Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 187: Line 187:


[[User:Ema Zee|Ema Zee]] ([[User talk:Ema Zee|talk]]) 19:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Ema Zee|Ema Zee]] ([[User talk:Ema Zee|talk]]) 19:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)



Harvard requires a birth certificate. This could have been settled immediately by Harvard.
Maybe legacies are handled differently.
[[Special:Contributions/2601:181:8301:4510:7022:9701:E115:958D|2601:181:8301:4510:7022:9701:E115:958D]] ([[User talk:2601:181:8301:4510:7022:9701:E115:958D|talk]]) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


== Bias in "Origins" section ==
== Bias in "Origins" section ==

Revision as of 15:22, 18 September 2016

Template:Multidel

WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Bias.

The article has serious bias issues. Both sides should be reflected fairly. It also misses out on many "birther" arguments, which in turn loses then out on the counterarguments. --41.151.220.254 (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are under no obligation to pretend that bizarre theories unsupported by the facts and evidence are even vaguely valid. Indeed, we have a positive duty to point this out to the reader who may have been misled by the nonsense which has been circulated. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What birther arguments so far reported by RS doesn't the article yet cover? I thought I'd read them all, but don't underestimate anyone's ingenuity. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On top of what was mentioned WP:WEIGHT is also a factor.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to agree with the user above that the article seems biased. The author has taken a stand in this case and therefore we hear his conclusion. Claims that the birth certificate are faked are "false". This is the opinion of the author. I believed that wikipedia worked along the lines of ethics in journalism where you distinguish between reporting in a case where you refer the facts and opinions where the journalist makes clear that this is his opinion. Ask yourself if this article would pass the editor's desk in a newspaper. This article is a mixture between opinion and reporting. If this is in line with wikipedia policy, I am sorry to hear that. Better rewrite this piece and show the evidence that Obama is indeed born in Hawaii, but let the readers decide for themselves. If you want to make judgements, post a link to your blog or something. To Orangemike I would say that you can achieve what you are talking about better by simply stating that theories that are unsupported by the fact are "unsupported by the facts" and why it is so. Your use of the word "bizarre" or "conspiracy theory" doesn't help you bring your point across. Thank you. (Esperion (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, which have repeatedly called these claims false. If you can find a reliable source that says otherwise, please include in it the article. --Weazie (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention of the law firm Obama hired to fight lawsuits that sought to force him to allow his original birth certificate to be released? He supposedly spent over $2 million in legal fees to prevent the release of the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.128.35 (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it's because no editor has cited a reliable source with such information.—ADavidB 13:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This exact topic is discussed in the related article about lawsuits against Obama; it was long ago decided that the lawsuits (and the issues surrounding them) should be in their own article. --Weazie (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This article was clearly written by someone with a pro-Obama bias. Not only is it completely one-sided in its approach, it completely ignores other issues, such as President Obama's admission into Columbia University as a "Foreign Student" under the name Barry Soetoro... Ormr2014 | Talk  00:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources to support the validity of those allegations, so they are not included in this article. Weazie (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weazie You're kidding, right??? This is an article about "conspiracy" theories, not "verifiable facts". That's why they're called "conspiracies", and why your explanation isn't valid... Ormr2014 | Talk  00:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article already documents the April Fool's hoax that Obama applied to Occidental as a foreign student named "Barry Soetoro." Barry Soetoro, of course, never attended Columbia. Weazie (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That does not change the reliable sourcing requirements of an article. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nature/gist of this article is that the conspiracy theories were advanced, who advanced them, and why they are false. The Wikipedia is not here to argue with birthers (are there still any actual birthers in 2015?) about there theories. Not every debate has equal sides; the subject of this article is analogous to the whys and whos of 9/11, not tpo, say, anortion or gun control where the arguments are valid all-around. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious you're an Obama supporter in the way you've responded here. You speak about reliable sources then use a Snopes article as proof about some "April Fools Hoax".

It's equally obvious you haven't been keeping up on the news because Presidential candidate Donald Trump spent quite a bit of time referring to the Columbia University claim in his recent speech. According to Wikipedia's Notability Clause, (which is probably what you meant in any event), if there are enough reliable sources that mention something, it becomes notable (http://www.westernjournalism.com/mainstream-media-silent-obamas-possible-ineligibility-president/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/23/trump-ebola-twitter-obama/17815841/, http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16855539-judge-jury-and-executioner-legal-experts-fear-implications-of-white-house-drone-memo just a few...).

So you see, Weazie, not only is this Notable under Wikipedia's rules, it is discussed pretty extensively by reliable sources.

Your argument is 100% inapplicable here. Suppression of this and some of the other allegations circulating around about Obama, in an article that is supposed to cover "conspiracies" about him can only be deemed bias... Ormr2014 | Talk  02:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an actionable proposal for an improvement to the article? This talk page is not a suitable place to speculate about who is and who is not a supporter of Obama, nor is it a forum for discussing "bias" without a proposal for an edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Charitably assuming Ormr2014 thinks the article ought to state that Obama actually attended Columbia as "Barry Soetoro" (and as a foreign student): His first citation is a Western Journalism article; Western Journalism is not a reliable source. His third ciation appears to be a NBC article, but the "Barry Soetoro"/Columbia reference is in the comments section and not in the body of the article. Comment sections are not reliable sources.
His second source, the USA Today article, does say, "In one [tweet, Trump] made reference to the name Barry Soetoro, which appears on Obama's Columbia University identification card." The author does not explain how she came to that conclusion, nor is that her thesis (as the article actually discusses Trump's attacks on Obama); she referenced "Soetoro" only to give context to Trump's tweet. On the other hand, countless reliable sources have discussed Obama's time at Columbia, and none of them have said that used the name "Barry Soetoro" or that he attended as a foreign student. --Weazie (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ormr2014, the fake id was the creation of a Free Republic denizen in 2011, in a threaded discussion about deliberate fakes and Photoshops and such. You are aware of this, yes? Tarc (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weazie What part of "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories " don't you understand? The entire article is about non-verifiable theories that are circulating about Obama's citizenship. This is one of those theories. Of course it can't be proven to be true or accurate. That's why it is a conspiracy. The foreign student accusation is widespread enough to gain coverage in the mainstream media. Proving it true is not relevant or even appropriate here because nothing in this article can be verified as being true.
Johnuniq, yes the talk page is the place to discuss such things when it relates to the article and those contributing to the discussion about what should and shouldn't be included in the article illustrate a clear bias about the subject. Wikipedia's Neutrality clause makes it abundantly clear that individuals who do not have a neutral point of view on an article should not have a say-so in how the article is written.
As for an "actionable proposal", there most definitely is one: the article is about conspiracies surrounding Obama's citizenship; include all the conspiracies that received widespread coverage in the media. The Columbia University foreign student accusation is part of the whole citizenship debate and did receive widespread coverage in the media. It should be in this article. Ormr2014 | Talk  13:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one said it did, so quit with the strawman arguments. The fake id / foreign student is not a notable part of the conspiracy, as it has not nee covered in reliable sources. As I said above, the id itself was created by a forum user not as a deliberate deception but rather as a humorous photoshop. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc Quit with the manipulative arguments. This did receive widespread media coverage and anyone who did a simple news search on Google would see this. In order for something to be considered Notable, it simply needs to be mentioned in 2 or more reliable sources. This more than meets that criteria. Furthermore, Donald Trump's reference of this in his presidential speech not once, but both times he's run lends more than a little credibility to the notability of this accusation. Ormr2014 | Talk  13:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability and the 2-source requirement is in regards to the overall notability of a Wikipedia article itself; the 2-source rule does not govern the content within. There are many factors to consider when deciding the content of an article, such as fringe material, giving undue weight to a minor criticism or point-of-view. The "foreign student" ID story only appears in fringe sources, of which Mr. Trump is, sadly, one of. It will not be appearing in this article. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc Funny you should say "It will not be appearing in this article.", as if you were someone of authority here. You are just another editor here like me. I have half a notion to include it myself. The 2-source requirement pretty much covers anything included in Wikipedia, whether it's the "article itself" or an item inside of an article. Stop taking liberties with the rules to suit your own purpose; no such inference exists in Wikipedia. That an accusation about Obama's time in Columbia University which states he attended as a foreign student was mentioned in numerous places in the mainstream, including a presidential candidate's speech before the entire nation makes this accusation notable. It makes no difference if it was originally covered by fringe material, because as soon as major media outlets began to mention it, it gained notability. If you're honest, everything in this article received the bulk of their mention by fringe material. I really think it's funny you said "The "foreign student" ID story only appears in fringe sources, of which Mr. Trump is, sadly, one of" because I heard it on NPR's coverage of his presidential announcement speech. The speech, along with it's accusations, was aired on NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR and numerous major as well as local radio stations. There is nothing "fringe" about that and I find your use of the word "sad" interesting... Ormr2014 | Talk  13:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This renewed conversation is perhaps a non-starter, beginning and continuing as it is as an accusation of "Obama supporters" by somebody who appears to subscribe to the conspiracy theory. If it doesn't improve soon we need to wrap it up, because Wikipedia is not a forum for engaging in debate and flaming. However, if it can be demonstrated by sourcing that claims that Obama was some kind of foreign student at Columbia are a noteworthy part of the conspiracy theory, whether or not Donald Trump was one of the proponents of this, then it could be included as such along with all of the other parts. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ABC, NBC, etc....covering the Trump speech, where Trump tossed a single birther bon mot to the rabid masses, is the not the same as "reliable sources have covered the fake id story". Not even remotely. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CONCUR to the exclusion of the proposed material. The Soetoro/Columbia falsehood has not been adequately covered by sufficient reliable sources as to merit inclusion. And the Soetoro/Occidental falsehood is already in the article, so the Columbia falsehood adds little to article's premise that some people incorrectly believe that Obama is lying about his citizenship. (And Trump's use of "Soetoro" is not necessarily a reference to the Columbia branch of the falsehood that Obama's real last name is Soetoro, as that falsehood has been circulating since 2008.) Weazie (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Wikidemon For the record, I do not "subscribe to the conspiracy theory". In fact, I don't believe it at all. I've read the articles that prove it false and I've seen the real ID the photocopy was taken from and it most certainly was NOT Obama (AKA Barry) in that original. My issue is with the complete lack of objectivity and neutrality being expressed here by Obama supporters who don't know how to separate personal feelings from their editing. It does not matter if you love or hate Obama, this is an article about conspiracy theories regarding his citizenship. When you allow your personal feelings about the man to conflict with the neutrality of the article, suppressing things you simply don't like, you destroy the credibility of the article as being "encyclopedic". Oh and by the way, I actually voted for Obama. Ormr2014 | Talk  15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with personal feelings; if anything, if there was an editor who was also a rabid, non-objective Obama fan, that editor would want to see every scrip and scrap of conspiracy theory included in this article, just to make the birthers look absurd and out-of-touch with reality. Wanting to keep it out is just because the sourcing isn't there to make it a notable criticism. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Some people believe in this particular falsehood. But those who author reliable sources haven't sufficiently written about this particular mistaken belief. Weazie (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has everything to do with personal feelings. They've been expressed quite liberally throughout this entire discussion. Statements like "incorrectly believe", "sadly", "that falsehood", "make the birthers look absurd" and numerous other statements clearly illustrate a bias on the matter.
That the "sourcing" is there is pretty apparent in the fact that the aforementioned Snopes citing felt it worthwhile to devote an entire article to debunking the assertion. It's funny the Snopes article was cited as proof the ID was fake, but it isn't sufficient to illustrate a degree of notability in the same case.
To be completely honest, I couldn't care less if Obama's student status makes it into this article or not. What bothers me is that so many editors are willing to hijack articles they have a vested interest in and censor them. You may think you're not doing that, but every contribution you've made to this discussion has been rife with non-neutral and biased terminology. Ormr2014 | Talk  16:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2016

I suggest that Donald Trump's Birther claims paragraph be moved from the "Public Figures" section to the "Politician" section. This better reflects the current state of events in the US political realm.

NO1JGFN (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do mean the "Political impact" section? I don't think the section needs to be moved because this article is about what is largely a part of history, and the fact that Trump is now a Presidential candidate is not relevant to what happened in 2011/2012. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier exact sources could be included

As seen in the discussion on this page with many references

http://barackryphal.blogspot.de/2011/06/secret-origin-of-birthers.html

archived here

http://archive.is/uyqK1

On February 28, 2008, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh posted to The Volokh Conspiracy a short item where he stated that he was certain that John McCain was a natural-born citizen. In the comments thread to this post, one commenter posited this legal scenario:
Let's change the hypothetical (just for grins and giggles).
Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya. What would Senator Obama's citizenship status (and Presidential eligibility) be if:
1) He had been born in Kenya, but taken by his mother to the United States immediately after birth and then spent the rest of his life as he has subsequently lived it?
2) He was born in a third country, and like my first hypothetical, immediately taken to the United States? Does that change the analysis?
3) Would these results change if Senator Obama had been raised in a foreign country for any length of time before his mother returned with him to the United States?
That was posted at The Volokh Conspiracy at 2:02 a.m. on February 29, 2008. Just over 24 hours later, FARS was sharing at FreeRepublic what he had “been told today” about Obama having been born overseas, but taken by his mother to the United States immediately after birth. All the details subsequently expressed in the rumor are there, a rumor that shows no signs of having existed prior to February 29.

With the given references, this data from the source post should be included to really put the question to rest. Note that FreeRepublic, etc is a conservative website, as is The Volokh Conspiracy.

Ema Zee (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Harvard requires a birth certificate. This could have been settled immediately by Harvard. Maybe legacies are handled differently. 2601:181:8301:4510:7022:9701:E115:958D (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in "Origins" section

The "Origins of the claims" section of this page looks very odd to me, in a way that I believe introduces political bias into this article (given recent claims that Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign organization was the origin of the theory, which most fact-checkers seem to label as false). Specifically, literally nothing in the section as currently written discusses the actual origins of the theory. Instead, it begins by talking about a Clinton strategy memo that made no claims about Obama's citizenship or birthplace, and then talks about a Clinton staffer "circulating" a conspiracy theory that already existed (she forwarded an email about the theory). That second item might be relevant for inclusion in the section if there's evidence that the staffer's "circulating" had broad impact (outside of the Iowa county where that staffer was a volunteer coordinator, for example, and despite the campaign immediately firing her and offering an apology). But regardless, by starting the section with these comments about the Clinton campaign and not discussing any other source, the article currently could give the impression that the campaign itself originated the theory.

The actual origin of the idea, according to this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers.html, was "a splinter group of hard-core Hillary Clinton supporters", but evidently not affiliated with her campaign in any way. That would seem to be the proper initial content for this section.--Steuard (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a Snopes article which dates the origin to at least a month before the email chains. Still, the rest of the section could use some work. FallingGravity 16:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


In addition to Breitbart's images of the literary agent's 1991 brochure stating that Obama is born in Kenya, the agent's website apparently repeated this statement in a bio of Obama until 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:FFC0:65:580:C8A5:1B16:2C90 (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is already mentioned in the "Origins of the claims" section. FallingGravity 00:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories&oldid=740017661"