Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Donofrio comments on lawsuit and aftermath

There's what appears to be a blog-type post from Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/truce/ dated February 1. He disassociates himself from the idea, promulgated by some birthers, that military personnel should refuse to obey orders on the basis that Obama isn't legitimately the Commander in Chief. He expresses his complete lack of faith in the U.S. legal system. He also recounts what he says are incidents of harassment related to his lawsuit -- some kind of sabotage of his cell phone, people following him for weeks, helicopters over his home "every night for hours", etc., and the appearance of some "Blackwater types" who detected his presence in Washington to file papers at the Supreme Court and tried to intercept him. Perhaps most important is that, in the aftermath of the litigation, he writes, "I am now going to step away from the POTUS eligibility issue and move on with my life."

Of course, a blog isn't a reliable source for the truth of factual matters asserted therein, but a post by Donofrio could be cited to present facts about his opinions. I just don't know the provenance of this particular page. Is it actually by Donofrio? If we can be confident on that point then there should be some reference to it. JamesMLane t c 06:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a self-published source can only be used to support uncontroversial info about the author (i.e. minor biographical information), it can't be used to support the author's opinion about a different subject, unless they are a recognized expert in the field (i.e. published scholar). Since Donofrio is not a recognized expert in the field, any self-published source of his can only be used to support minor, non-controversial biographical information about him. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 12:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

His various attention-seeking claims, and his face-saving attempts to distance himself from all of this, just reinforce the conspiracy-theory nature of his arguments. And considering the shady way that Dubya got the job, they've got a lot of nerve challenging Obama's authority to be commander-in-chief. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"shady"? You should consider recusing yourself from this article.Nightmote (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it can't be used to support Donofrio's opinion. We could not assert as a fact that Obama is ineligible or that the legal system is corrupt or that helicopters buzzed Donofrio's house, with our only support for any such statement being Donofrio's blog. We can, however, report facts about opinions, per WP:NPOV. Donofrio's blog is a perfectly valid source for a statement like "Donofrio has expressed his complete lack of faith in the U.S. legal system" or "Donofrio asserted that, as a result of filing his lawsuit, people were following him." To take the specific example that I think is the best candidate for inclusion, the cited page states, "I am now going to step away from the POTUS eligibility issue and move on with my life." If we're confident that it is indeed Donofrio's own blog, then that passage will support a statement in our article along the lines of "Following Obama's inauguration, Donofrio announced his intention to 'step away' from the issue." Donofrio has been a significant player in this drama. His decision to give up merits a sentence in the article. JamesMLane t c 03:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IF it's actually his blog. Can that be verified? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

attacks upon my sanity... Um... Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic and biased

Added tags because this article, which is longer than the article about Obama's campaign, effectively gives credence to a theory so insane and obscure not one Congressman objected to Obama's confirmation. WRT the lawsuits: vexatious litigation, vexatious litigation, poker player, health food vendor, and a politican who's still pissed that Obama didn't even need to campaign to be elected to the Senate four years ago. Hardly shows notability, does it? Legislatively, five state representatives from conservative states. At least half of the "responses" from real people don't seem to be belief in the theory; just a request for greater transparency. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How does it give credence? As far as I can see, every theory proposed is dismissed in documented fashion in the article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

By giving so much room on Wikipedia to it. This article is longer than the article about Obama's campaign. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe instead of just trying to delete the article, or slapping tags over it, why not try and help make the article better? Maybe by helping the article it gets trimmed down in size? Might that be a little more constructive? Brothejr (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple questions sometimes require complex answers, and the ones raising those questions have a place to go, here, to get those answers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And it's closed as a keep, like it was last time, because most everyone here realizes these theories are bogus, but the article serves a purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it's unacceptable for Wikipedia. End of. You can't fix something that didn't work the first time. It's a minority fringe concept; we have five state representatives out of over seven thousand subscribing to this theory. Given that lower house legislators, as a rule, love playing party politics, five state representatives objecting to his confirmation is a really low number. To be acceptable for Wikipedia as a fringe theory, you would've need at least one federal representative, or an equivalent proportion at state level, to have objected to Obama's confirmation. No-one at the federal level did. Compare to Dubya, who had twenty federal representatives challenge his confirmation. Another reason why it's unacceptable is because it's a POV fork. You wouldn't be able to get it into Barack Obama, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, Public image of Barack Obama or United States presidential election, 2008. It isn't linked to in {{BarackObamaSegmentsUnderInfoBox}} or {{Barack Obama}}. This article was created to highlight a wingnut theory that doesn't need highlighting. If it was created to refute, it's unacceptable for Wikipedia is not in the business of refuting theories just for the sake of. If it was created to promote, it's unacceptable for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not for promoting fringe theories. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus says otherwise. End of. Who subscribes to the theory doesn't matter. The theory has been deemed notable due to reliable sources reporting on it. That doesn't make it true. You can post a tag that argues NPOV. Posting a tag claiming the article shouldn't exist, is your own pointy POV-pushing, defying consensus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not, and never has done, override NPOV. It is notable by the general notability guideline. But a lot of fringe theories are. Different notability guidelines apply to fringe theories, based on the real-life acceptance of the theory. If a theory is so obscure it's held by a extremely small minority, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It isn't notable by relative standards, either. Sure, reliable sources reported on it. But that's what they're supposed to do. Anything to do with Obama is sure to have been reported on during election season. Obama's kids got way more coverage from news sources during the election, but they're covered less in Wikipedia. Something about that screams "undue weight". Sceptre ^(talk) 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this article is a POV fork, because it's dealing in comprehensive detail with a minor point that doesn't have enough weight to be included in the major Obama articles. It's also not really longer than the Obama campaign article, once you include that article's subarticles (such as the one that covers the whole primary campaign) into the total. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what makes this article inadmissable. If it doesn't have enough weight to be included in the major Obama articles, not even as a two-line sentences, it shouldn't be its own article. This should be covered, if it must, in the election/transition and campaign articles: the campaign article should deal with the Obama team refuting the claims; and transition/election article covering the lawsuits, with one or two sentences per lawsuit at the most. What people don't seem to realise is that Wikipedia does not cover theories just so they can be refuted. Wikipedia may refute theories, but in an encyclopedic manner. I have my doubts as to how encyclopedic this is; it seems like a quote/reference farm at the least. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is mentioned in Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And there were many comments in the two AFD's that explain the value of the article. We acknowledge that Sceptre doesn't like it. We don't particularly like it either. But it covers a notable topic and it serves a purpose. If you delete it, its information will reappear soon after when some latecomer from conservapedia or someplace decides that it needs to be here. Then Sceptre can spend even more time on trying to get rid of it, instead of focusing on other work. I don't see where that scenario is any improvement over the current situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable by what metric? That it was covered by the news media in detail? Newsflash!: Every minute detail about him is, and was going to be covered. Take for example, the rumour he was Muslim. It was covered in about the same amount of detail as this by the media, with about as many sources. It was deleted. Overwhelmingly. The current trend at AFD that all articles can be fixed is too optimistic/idealistic. Sometimes articles such as this can't be fixed. Besides, keeping "because someone will insert it somewhere else anyway" is not a good argument for keeping material. We just revert, block, and ignore any conservatrolls who try to insert this material. Capisce? Sceptre ^(talk) 20:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your complaints. And consensus says otherwise. Capisce? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can't override policies or guidelines fully, only bend them a little. You can't formulate a consensus to have policy-violating material. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but consensus is that this article does not violate policies. You really need to acknowledge that and move on to something more productive. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that consensus is at odds to the consensus on the other Obama articles that this is too inconsequential/retarded for the other articles, which makes this an undue weight issue. I haven't been told how exactly this article doesn't give undue weight. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing undue weight with the concept of encyclopedicity. Undue weight is an article-specific issue. It would certainly be undue weight in other Obama articles, which is why such content has been removed and migrated into this article where necessary. However, by definition a discussion of Obama conspiracy theories can't be undue weight in an article that is dedicated to the topic of Obama conspiracy theories. By comparison, it would be undue weight to have a lengthy discussion of flat earthism in an article about geography, but there's no problem discussing that POV in an article dedicated to the topic of a flat earth. To quote WP:UNDUE: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Consensus has already been reached on several occasions that this topic is encyclopedic in its own article but is undue weight in others, so the requirements of WP:UNDUE are clearly satisfied. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If a theory is so obscure it isn't allowed as an opposing view in an article the size of Barack Obama, odds are that it isn't allowed on Wikipedia at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I opposed creation of this article, and have never opposed deletion of it. However, there is some logic to the notion that the best way to refute nonsense is to provide enlightenment, and to do so in a neutral, non-disparaging manner. At 54kb, this article does not seem to long. Per WP:TOOLONG, "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style)." So, while some may prefer to cut this article down to a stub in lieu of deleting this article, I do not support the tag atop the article saying it's too long.

If you take a close look at the facts surrounding Obama's Mom, it strains credulity that she did not visit Kenya until after her first husband's death in the 1980s. But the chance that she was there during Obama's birth is extremely vanishingly remote. There's a slightly greater chance that Obama may have falsely claimed a foreign birth if that was advantageous to get financial aid, which I suspect is why the fringe attorneys are now going after his records at Occidental College: not to prove a foreign birth, but rather to fish for embarassing material. Anyway....none of that speculation needs to go into this article. What I'm saying is: this article's not currently too long. That's not to say that it could not be made more concise here and there.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha. The plot thickens. Ya know, Horse Feathers was filmed at Occidental. So maybe Obama really is a "Marxist"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some resemblance to Curly, at least policy-wise.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Better Curly than Hoover. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Better Hoover than Bluto... oh wait, Hoover went to Faber, not Occidental. never mind. Blueboar (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you Otter apologize for that one. Speaking of which... John Tyler was the first Accidental President. So does this make Obama the first Occidental President? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Curly deserves a Last Hurrah. PhGustaf (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, Ferrylodge, you may be close to stumbling upon The Truth and then soon, like your pal Donofrio above, you'll be forced to dye your hair, travel off the grid, and spot agents of the "cult" disguised as homeless people. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If only there were enough left to bother dying. Do we have an article on Sy Sperling yet?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

God is great / God is fair / To some he gave brains / To others, hair. Of course, if that translated into electoral popularity, McCain would have won by a landslide. Or at least by a hair. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Turning the argument around: why isn't the case for ending the ban on non-American born persons being allowed to run for the Presidency (even if other constraints are imposed - eg "many years' residence")? From what I understand there was logic behind the original decision - and I read somewhere that a future-President's birthdate was altered so that he would appear to be born on US soil rather than on ship - and the argument has already been made with respect to Arnold_Schwarzenegger. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cuz of the tearists and the imgrunts. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's arguable that the "natural-born citizen" bit in the Constitution has served its purpose (we have had no European kings taking over) and should be removed. But this isn't the place to discuss the matter. PhGustaf (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that the non-English-speaking King George I of England and the likewise German-born King George II influenced this point, but many Americans still don't think that outsourcing the Presidency is a good idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Although the discussion on postmodern Constitutional relevancy is fascinating, could we please get back to improving this article? — Becksguy (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs. The proposal to amend the Constitution so that Ah-nuld could be President is mentioned in Natural born citizen of the United States, which is where it belongs. JamesMLane t c 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it really a conspiracy theory?

A major problem with this article is that it purports, maybe unwillingly, that there is a conspiracy. Looking at the article, there seems to be a challenge to Obama's citizenship, but not really among the lines of conspiracy theory. The only ones who think it's a conspiracy are relative (to other conspiracy theorists) nutjobs and highly partisan publications or people. Hell, looking at the "citizenship facts, rumours, and claims", the only person seeming to do any conspiracy theorising is Phillip Berg, who we can write off right now as a nutjob. Maybe we can get the undue weight problem to "fixable" levels by renaming the article, possibly to something like "Challenges to Barack Obama's presidential eligibility". And yes, I know it's been discussed before, but it wouldn't hurt. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's any conspiracy here, it's an alleged conspiracy to challenge eligibility, rather than an alleged conspiracy to misrepresent eligibility. Better to leave "conspiracy" out of the title. I don't think even Berg has asserted that Hawaii officials have engaged in any conspiracy or illegal activity here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It does fit the conspiracy theory genre, though, because it's alleged that various authorities are hiding something from the public. That's a core tenet of all conspiracy theories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jerome Corsi alleged that the governor of Hawaii "sealed" Obama's birth records. Others have alleged that the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health chose her words to hide that the "original birth certificate" they have on file is not actually a Hawaiian one. Michael Savage: "We're getting ready for the Communist takeover of America with a noncitizen at the helm." There's the idea that factcheck.org is a front for William Ayers, or otherwise in Obama's Machiavellian thrall. The Keyes suit claims forgery, even after the State of Hawaii said otherwise, which would imply a conspiracy between Obama and Hawaii.

Seems like we've got plenty of conspiracy theories here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

First appearances are everything, though. When we say "conspiracy theory", we get the image of the Freemasons or the Illuminati. This isn't near that; the title at the moment blows it up a bit. There are two clear legal reasons why the Hawaii DOH haven't released it: doctor-patient confidentiality, and the US equivalent of the UK's Data Protection Act (if it exists). The nutjobs, being nutjobs, equate this to illegal conspiracy. It's really not. There is no probable underlying conspiracy at all. And really, would you believe Alan Keyes? He's still pissed off after getting whipped in 2004. The same for Michael Savage, who is just trying to instigate more Red Scare most sane people left behind after the McCarthy hearings. Seriously, we don't need to give the nutjobs the pleasure. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory doesn't require an actual conspiracy, just the allegation of one. The term came into vogue in connection with the JFK assassination, and nobody claimed the masons or the illuminati did it, although I don't know how they got overlooked, as nearly every other group you can think of was blamed at some point (the Russians, the Cubans, the Mafia, extreme leftists, extreme rightists, the FBI, the CIA, and even LBJ himself). There are various 9/11 conspiracy theories, without a shred of evidence that there was an actual conspiracy. The alleged hiding of information by someone(s) in authority is what defines a conspiracy theory. The presumed purpose of wikipedia is to educate. If someone wants to know about this stuff, they should be able to come here and get the lowdown on it, including the debunking of the allegations, so that they know the whole score. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Who's alleging this as a conspiracy specifically? Keyes? Berg? Savage? They wouldn't pass RS even for a conspiracy theory article. And generally, conspiracy theories tend to be a lot harder to specifically disprove than this. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this a bunch of times. Ferrylodge used to hold up Donofrio as an example of someone we were "smearing" by titling this article as we do. Now look at Donofrio's blog entry where he describes his perilous journey to the Supreme Court, shadowed by evil operatives of nameless powers that be. Case closed. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if Donofrio's paranoid, they might still be out to get him. Oh, and as far as Alan Keyes is concerned, the one he should really be irritated with is the original Republican challenger in 2004, Jack Ryan, who got himself into a pickle thanks to a sleazy lifestyle along with the apparent lack of a spine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have no objection to having a section of this article titled "conspiracy theories." WTR could even discuss Donofrio's latest blog entry there. But the point is that there are lots of aspects of this thing that do not involve conspiracy-theorizing. (Also, please note that the courts were delighted to open up Jack Ryan's sealed child-custody records "in the public interest" in contrast to the courts' attitude with this thing. I don't think they should have.)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets challenge those of you who have in the past asked for reliable sources on the Obama topic. Is there a reliable source that calls is a conspiracy theory? If not, I ask that the article name be changed.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To what? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles use the term "conspiracy theory" without having a reliable source asserting a conspiracy. I would support changing the title of this article, but only as part of a general policy of changing all such titles.

It's illuminating that Bugs, in an earlier comment, wrote, "There are various 9/11 conspiracy theories, without a shred of evidence that there was an actual conspiracy." Of course, the official U.S. government explanation of 9/11 -- that members of al-Qaeda conspired to commit the attacks, and that 19 of the conspirators died in the attempt -- is a conspiracy theory. The difference is that the term "conspiracy theory" isn't used to mean "a theory involving a conspiracy". It's used to mean "this is whackjob fruitcake tinfoilhattery, don't take it seriously". That's why the U.S. government's conspiracy theory is never called a conspiracy theory. Given that interpretation, the term is pretty much inherently POV and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that battle's been lost. It's now standard to apply the term to any fringe viewpoint (i.e. one held by only a small minority) that alleges some sort of misdeed, deception, or concealment. When that standard changes on a project-wide basis, the title of this article will be one of those changed. JamesMLane t c 04:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be a point to make at WP:WTA. While some conspiracy theories are undeniably conspiracy theories in the strictest sense (e.g. JFK), it is true that the current, non-neutral, definition is "whackjob fruitcake tinfoilhattery". Sceptre ^(talk) 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Everybody, not just WP, uses the phrase "conspiracy theory" in a different meaning and flavor and sense than the criminal legal code uses the term "conspiracy". Wasted Time R (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Something which is upsetting about our current culture, is that such terms verge away from what they're supposed to mean and become a term for derision. Kind of like how some people will accuse you of rape if you touch them, or like how a teacher who is a little bit strict is a fascist. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasted, when I said that Wikipedia uses the term that way, I didn't mean to imply that only Wikipedia uses the term that way. You're certainly correct that the usage is common. My point is that we should observe the NPOV principle, even though most people don't. JamesMLane t c 04:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This title issue has been discussed at long length in the past, see Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 1#RfC: Is the phrase "conspiracy theories" accurate for the article title? and Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 2#Rename article: Barack Obama citizenship challenges and fringe theories for example. There's no need to reopen it, as nothing has changed since then. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it now seems that consensus may change. What source says that there is a conspiracy?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll see a slew of them at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 2#Conspiracy theory ? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, I also saw a "slew" of citations that don't call it a conspiracy theory. How many exactly is a slew anyway?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you saw a handful (5). I saw a slew (25). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I could go and get some more citations, but I have a job and a family, so I don't really have the kind of time to go around and track down more sources, although we all know that they are out there.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There may be no need to reopen the matter, but there's no harm in doing so either. Sticking to an old consensus doesn't do people any favours. If we can get a more accurate title, then that's good. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory exists today regardless of the particular conspiratorial-or-not details of what happened back in 1961. Take this birther piece from today, picked more or less at random: "... most of US media is in the hands of a few members of US oligarchy that find Obama convenient for their purposes and refuse to report on his total illegitimacy for presidency." That's a conspiracy theory. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

By sources, he meant "reliable sources", not ultra-conservative bile which thinks that the Democrats are ushering in Soviet Communism. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a reliable source for what they think, as it's their own words. They, of course, won't use the term "conspiracy theory". Conspiracy theorists hate being called conspiracy theorists. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipeida doesn't document any conspiracy theory, they document notable conspiracy theories which have permeated through to the masses. 9/11, Illuminati, JFK, Apollo 11, Freemasons. That sort of thing. Now, the challenges to Obama's eligibility are notable, and we'd do well to cover them in some capacity. The underlying "conspiracy theory" isn't, though. The theory that the Hawaiian state government buried Obama's birth records isn't known to that many people outside the crackpots and the axe-grinders. Most, if not all, of these people who are challenging Obama's citizenship are seeking transparency and aren't really tinfoil hats. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Then what should the new title be? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion would be to call the article Barak Obama Citizenship Lawsuits, or something in that neighborhood.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like "Challenges to Barack Obama's presidential eligibility". Sceptre ^(talk) 05:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds too POV in the other direction--Jojhutton (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's close to what its previous title was. How about "Barack Obama citizenship"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to note in the title that there are (legal) challenges. We need to get this President's articles right, after we made a balls-up of the last president. Current title has FRINGE/UNDUE problems, "Obama citizenship" is semi-quasi-coatracking. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Sceptre, that's nonsense. This isn't about transparency and never has been. Bear in mind that Obama has already released his short-form birth certificate in the name of transparency. The law requires that it be an accurate summary of his long-form certificate and treats it as its equivalent for official purposes - you can use it to get a passport, for instance. This whole business is driven by the unsubstantiated belief that the long-form certificate contradicts the short-form version and that Obama is refusing to release it because it will show him to be ineligible for the presidency. That is the underlying conspiracy theory. It's just another version of the right-wing meme that Obama's background makes him un-American, just like the "secret Muslim" rumour. You can bet that if the long-form certificate was ever released it would immediately be declared a forgery by the conspiracy theorists, just as they did with the short-form certificate. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, ChrisO, I think you're incorrect there. If the original is released, and it shows a home birth or something like that attested to by one single person, then the notion is that it really doesn't prove very much, since one single person can attest to just about anything. Don't get me wrong: I think the chance that the original would say something like that is infinitesimally small. I'm just saying that no contradiction between the two forms would be necessary in order to cast doubt on eligibility.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, this discussion is a waste of time - it's all been discussed before. The facts haven't changed since then, and in fact coverage just in the last few days has reiterated the point. You want examples? "Yes, people may say, you're just chasing some conspiracy theory. It's a simple act on his part to just [release his birth certificate], and we're done — move on." [1] You want other sources? "Democratic legislators suggest the whole thing is an unfounded conspiracy theory." [2] "House Conspiracy Theorists Strike Back at Unbelievers." [3] Just stick a fork in this misguided effort and be done, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You can quote as many articles as you wish, while there are about just as many articles that don't use the word conspiracy. As there seems to be mixed signal from the sources, why we just, oh...I don't know...follow wikipedia policy on NPOV. Calling it a conspiracy when there is none is not wiki-right.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We're not calling it a "conspiracy", we're calling it a "conspiracy theory". A whole different thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any viable alternative to the current title. It sums up each different attempts to suggest that Obama is not a natural born citizen and also there is a variety of sources that call it a conspiracy theory or some derivation there of. I also need to point out that it is on the shoulders of the person creating this section or suggesting a title change to provide the reliable sources. Finally continually bringing this up and up again, plastering tags all over the article, nominating and renominating the article for deletion is simply a form of disruption to make a point. Brothejr (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that John McCain was born in Panama the same argument could theoretically have been applied to him.

There will always be discussions such as this where there is "a measure of ambiguity" - and some people will go looking for problems (and in a negative light) or interpret things in a partisan way. Such "discussions about ambiguities" when they become sufficiently notable are valid topics for Wikipedia (and if at a lower level, merely noting in the text or on the talk page - as markers for investigation etc.

Whether the US Constitution should be amended to allow non-native born citizens (whether or not of long residence) is not within Wikipedia's remit - though "noting that such discussion exists" is. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And, given the lenght of this talk page (135k+ at the moment), the topic is probably notable enough to justify an article or at least a subsection of the main article. (g) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Truly, if it really was a non-issue, there wouldn't be so much to argue about. JBarta (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In the real world, it is a complete non-issue. The Internet and Wikipedia attract a different crowd. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, its the same world and the same arguments, you just don't get to ignore them here.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, every day at work or in the supermarket I hear people saying, "The economy's terrible, I'm barely hanging on to my job, my 401k is trashed, there won't be peace in the Middle East for a thousand years, Slumdog Millionaire makes me glad I don't live in India, I hope A-Rod doesn't break the home run record, but what really bugs me is that Obama has never released his long-form birth certificate!" Wasted Time R (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What I hear at the store and elsewhere all too often is, "Oh, there's a recession on, I've got to cut back on my spending." Hence doing their part to further the recession. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The JFK assassination is not front-page news either, but the conspiracy theories are still out there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That the length of a talk page is somehow indicative of the importance/notability of the subject matter is perhaps the most ridiculous notion put forth thus far. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So....What is the question again? I thought that we were discussing the title of the article being too POV. The conversation has shifted a bit. can we please stay on task.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes the article is about conspiracy theories. The reliable sources provided by ChrisO above show that clearly. And here is another one from Salon: Barack Obama was, without question, born in the U.S., and he is eligible to be president, but experts on conspiracy theories say that won't ever matter to those who believe otherwise. [4]. And yet another from The Tennessean: "Yes, people may say, you’re just chasing some conspiracy theory,” he said. [5].

For easy reference, here is a blockquoted list, from this talk page archive, originally posted by Abecedare on 29 December 2008, as mentioned above by Wasted Time R: (There may be duplicates from above entries)

Here are some sources that use the term conspiracy theory (or some variant) in reference to this issue. The links include news items and editorials/columns published by mainstream periodicals:

• Philadelphia Inquirer/ Associated press
• Washington Post
• Le mars Daily Sentinel (T.J. Templeton)
• Honolulu Star-Bulletin
• The Tribune Star
• The Daily Sentinel
• Washington Times (Michele Malkin)
• Times Record news
• Salon
• Salon
• News Press
• Chicago Tribune
• LA Times
• Star Tribune
• Rocky Mountain News
• St. Petersburg Times
• Time Union
• Slate
• The Week
• Memphis Commercial Appeal
• Newsmax (Ronald Kessler)
• The Virginian-Pilot
• The Examiner
• New york magazine
• The Atlantic (Mark Ambinder blog)
• The Spectator

I think all the above are way more than sufficient to support the current title. And to repeat, conspiracy theories do not have to be true, they just have to verifably exist and be notable to be reported on here. And yes, the article also reports on other challenges to his eligibility but they seem to be based on the theories. Lets move on to something else as nothing significant has changed since the previous threads. — Becksguy (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and like I said before, you can quote as many articles as you like, but with competing sources not calling it a conspiracy, it is best to report the story nuetrally. The title is NOT nuetral. It needs to change.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That there are sources that do not use the term conspiracy theory (CT), or variants, does not support that there aren't CTs. One would need to find reliable sources that specifically refute the existence of the CTs to support an opposing viewpoint. We report that there are those that claim the birth certificate is a fake, as well as those with the expressed opposing viewpoint that it is real and valid, per neutrality policy, in proportion the their prominence and with RS. To say that Hawaii State officials, Obama and his family members, various fact checkers, the opposing political party, whoever did the background check (presumably the FBI), the mainstream press, the Supreme Court, and even most of the opposing press, are all conspiring to hide or ignore Obama's real birth certificate, birth circumstances, or Constitutional eligibility is the essence of a CT and fits the classic CT model. It's like the CT in which it's claimed that there was a conspiracy, including the government, to plant demolition charges to bring down the WTC buildings during 9-11. Granted this article is not entirely about these Obama CTs, but much of it is and much of the rest flows from them. The title may not be perfect, but others have problems also, one way or another. — Becksguy (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. In a nutshell, if you think this isn't a CT, find a reliable source that says "this isn't a CT". Ideally, find a tertiary source - e.g. a review of media coverage of this issue and see how they describe the coverage that secondary sources have provided. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I think the evidence is now sufficient that this stuff does, indeed, qualify and meet the wikipedia standard, to be called a collection of conspiracy theories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Becksguy and Sheffield Steel have described the situation perfectly. Kudos. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's not entirely about a conspiracy theory, there are two ways to fix it: remove the stuff that isn't conspiracy theorising (as far as I can see, there are two camps of the people arguing for release: the conspiracy theorists (Keyes, Berg), and people in a vain quest for "transparency" (e.g. the handful of state legislators).); or rename the article to encompass neither and/or both. I'd prefer the latter, because the former would do more harm than good. "Conspiracy theories and legal challenges regarding Barack Obama's citizenship" wouldn't be that bad; the article is half about the theory, and half about the ensuing court battles. I'm just trying to find something that's better than the current title which is, while technically correct, isn't really the best title. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll support "Conspiracy theories and legal challenges regarding Barack Obama's citizenship."Ferrylodge (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fairly wordy, but if that's consensus, then so be it. Keep in mind, though, that the legal challenges are based on the notion that the government is hiding something, so the bottom line is that all of it stems from conspiracy theories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The government can theoretically hide something without it being a conspiracy. For example, data protection laws could prohibit the release of the birth certificate in the absence of a compelling legal reason to. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The above suggestion implies that the conspiracy theorists and the legal challengers are disjoint, when in practice they are pretty much the same. Think about the claim here: After a two year long campaign and upwards of a billion dollars spent and massive media coverage and intense political competition, the country managed to elect someone president who was never eligible in the first place, and only a small handful of powerless people have noticed this. That's a conspiracy theory any way you cut it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking an example out of the article: Glen Cascada and company. They actually appear to be on the "dude, just release it and shut them up" crowd and not conspiract theorists at all. At the same time, the stated purpose of the Donofrio lawsuit doesn't seem like conspiracy theorising to me; that seems like a request to have the definition of "natural-born citizen" defined rather than tinfoil hattery (and to be honest, he's actually right about Roger Calero). Sceptre ^(talk) 02:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, read Donofrio's travelling tale if you think he isn't into conspiracies. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Being into conspiracy theories doesn't automatically mean that he believes in this conspiracy, but I will be willing to concede on this point. You still haven't explained about the Tennessee legislators, though. Lumping them in with conspiracy theorists is a huge BLP problem. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Helen Chenoweth was a U.S. congresswoman who believed in black helicopters. Getting elected to office doesn't preclude being a fool. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We need proof that they subscribe to the conspiracy theory, not proof that they don't. I've got a strong suspicion that the fact they're Republicans is influencing this discussion, although being a Democrat doesn't preclude being a fool either (e.g. Rod Blagojevich). Sceptre ^(talk) 14:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to look at how many times I've reverted McCain birthplace conspiracy theories out of the Coco Solo article. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

←Nothing has changed my opinion: "conspiracy theories" is still the correct title for this article. The so-called "legal challenges" are all predicated on conspiracy promulgated by the family, and/or his group of advisors, and/or the DNC, and/or the government. This would include the Supreme Court, apparently, as the Chief Justice did swear him in. (But then maybe that's why he stumbled over the oath in the first place - not wanting to legitimate this illegitimate President, and then the re-swearing in WITHOUT AUDIO or Bible, probably meaning the second swearing-in wasn't legitimate either.) Tvoz/talk 02:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, if a state legislator supports legislation to require that presidential candidates produce better proof of eligibility, that does not necessarily make the state legislator a conspiracy theorist. And people who seek to achieve the same result via the courts are not necessarily conspiracy theorists either, IMO. And if any of those people want to only establish a higher threshold of eligibility proof for a candidate who has a foreign parent, then that seems reasonable too. There are conspiracy theorists involved here, but not all of the people involved are conspiracy theorists.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And relaying their constituents' questions and/or issues (i.e. the Ohio state rep) isn't conspiracy theorising either; in fact, that's pretty much in the job description. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If she is doing it at the behest of people who doubt the authenticity of Obama's eligibility (i.e. Ohio conspiracy theorists) then her legislation doesn't suddenly give credibility to those doubts. --guyzero | talk 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't make her a conspiracy theorist, and thus she shouldn't be implied to subscribe to the belief. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And continuing to use a phrase in the title that does not match the subject matter is POV.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an element of conspiracy theorising with this subject (if such a conspiracy theory exists, and I'm edging towards that being true). But yes, you do have a point. The conspiracy theories are only half the article. We should reflect the other half in the title. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, I know you provided a few examples in conversation above, but can you please list specifically all of the concepts in this article that are part of this "other half"? --guyzero | talk 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, half of the article is strictly about the conspiracy theory at hand. The other half, the legal challenges and the legislators' response, may or may not be inspired by the conspiracy theory. As far as the cases and legislative responses are, without evidence one way or the other that they believe in the conspiracy theory or, obversely, that they want a higher standard of proof applied, either viewpoint is valid in real life. As regards to how Wikipedia works, we should give all living individuals the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence. I could say that Donofrio, while being a bit of a tinfoil hat in general, actually filed this wanting the courts to clarify the natural-born-citizenship law (in a case of the boy who cried wolf); and that Keyes and Martin are just assholes with a grudge against Obama. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If I find some foolish state legislator somewhere who believes in 9/11 'inside job' rubbish, or relays a constituents' belief in same, does that mean we have to change the title of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, we can't pack everything into an article title. You suggest "Conspiracy theories and legal challenges regarding Barack Obama's citizenship". Well, by that logic, we should go whole hog: "Conspiracy theories, legal challenges, lobbying of Congress, legislative initiatives, and media coverage regarding Barack Obama's citizenship". After all, along with the lawsuits, we have the proposed bills; as for lobbying, the people at Free Republic hoped that one Senator and one Representative would challenge Obama's electoral votes, the way the Bush electors from Ohio were challenged in 2004. Thus, the conspiracy theories resulted in all those things happening. We have to leave some of the details for the text of the article, not the title. JamesMLane t c 08:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure we can. That's 114 characters smaller than the limit for titles (255 bytes). This fetish for shorter and less descriptive titles is really perplexing. And the point is that it's plausible that people such as Donofrio don't subscribe to this theory. We can't make a judgement one way or the other; Wikipedia does not judge people. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Donofrio: "On Nov. 3, 2008, I went to SCOTUS to file my application for an emergency stay of the national election. ... I felt that my life was in danger because I knew that if I could get my case filed before 4:30PM, there was a chance, a remote but genuine chance, that if the SCOTUS rules were followed, my case could stop the general election. ... I had previously felt the evil operate against my case in the NJ Appellate Division where I experienced sabotage I never thought possible. I felt the full force and power of the cult as it tried to stop my case from having proper procedural ground to move on to SCOTUS. ... In the days leading up to Nov. 3, 2008, my cell phone and that of a family member were subjected to treachery that only somebody with serious power could have accomplished. Because of the dual attacks upon my sanity, I came to Washington D.C. with fear in my heart, but I was not about to stop. Nothing short of a bullet was going to stop me from filing that application on Nov. 3, 2008." And so on. If this isn't Grade A Paranoid Conspiracy Theory 101, I don't know what is. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, he's a bit paranoid. That doesn't automatically mean he believes in this conspiracy theory, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theories" of this title refer not just to what may have happened in 1961, but also to what has happened in 2007-2009. It's not just that Obama is ineligible to become president, but The Powers That Be have decided that He of the evil cult Must Be President and will do whatever it takes to make sure that brave patriotic Americans who Discover The Truth will be marginalized, or if necessary, Eliminated. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

How did you piece that together from this discussion? Is all too much to ask that we stay on the topic please?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not fond of the title. "Legal challenges to Obama's presidency" would be more suitable. Nowhere has any of the plaintiffs suggested a "Conspiracy" although indirectly, the Keyes lawsuit infers that the State of Hawaii is complicit in producing a forgery. Abraxas72 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the title represents a pretty biased view. Either "legal challenges" or "allegations" would be much more appropriate and neutral. Ejnogarb (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If he really weren't a citizen, it would take a conspiracy to hide the fact. PhGustaf (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

...and an undisputanely one but don't count on those "birthers" [newest addition in the article [6]] to just accept it and give in.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem

Is that those involved in the registration of the birth did not have a crystal ball and see that Obama would become President and get all the paperwork sorted out to solve problems (g). (And with the JFK discussion the problem is that Lee Harvey Oswald did not leave a detailed manifesto of his motivation etc - and all those claimed variously to have been involved would have had as good a motive to make use of revealing his private life to manipulate him, and the payback would have been less if it had been revealed - apart from the theoretical alien base on the moon, trying to thwart the moon landing program (this being a fiction plot device not serious).)

Given that he started campaigning at the beginning of 2008, and nothing was found between then and November, while, when he was born, records management was still paper based rather than involving computers with the possibliity of manipulation thereof, the balance of proof is that he is a legitimate US citizen.

There will always be ambiguities in history, and #things not recorded or left in a scattered arrangement because they are not seen as relevant at the time#. There will always be people willing to see such absences/confusion in a negative light - and others who merely see such things as the basis for creating an interesting detective story (g). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Vaguely similar to the Apollo hoax nonsense. If NASA had known there would be these lunatics claiming they never went to the moon, they might have pre-empted the questions somehow. But then they would raise other questions. As someone was kind of suggesting earlier, we can't let our lives be dictated by the crazies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the Apollo hoax nonsense is "human greed and stupidity": given the number of people involved if there had been a cover up (beyond tidying up photographs, and equivalent processes to WD-40) if there had been a hoax-coverup, "somebody or several" would have seen a way of making megabucks/getting their 15 minutes of fame by selling the story - or there would be misplaced and forgotten documents (as seems to happen regularly in other contexts).

Perhaps the "point of interest" is #which# topics generate such "arguments for conspiracies"/ attempts to apply a negative version of Occam's Razor/"create your own version of six degrees of separation - has anyone claimed that the Martian landings are fakes? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course they don't, because those are current events, and such a claim would draw universal ridicule. Conspiracy theorists operate from kind of a "safety zone" where total and absolute disproof of their claims is unlikely. The Apollo hoax claims didn't gain much currency until after it was certain we weren't going back for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." JBarta (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sometimes I'm so smart, it actually frightens me." Yup. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the correct response would have been "Wait 'til I get going!" [7] JBarta (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Inconceivable!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is probably a similar discussion to this in the alternative universe where Obama was born three years earlier (before Hawaii became a US state) and remained there (g).

I think the most that can be said is (a) "the lack of a crystal ball syndrome"; (b) while there is some ambiguity about the situation, there is insufficient evidence for most people to start doubting Obama's qualifications; (c) while most people enjoy 'creative history and research', detective stories and suchlike, and there are some conspiracies and opportunities for discovery of large scale connections not previously suspected (as with the Icelandic volcano - date anyone?), conspiracy theories tend to involve more creativity (and in some cases more negative claims) than is generally acceptable; and (d) while there was good reason (as far as the Founding Fathers were concerned) for the Presidential nationality test, there is a case for amending the rule (but it probably could not be made retroactive (there not being a national emergency to justify it).

Are there any other countries where there is a birth-nationality requirement? (And in the EU it would be feasible for the heads of several states to contest an election to become a member of the European Parliament in a country of which they were not residents.) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alan Keyes redux

Is this worth including ? The news is in the second paragraph (the rest is background):

In a video (see below) released Friday, Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois that launched the new president's national political career, calls Obama a communist and usurper and says he refuses to acknowledge the validity of Obama's inauguration over lingering questions in the minds of many conspiracists about the 44th president's birthplace.

— Malcolm, Andrew (2009-02-21). "Alan Keyes stokes Obama birth certificate controversy". LA Times.

Abecedare (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So Obama is a commie, homo-loving son of a gun? :-)--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

blp! Blp !! BLP !!! :) Abecedare (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, along with the theoretical 'Wiki for persons who indulge in negative creativity' there should be an equivalent where conspiracists can be redirected to. With these two wikis the enjoyment of participants in all three areas will be improved.

(Could an archive be done) Jackiespeel (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This was posted (and then deleted) at the Alan Keyes page after some disagreement about whether the reports of Keyes' comments quality as reliable sources. The first significant and detailed reporting of this talk came at these two reporter blogs on the websites of the Los Angeles Times (the Andrew Malcolm post that Abecedare cites above) and the Chicago Tribune:

• http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-birth-cer.html

• http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/02/another-stale-breath-of-crazy-from-alan-keyes-.html

Yesterday someone posted this news at Alan Keyes, citing (among other, more dubious sources) the Los Angeles Times reporter blog; my feeling was that this was sufficient sourcing based on WP:RS under the guideline of Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources:

"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). "

However, another experienced editor thought this wasn't sufficient sourcing,and deleted the item. In addition to many other blogs, the story is reported by a TV station in Hastings, Nebraska, where the interview occurred. This report is a little less extensive and doesn't directly quote the "usurper" language in print, but it does include a video of the interview, and I assume it does qualify under WP:RS.

• http://new.khastv.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16300&storytopic=4

By the way, we now also have Senator Richard Shelby's comment about how he hasn't seen the birth certificate, which the blog world has also jumped on; the latest seems to be that Shelby is claiming his comment was taken out of context, while the local paper in Cullman, Alabama that reported the story is standing by its story. http://www.cullmantimes.com/breakingnews/local_story_053205749.html

--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper blog posts written by regular reporters/columnists of the newspaper are certainly acceptable under WP:V (footnote 5) which you quote, and as has been discussed multiple times on WP:RSN. The question here (and I guess at Alan Keyes) is not reliability of sourcing, but dueness, which is an editorial judgment to be arrived at by consensus.

The Shelby quote and correction/retraction is also discussed at Swampland, which is a Times + CNN collaboration and therefore reliable (as far as wikipedia is concerned). Abecedare (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the subject has more or less drawn to a close for the present as far as WP is concerned: all that can be said is (1) there is an unclarity, and a certain amount of debate, (2) some people find a problem with this, and view it from the more negative end of the spectrum, while other people are prepared to accept the foul-up theory of history, (3) there are various sources which fit WP criteria, and (4) whatever the legalities, and arguments for constitutional change, such matters are best discussed elsewhere. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if you want a good laugh, or a good scare, try to picture a social event in which the likes of Malkin, Hannity, Coulter, and "Carpetbagger" Keyes would all be in the same room. And maybe O'Reilly as the voice of moderation. Can you imagine anything more fun? Like maybe a root canal? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Which variety of Communist - Third, Fourth or other? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Alan Keyes refuses to accept Obama's election. Gasp! The world comes to an end! Well, a lot of Illinoisians refused to accept that he was anything resembling an Illinois resident in 2004. I wonder if there are variety levels for "Carpetbaggers"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Which 'he'? And Third International or Fourth International. How many "actual communists are there of the kind that Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and all the others would recognise as such (or sufficiently communist for them to dispute whether they were or not)? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Which 'he'? Alan Keyes. He wasn't an Illinois resident, he was just brought in at the last legal moment to provide some token opposition to Obama in the Senate race, after the regular candidate pulled out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The best assessment of Keyes in the 2004 Senate race was this one at the time by Republican consultant Mike Murphy in The Weekly Standard: "I thought the Keyes weakness is painfully obvious, but here goes: The job of a political candidate is to attract people to a party's political philosophy and bring victory to the party on Election Day. In two U.S. Senate races and two presidential campaigns, Alan Keyes has done the exact opposite: shown a great ability to stampede voters away from his candidacy like a herd of panicking animals fleeing a huge volcanic eruption. Even Keyes' cable TV chat show, with its unforgettably Orwellian title, Alan Keyes Is Making Sense, was abruptly cancelled for low ratings. When voters listen to a successful candidate they get a strong feeling that this person can do the job and make life better. When voters listen to Alan Keyes, they get the perception, 'Wow, this guy is stone cold nuts' and they run home to hide their children. We Republicans are the free market party, so look to Keyes's prior history in elections and trust the market." Wasted Time R (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful. It's good to have guys like that in the party, though, because it makes the others look normal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, getting back to the LA Times piece "Alan Keyes stokes Obama birth certificate controversy", it seems appropriate for a footnote in this article. Objections?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just another piece of the conspiracy theorists' platform, so you may as well. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. His is definitely a fringe view, but he doesn't quite seem to the point of making a Hillaryesque statement about a vast left-wing conspiracy. People can judge for themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New overview article

Politico has a new overview article on the topic:

Smith, Ben (2009-03-01). "Culture of conspiracy: The Birthers". Politico. Retrieved 2009-03-01.

Most of its contents is already covered by the wikipedia article, but there may be a few additional tidbits to add, for example:

• Use of the term The Birthers. (have other sources used it ?)
• Criticism from the right, as in the Michael Medved quote referring to the movement's leaders as "crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters" who are "the worst enemy of the conservative movement", and "It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look demented. It makes us look sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company." Also, statement by Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch. These are useful to establish that this is a fringe issue even among conservatives opposed to Obama.
• More inflammatory statements from Orly Taitz, Keyes etc ... but that may already be sufficiently covered.

Any comments or other suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly validates our choice of title, and yes pieces of it should be incorporated into the article. I like the Medved quote at the end: "I'm not a conspiracist, but this could be a very big conspiracy to make conservatives disgrace themselves." We must thus be part of that conspiracy too! Wasted Time R (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What are the would-be-invalidators trying to misdirect people away from?

If they have a case (beyond 'absence of crystal ball syndrome') why not actually come up with a reasoned discussion, stating what procedures should be undertaken etc?

Time for the next archive-sectioning? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Medved quote, if genuine, is the perfect capper for this nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Politico article is worth mentioning in our article, for sure. But it would be more compelling and persuausive to the "birthers" if it would actually address and rebut their specific concerns. Obama was undeniably a trans-oceanic traveller during the month he was born, and Hawaii newspaper notices of his birth were merely printed automatically whenever a parent requested a birth certificate, but there is still extremely compelling proof that he was born in Hawaii. I personally don't consider a form laser-printed in 2007 to be very compelling (it doesn't even say if he was born in a hospital or not), and Hawaii officials have declined to "confirm vital information" in the original, unreleased long-form certificate.[8]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that the verified Medved quote would be an excellent insertion. The term "birther" is so inherently POV that it would require extraordinary citation; the Medved quote expresses the same or better contempt without the label. As for the birth certificate, we have a perfectly fine assurance of its validity from the State of Hawaii. It's not our job to enlighten the birthers. PhGustaf (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there is plenty of hyperbolic shooting off at the mouth all the way around on BOTH sides of this issue. I would prefer this article to aspire towards the encyclopedic and informational rather than piling on more commentary and opinion. That said, I think it would be useful to introduce and define the term "birther" in the article... as long as it's done in a mature, neutral and encyclopedic fashion. Certainly the term is meant to be derogatory, but there's nothing POV about putting it in the article... unless the acticle itself makes a not so thinly veiled attempt to legitimize/delegitimize one point of view over another. JBarta (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind introducing the term "birther" in the article if we can find a couple more sources using it. That way we would be fully backed up by more then one ref's referring to it. Brothejr (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We'd need citations showing the term is in general, or at least frequent, use. One politico mention doesn't hack it. PhGustaf (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph has published just such a reference - see [9]. I've added a citation to the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there are elements of circularity.

The most that can be positively said is (a) There are several ambiguities, some of which are of the 'not having a crystal ball at the time' variety, (b) Sufficient detail has been provided in various contexts for various official persons to be convinced. (c) Some people 'for a variety of reasons' think that there is a problem with Obama's qualifications, (d) Other people are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt 'even if there should be more transparency.'

Given that a number of presidential cabinet appointments over the years have been rejected for not adhering to the rules, and the attempts to find sufficient proof on Obama to prove he was unqualified on this point, the balance of proof does seem to be towards duly qualified.

If Al Gore had won the 2000 election would there have been a 'is he qualified' discussion? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Obama is qualified, but I'm not sure why you state that point here. In editing this article, we're not called upon to come to a conclusion about whether the balance of proof is on the Obama side or the Keyes side. We have neither the need nor the authorization to set ourselves up as the High Council of Wikipedia and purport to adjudicate this dispute. We just report on it. The only ambiguity that strikes me offhand is whether "birther" is intended as a derogatory term. It's awkward to say "person who believes that Barack Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States because of the circumstances of his birth" -- so, if that's the meaning you want to convey, what's the non-derogatory term? I think "birther" is as good as anything. It's certainly more neutral than "Obama birth conspiracy theorist". JamesMLane t c 09:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a Lawsuit

Today a ruling came out in the latest Philip Berg case. I consider it notable because of Mr. Berg's prominence and the fact that the judge was unusually harsh in his criticism of Mr. Berg, suggesting growing impatience among the judiciary.

I added a graf to the Litigation section, but the edit was reverted on the grounds of Notability.

Comments? TheMaestro (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This article doesn't cover every litigation regarding whether or not Obama meets the "natural-born citizen" requirement of the constitution. The litigation needs to have been mentioned in a secondary source in order to get included. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This case might in fact be worth mentioning, since IIRC it was notable for using military personnel as litigants in order to establish standing, and I think that some secondary sources talked about it (don't sue me if my memory is faulty :) ). But I agree with Bobblehead. that it should not be added till such mainstream sources are located. As usual, it may be best to discuss the exact wording and gain consensus on talk page - so that we can avoid revert-warring and instability in the main article. Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everybody. It's a really informative story but it needs a secondary source. Perhaps AP will send out a story tomorrow; that would be enough. Perhaps not; the mainstream press has (for good reason) little interest in this stuff.

There are few things pleasanter to read than opinions by funny angry judges. PhGustaf (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And that's merely a regular old judge. Just imagine what Judge Judy would have to say about some of this stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is now an AP story on this. Nedra Pickler, "Judge assails cases doubting Obama's citizenship", Associated Press, March 5, 2009. Shorter version of same article in the New York Times, apparently going into tomorrow's print version. "Lawsuit Over Citizenship Thwarted". --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Since Maestro started this, I suggest he work the reference into his graf and post it here for discussion: Abcd's point about revert-warring is well taken. PhGustaf (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Mention the bit about the lawyer of record (Hemenway?) maybe having to pay for the defense. PhGustaf (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, my entry was meant as a starting-point anyway -- I used as my only source the text of the judge's decision, hoping that others who knew more about it would expand on it. The text (there was a corresponding reference link) was:

Philip Berg brought this suit on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, "a retired Air Force colonel ... tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama...", in the words of James Robertson, the District Judge who dismissed the case on March 5, 2009. His opinion, which goes on to call Berg and a co-attorney agents provocateurs, begins by describing the case as one that "would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do ... The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end." TheMaestro (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

One puzzling aspect of that case is the premise. I don't see why a retired Air Force Colonel would have to worry about taking orders from anybody. Except maybe the wife. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"(because he might possibly be recalled to duty)" explains the judge, with some sarcasm... TheMaestro (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that the AP and NYT have covered it, I agree that it should be mentioned. The judge's response (threatening to sanction the lawyers) is noteworthy - it will be interesting to see if other judges take a similar line to deter future lawsuits. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's covered by the AP (and soon to be hundreds of other outlets that carry the AP), I don't see an overall reason to prevent the article from being mentioned. However, I would stick to what the AP article (or any other secondary sources that crop up) covered and include the premise of the case (that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was born in Kenya, that the birth certificate Obama provided is a fake, and it was not filed against Obama's legal name, but against "Barry Soetero") and the judge's reaction to the lawsuit (ordering the "plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.") If the secondary sources don't find the details of the retired Air Force colonel notable, then should we? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Have there been similar instances?

Have there been similar instances, where the American Birth ststus of Presidents, or Presidential Candidates has been questioned? Acsialsystems (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

McCain, for one. I think there were also questions about Goldwater and about one of the late 19th-century Presidents, possibly Hayes or Arthur. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a list of similar instances here.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the title of that section is not "Presidential citizenship conspiracy theories". JBarta (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Primarily because most of the presidential candidates in that list were questioned by mainstream historians/constitutional scholars, not just by a few fringe elements of society. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "fringe" by editors.

CosmicLatte has undone certain edits removing the word "fringe", claiming that the use of such a word by an editor does not violate WP:NPOV, but is merely "calling a spade a spade." (This might be considered a poor choice of phrase given the subject.) If the use of the word "fringe" by an editor does not reflect bias, then perhaps the use of the term "lunatic fringe" would be even more unbiased and appropriate? NDM (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This article uses the word "fringe" a lot, and it also uses the word "conspiracy" a lot. NDM, which of those two words do you think is more biased and unappropriate? I'm just curious.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Both words are appropriate to describe the conspiratorial thinking that leads people to hold fringe beliefs (whether it's flat eathers, the people who think the moon landing actually took place in a burbank studio, or these birther idiots). No, defining subscribers to fringe beliefs as "insane" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. But the fact that these people's beliefs (whether they hold them because they are political opportunists, insane, or just not particularly bright is irrelevant) are located, wow, all the way over there -- out on the fringe -- is why we call these beliefs "fringe."Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And per WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories"...exactly what we have going on here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article misleads about Hawaii law

Since December 23, 2008, the article has had some variation on the following highly misleading passage:

People such as Alan Keyes who are questioning Obama's birth location point to a Hawaii statute that allows births to be registered for children born out of state; however, that law was only passed in 1982 (21 years after Obama's birth registration) and its text does not indicate that out-of-state births will be listed with a Hawaiian place of birth.

The major issue with that paragraph is that it falsely implies that the date when the law was added matters and that Obama would not be eligible under that law. However, the law itself refers to parents who gave birth while declaring as their residence the "Territory or State of Hawaii". Because it mentions the "Territory" of Hawaii - which was dissolved in 1959 - the law was clearly meant to be retroactive to those born before 1982. Details here.

Since the article has been misleading people for over two months, simply making a quiet edit doesn't seem like enough of a cure. Does Wikipedia have some sort of newspaper-style corrections page? ZXY4931 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're proposing we use your original research about what was "clearly" the intent of that law's drafters. No need for a change or correction. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is making an implicit statement about the law. Is that implicit statement backed up by a "reliable source" (the NYT perhaps)? There's certainly an alternative to using my opinion about the law, but I'm sure it will be much more convenient to simply leave it in its current, misleading state. ZXY4931 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem with your theory is that even if the law was retroactive it wouldn't have been applicable in this case. The law seems to indicate that it requires the parents or legal guardian of a minor child to submit the application. Obama was either 20 or 21 in 1982 (depending on what date the law went active), so wouldn't seem to meet the criteria of being a "minor child". But then, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know? :) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking the part about minors out of the law will make it clearer: Upon application of an adult... the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult... That means that an adult who was born outside Hawaii can apply on their own behalf and get a certificate for themselves. ZXY4931 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? There are no reliable sources for any of this, and it hardly seems relevant. his birth certificate was issued at the time of his birth in the US state of hawaii. This is a useless digression that's wasting our time. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Kenyan Ambassador

Perhaps this information should be included in the article:

A radio interview with Kenyan Ambassador Peter N.R.O. Ogego has been widely publicized since the ambassador called President-elect Barack Obama’s Kenyan birthplace a “well-known” attraction...

url=http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916 EMSPhydeaux (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)