Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Quo Warranto

What's interesting is that this WP article doesn't mention the fact that none of the cases—even if heard—will be sufficient to remove a sitting president due to the separation of powers. So even if a case goes forward to a hearing (like the one by Taitz in California now), and even if the judge decides that Obama is not eligible, Obama will remain in office. Only the Quo Warranto statute in DC (conferred by Congress) can remove a sitting president, apart from the "usual" removal methods like impeachment. But you can't impeach Obama on a constitutional question that has never been decided ("first impression"). I think the article should mention that Quo Warranto is the only way to remove a sitting president on the issue of ineligibility, and that all other cases (collateral attacks) are destined to fail in this respect. All of this has in fact been admitted by one of the Obama citizenship lawyers on his blog (incl. two follow-up legal briefs). I'm no legal expert, so I can't say if Donofrio's assertion is correct, but to my mind it's noteworthy that one of the lawyers mentioned in this article believes that none of the cases will have any effect whatsoever on Obama's presidency. —85.178.89.19 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In this area that hasn't been thoroughly litigated, I don't think we can make any assertions with the definitiveness that you imply. Suppose it were to be suddenly discovered, definitively and beyond all dispute, that Obama was ineligible. What would happen? Could a federal court set aside the action of the Electoral College and/or Congress as ultra vires? No one really knows. As to reporting an assertion made by Donofrio on the subject, I started skimming the blog you linked to but I lost patience pretty quickly. If there's a specific passage you think should be included in our article, I suggest you present here the language that you would add to our article, including the quotation or paraphrase from Donofrio. JamesMLane t c 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Interesting -- but the aim of the talk page is to improve the article - not to discuss all the nuances of law. IIRC, however, where a person has been found ineligible for office in the past, their oath of office was found to be null and void ... which would make Biden President. In Mississippi: [1] " We affirm the circuit court's decision to remove Mauney from office. " (Lots of similar case law for many states). Quo warranto is not the issue for such a result -- it is actually a legal question posed by the filer. The SCOTUS can not remove a Congressman or Senator due to specific wording in the Constitution, but no case has arisen about the basic Constitutional age requirement, for example, and I would think that courts might well have standing about the specific requirements given in the Constitution which would not be under Congressional authority to waive. As this is all moot, it hardly warrants talk page discussion in depth. Collect (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Only the Quo Warranto statute in DC (conferred by Congress) can remove a sitting president, apart from the "usual" removal methods like impeachment." There no case law that says that, and a fair amount of commentary that explicitly disagrees with that assertion. More importantly, no one has attempted to a file a writ of quo warranto in the courts (Taitz did sent letters to the U.S. and D.C. A.G.'s requesting such a filing, but she got no response). Until someone actually and directly files a writ petition (and not bury the request, like Apuzzo), no need to mention. Weazie (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting lawsuit

Evidently a soldier has filed a lawsuit saying that Obama can't order him to go anywhere because he is not the legitimate president. More of the same claims but an interesting set-up. See [2]. I thought someone might want to add this to the article. Remember (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This definitely merits inclusion - it's already had some significant press coverage and I expect it will have significant consequences (the inevitable court-martial will no doubt result in the plaintiff being declared the first birther martyr). I'll add something suitable to the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a new section on the case. It's already receiving quite a bit of coverage - see [3]. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, CBS News, and the Miami Herald all have articles on this. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Have been seeing claims that the Army has rescinded the deployment?!? I have only seen soldier's side of this so far, anyone have reaction from the Army/Administration? Simply letting the soldier out of the deployment without consequence seems odd. Ronnotel (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Army isn't commenting on the specific of his personal status, citing the Privacy Act. However, he's been sacked from his civilian job [4] and the Army has rejected his claims about Obama's eligibility [5]. I'll update the article accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems OK, but shouldn't we also include a balancing statement from Cook's lawyer? I believe she was interviewed in Military.com. Ronnotel (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the source. What is military.com? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what washingtonindependent is, but they're quoting Cook's attorney, the not-quite-reliable Orly Taitz, so her claim that he's been fired from his civilian job needs a better source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See #The Washington Independent article below for a discussion of that particular source. Regarding Taitz's claim, we're not endorsing it; the article currently says that "Cook was reported" to have been sacked. That's factually accurate. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it then say, "Cook's attorney, Taitz, has claimed in interviews" that he has been fired? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's according to this Application for injunction, linked from the cited secondary source but not itself cited in the article, which says, "... The CEO of Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, explained to Plaintiff over a series of four conversations within the next two hours, that he had been terminated. ...", and at the end of which a notarized statement says, "On this 15th day of July, 2009, the undersigned Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook appeared in person before me and, having been by me duly administered the oath as required by law, and further having been advised that he made all statements under penalty of perjury, he then and there did depose himself and state that he had read the above-and-foregoing Application for Preliminary Injunction to prevent his deployment to Afghanistan under orders of a chain of command headed by Barack Hussein Obama, and that he had personally verified that all the factual statements contained therein. [sic.]" (though the copy at the foregoing link does not contain the signatures) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, whom are you addressing this comment to? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A stopped clock is right twice a day, and even our dauntless dentist might be right on this one. A contributor to the progressive board Democratic Underground has said that application for CO status triggers automatic loss of security clearance. I find some support online for that statement in connection with people other than Cook:

• "We did pull his Top Secret Security Clearance as soon as we found out about his CO status request." [6]
• "I began my conscientious objector (CO) case in early April 2003.... I lost my security clearance...." [7]
• "Petitioner's security clearance was suspended by his Command soon after he told his Command that he was considering applying for Conscientious Objector status." [8]

Cook was working for a defense contractor, so it's quite plausible that, if he lost his security clearance, he couldn't continue to do his work, so his employer had to let him go. Alternatively, maybe someone got a message through the fillings in his teeth telling him that Rahm Emanuel phoned Cook's boss and ordered him fired in revenge.  :) JamesMLane t c 04:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Who then was a gentleman? asked to whom I was addressing a comment above (I think that's what the question is about). My comment was sparked by the earlier remark "I don't know what washingtonindependent is, but they're quoting Cook's attorney, the not-quite-reliable Orly Taitz, so her claim that he's been fired from his civilian job needs a better source." and by the ChrisO comment "Regarding Taitz's claim, we're not endorsing it; the article currently says that "Cook was reported" to have been sacked. That's factually accurate." AFAICT, the claim was made, and was sworn by Cook to be accurate. Yes, the article does stop short of asserting that Cook made the claim. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then you have me completely confused. I thought you were addressing me, but since your link doesn't link to anything even approaching a reliable source for the claim that Cook has been fired from his citizen job, so your edit has me flabbergasted. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused too. This article has long ago flabbered my gast.

• The article says, "Cook was reported to have been terminated ...", citing this source.
• That cited source says, "That’s according to Orly Taitz", linking to this "Application for Injunction" document on her site, which you characterize as not even approaching a reliable source.

The quote, "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more" comes to mind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And as I said above, "they're quoting Cook's attorney, the not-quite-reliable Orly Taitz, so her claim that he's been fired from his civilian job needs a better source". I don't believe the washingtonindependent source is a reliable source, in that it quotes Orly Taitz, and I don't believe that her website itself is a reliable source. If another source can be found that says he's been fired, then that would be fine. Democratic Underground says it, too, but only in forums. I'm not looking for a biased source on either side. I'm looking for a reliable source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They provide a link to the quoted document on Taitz's website. Perhaps you are accusing Taitz of misrepresenting what her website purports to be the literal text of an "Application for injunction" which she claims to have filed.

In any case, I must be on an airplane tomorrow morning and will not be checking in here regularly for the next month or so. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the federal court's dismissal of Cook's case.

David Weigel, the Politics Reporter for the Washington Independent, has a story about Cook's posts on the right-wing site Free Republic. In one post, from March 25, Cook says that he's a plaintiff in the class action suit and gets mailing from Taitz from time to time. Which case of hers was brought as a class action? Our description of that case should note that it sought class action status. JamesMLane t c 06:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe Taitz was soliciting military personnel to bring a class action suit against Obama, on the grounds that they would have standing by virtue of having to answer to him as C-in-C. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Taitz has also been quoted in the past as having called for an armed rebellion against the US government. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

According to freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2294597/posts?q=1&;page=1#46 Major Cook was at the Freeper convention in Orlando a couple of months ago. Any claims that he was duped by Orly Taitz into lying about his "volunteering" in May when he had already signed up with her in February to join in her lawsuits, can be put to sleep if anybody can find proof that he was there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he's also a freeper contributor: freerepublic.com/~roaddog727/ Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://washingtonindependent.com/50789/obama-birther-soldier-is-a-freerepublic-poster. Note that I am not advocating for any of these sources to go into the article, as they are not reliable sources (again, I include the washingtonindependent in this), but it might be useful to show that Cook is not just the patriotic soldier standing up for democracy and against the usurper, but an active participant in a fraud against the US Army and a call not only for all soldiers to throw down the arms in the midst of a war, but giving the enemy the chance to claim that all Americans fighting against them are war criminals and should be tried. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that Cook's Freepishness is relevant to this article.

As for Taitz, she's not a reliable source, so no statement of hers should be reported as fact, without attribution, unless reliably confirmed. She is, however, a prominent player in this dispute, so we can report facts about her statements. The "it was reported" language is inadequate. There's no reason to try to conceal key facts by using the passive voice. An acceptable formulation would be: "Cook's lawyer, Taitz, asserted that she had been told by Cook's employer that...."

Similarly, we have Taitz's assertion in April that Cook was one of the people she was representing, an assertion she made on her blog. We can add this if it's reported as an assertion made by Taitz, not as a fact. It sheds light on a question relevant to the Cook case: Did Cook sincerely volunteer for duty in Afghanistan in May, and then have second thoughts as he became aware of the eligibility issue, or did he volunteer for the sole purpose of receiving orders that he could then ask the court to set aside? I think that Cook, in his press conference with Taitz in front of the courthouse, was telling some story along the lines of the first alternative (change of heart). I couldn't be sure, though, because my computer isn't playing YouTube videos properly. If we have a verifiable and noncopyvio source for any comment by Cook on this point, we can consider it for inclusion. JamesMLane t c 09:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

She also claimed in April that a 2-star general (whose name I can't remember now) was one of her litigants, he issued a statement saying that's not true, and has publicly asked her to remove his name from her lawsuits. I agree that Taitz is not a reliable source, I was looking last night for a reliable source to the claim that he's been fired from his job, but haven't found any. We can report that Taitz claims that he's been fired, but as of last night when I went to bed, I could find none, just repeats of her claims. I thought about my edits above overnight, and I don't think I was making myself clear. I'm not advocating anything here, I'm just brainstorming here about how we can put some background of the litigants involved into the Taitz/Cook section of this article. But I do have another question: Liberal bloggers are claiming that Taitz is only licensed to practice law in California. How, then, can she file suits in the District of Columbia and Georgia? Or are the blogger claims wrong? (I've also read that nobody can verify her dental degree from Hebrew University, and that her law degree comes from an online law school which is only recognized in California, which is why she's only licensed in California. I would love to see some reliable sources as to yea or nay on those claims.) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

One further thing I forgot to mention. Cook is a member of something called the Individual Reserve, which admittedly I never heard of till looking for reliable sources last night. That means he is not in the Army Reserve, nor is he in the National Guard, and he is not a member of any unit, he serves as an individual. Members of the Individual Reserve can contact the Army and request a return to active duty, which Cook apparently did in May (four months after the supposed Obama usurpation of the Presidency, and one month after Taitz's claim that he joined her in her campaign to get the birther contentions enacted in a court). As a member of the Individual Reserve, Cook could, and did, change his mind up to the time of deployment, and the Army will just cancel the orders. Their actions in this case is not unusual. Any Individual Reservist who changes his mind gets his orders canceled. The fact the he decided to file a lawsuit instead of just contacting the Army and letting them know that he had changed his mind, seems evidence of what in Wikipedia would be considered a WP:POINT violation. Taitz's claim that they've won because the Army had to back down because of the truthiness of her lawsuit is wrong on the face of it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re your question about Taitz, it would be very unusual for any lawyer, let alone one whose primary work is dentistry, to be admitted in more than a handful of jurisdictions. Taitz is likely admitted only in California and files suits in other places by seeking and being granted admission pro hac vice. If she's in good standing in California (no disciplinary complaints), this would normally be granted as a matter of routine, even if the court thinks the case she's pressing is garbage. Some courts require that an attorney appearing pro hac vice have an associated local counsel who can receive service of papers. I don't know if Taitz has done so. JamesMLane t c 20:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama and John McCain

X million voters accepted that Obama was an American citizen by birth and Y million voters accepted that McCain had a right to run as the Repubilcan candidate #despite his having being born in Panama#.

Can someone explain to a non-US why there was no protest over McCain's capacity to run?

And what would the situation have been had Obama been born in Hawaii, and Sarah Palin in Alaska before they became US states? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They would all be full citizens, as codified here. As to why hardly anyone made hay about the circumstances of McCain's birth, personally I found the notion to be kinda absurd and left it at that. The willingness to indulge oneself in conspiracies and secret plots finds far more fertile ground to flourish on the right then it does on the left. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but "citizen" is not the same as "natural born citizen". The only statutory (i.e. codified) natural born citizenship ever was in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was revoked 5 years later. —85.178.89.19 (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Might as well post my reply anyway though Tarc beat me to it.

McCain's eligibility is covered in his own article. Short version: The Panama Canal Zone was US Territory at the time, thus he's a US citizen, and his parents were American anyway. No different than French Algerians not losing their French citizenship when France lost control of Algeria.

As for Alaska / Hawaii, that is doubly a non-issue. First, both Alaska and Hawaii had been US territories for some time before statehood. That's sufficient; Americans born in Washington, DC are eligible for president even though they weren't born in a state. Secondly, even if someone had been born there before they were US territory (a hypothetical person running in 1928 who was born in the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1875, say), it still wouldn't matter. The Founders of the US obviously did not mean to disqualify themselves despite being born as British subjects; George Washington was born in the Province of Virginia, but in 1789 it was now the State of Virginia, and anyone born in "Virginia" would be eligible for president. Same with Alaska / Hawaii once they became part of the US. Escaped Quaternion (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. McCain was born in Colon, Republic of Panama (cf. his birth certificate). He was not a US citizen at birth, because the Panama Canal Zone was a noman's land with respect to US citizenship at the time, and he was only retroactively made a statutory citizen by a law that was enacted a few months later. But that law did not confer natural born citizenship, only citizenship. In any case, since he was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, he can't have been a natural born citizen either. —85.178.89.19 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Some corrections not relevant to this article:

• Our McCain article is seriously misleading about the Canal Zone. The Canal Zone, unlike territories (pre-statehood) or the District of Columbia, was not part of the United States. Birth in the Canal Zone (or in a U.S. military hospital), without more, was not sufficient to confer U.S. citizenship, and no reliable source supports that assertion, though the misconception is widespread. The real answer is that both of McCain's parents were citizens at the time of his birth, so he was thereby a citizen. See the statute cited by Tarc, in particular section 1403. That section would be redundant if everyone born in the Zone had automatically been a U.S. citizen.
• It's true that the Founders didn't mean to disqualify themselves. They could have said "You're eligible if you're born in a place that later becomes part of the United States" -- but they didn't. The actual eligibility requirement is "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". Someone born in the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1875 would not be eligible (unless entitled to citizenship at birth because of one or both parents' citizenship). JamesMLane t c 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory, but there was only minimal discussion about his citizenship. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And Arizona at the time was not a (my coined phrase) "United State," but a controlled territory owned by the US Government. Trentc (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

'To the casual observer' - McCain #appears to be disqualified on grounds of birth# - and if he could run for President, so could Obama.

Surely if Obama had been disqualified on grounds of birth #someone official# in Hawaii would have squawked before the election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Keyes v. Obama, and the Obama-denying soldier

According to a blog on the LA Times website, judge David O. Carter has decided to hear a birther case. This has also been covered in the Washington Independent and Huffington Post. Also, is it relevant to cover the story of a soldier who denies that Obama is president? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I had already entered that information into the article, but it was removed with the usual "fringe" argument. According to Taitz, the judge ruled that there "will be a trial". Everyone else is speaking of a hearing. We should wait for more information on this. —85.178.89.19 (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that someone had decided to add a line to the article about it, which I've now removed There's really no justification for covering it at this stage - it's so preliminary that it's very premature to assign it any significance. It's kind of sad that the birthers feel they have to tout the holding of a prelimary procedural hearing as some sort of great victory. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So just because a judge finally decided to hear such a case is irrelevant when every other court has rejected similar cases in the past? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're falling for the birthers' claims about it. The court has made clear that the merits of the case have not yet been heard and that the discussions so far have been purely procedural.[9] All of the other cases that we cover in this article got at least that far before being thrown out, as this one will inevitably be. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that Stefan Frederick Cook, Stefan Cook, Stefan F. Cook, and Stefan F Cook should be created as redirects to this article. I can't do it because I'm topic banned on all political articles, but I'm sure that people will be using his name as a search term. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; that's how I (finally) got here. Mudville Gazette (a blog) has a detailed story of this. htom (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it, in exchange for your help with unraveling the profession of Orly Taitz (is she lawyer or dentist?) Smith Jones (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. i would apreciate if this was considered for a barnstar or a featured article award :D Smith Jones (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that besides being a lawyer she's also a dentist. ^_^ I've read it somewhere… months ago, when she started her first Obama case. —85.178.114.112 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she's a dentist [10] --guyzero | talk 19:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks! Do you have a link to a website or something? the Google searches ia vhea rleady amade describe her as only representing plaintiffs against Obama. there is one wbesite that mentions her dentist career but there's no proof that its Orly's website and it doesnt mention her law degree or her advocacy for constitutional victims such as Mr Cook or Alan Keyes. Smith Jones (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones, thank you. She is a lawyer and a dentist. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) thanks Gueyzero!!! That can go straight into the article Smith Jones (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already there as a named-ref. Just recite that ref. cheers, --guyzero | talk 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (aka Gueyzero =)

This is the site of her dental clinic in Orange County: http://www.drtaitz.com/staff.htm Orly Taitz is second from left. Apparently it's a family business. According to the website she has a doctorate in dental surgery and a juris doctorate. —85.178.114.112 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. If this ever morphs into a TV movie someday, I so want Edie Falco to play her. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Should be a comedy. I remember she filed quo warrantos against Obama in state courts, not realizing that Obama (as President) is under federal jurisdiction and can only be challenged with a quo warranto in the DC District Court. LOL. —85.178.114.112 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that either of these cases are ripe enough to be mentioned in the article yet. The courts haven't even decided whether to proceed with the cases to actual hearings or not, nor has there been any Supreme Court involvement with the accompanying wider media coverage. Adding these to the article may be pre-mature.Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Frederick Cook redirects to this talk page instead of to the article. Would someone please fix it? Thanks. I am banned from political articles for three months, so I can't do it myself. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Done.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

dsorry that was my embarasing mistake i was in a hurry to finisht eh redirections before the end of the User:Smith Jones 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK - it was an honest mistake. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cook's restraining order against his former employer (which we don't cover in the article) was dismissed today because it was incorrectly filed by Taitz. I don't think we should plan to expand the article on this tangential lawsuit, but if we do, here is the source: [11] --guyzero | talk 18:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The other Keyes case

The First Amended Complaint in this action, dated July 14, 2009, can be found on Taitz's blog, here. (As a side note, it's one of the worst pieces of legal drafting I've ever read.) The case name is stated as "Keyes et al v. Obama et al", although someone named Barnett is the first-listed plaintiff. It's filed in a federal court in California. Apparently Keyes v. Bowen was in state court.

The case has attracted some attention among the birthers because of Taitz's report that the judge promised a trial on the merits. Her account of the proceedings is not supported by this news story from the Los Angeles Times online.

I agree with ChrisO that nothing has happened in this case that merits inclusion in our article. Nevertheless, some readers might be confused about two different cases bearing Keyes's name. I suggest that we add a sentence to the Keyes v. Bowen subsection, stating: "Keyes was also a plaintiff in a later suit filed in federal court in California," with a link to the Los Angeles Times story. JamesMLane t c 05:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My understanding of the Keyes vs Bowen section is that this will be the third lawsuit involving Keyes mentioned in that section. I also agree that we don't (yet?) need a bunch of exposition on the latest case, but we might need to eventually rework that section as it will be referring to much more than just Keyes vs Bowen. cheers, --guyzero | talk 06:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Keyes was a litigant in Keyes v. Lingle, which was filed (and denied) in Hawaii. Then there was Keyes v. Bowen, which was filed in the California Superior Court. It was denied, and is presently on appeal in the California Court of Appeal. Finally, there is Keyes v. Obama, which was filed (but never properly served) in the federal district court for the central district of California. Presently, the court has ordered Keyes to serve the operative complaint on Obama, and then file proof of that service. Weazie (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

National Post article

There's a good article in the National Post today about the rise of birtherism: [12] -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Rise of birtherism"? The article is nothing special... just the same old blather and the same old half-baked derision. I'll give them credit on one point however... at least they specifically mention "short-form birth certificate". Most such articles don't. Quite honestly, this Wikipedia article (even with its flaws) gives the curious reader a better, more balanced and more thorough review of this issue than ANY so-called "reliable source" out there. JBarta (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia article already covers most of the basic facts reviewed in the National Post article, but there are some interesting details, quotes and analysis that may be worth adding:

• WND paragraph of Campaigners section: add role of Joseph Farah and the $10,000 award offer.
• The Commentary and criticism section: add Ted Goertzel comments about conspiracy theorists.
• The Congress section: add Rep. Randy Neugebauer statement (currently the second paragraph of the section seems overly focused on various statements by and about Rep. Posey)

Will add these bits later in the day; feel free though to beat me to it. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re second item above... yet more quotes of some people attempting to paint other people as unbalanced, delusional or stupid is one thing this article doesn't need more of. JBarta (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

exactly, we should be removing hate speech such as "fringe activist" from the article, not adding MORE hate speech. whatever happened to undue weight? Smith-JOnes 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's fringe, it's not hate speech or undue weight to call it exactly that. See WP:Fringe Is this particular theory fringe? Right now, it's close, but I don't think so. That fact that there's a fair number of rabid neocons that support it doesn't affect the fringe/no fringe decision. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Fringe" may be inflamatory and, as used in this article, derogatory and possibly POV pushing, but it's not "hate speech". Again, justification for this seems to be that a number of reliable sources use the word "fringe" and that carries more weight among many editors than the larger majority of reliable sources that do NOT use the word fringe. If this article is to honestly reflect the issue, the article ought to coldly document the issue instead of picking and choosing from reliable sources to support and push a particular point of view supported by a number of editors. JBarta (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

its inflammatory hate speech because its intended to make the socalled "berthers" look ridiculous even before it examines their arugments. like it or not, this article is ABOUT "birtherism", they are the only ones concerned enough to demand that Obama release the real birth certificate, even though many politicans are refusing to do. I think it's is important that we portray them neutrally, using derogatory terms ONLY when the vast majority of major sources use them and reducing their use to direct quote. NO OTHER article on Wikipedia so openly insults its subjects in the lead; if the beliefs of the berthers are ridiculous, simply use sources to portray it that way. dont just call them ridiculoius in the lead just because a few handpicked sources to inflame the passions of readers!! Smith-JOnes 00:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide citations where these groups demanded similar proof of George Bush's etc birth credentials, that would be one thing, if not, then they dare a single issue fringe group. This article is NOT about "birtherism" it is about false conspiracy theories and the type of fringe groups that spread them.13:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.33.54 (talk)

Obama released the only document that the State of Hawaii ever gives to a person that requests a copy of their birth certificate. That is the Certification of Live Birth or "short form". Nobody gets their long form even if they request it, ever. The short form provides all the information that is ever needed to prove citizenship and there is no logical reason to suspect that it is fraudulent. Vivaldi (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

New Assertion from Hawaii

One of the birther claims has been that Hawaiian law would have permitted people born outside the country to have been issued Certifications of Live Birth identical to Obama's. A recent quote from Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health, shows this not to be the case:

“If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”

(http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam)

Should this information be worked into the article? TheMaestro (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. The subject of the requirements for issuance of a certification (with particular reference to someone born outside Hawaii) is a significant part of this controversy, so our article should fairly present the birther argument as well as this information from an official in Hawaii. JamesMLane t c 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The author posted an addendum to his story: [13] --guyzero | talk 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have added it. Paragraph 5 under "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii." -- TheMaestro (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

--and it has been removed. Can we have some discussion please? I see that Weigel's Washington Independent contributions have been cited in the article several times. -- TheMaestro (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's [14] another one in which she states that "The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii" Also:

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."

"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models," she said.

Note that this is from a reliable source, too. Given this, I think we're currently giving far too much weight to the myth of "short-form vs. long-form" birth certificates. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. Note she says that it has been modified over the years. Just because NOW they only issue short form type certificates, that does not mean a long form type certificate from 1961 does not exist. In fact, previous statements from Hawaii suggest that some sort of "long form" DOES exist. At any rate, the long-form vs short form question is hardly a "myth" and is an integral part of this issue. JBarta (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What garbage. My mother and father were born in the 1930s. I had a kid born in 2006. The forms have hardly changed. All three look very similar, and they are from 3 different states. Then there is mine. 4 documents over 60 years and the look basically the same. They look nothing like Obama's Certification of Live Birth. Trentc (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is if I have support for undoing the rescission of my edit. --TheMaestro (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Weigel is an associate editor for Reason magazine, has been published in the LA Times, Time, The Guardian, The Nation, etc. He's not a blogger, and the content of the addition is uncontroversial. --guyzero | talk 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked up Washington Independent on the RS noticeboard, but perhaps we can find the quote from another source. After all, she has made similar statements to news organizations frequently. But given her statement that there is no such difference between short-form and long-form (and the birth certificate Obama released is the only type of document that they issue), we need to re-write many parts of this article. Repeatedly emphasizing "short-form" every time the birth certificate is mentioned is POV and gives undue weight to an unproven (disproven, actually) claim. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be the only type of document they issue NOW. Surely it was standard practice in 1961 to issue a standard hand-written or typed birth certificate. And it's pretty clear that the birth certificate issued in 1961 is a different document than the computer generated COLB issued in 2007. Therefore there ARE (at least) two separate documents. Whether or not they contain the same information or whether the original document still exists at all are separate issues. We can certainly quote Hawaiian officials, but let's not get carried away and infer incorrect conclusions from her statements. JBarta (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As quoted above, Janice Okubo speaks of the format and content of the birth certificate having evolved over the years. Clearly some forms were "longer" than others, in the sense that they contained more information. I don't know if it makes sense to distinguish between a "long form" and a "short form" unless there were two being issued at the same time, creating a basis for comparison. It can certainly be said that there was a discrete transition at the point when the department switched from photocopies of paper documents to printouts of electronically stored data, perhaps justifying a distinction between "old form" and "new form." As for what currently exists, I don't think it's been made clear whether Hawaii has retained a hard copy of an original 1961 paper record. What is clear is that the State has, in its computerized data, more complete information than is shown on the COLB, and presumably that is what many of the birthers are seeking access to. --TheMaestro (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All true, and the point is that she is refuting the notion that there are two different forms, one of which hasn't been released yet. As she said, this is the only type of document they issue, which would seem to refute one of the central arguments of the birthers. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an original birth certificate does not exist (or never existed) or are you suggesting that if it does exist it cannot be released by Hawaii to anyone under any circumstances? JBarta (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is why we have to be very careful about terminology. The term "original birth certificate" can be taken at least two ways, to mean either a record retained by the state for long-term archival or a document issued to parents at the time of birth. Clearly the first existed at one time, but we don't know if it still does. Presumably the second also existed at one time, and AFAIK we don't know its fate either. As to whether the first could "be released by Hawaii to anyone under any circumstances," I don't know the answer. But that's why I raised the other issue -- the birthers may actually be equally interested in the complete data set of birth records currently being stored electronically; and since neither type of hard-copy "original" may still exist, the electronic data may well be the only thing that can be sought. Now, as to whether that could "be released by Hawaii to anyone under any circumstances," that is a separate and, presumably, still open question. --TheMaestro (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey stated, "I think we're currently giving far too much weight to the myth of 'short-form vs. long-form' birth certificates." It's not a "myth" that they are different. The short form was printed by a computer in 2007. The long form was created by non-computer means in 1961. Also, the long form has the names of the hospital and the doctor, but the short form does not. There is no "myth" to it. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now, is the form that's been called the "short form" the only form that Hawaii is producing? If so, that may be the only form of documentation available. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the only form that Hawaii currently produces. However, it is not the only possible source of data. Older hard-copy documents may still exist, and the electronic database from which the COLB is derived clearly contains information that is not being released. This is to be expected in light of the many laws on privacy protection. --TheMaestro (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that "some people" would still object #whatever# proof is provided - even if the long form were provided, countersigned by St Peter etc.

Given that there are seeming quibbles about both Obama and McCain, and the circumstances have changed somewhat since the Constitution was written, perhaps the legislation should be changed (though this is outside the remit of Wikipedia). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(Can this page be archived somewhat.)

Individual sections of this talk page are automatically archived if they have not been modified for 30 days (see note near top of this talk page). JBarta (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the archive setting to 15 days, since the page has been so busy. Can change back if/when the debate(s) settle down. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me - thanks! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Independent article

Okubo's explanation of Hawaii's state policy was removed from the article by Seicer. Seicer did not discuss the matter here on the talk page, but instead merely provided an ES saying, "Washington Independent -- a collection of independent blog articles, is not a RS". I see no support for the charge that the Washington Independent is a blog, or even "a collection of independent blog articles". It's an online publication with an Editor and other employees, according to this page on its website. David Weigel, the author of the piece cited by TheMaestro, is identified as the Independent's "Politics Editor". See his bio there for his journalistic credentials. Another page on the website states, "The Washington Independent belongs to a network of state-based online news sites founded by the Center for Independent Media."

For purposes of WP:RS, therefore, I don't see how this source differs from Slate or Salon or National Review Online. There's no reason that our readers shouldn't see the statement from Okubo, who's obviously a person with knowledge on this subject. JamesMLane t c 01:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message on User talk:Seicer asking to discuss his rescission, but I will revert his edit sooner if a consensus develops here. --TheMaestro (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Seicer is clearly mistaken, and I've restored the section with some rewording. We already cite Dave Weigel's articles at various places throughout the article - however, Seicer may not have been aware of this, as the citation did not reference Weigel as the author of the piece. Weigel has followed the birther phenomenon more closely and consistently than any other mainstream journalist I'm aware of, so his articles are a key reference on this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But my original citation did reference Weigel, and now his name's in there twice! Feel free to fix it, your wiki skills are probably better than mine. --TheMaestro (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops - thanks for spotting that! Fixed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Washington Independent publishes any original content, they just reprint from other sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd be wrong in that case. Looking at their home page, I don't see anything there that isn't original content. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah. You're right. Every link I'd seen before had just been reporting what other people say. But their "articles" look more like what would be considered personal columns in other "newspapers". Who then was a gentleman? And I'd have to include Weigel in that. He isn't reporting, he's opinionizing. (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that either, I'm afraid. If you look at Weigel's most recent article on the birther movement, you can see that he's advancing the story by carrying out old-fashioned reporting - ringing people up and asking for their views - and not just regurgitating other sources. His reports are arguably somewhat slanted, but he's actively developing the story and not simply writing the equivalent of op-eds. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"pounce" and "embarrassing" sounds like opinions to me. And I agree with him. And what would you call this? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying he doesn't flavour his reports with his opinions, which is why I said "somewhat slanted", but his reports are of informational value where they provide new details of a story. And bear in mind that Weigel is a veteran reporter, not just an op-ed bloviator. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope we can find other sources, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I still cannot find a single source that claims that Cook was fired from his civilian job, which does not source the claim to Orly Taitz. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Try this article from the Tampa Tribune. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. The source in that link is Cook. Still not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Who then was a gentleman? (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2009

Limbaugh quote

Limbaugh evidently is on board with the birther movement. May be worth adding as a notable person adding fire to the flame. The quote is as follows: "Barack Obama has yet to have to prove that he's a citizen. All he has to do is show a birth certificate. He has yet to have to prove he's a citizen. I have to show them 14 different ways where the h--- I am every day of the year for three years." [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 July 2009

I agree that Limbaugh is notable enough to be mentioned, but citing World Net Daily for any factual point (even a report of someone else's opinion) is pretty dubious. Furthermore, in Googling, I get the impression that Limbaugh's June 10 comment on the subject got more attention. That comment, sourced to Limbaugh's own site, would be a better addition. JamesMLane t c 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Remember (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not find Rush Limbaugh to be credible, he is an entertainer not a journalist.--Jack Cox (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Limbaugh is not a credible source. Rush Limbaugh is open to his opinion but it is simply his opinion. He has no basis of fact in his claims and can provide no evidence to prove his claims. He is important in the conspiracy though because he inflames his listeners. Kylelovesyou (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

True, Limbaugh does opinion, not straight facts... but the reason for quoting and citing him isn't for the facts but to show the reach of this movement/opinion. The fact that probably the most prominent conservative radio personality and self-proclaimed "leader of the conservative movement" is on board with this theory... well, that seems relevant to me. kitsune361 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree Kylelovesyou (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Blog post summing up current situation

I thought this was interesting and might contain some information not already incorporated into the article [16]. Remember (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Barack Obama info box at the top.

User:Dems on the move decided that this page did not relate to Barack Obama and decided to remove the info box at the top. When I reverted that the first time. The user claimed that "Lack of Objection = Consensus. If you object, please provide a reason" when I had reverted it just after they did it. This page is about a topic that relates to a part of Barack Obama's life. It has been mentioned in the news in connection to him. This article is part of the Obama wikiproject and is included in various navigation boxes. Thus, this article should continue to have the main Obama nav box at the top like before. I am bringing this up here. Please do not remove the box before discussing it here and then gaining consensus here first. Brothejr (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This is about a group of people that do not believe Obama is a legitimate president. Just like Obama's photo is inappropriate here (but his birth certificate is) neither is the navigation box. Dems on the move (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the template has to contain the article itself. Dems on the move (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The infobox provides top-level articles about different aspects of Obama's life, career, etc., and serves as a navigational aid. It's common among many article families to have a similar infobox. --GoodDamon 23:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(multi ec)I agree that the box must stay. More generally, I suggest that consensus is an active rather than a passive construct, and that lack of objection does not imply consensus. PhGustaf (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDamon. These people are fruitcakes, but their fruitcakery is part of Wikipedia's comprehensive coverage of subjects relating to Obama. The box helps the reader find relevant information. JamesMLane t c 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Claim that Obama's 1980 draft registration was forged in 2008.

This claims that in 2008, a Selective Service registration was forged to make it look as if Obama had registered in 1980. Perhaps it should be cited in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The source is a self-published blog, falling below the reliability level of even World Net Daily, difficult as that may be to imagine. More to the point, it doesn't relate to eligibility for the Presidency. Obama was required to register if he was a citizen, whether natural-born, naturalized, or in some third in-between category that exists only in the constitutional jurisprudence of the birthers. I don't know what the law was then, but, under current law, registration is also required of green-card holders and undocumented (illegal) aliens. See Selective Service System#Who must register. Therefore, whether he registered sheds no light on the citizenship issues. JamesMLane t c 02:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I gotta admit - saying this was below even WND had me laughing hard. Good one! Quite agree though - personal blogs, especially of this nature, fall far, far short of the WP:RS requirements. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The editing "suggestions" by this user become more disruptive by the day. Now we're having to actually take time to discuss partisan blogs as sources, ones that have nothing to even do with the subject of the article? Tarc (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Grundle surely knows by now that that sort of stuff won't fly. But there is meat, sort of, there: The reference gives the lie to the notion that the problem will go away if the right new documents are produced. If they were, they'd just be subject to the same specious nitpickery given his draft card, and probably assertions that his doctor didn't graduate med school. PhGustaf (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

considering that there has been no effort to Obama and his peopel to verify either the card of the certificate beyond reasonable doubt, its not as if these people are exactly being paranoid. they were simply aksing a legiimte question that Mr Obama has thus far refused to give a satisfactory answer. tats not being a conspiracy theorist, thats just being logically skeptical of a politician User:Smith Jones 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, it is beyond "reasonable" doubt, it's just not beyond "birther" doubt. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

I am a upset that Wikipedia calls it "Conspiracy theories." These are legitimate questions. (Ex: His Grandmother said she was there when he was born in Mombasa.) I am not a "conspiracy theorist" and I am offended that Wikipedia thinks I am. I propose we change the name of the article to something more eneutral such as "Barack Obama citizenship controversy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legokid (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this page and the archives to this page to see the reasoning behind the article naming (in short, reliable sources call this topic conspiracy theories, we follow reliable sources per policy.) If you'd like to discuss renaming it, please do so from a WP policy perspective. thanks, --guyzero | talk 04:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, quoting Topic_creation#Controversial_names: The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. Using that rationale, Barack Obama birth certificate controversy would be neutral and in line with what interested readers would be likely to search for. Of course, that's a little too neutral for some. My goodness, how can we convey the wackiness of the subject matter with a neutral title like that? Regarding the "reliable sources" angle, I've noticed that as time progresses, a higher percentage of reliable sources seem to use quite unprofessional and disparaging language when commenting, um, I mean reporting on this issue. Unfortunately, if Wikipedia aspires to the low standard of parroting highly strung talking heads out there, then the title may be right on and we can all be proud of ourselves. JBarta (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing... one can read past discussions in the archives and ALSO find plenty of sound reasoning for and editors in support of changing the title to something a little more appropriate. JBarta (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I got to ask what round of discussions on trying to change the name of this page this is? I have completely forgotten how many times people try to bring up changing the title of this article, yet consensus is to keep it? Again, the title fits the article and topic, it is reflected in the sources, and is searchable in the search engines. Brothejr (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the vast majority of RS continue to label them conspiracy theories. To change the name would shift the POV to the extremist minority. Tony Kao (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the so-called "consensus" to keep the current title has never been as solid as some would wish to believe. The title has been problematic and non-neutral from the beginning and will likely continue to be a source of discontent. JBarta (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please accept consensus, as it is clear. Random drive by complaints that restart this topic do not make the consensus any less "solid". As I said on 7/12/09[17], please seek DR at RSN, BLPN, NPOVN, or RFC, as having the same discussion here, with the same conclusion, every couple weeks is not moving anything forward. --guyzero | talk 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The word "controversy" is neutral and NPOV. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is heavily POV. I don't consider myself to be a "conspiracy theorist," but at the same time, I wonder why Obama is not willing to release the original long form birth certificate that was created in 1961, and which includes the name of the doctor who delivered him. Until I get to see that document, I am not willing to take sides on this issue. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, because there is no real "controversy" going on and because of that it makes it a "conspiracy theory" like the moon landing. If there is a "real" controversy [BTW, that would be all over the news, left, right and middle] it would be already known. If they [the administration] were and are so good in cover-up even before Obama was elected [strange, isn't it?] then you can't believe not even one word no matter who is in charge. So should we stick to the rules and write about the known facts made public by the media, not only the biased one but also the independent one, or should we disobey any Wiki-rule and make the "conspiracy" our main dish (and focus)? I'd say "nay".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory" is not POV when the subject at hand requires a conspiracy to have occurred for the theory to be true. For Obama to have not been born in Hawaii, multiple newspapers (those issuing contemporaneous birth announcements) and multiple employees in the state records department would have all needed to conspire to produce false evidence. That's a conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.244.213 (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed FAQ questions and answers

Perhaps it is time this article has an FAQ section, like the main Obama one does? Tarc (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea. The Early Life talk page has a FAQ just for the citizenship. Adding a faq here for "fringe" and "conspiracy theories" might help some. I've got a feeling that we'd only be using it as a reference to the reverts related to those two things. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree an FAQ might not be a bad idea. Though certain users would still ignore it and repost the same things over and over and over again, at the very least we would have an area we can point/refer to. Brothejr (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A FAQ is a courtesy to readers. As proposed, we're not talking about a FAQ here. We're talking about a set of half baked "micro rules" just for this talk page that some editors can point to as some sort of justification that supports their position (in this case the retention of an arguably bad title). In this instance, a "FAQ" would be a POV pushing tool... little more. JBarta (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What it would be is a reflection of consensus. That you are on the wrong side of it doesn't make a FAQ a "POV pushing tool". Tarc (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Heaven forbid I'm ever on the "wrong side" of anything. What would the neighbors think? At any rate, this FAQ would NOT be a reflection of anything more than a particular point of view (not so sure about actual consensus... it's a weak consensus at best) and would be edited and re-edited as much as anything else in this article. It would create problems rather than solve them (not that there is a problem to be solved) and as envisioned, would be more a statement of position by certain editors rather than a benevolent FAQ. JBarta (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the FAQ as currently written[18] is not helpful, but a well-written faq that refers to the policies that we are repeating when this subject frequently comes up might save everyone some time. --guyzero | talk 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear... it's not time that anyone wishes to save... it's a desire to suggest that certain positions are beyond dispute and deemed "correct" by some cosmic definition. That no matter how many editors pipe up and suggest particular wording is inaccurate, other editors can point to a particular "FAQ" and proclaim, "it is written, it is resolved, it reflects the higher truth, now be gone". This won't save anyone's time. In fact disputes over the wording of so-called FAQs and their answers will simply ADD to the contentiousness. JBarta (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on an initial draft. Probably could be two questions (combine 2 and 3), but these seem to be the most common area here.

Q1: Why is this called a "Conspiracy Theory" and not a "Controversy"?
A1: (still nailing down the wording on this - this work thing keeps interrupting me!)

Q2: Is this considered a fringe theory?
A2: Yes. The consesus mainstream view is that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. Many sources also call these beliefs fringe theories. According to WP:Fringe, a fringe theory is one that departs significantly from the mainstream view, and specifically include conspiracy theories. There have been multiple questions posted at the fringe theories noticeboard about this question. It is consistently called a fringe theory.

Q3: Why is the phrase "fringe activists" used instead of "activists"?
A3: The consensus (see above) is that these theories are considered fringe, thus the description is accurate. Note that the full phrase used in this article is "fringe activists, pundits and political opponents". Some have expressed only a desire for information; implying without suggesting anything else.

Thoughts? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

since when was consensus estalbished? This FAW presents a misleading view of prior discusions and this discussion has not even yet been terminated in favor of the verifiable information. as far as I can tell, this current discussion began earlier today. to imply that this brief railroad job is "Consensus" is a violation of the meaning and spirit of consensus and the purpose of consensual intellecting debate and reasoning disbelief User:Smith Jones 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than try to post some of the many discussions on this, let me point you to the archives, to the WP:ANI archives and to the WP:FTN archives. Sorry you've missed 'em, but all of these questions have been brought up, discussed, re-discussed and sent back through for more. Time after time, the consensus view is that these are accurately described as fringe conspiracy theories. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that user:Dems on the move already posted a FAQ that covers the two major points with the same answers. I'm striking through my suggestions here as moot. Thanks for putting that up! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am troubled by the answer to the second question in the FAQ: "few prominent people are willing to admit to believing the theory, it is legitimate to call the believers "fringe". ... which seems to be arguing that we are calling them fringe because they are fringe. That is not the reason we using the terms "fringe" and "conspiracy theory" in the article! The only reason is that we are following reliable third-party sources on the subject; see this 7 month old compilation, there are many more sources now including the NBC newscast yesterday.
Also, in answering the first question, it would also be useful to link to the RFC and (one of the many) earlier discussions on the topic, where consensus was established and repeated reaffirmed. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit that removed the FAQ link. I like Abecedare's idea about liking the to the RFC (easily found in the archives), and will add that. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, it wouldn't hurt to link to as many of the other prior discussions as we can find. Jbarta is right that consensus isn't cast in stone and can be changed, but it's incumbent on those joining the debate for the first time to get up to speed on what's already been said. JamesMLane t c 18:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

On the surface it might seem that a benevolent FAQ seeking to point folks to previous discussions might be a fine idea. In practice however, I think it would degrade into yet another area for disagreement (as it has already). JBarta (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have combined and reworded the earlier Q1 and Q2 to specifically refer to wikipedia policies WP:RS, WP:V and WP:Consensus and linked to 4 earlier discussions on the topic. Reason for combining: I think the question should be worded broadly, instead of referring to each specific instance in which the terms conspiracy theory/fringe is used in the article, else we will just open ourselves to wikilawyering over each use. Feel free to tweak my wording etc. Abecedare (talk 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree combining the questions is much simpler. Great edits, thank you Abecedare.

I think this edit[19] by Dems on the move preloads the FAQ to be (my paraphrase) "consensus can change, but its unlikely unless dramatic new sources appear." That is untrue, as consensus can change even with the current sources. I prefer the earlier (imo, more neutral) wording, which helps folks find policy pages on how wikipedia works to help them better participate in the discussion. --guyzero | talk 18:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on Q2 and have restored the earlier simpler wording. But lets not spend too much time on this inside baseball, since the FAQ is not even seen by our regular readers, and its exact wording will be immaterial to the conspiracists anyway. Abecedare (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In the FAQ: Reliable sources vs Many reliable sources

Many reliable sources use "conspiracy theory" & "fringe" and many do not. "Many" is simply more accurate than implying that ALL reliable sources treat the issue in that fashion (although granted, more are doing just that as time progresses). There is nothing "weasly" about it. JBarta (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example... "People like milk" vs "Many people like milk". Which is more accurate? Of course, the closer one gets towards universality, the more justification there is in implying that ALL people like a particular something (for example: "People like to be clean"). The point is, when it comes to the use of disparaging (and arguably inaccurate) language such as "conspiracy theory", reliable sources are far from universal. Far enough to use a quantifier that attempts to more accurately reflect the wording that sources actually use or don't use.JBarta (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see a reliable source that treats this as a legitimate controversy, and find the many weasely akin to saying "Many sources say man landed on the moon in 1969". But as I said above this meta-debate about the exact wording of a FAQ is pretty lame, so I'll yield the floor to others. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If "many" wouldn't appear as a qualifier for similar material in the article, then it shouldn't be used in the FAQ, either. JBarta needs to understand that the creation of the FAQ isn't an invitation to carryover the same arguments from the talk page to that page. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, a source treating this issue as an illegitimate issue is not the same as a source specifically using or not using the phrase "conspiracy theory" or "fringe". Like you, I tire of this stuff as well. Personally, I'd prefer to leave much of the characterization of this issue out of the article completely and let the reader decide for himself if it's legitimate or not. I'd rather write an article that claims some believe the moon is made of cheese and coldly present the facts instead of moving heaven and earth to loudly show why such a notion is ridiculous and building an article full of pundits, and a comedian, and now a FAQ that seek to prop up the idea that it is without question just a bunch of nonsense. JBarta (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not completely liking the wording of the current FAQ, I'll concede that at this juncture it's generally informative and not the POV pushing tool I had envisioned. JBarta (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of an edit war for one sentence in the answer to the second question. "Note that unless new references in reliable sources claim that the theories are mainstream and no longer fringe, it is unlikely that a change in concensus would form.}} " I think that the idea is to try to head off folks from rehashing the discussion without anything changing. I'm agreeing with both sides on this - it's a good idea, but I don't really like the current phrasing. What about using "Repeating past arguements is unlikely to produce any changes."? A bit of a compromise, but I think it might help reduce the more repetative arguements. There's been a lot of those discussions already! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's let WP policy pages determine policy... not our little FAQ. If someone wants to know how and when concensus might change, point them to the appropriate policy pages rather than trying to head them off at the pass in a FAQ answer. JBarta (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the number of times the same arguements are trotted out and dismissed, something needs to be there to try to cut down on endless arguing over the same point. Which is kinda what we're doing here ... (ack! irony!) Trying to focus people effort on the article, not on rehashing old arguements is very much WP policy. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dems continues to revert his preferred language into the FAQ [20] [21] [22]. This is not neutral language. FAQs should be totally devoid of POV. Saying that change is "unlikely" is not true per WP:CRYSTAL and unnecessary poisoning the well. His edit summaries say we're trying to "discouraging discussions", which is not the objective. We never discourage good faith discussions. I'm hopeful that Dems will self-revert and come here to discuss. --guyzero | talk 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I give up. After a while I truly tire of this. JBarta is leaving the Obama conspiracy theory playground for a while. And don't worry, I won't let the door hit me in the ass on my way out. Happy trails. JBarta (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHRYSTAL applies to covering future events in the article space, not guidelines in a FAQ. Dems on the move (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As for "poisoning the well", the entire purpose of the FAQ is to reduce the likelihood that someone would open up the discussion again. The language I have inserted is in line with that purpose. Dems on the move (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to the FAQ are just as bad as the Birthers who attack this article, honestly. It has been reverted, again. Please stop. Tarc (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally attacking me will not help your case. You need to give specific reasons why you do not like my edits. Dems on the move (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the converse is true that you need to justify a material change to the FAQ. Again, the issue is that saying (paraphrase) "WP:CCC is unlikely to change" is not something we can know for certain, and saying it poisons the well against good faith discussion. --guyzero | talk 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is personally attacking you; your poor edits are being criticized. There is a bit of a difference. The tone of your FAQ wording is verging on uncivil and is, still, quite preachy. You need to step back and take a breath or two here. Tarc (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edit comment calling me "Fringe leftism" is unacceptable. I will take a time out from the FAQ for a day or two, but rest assured, I'll be back. Dems on the move (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a characterization of the material you were edit-warring into the FAQ. Learn the difference and grow some thicker skin, please.

Sheesh - both of you, kick back and relax for a bit over this. You're both at or close to 3RR, and there's no reason to risk a block over a handful of words. Maybe look at what is trying to be said, because I think you're both looking for the same meaning. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally am a leftist (whether "fringe" or not I won't venture to guess), and I see no reason for the FAQ to predict that consensus won't change. It serves its purpose if it conveys the information that this subject has come up before, directs the new reader to the prior discussions, and summarizes the conclusions. JamesMLane t c 04:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i agree, but isnt the FAQ inherently POV-biased?? it ias asuming that consensus has been reached even thoguh that is in contestion right at this current debate. maybe we should hold off on implementation until we (well, you) can come to a great understanding of what WP:CONSENSUS has meant?? you are the ones disagreeing with the majority by insisting that weve agreed to calling them fringe conspiracy freaks User:Smith Jones 00:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's NPOV. The consensus on this is quite clear - go look through the archives and the sources linked in those discussions. The FAQ has the major discussions on this nicely linked as well. These are conspiracy theories, and they are fringe ideas. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i looked at the archives, and it seems that there were man points raised by User:Jbarta that are being set aside. however, i do now feel that many people agree that "fringe" is agreeable re: reliable sources, so i dont mind that this be included in the FAQ. Can I make a recommendation: can we CAP the number of times we call the birthers "fringe" at 3 in the body of the article (except for in direct quotes from sources). i dont want to create this into some kind of leftwing attack sight User:Smith Jones 01:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article describes the activists as fringe only once. The other three uses of fringe are all in quotes talking about this. Just yanking them out doesn't make much sense to me. I think they'd need to be replaced with quotes along a similar view, or rework those sections to avoid putting undue weight.

First quote is at the end of the Campaigners and proponents section - "The penetration of the birther mythology into the violent fringe has to be a worry for the Secret Service" That's a totally different use of fringe than in the header, I think. Nobody would think that someone believing in a particular theory (say, Rush Limbaugh) would be in the violent fringe. The paragraph is about the more violent extremes, as it mentions James Von Brunn (Holocaust Museum shooter) and his posts about this topic. I think this quote fits in well with that paragraph, and helps to highlight the point the paragraph is making.

Second quote is in the Legislative initiatives and responses section, a couple of paragraphs into the State section. This is from political commentators - "aimed at advancing the claims of the fringe movement". This is clearly the same meaning as the header. There's not a lot pro or con in this section. Might be a good place to find a replacement quote expressing a view against the bill.

The third quote is from the same section, just a few paragraphs farther down. The paragraph is about a bill from a Florida congressman and is from a paper in his district who says that the bill "stems from fringe opponents of President Barack Obama". Also the same usage as the header. It's a direct response to the bill, and from a paper local to the sponsor of the bill, so I think it's pretty relevant. Apparently the bill stirred up a fair amount of comments from other local politicians/papers. It also mentions the support the bill has gotten. Overall, seems pretty balanced.

That all said, there's a fair number of quotes with somewhat pejorative terms in them from both sides. "Goofy", "Communist", "rapid Truther", full line from Medved, and that's just the first half of the article. This is about conspiracy theorists, some of which believe in some pretty far out theories about this. When you start asking mainstream sources about this, you tend to get some harsh quotes. Look at some of the Tax Protester articles - having their arguments described as "frivolous" is rather upsetting to them, but it's also how they are described by most authoritative sources. It's the same here - even when a source wants to see the full birth certificate, there's often comments to disparage the more extreme theorists. Going through the court case section, several of them were dismissed as frivolous - pretty harsh from a judge.

Maybe replace the second quote, but it would have to be replaced, not just deleted, to remain balanced. Honestly, "fringe" is probably one of the gentler words describing the theorists, and some of the harshest language is coming from conservative, right-wing sources.Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think this is much ado about nothing; "fringe" is a more or less NPOV way of describing this issue, see WP:FRINGE. To call it anything else is giving the theories unwarranted promotion. Tony Kao (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

New "Political Impact" section

I've added a new section to the article, "Political impact", replacing the "notable public protests" section that had been added earlier and bringing together a number of themes that have been simmering for a while. What do people think? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed your good faith edits, because it duplicates with the section Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Legislative_initiatives_and_responses. Dems on the move (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Where is the duplication? I moved the section down to sit above the legislative initiatives one to provide some much-needed context. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You really should read the section that I referenced. It discusses the proposed legislation that you wrote about. Dems on the move (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the section that I added? It contains one line which mentions the legislative initiatives and links to the subsequent section. None of the remainder of the content has appeared anywhere else in the article. If you insist that it is duplicative, I'd like you to tell me exactly which lines are duplicating what. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I'll work Limbaugh back into the "campaigners" section (which I've retitled "campaigners and proponents" for accuracy). He's not campaigning for it in the same way as, say, Orly Taitz, but he's clearly a proponent. But you mustn't use WorldNetDaily as a source, since that has been discussed and rejected ad nauseum in this discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I read your edits a little more carefully. Although you have a little new information, the majority of your 3rd paragraph belongs in the section Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Legislative_initiatives_and_responses please make the necessary changes to avoid duplication. As for Limbaugh, you are absolutely correct. Please improve the article. Dems on the move (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. The "political impact" section is meant specifically to be an overview of the various impacts of birtherism on mainstream politics - protests, congressmen being heckled, right-wing organizations using it for fund-raising, legislative actions, etc. The "legislative initiatives" section is a summary of activity in one specific sphere, namely legislatures. Only one line in that paragraph covers the legislative initiatives (and then only as a lead-in to the following section) - the rest of it consists of political analyses of the effect of the birther movement in general (NOT the legislators) on mainstream Republican politics. It would be off-topic for a section dedicated specifically to the legislative side of things. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think your 3rd paragraph belongs in the "Legislative initiatives and responses", that's fine. I'll take some time off, come back later, and propose a way to reword your 3rd paragraph so that it would better fit in the "Legislative initiatives and responses" section.

Thank you for your contributions, and please accept my apologies for the mini-edit war. I admit that I did not read your edits very carefully. Dems on the move (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good section (in fact a similar idea occurred to me earlier), and other than adding a few more references, rearrange a few wordings and updating it as time goes on I see no reason for any major changes. Tony Kao (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice work. Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal Defense Fees

I have not verified, but the rumor mills have it Obama, or his party has spent nearly $US 1 Million of legal fees fighting all these suits. Should this be included? If this is true, why waste all that money on lawyers when the issue could be closed with the disclosure of a normal Certificate of Birth? Trentc (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that figure comes from looking at the campaign's financial reporting and adding up all legal fees, for whatever purpose. Obviously (well, it's obvious to people who aren't birthers, at any rate), lawyers did other things. The best-funded campaign in history must have had significant FEC compliance costs. As a practicing lawyer, I offer my semi-educated wild guess that Obama's legal fees on birther suits wouldn't approach a million. (Many of the cases are brought against state officials and the state attorney general's office would probably do the heavy lifting.) In any event, there's really nothing substantive to include in the article unless and until this goes beyond what you correctly describe as rumor mills.

As for your second point, I've seen plenty of birther posts on Free Republic demanding to see a host of other documents. For example, some argue that Obama, while a child, lost U.S. citizenship, so they want records of adoption by his stepfather, school records in Indonesia, college records that might conceivably show his applying as a foreign exchange student, etc. Furthermore, there is no set of records that would stop some birthers from arguing that he was ineligible because entitled to dual citizenship at birth, or because he became Indonesian, or whatever. Finally, the birthers have by now become so heavily invested in this crusade that many would decry as a skilled forgery any document that he produced.

There's also the intriguing theory that Obama is engaged in a rope-a-dope. You say he's spent a million? Well, he can afford it. For that million (or whatever small portion of that amount actually relates to these suits), he keeps right-wingers devoting a significant portion of their time and energy to a wild-goose chase. They're excitedly exchanging birther theories instead of trying to sabotage health-care reform. I've seen this speculation mentioned by bloggers, but at this stage it's also not worth including in the article. JamesMLane t c 12:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Snip, per WP:TALK. It's in the history if you're really looking for it. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets remember that this talk page is not a forum for discussing rumors and empty speculations. This discussion should perhaps be archived or removed; at a minimum it shouldn't be continued on this article talk page unless there are specific suggestions for adding information to the article and accompanying reliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a forum, but it's inevitable that discussions of improving the article will segue into forum-type posts to some extent. With regard to the comments by Smith Jones about alleged abuse of taxpayer money, obviously nothing of the sort could go in the article without a citation. On a similar subject, some reliable source (maybe the Anchorage Daily News) did a computation of the actual cost to the government of Alaska of the ethics complaints against Sarah Palin (not surprisingly, it was far less than what she claimed). If we find comparable information for the birther suits, we could include it. The problem is that there are so many different jurisdictions involved that it would be very hard for anyone to come up with a defensible figure. JamesMLane t c 05:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Change adding quote by Posey reverted

I just reverted [23] a change by user:Suaiden, and wanted to see what other folks thought. Two problems I had - first, an inaccurate (and WP:OR) edit summary; second, the quote didn't add much and, because it came from Posey's blog, ran into some issues with WP:SELFPUB as it comments on third parties.

Here's the quote: "Why’d I do this? Well, for a number of reasons and the more and more I get called names by leftwing activists, partisan hacks and political operatives for doing it, the more and more I think I did the right thing. First, it’s easy to call people names. This week, I’ve been called some pretty nasty things. That’s fine. But none of these tolerant people actually want to discuss the issue at hand… whether or not a presidential candidate should have to file these documents with the government."

Suaiden's change didn't remove anything, it just added that quote. The summary already covers his motivations, and this quote doesn't add anything to the article.

I reverted Another change by Suaiden that I'd like for folks to review [24] as the material is unsourced and OR. There's also an article for that. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, I agree with you that the quotation adds nothing. On the second point, we don't need a whole paragraph about McCain, but we should find a way to give more prominence to the wikilink to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility. Right now it's sort of buried in the discussion of the Donofrio case. That's a bad placement because the wikilink could be of interest to some readers who skip over the subsections on particular lawsuits. JamesMLane t c 22:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Code Title 8 Subsection 1401

According to U.S. Law, President Obama would have been a U.S. citizen at birth irregardless of what nation he was born in per ...

U.S. Code 8: 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(g) "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years"

Thus as long as one of his parents (his Mother in this case) was a U.S. citizen (which she was) and had lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years, 2 of which after the age of 14 (which she did, as she lived in the U.S. all of the first 18 years of her life before giving birth to Barack at 19) then Barack Obama would be a citizen at birth regardless if he was born in Kenya or Hawaii. For the record, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence leaves little doubt that he was indeed born in Hawaii, but as this code displays, it wouldn't even matter. As a result, I would posit that this information should be included in the article. Objections? Comments? Agreements?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As of the time of Obama's birth, the law was different. One requirement then was that the U.S. citizen parent have lived in the U.S. for at least five years after the age of 14. I think the consensus among legal experts is that the subsequent statutory change, shortening the required time to the current wording you quote, was not retroactive. (This illustrates one reason for the policy of WP:NOR. Especially in a technical area like the law, we don't want to rely on the work of someone whose only qualification in the field is that he or she is willing to edit Wikipedia. Applying that principle here, we would not include this information unless some reliable source has confirmed that this was the law in effect in 1961.)

You've also made a slight but crucial factual error. You state that Obama's mother gave birth to him at 19. If that were so, then he would indeed have qualified for citizenship, without regard to the place of his birth, even under the law then in effect. In fact, however, she was only 18. JamesMLane t c 14:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

James is right. See this blog post by Eugene Volokh for legal analysis. This is already mentioned in the Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii section of the article. Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1961 long form certificate was destroyed in 2001, but then it was viewed in 2008?

KSWB NBC TV said that government officials viewed Obama's 1961 long form birth certificate in 2008.

mediabistro.com says that CNN president Jon Klein said the document was destroyed in 2001.

Perhaps the article should mention both of these things.

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that, in or about 2001, Hawaii digitized its recordkeeping. The paper documents that had been carrying the information were scanned into an electronic file. The paper documents were then destroyed. Obviously, however, the information can still be viewed. I don't see anything in how Hawaii keeps its records that merits inclusion in our article. It's not as if anyone is contending that some information available in 1961 is now lost. For example, the birthers often talk about wanting to know the name of the attending physician. If that name was on the paper that was kept until 2001, it's now on the pdf or whatever other file format is used. That an inquirer would go to a terminal rather than a filing cabinet is of no importance. JamesMLane t c 04:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, read that first source a bit more carefully. It doesn't say what you think it does - you're assuming something that isn't there. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Proofs against time travel no (x) - the relevant persons weren't told to keep all relevant paperwork (in triplicate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reworking sentence in Political impact

I'm trying to rework a sentence (yup a single sentence - I know, sad, but when it gets in my head ...) in the Political impact section, and I haven't really come up with something I completely like.

• Original - "Democratic commentators have criticized the reluctance of some Republicans to reject the birth certificate campaigners,
• Interim 1 - "Democratic commentators have criticized the reluctance of some Republicans to reject the birth certificate claims,
• Current - "Democratic commentators have criticized the reluctance of some Republicans to reject the birth certificate supporters"

From the looking at the phrasing of the original paragraph and sentance, and the source, I believe that the point is about the people making the claims, not the actual claims. I agree with Dems thought that the word campaigners seems awkward there. I'm not totally thrilled with the current version I put in late last night, but haven't yet come up with something I really like. I'm thinking about this:

• Proposed - "Democratic commentators have criticized the reluctance of some Republicans to reject the supporters of the birth certificate issue, "

It seems to capture the point in the quote, without ambiguity. Thoughts? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not about the rejection of the people, it's about the rejection of the ideas.

So how 'bout "Democratic commentators have criticized the reluctance of some Republicans to reject the birth certificate conspiracy theories"? After all, this is the title of the article. Dems on the move (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on - do you really think there would be a People who believe in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article? This article is about both the beliefs and (in general) those who support them.

Can't agree with your suggestion. Simply, that's not what the source or the quote is about. Look at the quote - "Republican officials are reluctant to denounce the birthers for fear of alienating an energetic part of their party's base" It's not saying "denouce the birthers claims", it's saying "denouce the birthers". How can you have the line that uses the quote refer to something the quote doesn't? It is about rejecting the people with that belief, not just the belief. Read the source - the lines around that particular quote are also about the people, not just the belief. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to use the quote, then use the quote. But if you want to rephrase by substituting the word 'denounce' with the word 'reject' then it is a rejection of the theory, not rejection of the people. To reject a person has an entirely different meaning than to denounce a person. Dems on the move (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, yes, I can envision an article titled List of people who believe in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Dems on the move (talk)

Suggest rewording the phrase accounting for the new sources that are commenting on the issue of what stance mainstream conservatives should be taking: [25][26], which might present a more complete accounting of that view(s). regards, --guyzero | talk 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the revision - [27] for this, Dems on the move. Pondering something similar, but what I was thinking was wordier (and clunkier). Ravensfire2002 (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Related note that NPR/OnPoint had a program on the birther movement today. Guest Michael Medved (conservative commentator) had some commentary with regards to the need for mainstream Republicans to reject the birthers.

http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/07/the-fury-of-the-birthers ... thanks, --guyzero | talk 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

the bad science of birth certificate "analysis"

If there's ever a return of the blather about how the birth certificate was faked, How not to do image analysis and How not to do image analysis II should be of use. Although they are self-published, we have evidence that the author knows his stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New Assertion from Hawaii II

There's something of a bombshell today -- Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, who was pointed to in the past as having side-stepped the issue of Obama's birth and citizenship, said today, "I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen." I have added this information, and its citation to the Honolulu Advertiser, to the article. (And I do not know the source of the spelling error in the President's first name -- but perhaps that will spill over into birther mythology like Elvis's middle name.) --TheMaestro (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And today the editorial board of the National Review dropped a payload onto the Birther movement; Born in the U.S.A.. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the article about Fukino's statement. It also says "The U.S. House on Monday unanimously approved a resolution recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii becoming the 50th state. A clause was included that reads: 'Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.'"Kylelovesyou (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's believable beyond any reasonable doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. This suggests that his unwillingness to release the orginal 1961 long form is for some other reason. Perhaps he doesn't want anyone to know that the doctor who delivered him was Ron Paul? Grundle2600 (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no longer any such thing as a "long form" for Hawaii birth records, which you would know if you read the article. As for the doctor, it doesn't matter if it was Ron Paul or RuPaul, the conspirators are running out of legs to stand on here. Tarc (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz

Since the potential creation of this article was discussed on this talk page, editors here may be interested in the 2nd AFD nomination. Note: I am not recommended editors to !vote one way or another; I myself am conflicted and will perhaps add my 2c later. Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As someone who would like to rescue certain weak-minded friends from birther hysteria, I would like to see the Orly Taitz article reinstated. If she's an attorney, why does dhre practise dentistry and real estate agentry for a living? Her followers cab easily find the "good news" about what a great person she is. I need a place to find the other side of her story. 76.3.159.175 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we spin off the birther stuff into it's own article?

It's really getting a lot of coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

not really. the birther questionations are basically the entire concep of citizenship conspiracy theories. to remove them from this article is to remove all mentions of Barack OBama from the Barack Obama article User:Smith Jones 21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This article would still summarize the issue. It's just that it's gone beyond what can be included here per WP:UNDUE. It's starting to effect a lot of republican house reps as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You lost me. Can you please quote the sentences in WP:UNDUE which you think this article violates? Dems on the move (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

-

this article is princiapllya bout the birther theories. it belongs here just as much as Barack Obama belongs in Barack Obama. there are too many content forks even under WP:UNDUE for obama already User:Smith Jones 22:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Smith Jones and Dems on the move, this article is largely about the theories put forth by birthers. It's not UNDUE to present conspiracy theories and fringe ideas as such when that's how most sources refer to them. If a theory comes across as really, really odd, and that's how it's described by RS, then that's how Wikipedia should describe it as well. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, I'm also mystified. What would you move and what would you leave here? The only specific point you mention is Republican House Reps, a few of whom are mentioned because of actions they've taken with regard to this issue. I don't see a problem with that. Do you mean that it's affecting them in the sense that they look like fools to any sensible person who reads an accurate account of their actions? Obviously, some readers will consider them fools and others will consider them heroes. Nothing in that is a basis for a separate article. JamesMLane t c 23:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I was thinking about an article on the movement, beyond just what they think about Obama and it being incorrect. As I look closer, this article, and some others like Michael Castle do a pretty good job of describing it. A very large article could be written on them, and because of the amount of info, it could unbalance an article titled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" since it isn't really about Obama, other than they can kinda rally against him. But, I'm feeling too lazy to start such an article right now, so never mind. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

God and Obama protester

The image of the protester in the "Commentary and criticism" section needs to either be explained, or removed because I think it somewhat obfuscates the messages of the group as a whole. Call it the "diet version" of singling out Frank Chu at any demonstration in the Bay Area. Is he implying that neither God nor Obama is a valid authority? If anything, he seems to be parodying the birther movement by saying that none of them (perhaps presumed to be religious conservatives) have ever questioned God's birth status. Is any of this making sense (or, for that matter, not making sense) to anyone? NeutronTaste (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what is it about the image that you find objectionable? The image depicts a protester who makes the claim that Obama does not have a birth certificate, and I suppose takes a secondary jab at Obama by saying that Obama is so the anti-God that the only thing he has in common with God is that neither one of them (according to the protester) has a birth certificate.

So what do you find objectionable?

Dems on the move (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a joke that was used/is being used by various birthers. Limbaugh's used it, as have others. I know I've read it in several sources, and thought it was in the article somewhere. Couldn't find it, so it may have been removed or my memory being, well, slightly disorganized. I'll see if I can find a source for the phrase (which should be one of the source already used in the article). Ravensfire2002 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it seems like this guy is saying "you can't invalidate Obama's presidency on the birth certificate issue any more than you can invalidate God's." He certainly appears to be a parodist of the movement. Maybe he's an antitheist "Birther", but that's doubtful.NeutronTaste (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's actually a joke used by birthers, as bizarre as that sounds. "You know what God and Obama have in common? No birth certificate!" Yeah, it sounds pretty lame to me. Here's a link to one of the sources that I remembered, with Limbaugh using the joke. [28] Ravensfire2002 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the clarification. This had me really confused, and yes - that is quite literally and without joking, one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Oh yeah, and the worst joke in fucking history. NeutronTaste (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

the please assume WP:AGF User:Smith Jones

certificate questions vs citizenship questions

so I think there are a lot of semi-valid reasons why people would want to see the long-form, that have nothing to do with those citizenship theories... like middle name, father, whatever. There is a much higher chance that there is some irregularity between the two docs in that regard, than in location of birth. Regardless, I think it needs to be more clear that some of these issues have no bearing on the citizenship questions... like Mohamed as middle name, that has political consequences entirely seperate than where he was born. It's almost boringly normal to try and find childhood dirt in politics, including birth certificate. Any good oppo researcher would desperately want to see any candidate's long-form. So I guess at some point, we need to make clear not all "birth-certificate-ers" are "birthers" in the conspiracy-sense. Some are just opponents looking for background... 66.220.124.56 (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe they call that "distinction without a difference". Tarc (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Shelby

I think this section is non-notable: In February 2009, a local Alabama newspaper reported that at a town hall meeting Senator Richard Shelby was asked if there was any truth to the rumors that Obama was not a natural born citizen. According to the paper, Shelby responded that "Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate".[62] A Shelby spokesperson denied the story, but the newspaper stood by the story.

It would be better to substitute a paragraph describing the level of support for the theory among Republican congressmen.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.

1. He indicated he believes in the conspiracy theory
2. He then not only back-paddled, but contradicted the printed version.

Dems on the move (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It may belong in his own article but is too detailed for this one. But why do you think that the level of support among other Republicans should be ignored? This has been mentioned in several places.[29][30] The Four Deuces (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

1. You lost me. What makes you think that I "think that the level of support among other Republicans should be ignored"?
2. Being the highest Republican official to outright say that he thinks that the conspiracy theories are valid (he hasn't seen the birth certificate), I cannot see how this would not belong in the article.

Dems on the move (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Shelby's reaction to a fringe theory is not important enough to include in the Shelby bio. On the other hand, even such a quasi-endorsement from a high-ranking elected official is significant in the context of the birther movement, so it does belong in this article. JamesMLane t c 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If Shelby, then also Inhofe?

If Shelby's comments are deemed worthy of inclusion, what about the always-quotable Senator James Mountain Inhofe of Oklahoma? As reported in the July 28 Tulsa World, he said:

"I believe those people who are concerned about his birth certificate, about whether he is a citizen and qualified I encourage them to do that," the Oklahoma Republican said of a group pursuing the issue.

and further:

"I don't discourage them from going ahead and pursuing that," Inhofe said. "That is something that in my heart I don't feel I can do anything about, but I can do something about, and I hope in your story that you will mention, the three things that I can affect and will affect." asked if he personally thinks there is a chance President Obama is not qualified by birth to be the president, Inhofe said: "You know I have never gone through and read all the stuff on that so I don't know. I just haven't taken that one on."

and in a further statement from his staff:

"If there are legal experts who have concerns, I would encourage them to continue looking into it. Unless and until additional information is provided, I will continue to focus on issues related to preventing President Obama's liberal agenda from changing the face of America.

Jim Myers, "Inhofe weighs in on Obama birth site: He encourages those with questions, but he's focused on other issues", Tulsa World, July 28, 2009.

The World thought enough of this to devote an editorial to the matter today (July 29), in which they say "Oklahoma's senior senator, Jim Inhofe, might not have thrown gasoline on the whacky theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States but neither did he try to douse the flames." "The 'birthers': Don't encourage them, senator", Tulsa World, July 29, 2009.

I'm don't currently have a strong opinion as to whether either of these senators' ruminations belong in the article. But I do suggest that if one does, probably both do.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and insert it. You do not need permission. Dems on the move (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking to birther sites

An editor recently removed an external link to a birther site, citing that it violates WP:RS. Given that this is an article about birthers, would it not make sense to link to their site? I cannot see anything in WP:RS saying that external links have to be reliable. All I can see is that only reliable sources can be sourced for text in articles. Nothing about linking to non-reliable sources as an external link. In my opinion, linking to birther sites is consistent with WP:LINKS
Any thoughts? Dems on the move (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

i agree. it smacks of censorship which is a mistake in polticail articles since it can bei itnerpereted non positivel. Smith Jones 00:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that www.marchreport.com is a suitable link for this article because:

1. It is not a reputable factual source on the subject (like factcheck); nor is it
2. A prominent birther website as attested by secondary references (like WND, which is oft mentioned in reliable sources on the subject)

Considering Wikipedia:LINKS#In_biographies_of_living_people, we should avoid questionable websites like this one, even as external links. Abecedare (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, just looking at WP:ELNO, marchreport hits more than a few of those. It certainly fails the "neutral and accurate" guideline! We've got WND's gallery, I don't see how adding another gallery of similar articles offers much value to the article. External Links is NOT a collection of everything that might be related to the article, but isn't used as a source. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, as said above, it fails WP:EL. --guyzero | talk 03:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who has removed this 2 times thus far (and won't again per 3RR), I obviously don't find this personal blog to be credible, notable, or reliable. I am all for sites displaying an alternative view, and am ok with the inclusion of World Net Daily's compilation; however this obscure blog in my view does not meet Wiki standards.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Requiring that the external link be factual would disqualify linking to all birther sites, because it's a conspiracy theory (i.e. not facts). However, so long that we link to some birther sites, I'm OK with it. As mentioned above, we don't need to link to all $15 sites (to borrow the words from Robert Gibbs). Dems on the move (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the criteria of neutrality and reliability don't apply here. Bio articles of politicians routinely link to their campaign websites -- clearly nonneutral and not clearly reliable (to say the least). By analogy, this article, intended to inform the reader about a particular political POV, can link to external sites that promote that POV.

The question is whether adding this particular link adds significantly to the article. I'd say leave it out unless and until someone can make the case that there's important information at that link that's not available at any of the other links we include. JamesMLane t c 06:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily External link

Now the link to WorldNetDaily's complete coverage of the subject has been removed. From this discussion it appeared that most users were OK with it. It also seems to meet WP:ELMAYBE #4. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming?

Has using "birther" as part of the page title been considered? Some googling seems to suggest it's become the most popular term to use for the movement. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

birther and birthers redirect to this article, and that does count in Google's rankings, although I suppose if the article's title itself contained the word it would be weighed even higher.

Propose a title.

Dems on the move (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, as a better alternative, don't propose a title change until you've read the prior threads about what the title should be. If you display no familiarity with the main points that have already been discussed, then it's likely that any proposal for change will be coldly received. JamesMLane t c 06:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think "birthers" might be a bit too much of a pejorative to pass NPOV as an article title here. Just as truthers is a redirect, I think that that is sufficient here. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Two sources suggesting that "birthers" have a good point

Here are a couple recent opinion pieces [31] [32] that take a professional and mostly mature approach to the matter suggesting that Obama ought to release his records. Possibly editors may see fit to include some of this material in the article. JBarta (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Strike 1 and strike 2, as OpEds are not reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

since when??? Smith Jones 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Since forever. Read WP:RS. Opinion pieces are to be used as sources only for the opinions of their authors, not as a reference for anything. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Carol Swain is a Professor of Political Science and a Professor of Law at the Vanderbilt University Law School. I would suggest her opinions on the issue are at least as "reliable" as some of the of the other opinions and commentators who have found their way into this article. JBarta (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. The only thing Swain's press release means is that she can be included in the group of known Birthers. From a legal standpoint, there is no difference between the COLB and the long form birth certificate and frankly, I'm a little disappointed that a Professor of Law doesn't understand this. Remind me not to send my kids to Vanderbilt.;)--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

are you plimplgint athy ou implying that you know the law more than a noted law professor at one of the if not THE most important law academies in the world??? That may be true, but fortunatel what we think and what we believe and our own prejudices are not matter. What we face here is that we are in WP:V, searching for verifiability not truth. unless you have a source tha tbacks your own position, then Professor Vanderbilts opinion must take precedence with recards to inclusion!! Smith Jones 23:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be a little more careful with your spelling. The default editor gives you helpful red underlines. Usually I can make your meaning out, but "plimplgint athy ou" keeps me from understanding your point. PhGustaf (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

From context: "are you plimplgint athy ou ...." = "Are you implying that you ...." Dems on the move (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

i apologize what I meant, but my editor has no helpful red underlines and it never has, depsite the mistaken misapprehensions of many people. However, I do think that you should revuew WP:V, specifically the fact that we are not loking for WP:TRUTH but instead searching for what is verifiable in notable, reliable sources and has significant weiaght. Smith Jones 23:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A little off the topic, but regarding the red lines, if you would use Mozilla Firefox instead of Internet Explorer, then you will get the helpful red lines that PhGustaf is talking about. Dems on the move (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless Prof. Swain's views have received widespread attention or she has some specific expertise then they are not notable, and should not be included. BTW no evidence will persuade the birthers. Read The Paranoid Style in American Politics. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What The Four Deuces said. While it is true that COLBs have different legal significance from state to state, the one common thing is that while they may be shorter than the long form, they do accurately reflect the information on the long form for what they do provide. From the perspective of what would be required to prove citizenship, Hawai'i's COLB is sufficient because it includes the birth location. All that being said, at this point Obama could provide the long form and the Birther's still wouldn't believe him. They'd just change tactics to say that even though he released his long form, the time difference from when they started requesting the long form and when it was provided was the time Obama and his conspirators needed to create a forgery. As for Wikipedia's policies, please read the last paragraph of WP:SPS. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that Prof. Carol Swain's press release didn't mention that she is a regular contributor to Lou Dobbs Tonight, as her other profiles invariably do [33], [34], [35]. I would have thought that a need for full disclosure in this case, where she defends Lou Dobbs, would have been obvious. Abecedare (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

She's also a regular columnist for the Huffington Post. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle ground position - a third point of view

This new article from National Review says that, yes, Obama was born in Hawaii, but also suggests that the reason that Obama doesn't want to release his long form birth certificate is because it contains information that contradicts things that Obama has said in the past, such as adoption, his real name, and foreign citizenship. It also cites, with links, how some of the stuff that Obama said in his autobiographies is false. It also suggests that the reason that Obama doesn't want to release his school records and passport is because those things also contain information that contradicts things that he has said in the past. The writer thinks the birthers are silly to believe that Obama was not born in the U.S., but he is also glad that their conspiracy theory has caused other issues about Obama to be addressed. He also criticizes the mainstream media for ignoring these other issues about Obama, while simultaneously trying to dig up as much dirt about Sarah Palin as possible. Anyway, the writer's point is that there are more than just two positions on this issue - there is a third position in the middle too. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just one writer's mewling because he didn't like the direction the NR editorial board is taking. To paraphrase Dubya, "either you're with us or with the Birthers". Tarc (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

...and all conjecture as well. I usually give NRO some respect, but there is not much difference between publishing unproven birther theories as there is in advancing the theory that he must've been adopted and became an Indonesian citizen, practiced Islam, etc., all within this weird synthesized fantasy world. He is trying to give himself some credibility by saying he's too smart to believe in this birther stuff, and then use that credibility as an excuse to print a bunch of made up stuff and corroborate it with additional made up stuff and conjecture. Not worth the bits its printed on. --guyzero | talk 05:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, look at the Andrew C. McCarthy article. The NR headline describes him as a contributing editor, meaning he's writing opinion type pieces. Those are good to describe what that person believes, but that's about it. This isn't a middle ground, it's just another conspiracy theory. As others have said, once the natural-born thing was pretty much destroyed, it's on to something else! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How could anything on Obama's birth certificate, or in Hawaii's files relating to his birth, possibly contradict what he's said about foreign citizenship? His entitlement to British citizenship was based on UK law; Hawaii wouldn't be in a position to give a definitive ruling about his status. JamesMLane t c 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing contradictory, as Fukino's statement reflects the majority legal opinion, i.e., born in the United States confers natural-born citizenship (regardless of a dual nationality that existed at birth). Fukino is in no more of a "position" to say the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to privacy, but she would nonetheless be correct. Weazie (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what specific thing on the 1961 form could contradict what Obama has said. However, there must be some reason why he opposes releasing it to the public. I do believe that he was born in Hawaii. At the same time, I am curious about why he won't release the 1961 form. Just because one person wrote that article doesn't mean that lots of other people couldn't agree with his point of view. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtably, others share your "curiousity." There are several benign possible reasons why Obama does not release these records; the talk page, however, is not the place to have such a discussion. (And "curiousity," for some, is a passive method to express disapproval, e.g., "I'm not saying the moon landing didn't happen; I just have some questions about the evidence that you say proves that it did.") Weazie (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD for the Birther category

Feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 July 31#Category:Birthers. While not a fan of the birther movement in any sense, I think classifying people by specific belief such as this is not appropriate for the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rethinking "fringe" and "conspiracy theories"

Given the new section that user:ChrisO added today (thank you Chris) showing that 28% of Republicans believe in the theories and that 30% are not confident enough to reject the theories, I can NO LONGER SUPPORT the use of "fringe" and "conspiracy theories" in the article. The movement has now gone mainstream Republican. Dems on the move (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the lopsided level of ignorance on this issue, how is it not a conspiracy theory? --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Per policy, we follow the RS's and not our views on poll results in determining the content of the articles. The 3rd party analysis cited in section use verbiage such as "fringe" --guyzero | talk 22:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream Republican != mainstream America, thogh. I see no merit to this suggestion. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Something like 47% of USAians believe in young earth creationism. Their number does not outweigh the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources that assert a much older earth; by wiki standards they match WP:FRINGE. By the wiki definition, it's quite possible that a majority opinion could be "fringe". PhGustaf (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Guyzero. We can only report what the reliable sources say. Currently they label this a conspiracy theory and fringe. I also would like to remind people that this is not the place to debate whether this has gone mainstream or not. If the reliable sources say this has become main stream and notable, then we will report it as such, not before. Brothejr (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And I trust that you all have seen this volte-face. (As I contemplate the remarkably large US fringe, I'm somehow reminded of the woman on a phone-in program at the start of a Python sketch: I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!) -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is beginning to encroach on this topic. We are on extremely shaky ground here. Just because RS's used to say that this movement is on the fringe does not mean that it is still on the fringe. If in the next two weeks I do not see an RS that says that this movement is still on the fringe I will bring it up again. Dems on the move (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

They still say fringe; nothing has changed, and nothing will change in the next 2 weeks. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are 7 sources calling the birther movement fringe and or conspiracy theories in the last day or two:

• AFP
• Washington Post
• NPR
• Washington Post
• CBS (affiliate)
• Wall Street Journal
• Politico

There are dozens more over the last week. So can we give this debate a rest for say a month at least ? Abecedare (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Good piece of research Abecedare

Tarc, unless you have some special skills which I don't have, I would not go into conjecturing what the future may bring. If you do have those special skills, why are you here? go make some serious $$$$ on Wall Street.

Dems on the move (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, because sarcasm is always helpful. There's nothing special about the usage of common sense. Back In January the Birther Movement was a sensation in fringe right-wing circles but garnered scant mention in reliable sources, and what little it did garner was to note the fringy, tinfoil, conspiracy theory nature of said Movement. 6 months later, the nature of the Birther Movement is still...wait for it...a right-wing fringe sensation that only gets noted by reliable sources for its fringy nature. Common sense would tell one that if nothing has changed in half a year, then barring some sensational, earth-shattering bombshell of new information nothing is going to change in the next half-year either, let along two weeks. Tarc (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

←Nothing has changed - still fringe, still conspiracy theory. The title of the article is still correct. Tvoz/talk 06:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the latest poll, note that in November 2008 10% of those surveyed by Ohio State University believed that Obama was foreign born; in the Research 2000 poll of July 2009, the figure was 11%. Also, the number of Republicans supporting the conspiracy theory was roughly the same - a third - in the Orange County Register poll of November 2008 and the new poll. That's remarkably consistent, considering the amount of coverage that birtherism has had in recent weeks. Although Democrats are naturally using the poll to portray birtherism as gaining converts among the Republicans, its consistency with earlier surveys actually shows that the birthers have not actually gained much more support than they had last November. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

External Links needs cleaning up.

Per WP:EL, what this section has become is no longer correct. What we have now is a mere "collection of links" in which the issue is discussed, positively or negatively. That is not the point of external links. Please see WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO for specific guidelines but most of these need to go. I'm going to clean it up. If anyone objects, please discuss the specific link you feel should be included here. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the link to the WorldNetDaily archive of their complete coverage of the subject should be restored. [36] It does not obviously fail anything in WP:ELNO, and WorldNetDaily is a notable source for these theories. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, I would dispute that the current list is merely a "collection of links". In fact I would contend that the current links are probably the most beneficial and/or notable external mentions of this particular topic. I am open to discussion on particular links, or others views that they all should go (Wp:Concensus), but in lieu of this I have chosen to revert your blanket deletions to allow for more talk page discussion on the matter. I don’t find 6-7 links to be in the range of a WP:Linkfarm, and would posit that around 8 would be the Wiki average – although yes admittedly you have some editors who out of personal preference would like them eradicated altogether.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your insertion of all the links back into the article, but if you are adding those links back in, you need to at least give a justification for each of the specific links and why you feel they belong. The number of links (6 or 8) doesn't matter, it's the specific relevancy of the individual links. Of the three categories of link to include, the first two obviously do not apply. That leaves the third one "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." That right there rules out several of the removed links. WND is neither neutral or accurate. Most of the others are not being included for the legal and technical reasons stated above, but rather, simply because somebody likes it. I'll start by removing the WND link as it is a clear violation of WP:EL and we'll address the other ones individually. Please give specific arguments for EACH of the links why you feel they belong, not just a general statement that we don't have too many links so why not leave them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't mention WP:ELMAYBE. #4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Depending on how you interpret "knowledgeable sources" here WND could qualify. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Loonymonkey, the counter to "I like it" would be "I don't like it" (with both being as valid/invalid). At this moment there are 8 external links included in the article which I will list below:

• The Truth About Obama's Birth Certificate by FactCheck.org
• False Rumor about Obama's Birth Certificate from Snopes.com
• Email Hoax: Occidental College Transcripts Reveal Foreign Citizenship from Urban Legends
• Culture of Conspiracy: The Birthers by The Politico

Multimedia video

• The Daily Show: "The Born Identity" July 22, 2009
• Gordon Liddy on MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews July 23, 2009
• The Colbert Report: "Womb Raiders" Part 1 and Part 2 with Orly Taitz July 28, 2009
• Real Time with Bill Maher: New Rules - Warning On Birthers July 31, 2009

Per these links, I would say that the first 3 represent notable and reliable "fact checking sites" which are highly relevant to the topic and thus worthy of inclusion, while the 4th link from The Politico represents a fair assessment from a media source which is usually seen as a fair arbiter of conservative ideas. Per the second video section, it is obvious that these videos can't be linked in the article itself, and I would posit that these 4 media appearances (with their millions of viewers) gave the topic of “birtherism” more notoriety than probably any other occasions thus far in the entire "movement". They effectively brought the "fringe" out into the mainstream popular culture - for those who were probably not aware of these claims previously. Do you disagree? What would be your reasoning for objecting to including these links?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In the #Linking to birther sites thread above, I expressed doubt about linking to www.marchreport.com. By my same analysis, however, the link to World Net Daily is proper -- and I'm a liberal who has been known to refer to that site as "World Nut Daily". JamesMLane t c 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is either a real document or a great forgery.

Unlike the short form certification of live birth that was printed by a computer in 2007, this document really does look like something that was made in the 1960s. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? Barack cannot turn the clock back to the 60's and get a certificate that was printed in the 60's. I don't think even birthers make the claim that the certificate he produced is illegitimate because it was printed in 2008 rather than in the 60's. Dems on the move (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time Grundle. You know full well that WND is not a reliable source and there isn't any point in discussing anything that they have "published." --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this document isn't coming from WND - it's coming from Orly Taitz. WND often sensationalizes things, but they don't out and out invent photoshopped documents. I don't think there's any question whatsoever it's fake - for crying out loud, two blocks for signatures have typed names, not signatures. But just because WND posts it on their website doesn't mean they created it. Orly Taitz's website is http://orlytaitzesq.com/ - I looked there to see if they make any claims about where they got the document from, but they don't. --B (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that it's easily revealed to be a forgery. The "security paper" background has text in Afrikaans claiming it to be a fraud, and text embedded in the file says:

NOTICE: This image is a work of parody and political commentary. It is not a genuine government document. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. A certified copy of his birth record is freely available online. If you thought this was Obama's real birth certificate, a "smoking gun" proving he's not a natural-born citizen, then congratulations. You are an idiot. I made this from scratch. It is completely fake, and no document from Kenya or the United Kingdom resembles it.

Obama's president, and will be for the next 3 1/2 to 7 1/2 years. Get used to it.

Nothing to see here, folks.--TheMaestro (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, neither the WND image or the one from orlytaitzesq.com has such exif info. I googled the text and found it in reference to this photoshopped birth certificate, which is a completely different one from the one we are discussing. --B (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, nobody will ever find a reliable source that says this is anything other than a laughably obvious forgery and it isn't in any way notable, so inclusion in the article isn't going to happen. Given that, there is nothing left to discuss on this subject, and we're heading into discussion forum territory, so let's close this discussion and move on. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it's an obvious forgery. But this article is about conspiracy theories that everyone agrees are whacky. There will probably come a point where the MSM takes note of this fake birth certificate at which time it will be an appropriate topic for inclusion. --B (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That depends, if its just to make fun of it for pretty such an obvious fake, maybe not. If it's for hoaxing the birthers, still maybe not (although pretty funny!). What might get interesting is if Taitz uses it in a court cases and a judge takes her to task for including it. When you try to claim something in true and factual, and there's more than a few holes in that story, judges don't take a kind view. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a different forgery this time, but still has been debunked already, since Kenya was not a Republic until December 64, and this purports to be a copy made in Feb 64, when it was still a Dominion... furthermore, Mombasa was still Zanzibarian when Obama was born. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.20.31 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Dems on the move, you said, "Barack cannot turn the clock back to the 60's and get a certificate that was printed in the 60's." Yes he can. CNN president Jon Klein was mistaken when he said that it had been destroyed. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Source of that statement? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, if World Net Daily is not a reliable source, then why is it cited in this article? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, it is not a reliable source. In limited circumstances, it can be used as a reliable source, particularly when stating opinion. For this, it's anything but reliable. Far too many question have been raised already, and WND only uses innuendo. WND simply does not meet the requirements of a reliable source. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

70.105.20.31, that's an excellent observation. Thanks for pointing it out. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Look what I found! Seems like he released his | long form birth certificate.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread on Democratic Underground includes instructions for creating your own fake Kenyan birth certificate. The example given proves that Prince Charles was born in Kenya. Maybe we could do one for Jimbo. JamesMLane t c 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Information Available on Hawaii Original Birth Certificates

The article is somewhat misleading. The following information is shown on original Hawaii birth certificates.

File number Child's name Sex Single/Twin/Triplet and born 1st/2nd/3rd Birth date and hour Place of birth Island Name of hospital or institution, address Outside city limits? Usual residence of mother? Island County, State, or foreign country Street address of mother. Outside city limits? Mailing address of mother. Farm or plantation? Full name of father. Race of father. Age of father. Birthplace of father. Usual occupation of father. Kind of business or industry, Full maiden name of mother. Race of mother. Age of mother. Birthplace of mother. Type of occupation outside the home during pregnancy. Date last worked. Signature of parent and date. Signature of attendant (M.D., D.O., Midwife, Other) and date. Date accepted by local registrar, Signature of registrar, and date.

Could the article at least acknowledge that some of this information is not available on the form that was released? Doctor Search (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Doc, you might want to supply us with WP:RS's or check on WP:OR. Anything else is just senseless.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand the need for a reliable source. Do you agree that an Internet Archive Wayback Machine recovery of http://web.archive.org/web/20050405040843/www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html would be considered reliable. Doctor Search (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this information as of today, or as of Obama's birth? That's just one question that indicates why we have the WP:NOR rule. Find a citation in which an argument along these lines is made by a prominent spokesperson. We can report facts about opinions, including opinions held by birthers, but we do not go out and try to dig up facts to make the case for or against Obama's eligibility. JamesMLane t c 08:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)