Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Contesting a recent revert

This is re this revert by User:DD2K. The edit summary said, "No. Your own transcription and synthesis isn't acceptable. Neither is Obamarecords.com a reliable source" (parts of that were wikilinked, and I haven't redone the wikilinks here).

• The revert deleted several dead link tags I had added to the article. OK, the links weren't dead in the sense that they got 404 errors; they were dead in the sense that the articles originally relied on to support assertions in the article were no longer present at those URLs and were not findable at http://archive.org. I've replaced these deleted dead link tags with failed verification tags. The dead link tags concerned the cited sources, so they appeared in the References section. The {{fv}}s concern support of the assertions, so they appear inline in the article body.
• The revert removed a replacement of a dead link at http://constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=811 with a live archived link at http://web.archive.org/web/20110725193742/http://constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=811. Please take a second look at that.

• The revert removed a replacement of a dead link at http://store.barackobama.com/made-in-the-usa-mug.html with a link to a live archived link at http://web.archive.org/web/20110723002253/http://store.barackobama.com/made-in-the-usa-mug.html. Please take a second look at that.

• I had replaced a cite reading "http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate%7C<!--does not work, original still exists -archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5iGGBysud|archivedate=July 1, 2009-->" with a link to this archived URL. You reverted that. Please take a second look at this.

• The revert removed a transcript snippet I had posted of a sworn statement, saying that the source I used wasn't considered reliable for that. OK, I don't know whether the transcript is real or bogus -- I relied on that source. I'm located on a small island in the Philippines and have access only to online sources -- my research capabilities are limited.

• The revert reversed my correction of a serious error in reportage of a Sarah Obama interview. After the revert, the article reads:

In a June 2012 interview at her Kenyan home, Sarah Obama was asked: "Some people want to believe that the president was born in Kenya. Have these people ever bothered you or asked for his birth certificate?" Her response was: "But Barack Obama wasn’t born in Kenya."

After the revert, the article relies on a dead link for support. I had replaced the dead link with a live link to an alternative source of the item cited in support. The final bit of that item reads:

I said,

“Some people want to believe that the president was born in Kenya. Have these people ever bothered you or asked for his birth certificate?”

Mrs. Obama looked concerned, started to protest. But it turned out it was because the rabbits, post-coitus, had started to run away via a security guard’s carelessly ajar gate.

I repeated my question and it was translated. Mrs. Obama wrinkled up her face. Then the interpreter jumped in: “She says, ‘But Barack Obama wasn’t born in Kenya.’” That should settle it.

Please take a second look at this.

If this was a knee-jerk revert, please try to avoid similar knee-jerks in future. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The simple solution is, don't make legitimate edits(1,2) after edits that is blatantly against Wiki guidelines(1,2). Your edits seem to be an effort to make it seems as if there is some conspiracy theory by legitimate reliable sources, while relying on your own OR/synthesis and an obvious, fringe, non reliable source. No, it was not a 'knee-jerk revert'. I would appreciate it if you would not make any controversial edits on this article, especially without bringing it to the Talk page first. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've got a typo or a parapraxis in there re the word legitimate. Re controversial edits, see WP:BRD. I made what I saw as perfectly legitimate edits, mainly tagging and fixing dead links. The links I focused on were links green-tagged by the Checklinke tool where, upon checking those links individually, I found that the URL supplied in a cite did not lead to a web page which supported the article assertions in support of which the links were offered. Realizing that editors of this page tend to have polarized views and to edit with polarized POV mindset, I halfway expected a discussion of some of the individual changes I had made. I consider your mass revert of my fixes/changes to be not WP:NPOV. In the spirit of the D part of BRD, I request that you address the changes I've explained at bullet points above individually -- point by point. In my view, the changes should be immediately unreverted -- particularly those which are straightforward replacement of dead links with live replacements from an internet archive. Please identify the changes for which I've provided I've bullet-pointed explanations above where you have objection to their unreversion, and explain your objection in the context of the bullet-pointed explanations of those individual changes which I gave above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No. I am not going to get into another long drawn out discussion with you again about your original research and penchant for using fringe websites that are not reliable sources. The next step would be a RfC/U, not another long drawn out discussion. Which I neither want to do, nor wish to devote the time to. So please, just follow the guidelines and stop trying to insert your own POV into this article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in a series of exchanges about POV either. My edits which you reverted mainly involved tagging or repairing links in citess which had gone stale. What I am going to do is to look at each change your revert made individually, explain each one individually below, and redo the changes as individual edits where it seems to me that is indicated. I'm time-sharing this with other activities, and it might take me some time to go through all the changes which your revert made; I'll indicate below when I'm done. If you feel that these changes should be brought up at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, feel free. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Your revert removed a dead link tag which I had placed on URL http://www2.az-independent.com/?s=obama+father+immigration+file&x=0&y=0. The target site changes that URL to http://www.azinews.com/. In reaction to your revert, I had tagged the Ref citing that URL as failed verification. It really ought to be tagged as a dead link, though, and in this edit I changed the tag back to dead link. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Your revert reversed a complicated and messy change which I had botched in trying to fix a dead link. The article wikitext read, and reads post-revert, as follows

<ref name="obama-truth">{{Cite web|url=http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate%7C<!--does not work, original still exists -archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5iGGBysud|archivedate=July 1, 2009-->|title=The truth about Barack's birth certificate|publisher=Obama for America|date=June 12, 2008|accessdate=February 2, 2011}}</ref>

In there, the URL http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate%7C is stale (the target site changes it to http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/articles/5/birthcertificate%7C). The URL in the HTML comment (http://www.webcitation.org/5iGGBysud) does work. I had tried to fix that and had botched the fix. I have redone the fix in this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Your revert removed a dead link tag which I had placed on URL http://hawaii.gov/gov/newsroom/press-releases/AttachmentsToCertificateOfLiveBirthRelease.pdf. The target site changes that URL to http://governor.hawaii.gov/. In reaction to your revert, I had tagged the Ref citing that URL as failed verification. It really ought to be tagged as a dead link, though, and in this edit I changed the tag back to dead link. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• This bit may have been the change which triggered you into ranting about your perception that I was making POV changes. I had clarified a part of the article which was and still is supported by a cited source newspaper piece titled "Here's the truth: 'Birther' claims are just plain nuts" which is apparently accepted as a neutral bit of reportage in this article. The source of the clarifications I added was a video which is present in that source which the article cites. I also added the info that one of the participants in the conversation which the video presents had executed a sworn affidavit describing the conversation. I relied on and cited this link to what purports to be a copy of that affidavit to support a capsulized description of its content which I added to the article. You claim that that source is unreliable. I don't know whether the transcript is real or bogus -- I relied on that source. I'm located on a small island in the Philippines and have access only to online sources -- my research capabilities are limited. In this edit, I've restored by clarifications supported by the video in the "Here's the truth: 'Birther' claims are just plain nuts" article which is considered reliable here and left out mention of the affidavit which I had added. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• The revert reinstated a snippet from the article saying "Sarah Obama shed more light on the controversy in a 2007 interview with the Chicago Tribune. In the interview, Obama's paternal step grandmother stated that six months after Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham were married, she received a letter at her home in Kenya announcing the birth of Barack Obama II, who was born August 4, 1961." That is supported by a cite of this dead link source. I wasn't able to find a legitimate alternate copy of that article. In response to your revert I had earlier tagged the Ref there with a fv tag. In this edit, I removed that fv tag and added a dl tag instead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

using the recording itself is an improper use of a primary source, which particularly if you have to rely on non reliable sources like obamarecord.com to make out what is being said. You need a reliable source to make/publish a transcript. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still going through bits from the reversion. I'll come back and look at this later. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not rely on anything at obamarecord.com to make out what is being said in any recording. The bulleted item above does not involve a recording. This comment appears not to be discussing the bulleted item above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Here's another bit you might want to discuss, though it seems to me like a very straightforward correction of a serious error of reportage in the article. The erronious reportasge was supported by a cite of a dead link source. I found a live link to that source, and discovered the error when reviewing what the article asserted vs. what the source said. More detail about that can be seen here. I've reinstated my error correction and my cite of the alternative source in this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• The revert had reversed a dead link fix for the URL http://constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=811. In this edit I've redone that fix. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• The revert had reversed a dead link fix for the URL http://store.barackobama.com/made-in-the-usa-mug.htm. In this edit I've redone that fix. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That completes a pass through the revert item-by-item. Please discuss any items needing discussing individually above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Jan Brewer on the over-commenting electors

I reverted this edit because in my opinion, the fact that the governor disagreed with the conspiracy theories is not encyclopedic. Had she called for consequences to the electors who made the statements supporting the conspiracy theories (such calling for Tom Morrissey to step down as chair of the Arizona GOP) then perhaps it would have been encyclopedic. But in my opinion, mere disagreement is not encyclopedic. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems notable here; after all, the paragraph is about Republicans in Arizona. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that every Arizona Republican who is notable (has a Wikipedia page) and publicly disagreed with the 3 electors should be listed in the article? Victor Victoria (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe only Governors and up. I'd have to see the references. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article mention the fact that the long form from whitehouse.gov is proof of nothing?

Is it a lack of sources? Go load the file up with something that displays multiple layers and has search. You'll figure out quickly that:

1. The document is so manipulated that it's not proof of anything.
2. There may or may not have been OCR-related processing done to the images, but go text search the document. No results.

Sometimes the fringe are actually right[1]. Facts don't care whether they're fringe or not, only people do. I've worked with digital imaging for two decades, and didn't vote for Obama, McCain, or Romney in the last two elections. I'm more worried about the NDAA than Obama citizenship because Romney wanted the same power. With that out of the way, this document is trash, and if it was "proof" that a family member was murdered I'd be sure to expose it in court. The court of public opinion and the national press aren't so good though (see Richard Jewell).

If:

1. You're more into the truth than what you want to find.
2. You understand imaging and have a multi-layer document viewer.

...then you'll see this document is proof of nothing.

[1] I read that FDR kept the people from owning gold. "No Way!" I thought. No, it is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.43.40 (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

if you have actual reliable sources supporting your contentions, please bring them. Otherwise Wikipedia is not the place to vent your personal opinions and analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A person should be innocent of wrong doing until proven Guilty. There is no proof that President Obama was born in Kenya. Personally, my personal politics is opposite President Obama, and Dr. Savage is fun to listen to once in a white. The point is that the United States Supreme Court Justices, (even Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy), are not convinced that there is enough proof that the President was born in Kenya to even take up the case. My person opinion does not matter, the President is innocent unless on can PROVE otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Content gap? "Barry Soetoro" redirects here, but is not once mentioned in the article

Perhaps the phrase was lost during some editing and restructuring? It strikes me as odd that a redirect's destination would not be able to explain the redirect's rationale. The Masked Booby (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? It's not that uncommon, in my experience. But, according to this discussion, the agreed-upon destination at that point was actually Barack Obama -- which does not mention "Barry Soetoro" either.

It seems to me that the most likely target today would be Early life and career of Barack Obama#Indonesia, since he was indeed briefly known as "Barry Soetoro" at that time in his life.[1] Saying this name is only tied to conspiracy theories seems to me to give undue weight to those theories.

Perhaps this should be discussed at the appropriate talk page? --NapoliRoma (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think perhaps it should be mentioned on this page. Just in terms of, you know, something akin to:

This would, of course, require a WP:RELIABLESOURCE first.-jss (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Two reliable sources, actually, one that says that it's conspiracy theorists who use it and another that says that it's the name he was registered under. RNealK (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)