20091228_third_grade_photo_captures_obamas_grin.html

After I added this information, the article was vandalized by Newross, who called this reference to a reliable source "a uncorroborated claim based solely on a 40-yr-old recollection." As noted, the claim was confirmed by the President who signed the photograph. Furthermore, it is not the job of Wikipedia to judge the credibility of information contained in reliable sources. In this regard, it should be noted that the information regarding Obama's earlier schooling at Noelani relies on even older recollections. And beyond this, the claim that Obama was born at Kapiolani has no source at all -- although newspaper article identify the hospital, none of them attributes the identification to anybody's recollection at all. It is not attributed to Obama, to hospital personnel or confirmed by any photograph or document. According, the information regarding Obama's attendance of third grade in Noelani should be restored, and the reference to Kapiolani should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mixing fringe Birther claims that there's no proof he was born in Kapiolani along with this assertion of where he spent part of 3rd grade is not making a very compelling case. Don't resort to "if I can't get this into the article, then that must be removed" arguments. Tarc (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mixing fringe Birther claims that there's no proof he was born in Kapiolani along with this assertion of where he spent part of 3rd grade is not making a very compelling case.

The compelling case is made by the relative proofs for (1) the claim that Obama was born in Kapiolani and (2) the claim that Obama spent part of third grade at Noelani. With respect to the Kapiolani claim, you haven't (and can't) provide a single reliable source which provides substantiation or even attribution for it. With respect to the Noelani claim, there's a signed photograph from the President, a letter and an eyewitness who was there at the time and appears in the picture.

Mentioning "fringe Birther claims" isn't an argument which addresses the points I've made. My argument isn't that "this or that must be removed", but that a consistent standard must be applied to determine which facts are included in this article. Please don't clutter up the discussion page with irrelevant arguments about motives. Stick to the proof. I'll make it easy for you:

Do you dispute that the claim that Obama spent part of the third grade is contained in a reliable source (the Honolulu Star Bulletin), substantiated by an eyewitness who was there(Scott Inoue), corroborated by a photograph (picturing Inoue and Obama) which was signed by the President? Yes or no answer only.

Do you dispute that the claim that Obama was born in Kapiolani, although asserted by the Washington Post, isn't attributed to any eyewitness or other human being, and isn't corroborated by any documentary evidence. Yes or no answer only.

Failure to reply with result in the deletion of the Kapiolani claim and addition of the third grade Noelani claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

...And failure to develop WP:CONSENSUS for controversial edits - especially in high-profile articles - will result in limits on your ability to edit on Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  08:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

location of birth - not convinced

Wikipedia isn't a repository for birth certificates, so we can't help you
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some people may have asked this already but why is Obama said to be born in Hawaii when we have no proof? I examined the sources provided such as 1 and found no proof, the statement from Fukino is vague and does not mean anything and the factcheck site is just some external site that does not proof anything either. Wiki should have higher standards. Also I heard the rumor that he conceils a lot of documents where the birth place is usually listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.109.189 (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Probably for pretty much the same reason we say Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut when we have no proof. Because that's the consensus published as fact in reliable sources, as opposed to whatever rumors you may have heard. It being a free country, you are, of course, not required to be convinced. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Not a good response, your reasoning is actually self contradictory, Bush looks like he's from here as much as Obama looks like he's from Africa. And I have a feeling Bush would show the document and not spend a fortune to hide it. Reliable sources? Please just list ONE such source, I need a link to a photo of the long form BC, any words will not do unless signed by reliable notary who is not an Obama fan. Finally being a free country has nothing to do with delivering true information. Anyone else than FatAmpHappyTalk can respond too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.109.189 (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

CNN has posted the birth certificate here, but it may make sense for us to include a statement about this conspiracy theory and reference the CNN poll suggesting that a quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S. Morphh ^(talk) 21:09, 06 August 2010 (UTC)

Just read the FAQ - this makes sense, but we should link that article in some minimal way - not ignore it. False as it may be, there is this nonsense about his birth so we should link to the conspiracy on it. Morphh ^(talk) 21:18, 06 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the birth certificate, Morph. I'm not convinced that we should link to the CNN article. Whatever they might do to generate "news" (i.e., conduct a poll) has little to do with Wikipedia's article on Obama. We are, after all, not a news medium. He was born in Honolulu, we've cited reliable sources that say so. Someone raised a query, you have answered it more than satisfactorily, IMO. Case closed. Sunray (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said "link to the article" in the second bit I was talking about wikilinking in some way Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. The topic is notable, or else it wouldn't have an article. His citizenship is directly relevant to his early childhood. Thus, this article (perhaps with just a few words) should link to that article on the particular point of his birth. Again, I think it's a bunch of bs conspiracy theory, but reliable sources report the bs conspiracy theory, thus we should include a mention of it and link to the article on it. I'm not going to make a fuss over it (not a big deal), just leaving my opinion an moving on. Morphh ^(talk) 3:13, 07 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this article deals with factual material about his childhood, not completely wacko conspiracy theories that arose forty years later. It would be completely off-topic and undue WP:WEIGHT to even link to it from here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should point out that it really didn't matter to anyone forty years ago. It only became an issue when he ran for President of the United States, for which there is a Constitutional Requirement for natural born citizenship.

Instead of whitewashing the issue, I think Wikipedia should tackle it head on in a matter-of-fact manner. This sort of scrubbing only reinforces the common belief that Wikipedia is run by lefties, and that only pro-ruling class propaganda is allowed. Must I remind everyone that "Controversy" sections are quite common in Wikipedia articles. This is a very high profile and commonly known controversy, and to pretend it doesn't exist is just plain silly.

As for myself, I think that the undisputed fact that his mother was a U.S. Citizen settles the whole matter. Regardless of WHERE he was born, he was born to a U.S. Citizen making him a U.S. Citizen BY BIRTH (ergo "Natural Born Citizen"). DrHenley (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Edward Said

The report that BHO studied with ESaid at Columbia seemed worthy of inclusion to me, when I learned it today. My edit to that effect, though, was reverted as "too minor a detail; he had lots of professors." I doubt he had many professors of the stature of Said; on the other hand, we don't know how significant the interaction was with a high-profile professor; on the third hand, though, the context in which the fact came up -- an examination of Obama's autobiography, of his father's writing (when the autobiography stresses the importance of the father in the son's thinking), and of BHO's political stance in 2010, particularly as to anti-colonialism and neo-colonialism, subjects certainly of interest to Professor Said, and socialism, a subject certainly much discussed relative to the President and his policies; plus ESaid was not just any professor, he was a professor within BHO's major of international relations, a smaller universe -- all seemed to give the fact more than routine significance. A serious potential presidential rival picked up some of the analysis, as I noted. Ban it from Wikipedia? Seems overly narrow, to me. Swliv (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Two conservative talking heads still pushing both the birther and the "Obama is a socialist!" angles? Whodathunkit? Tarc (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I know you don't like the source of the info or the uses made of that and other info by DD'Souza and (I guess you mean, as to the second "talking head," the person I characterized for what it's worth, yesterday, as a "serious potential presidential rival") NGingrich. But would you nonetheless be willing to endorse the inclusion of ESaid in the account of BHO's education?

I feel the discussion of the President's writings and his relationship to his late father and his late father's views (father and views much celebrated in the autobiography), and of his education, is productive regardless of the immediate politics. Just as I did for a recent bit about the previous President from MDowd which I incorporated here. And I'll add that I thought, it probably won't surprise anyone, that MDowd and her first page of commenters missed pretty badly today on the D'Souza/Gingrich subject. Though usually I like her work. To divert slightly from ESaid to another aspect of the D'Souza piece also addressed by Dowd today, in order to affirm further my point, I find the whole bumpy but real route of Hawaii and Alaska into the national political dialogue pretty darn interesting, too. Wow! Who could have predicted? But can anyone really be surprised that it is sometimes a bumpy route? Can't the encyclopedia handle pretty much as many of the complicated details in these (two) discussions (paternal/schooling influences and places-of-upbringing) as we can gather? Or did I handle this one (ESaid) re: BHO wrong? Or these two, adding the movie reference re: GWB?

Thanks for your interest. Swliv (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a key line in your first post - "we don't know how significant the interaction was with a high-profile professor". If something isn't notable, it shouldn't be in the article. Stating that something might be notable isn't enough - to include this you need something from a WP:RS that this is notable, and a book disguised as a hatchet job probably isn't that RS. I see you've added this to the Said article as "may have been amoung Said's students". Insinuation does not belong in a BLP article. Ravensfire (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually this whole line of questioning 'relationships' is an insult to the intelligence of people, and more along the lines of 'Skull and Bones', Truthers, Birthers, Bill Ayers, etc... Innuendos and synthesis by conservative opinion writers and politicians seem more the subject for another conspiracy theory article than an article based on actual facts. Dave Dial (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's so hard to integrate a new fact into the record. For what it's worth, I found this follow-up: "Forbes Article Spurs Media Soul Searching" from the Times today interesting. No questions about the ESaid mention.

For what it's worth, I did improve I hope -- following the appropriate critique from Ravensfire above -- the ESaid article; also there expanding with another report the sense of a relationship between the two gentlemen. As to the insulting nature of exploring relationships: well, I guess I don't know what to say. We're all independent of all others? Influences (even those we trumpet in our memoir titles) are not to be considered? What are you saying? (I really don't think this is a witch hunt. Maybe by DD'Souza, though it's not my impression. (Have you read the Forbes piece?) Not a witch hunt by me. An effort to understand, I'd call it; and, via Wikipedia, to broaden understanding. And I read the memoir back before the election; found the new look by D'Souza worthwhile in a number of regards, including that we now know the man better for a couple of years of intense scrutiny of his exercising of significant political power. What's the problem?)

Any more insults to sling? (Not a very pleasant exchange here, I have to say. Oh, but that's right. I'm the one who was being insulting. Well ..., another apology: I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence. ... On we go, may I say?) Swliv (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a "new fact"; it is an off-the-cuff one-liner couched within a larger critique of Obama and the presidency. Read WP:REDFLAG; those 3 bullet points are all coming in to play here. Let's see some other reliable sources that discuss the polygamy claim first, rather than this D'Souza-penned piece. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. Is there some polygamy argument I know nothing of relative to ESaid? I can't tell if any of the above comment refers to the ESaid edit. I'll await an answer before going further responding. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was mixing up your edit attempts with those of InaMaka. It's hard to keep you people straight some times. My bad. The general sentiment of the response still fits, though. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Article scrubbing

While living in Indonesia, Obama went under the name "Barry Soetoro", there are sources in this article that verify that. In fact, this article used to flat out state it. Why was this removed? I think a President having had another name at one point of his life is something worth mentioning. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has really changed since you tried this last year. Tarc (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tried what exactly? Adding information to an article with many valid sources? The mention of this fact was in the article before. It's now been scrubbed. I want to know why. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a proposed change, and an explanation of how it is relevant and improves the article, around here somewhere? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Obama didn't have another name, he had a nickname. It's not a big deal and I have no idea when/why it was removed or if it should even be there. Your obsession with this trivial thing seems to be the problem. Scrubbing.....Absurd. Dave Dial (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I could very well say it's your obsession (or that of others) with removing it. The news articles state it was a name he went by. If several reputable news sources state this, I certainly think that's a fact worth repeating in an article about the man. They do not say "nickname" - that's a word of your invention. From TIME "he was once known by his Indonesian stepfather's surname". NOT A NICKNAME. [5] -- Erroneuz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

Yes, it was essentially a nickname, never a legal name. I grew up in a household with a step-father (let's say "Mr. Smith") as well but legally retained my birth name ("Mr. Jones"). People in the neighborhood did refer to me as "Joe Smith" just because of the association with my step-father. Nowhere else was it ever used. You keep coming back every few months trying to slip this just-a-nickname in, and it simply isn't going to work. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. The articles do not say that "Barry Soetoro" was a nickname. Barry, sure, but not with the surname. You are not the central Obama authority here. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons why this will not be in theses articles is because of the innuendos and complete lack of intelligence of the 'birthers' and others who wish to equate Obama having a nickname, and using his step-fathers surname, as some sort of 'alias' used to cover up something. As long as that remains true, and reliable sources do not expand on this, it should not be in the article because of undue weight. Dave Dial (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything like that at all. All I'm saying is that a number of articles clearly state he did go by another name, and there's no reason to ignore something like this. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the sources. Same as you did last year. This is a settled topic as far as I am concerned. Tarc (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, particularly if this is something people argue about and sources such as Time have published the notion, then there should at least be a mention of this issue incorporating sources on both sides of the equation. prat (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

photo Barack_Obama_Sr_Jr.jpg

The venue of this photo is San Francisco International Airport (not Hawaii!), as seen from the previous, uncropped version of the file: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/e8/20080925235329!Barack_Obama_Sr_Jr.jpg. — Klimenok (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is signage for a departure gate? The source of the image is http://obamabarack.blogspot.com/2007_03_24_archive.html, captioned "Barack Obama Sr. during his only visit to his son while growing up in Hawai'i.". Tarc (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no place in this article for ANY birther discussion, pro or con

The fringe dispute over Obama's birthplace came about much, much later in his political career. Yes, the dispute itself is about his birth and early life, but trying to tie it in directly to his early life is problematic and a bit synth-ish. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Then where should we place the link? It logically belongs somewhere in this article. Should it be in the See also section? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be anywhere, honestly. It is a controversy regarding an alleged dispute on the facts of his early life, i.e. place of birth, but it really isn't about his early life. That sounds awkward, but I cannot think of a better way to say it at the moment. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not an "alleged dispute", it's an actual dispute. Whether or not there is any reasonable basis for the dispute, it exists. I have a problem seeing the difference between this and, e.g., the 9/11 conspiracy theories or the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, both of which are not only linked in the primary topic articles but even have (very small) sections there acknowledging them. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the other articles, and I think there should be a link somewhere(the 2008 Presidential election the best place imo), but I have a problem with the way it was inserted here.

== Childhood years ==

See also: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Which, to me, makes it seem as if an explanation of Obama's 'Childhood years' can be found on that other article. I'm sure people may support a link to the article in with appropriate context, in the right article. Dave Dial (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

While they originated during the 2008 campaign, they survive two years into his presidency with, if polls are to be believed, a fairly large number of people giving them credence. I'm not sure I even know all the WP articles about Obama, but off the top of my head this one seems the most likely candidate for a link, since the theories seem to center on either his birth or events of his childhood. I see your point about the placement of the {{See also}} template; perhaps we should look to those other articles as a model, inserting a (miniature) == Conspiracy theories == section at the end, consisting of the see also template and a paragraph to the effect of:

Various fringe conspiracy theorists have advanced propositions questioning Obama's eligibility for the presidency based on their interpretations of the facts of his birth and early life.

Fat&Happy (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see what this has to do with a narrative of the man's life, that is the point; if it has any place for a 'see also' or whatnot, it'd be an article on the 2008 primaries, general election, and perhaps the inauguration, given that that was the height of the 11th-hour protests. There's also no mention in this article of Obama's associations with Rev. Wright, Rezko, or Bill Ayers? Why not, these were people with whom he had some connections to in his "early life and career", right? The thing is, their significance/importance to Obama is not within the context of his life and career; they are connected to him via later scandal and controversy allegations. That is why they have their own articles which originate from where they are important, i.e. the primaries and general election. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Early Life in Seattle

Would be extremely nice if you folks at Wikipedia gave credit where credit is due to History Link, The Online Encyclopedia of Washington State, and researcher Phil Dougherty [6] for insightful exploration of President Obama's year-plus as a Seattleite. Ann Dunham, a resident of King County for five additional years; following the spring quarter at the University of Washington it is possible Ann was employed in one of the support roles occasioned by the then-running Century 21 Exposition (The Seattle World's Fair), although this remains speculation. And for the birthers out there, no, he was not born in either Washington or British Columbia; have checked the indexes. Genehisthome (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of his name

I had posted this edit that promptly got deleted as "original research":

His first name, Barack, is an Arabic given name which has the meaning "blessed one", derived from the Islamic concept of baraka - the beneficent force from God. His father's birth name was in fact 'Baraka'. The middle name, Hussein, is an Arabic name as well, meaning "good", "handsome" or "beautiful".

These are plain meanings of his names. I don't see how it can be seen as original research. This info is fully referenced with links to entire articles that go further in explaining the name meanings. I'd like to see a consensus here to re-add this info.

And it should also be noted that Hussein, aside from its meaning, is a name shared by Obama's ancestors, including his paternal grandfather among other close relatives.--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this should be added. Acceptable citations would be Arabic dictionary entries, particularly Arabic dictionaries of names. prat (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

CIA Reference Justification

I am responding to the recent reversion of the dual-sourced reference to the fact that Obama's first employer out of university was and is a known CIA front company. The sources given were:

• The New York Times: "CIA Established Many Links To Journalists in US and Abroad". New York Times. December 27, 1977.
• Article by William Blum, published author of a History of the CIA, former State Department employee, historian and foreign policy critic: William Blum (July 3, 2012). "The Persecution of Julian Assange". Retrieved July 5, 2012.

I am re-adding the information with this talk section added for any feedback as I am unclear how you can come to the conclusion that the New York Times and a published historian with domain expertise are 'Wikipedia:FRINGE' and not reliable.

I must also state that I found the reversion of this well sourced content without a well reasoned explanation (only broad links to Wikipedia policies, with no explanation as to relevance) or attempt to contact me on my talk page to be rather overzealous and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia's inclusive community.

Please discuss further changes here before committing them to the article.

Kind regards, prat (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC), Wikipedia administrator.

Your edits are BLP violations, an attempt to push fringe theories by innuendo. Also, here is another link for you, BRD. That's Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Revert, forbid any changes, discuss. Dave Dial (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the oversight on procedure, which is not my forte. Either way, here we are at talk, and I note you have pointed at procedure (again - not explaining how BLP was violated?) instead of answering the query. So please, explain, how can you come to the conclusion that the New York Times and a published historian with domain expertise are 'Wikipedia:FRINGE' and not reliable? prat (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty awful edit. What does it have to do with Obama? Volkswagen was originally founded by a Nazi trade union. Do you propose to add that tidbit of information to all the biographies of people who have worked for the company? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see that for the short version on the main Obama page, that's maybe a tad tangential, and would accept if it were removed on these grounds. However, in this entire article devoted to his early life and career, it seems pretty evident that extremely notable (possibly the most notable), publicly documented information regarding the very first company he worked for is relevant. prat (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would further add, in good faith, that Nazi references are loaded, and that the number of years between said revelations and Obama's joining the organization is far fewer than the present and Nazi germany. prat (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So why are you attempting to add something that may have happened fifty years ago? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Because (1) is it is only a few years before Obama joined the organization (2) it is perhaps one of the most notable things about the organization (3) it is an undisputed fact, as far as public sources go (4) it is the first organization that he joined after his education (5) the article is about his early life and career. prat (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) 1983 - 1960 = 23. "Few" years - uh huh. (2) This article isn't about the organization. (5) Are you now implying that Obama was involved with the CIA in his early career? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That's good, why don't we include that figure with the information to give additional context? prat (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable: please read WP:SYNTH, for instance. You're taking unrelated material and drawing a conclusion in Wikipedia's voice. Please don't do that again. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

How is citing a fact regarding the organization that is publicly sourced from reputable sources 'drawing a conclusion in Wikipedia's voice'? prat (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're making an innuendo that Obama was somehow associated with the CIA, something that requires a specific high-quality reference that directly states the conclusion, not vague hand-waving that Person A was associated with Organization X, which was in turn associated with Organization Y, which implies that Person A had a connection to Organization Y. That's a synthesis, and it's not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia, much less in a biography.Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, however, it is actually very common on Wikipedia (most history articles, lots of biography articles, etc.) and is not always a bad thing. Merely stating specific facts about one subject and doggedly rejecting anything else would make many more complex articles unreadable except to experts. Within the context of politics and Obama's early career, this information, properly sourced and phrased, seems relevant. prat (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis is not common and not permitted. Taking specific facts out of context from cherry-picked sources to draw or imply a conclusion is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

OK well perhaps we have different understandings of synthesis. Be that as it may, this is a notable fact regarding his first employer as far as the public record is concerned, and is therefore clearly relevant within the context of an entire article about his early life and career. Meaningful claims otherwise would require alternative mainstream media coverage of the company, on the level of the New York Times and preferably at least one secondary, published historian, that dispute this fact. Your own judgement of the fact's relevance is not meaningful, what is relevant is what is cited and available in the public record. Furthermore, it is not my wish or intent to imply anything, and I resent that suggestion. I am all for proper, clear wording. I am not an American nor do I have an agenda to push. prat (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:RS. Countercurrents, who "welcome[s] articles from writers, activists, journalists and also from our readers who have no prior experience in writing" does not seem to qualify. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Countercurrents merely republished from the author, who remains a published historian on the matter. prat (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who writes about 9/11: 'New York skyscrapers apparently "collapsed essentially because of a controlled demolition"' needs to be treated as a WP:FRINGE source at best. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a characterization and your opinion (quite possibly wrong - who knows?), I do not want to get in to tangents. Please remain focused in discussion. prat (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a tangent. This is about you not understanding BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion of high quality sources is your own. The fact is, an author of a book on the history of a subject is a more reputable source than almost any other. If you can argue the point without resorting to character aspersions, it would be more persuasive. prat (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia references to mainstream sources. While fringe theorists can be mentioned in due proportion, the fact that the source advocates conspiracy theories makes their use as a source in this case inappropriate. Please read WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP. You're trying to insert a fringe point of view. Since you appear to be an administrator, I expect you to have a better grasp of policy and the manner in which it is presently enforced. . Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked before, and I will ask again: how can you possibly say that the New York Times is a 'fringe' source? That an author who has published an entire history on a subject is a 'fringe' source? I am not trying to insert a point of view, at all. To claim that is the case is patently false and not in the spirit of constructive contribution. I inserted a publicly recorded fact, well referenced, and it was removed under two counter-to-policy claims, neither of which have been adequately justified despite repeat requests. Apologies but it really looks some of the responses here are the ones with an agenda. Pointing to policies without clearly identifying which portions you believe are being violated and in which way, suggesting or accepting the discussion of any more constructive outcomes than "just go away and we'll delete the contribution, thank you very much" is counter to Wikipedia spirit. I note that you have still failed to justify the initial two claims regarding policy, and are yet again making character references (this time, to myself). Please, be objective. prat (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap, you're right! prat, I strongly suggest you not advertise you're an admin until you firmly grasp how Wikipedia has changed over the years. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is still synthesis: you are leaping from the decades-prior history of the company, to the time when Obama started to work there; as well as undue emphasis, apparently to cloud the subject's reputation. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies but I am absolutely not pushing an agenda. I added relevant facts, they were removed, and I am awaiting justification. That justification still has not come, despite repeated requests. What has come is further baseless character accusations which, quite frankly, are preposterous. Whether information is popularly liked or not is irrelevant: if it is a publicly cited fact from reputable sources, then it deserves a place on Wikipedia. prat (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The justification has come, you're just not listening. At this point, it's better to see consensus is against you and move on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"if it is a publicly cited fact from reputable sources, then it deserves a place on Wikipedia"

Can you point to the policy or guideline that says that?

This article, from an unarguably reputable source, publicly states that Obama had eggs, bacon, toast, and grits for breakfast at a local diner yesterday morning. Help me out here... exactly where in Obama's biography should I insert this particular information that is clearly a publicly cited fact from reputable sources – I'm deciding between his personal life and the 2012 campaign unless you have a suggestion for a better alternative. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It does have a place on Wikipedia: it should be in the article about the company, and it's there.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The first company that Obama worked for after leaving university was one with well documented CIA connections. The claim has been made that the documented connection was too early for it to relate to him - on this I do not take a position, rather encourage the addition of relevant information to the reference so that readers can view such information within the proper context (had the management changed? I have no idea; though I doubt it). It still stands that, any way you look at it, particularly given that he is currently president, that information remains relevant to an article on Obama's early life and career as it would have been one of his formative experiences. prat (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And there's your WP:SYNTH. You really don't see that?

As someone else already pointed out, this is like trying to make any connection for someone who worked in the rank and file of Volkswagen in 1969 to the Nazis.

"had the management changed? I have no idea; though I doubt it" -- Well, Eldridge Haynes had been dead for 8 years, so I'm guessing he was out of the management loop by then. But that's admittedly WP:OR.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Something to think about: The Drudge Report and WND is trying to assert that Obama worked for the CIA in Packistan for a year while he was in Columbia Univeristy. I have a sneaking suspicion that Prat is pushing for a CIA guilt by association in an effort to help prove the Drudge Report and WND article(s) right. (As in start another conspiracy theory.) I suggest this be closed as it is apparently going no where and the proposer has a hidden motive whether he/she admits it or not. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)