Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

News Hounds

This article includes a wikilink to News Hounds, and improperly uses it as a reliable source. Notice that the wikilink takes you to an article about a 1947 comedy. This material ought to be removed from this article.166.137.139.91 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The wikilink that directed users to an unrelated article has been removed, but the references and sources are there and answer the fringe claims made by Hannity. Because a wikilink was wrong does not discount the sources. Although some of the sources in this article would not be considered in many articles, this article is about a fringe conspiracy theory and sources that cover it are used. Dave Dial (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the wikilink. However, the huge quote from News Hounds also needs to go, because it is not from a reliable or notable source. WP:RS should apply to this article like every other article, and the following footnote just doesn't cut it, IMHO: "Ellen (July 16, 2009), 'Fox Continues Promoting Birther Lawsuit While Ignoring Red Flags Indicating It's A Hoax,' newshounds.us." The author (Ellen) does not even give her last name. I have no objection if you want to find a reliable source to rebut Hannity, but this is not it.166.137.139.51 (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

See parity and fringe. If you can find another source that describes how Hannity propagated this "birther" silliness, then come back here and suggest it, I'm sure it will be considered. Otherwise, I believe that the two guidelines posted answer why this article uses sources that cover these topics rather than only mainstream media outlets. Since mainstream media outlets usually just ignore this b**s**t crazy stuff. Dave Dial (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to policy. Per WP:PARITY: "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." Even if it were Wikipedia policy to suspend the reliability requirement in the name of parity, there is no parity between Hannity (a notable figure) and the blogger "Ellen".166.137.139.51 (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure there is. Ellen is one of the founding members of News Hounds, and Sean Hannity is a conservative opinion host. Parity. Dave Dial (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They're both human beings too. Anyway, let's see if other Wikipedia editors are okay with relying here on anonymous blog entries by non-notable people. It seems like a straightforward application of Wikipedia policy for us, but I could be mistaken.166.137.139.51 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's already been decided numerous times that some blogs and not mainstream sources are acceptable in this(and other fringe articles) to rebut some outlandish claims. One such time is here, and there was consensus to add the sources already. So yes, it's straightforward. Dave Dial (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion that you link to does not indicate that your solution is the straightforward one. ChrisO called it a plain violation of Wikipedia policy. And I didn't notice anyone disagreeing with what Blaxthos said about News Hounds: "FAIR, MMFA, and Huffington Post are all widely cited by a plethora of third party sources (especially the mainstream media)... I personally don't think NewsHounds qualifies in most circumstances, but the other three certainly do with regards to media accuracy and criticism."166.137.136.197 (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead photo

Why was the birth certificate removed from the prominent place at the top of the article, without discussion? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably the same as the answer to the question "why was the moon's surface mined for cheese?" :) - Wikidemon (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

By which I mean that the matter was discussed.[1] I'm not sure the move has consensus, but it has at least four days of acquiescence behind it. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't a discussion, that was an "I'm going to do it". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

More of an "I just did it", if you ask me. Anyway, I do like the suggestion to use an emblematic anti-Obama protest photo in the lede, because that would illustrate the subject of the article, namely the conspiracy theories and their proponents. The scan of the birth certificate, and now, the swearing-in, both illustrate major facts related to the article, but not its subject. And I was half serious about creating a template for fringe theories and urban rumors. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you're right and I think Wikidemon's first description of apathy ahead of 'acquiescence' describes it better. I just did not feel like arguing about it. I also do not see why the scanned birth certificate was/is not the quintessential image descriptor of the fringe theories. Dave Dial (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It would seem the first photo encountered in an article should be a photo of the subject. Since there is no way to photograph conspiracy theories, we're forced to move a bit away from that. So, what best represents conspiracy theories? 1) a document that seems to counter some of the theories (the birth cirtificate) 2) an event that believers in the theories see as the goal of the conspiracies (the swearing in) or 3) someone protesting against the alleged conspiracy (the protester). I cannot see any answer other than 3. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with #3. It maybe be silly to discuss what photo is front and center but at the same time, why was there a need to change it in first place? I think a photo of a protester best represents the article and the photo under "Commentary and criticism" I think is best.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

President Obama is in the article title, and he's the alleged lead conspirator, so I have no problem with the swearing-in picture at the top. However, if you decide to instead have a picture of a conspiracy theorist at the top, perhaps use a pic of a leading conspiracy theorist rather than small fry. For example, a pic of Farah or Lakin would seem more appropriate.166.137.136.199 (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The image of the document was moved to the section where the release of the document is discussed, because when it was in the lead, there were too many facts about the document that did not fit well in the caption. Those facts need not be present in the caption when the image is positioned in the appropriate section. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion or conclusion about where consensus is on this, but my personal position is that the birth certificate image belongs farther down in the article in the section where the birth certificate is discussed, and that the image in the lede should be an emblematic picture of some of the conspiracy theory-related protests (not the current / reverted image of the swearing in). All for reasons already discussed. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Billboard photo

I concur that the birth certificate image belongs down in the section where it's discussed, while a better photo for the lead would be some sort of image symbolizing the conspiracy theory protests. Maybe something like this photo ? --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If that picture clears copyright, I'd support putting it at the top. PhGustaf (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. I don't see copyright info on that website and it is used in several other blogs.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This photo would indeed be the best photo for the lead. I think a case could be made for fair use since those billboards are no longer existence (WND is no longer paying for them) so therefore the image is not replaceable. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The photographer may not see it that way, however. Tvoz/talk 16:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the image and labeled that it is fair use only in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. It appears (at least to me) to be in conformance with WP:FU.Victor Victoria (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

←Unless using the image of John Roberts, the conservative Bush appointee, is meant to suggest that he is either a dupe of the conspiracy or a conspirator himself (both of which make me laugh - whoever said "hilarious" hit the nail on the head), the image is not directly illustrative of the overall article and so doesn't belong as the lead. I agree that the billboard, or even better one of the images of protestors from lower down in the article, works best as the first image. Tvoz/talk 16:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I kinda liked the swearing-in pic as an example of what it is the conspirators believe in; that a fraudulent person is holding the White House. But if more want the billboard, then sure, though I doubt it will pass NFCC. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, but if we use it we ought to have the "Dupe or conspirator?" caption - kidding aside, none of these birther supporters ever actually answers if they think Roberts was in on it or was fooled by it. And which is worse? (Sorry, it's a digression.) Tvoz/talk 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that such photos can no longer be taken (because those billboard have been taken down) is the biggest justification for WP:NFCC. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't an article about the billboard, it is just something picked to illustrate the subject; it isn't critical to the atricle that that particular photo be used. It will likely be argued that the swearing-in or the birth certificate photos are equivalent illustrations. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, nothing else other than the billboard can illustrate the extent to which the conspiracy theory has penetrated society. The old saying "talk is cheap" certainly applies here. Anybody can say anything they want, but once they are willing to put money behind what they are saying, it takes the talk to a different level. Homemade signs cost nothing, and bumper sticker cost a couple of dollars at best (to the end user), but a billboard requires a major investment by whoever wants to put up the advertisement. Therefore, from that perspective a photo of the sign is irreplaceable. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it! I don't think it would survive a stern application of NFCC, but I'm not one to complain. We should be looking for a backup just in case one of the image police stops and takes it away. - 01:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — This message was left by user:Wikidemon

The billboard best illustrates the issue. To the degree the article is intended merely to mock the issue, the previous illustration is better. John2510 (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for an edit?

User:John2510 claims to have consensus for this edit. Can somebody tell me where the consensus is to remove the title of the article from the article's lede? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is no consensus for that edit. Just undo it back to where it was. All anyone has to do is read Q1 of the FAQ to know that he is just edit warring. The user is very close to getting blocked and topic banned. Dave Dial (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been in discussion with him on his Talk page, but he doesn't seem interested in anything other than his own viewpoint, despite the probation that this article is on. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Any consensus that the previous lead makes sense? Eligibility theories, wacko as they may be, don't necessarily involve a conspiracy. More importantly, there's really no such phenomenon as a "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theory" as referenced in the lead. Does anyone have sources for this phenomenon, as such, existing? The article doesn't discuss conspiracies, as they relate to eligibility theories. John2510 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As you have been told at least once before(and probably more than once) to read the FAQ and the provided links therein, you either have not done so, or are being purposely obtuse. Once again, read the FAQ and the links provided there(1,2,3,4). Now, please do not change the descriptors again. Dave Dial (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read these, and they support the change to the articles name as a wp:consensus. They don't really relate directly to my edits. John2510 (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea I know Everard Proudfoot, I've seen you(and others) try to discuss this with the editor. And believe you are correct. Dave Dial (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW... You do know that the "FAQ" was created by an account named "Dems on the Move" (which couldn't conceiveably be less wp:npov and really means nothing... or at least I hope you know that... Also, it doesn't address the issue of the lead paragraph. I don't want to edit war... Anyone want think there isn't a consensus on this?... feel free to take it to dispute resolution. John2510 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC).

No. I provided you with the links to the consensus and the FAQ. If you choose to ignore the clear evidence of consensus again and change the descriptors, you will be reported and blocked. Dave Dial (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, John, you revert back to your version one more time and I'll report you for violating probation on this article, and then you'll be blocked. Try getting consensus to change the article title and lede. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Threats violate general Wikipedia principles. Provide some sources or knock yourself out.John2510 (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's all dial this back a bit and reset. Looking at the archives, the prior consensus is that the article title and lead should be "conspiracy" theories, not "eligibility" theories. That being said, the issue can always be revisited if there is substantial support to reverse prior consensus or if genuinely new and novel issues are raised. The appropriate method for that is not combative reverts, but constructive engagement in discussion. If anyone wants this thread to continue, assuming they've already read up on the issues in the archived discussions, they should lay out a clear and convincing rationale for why consensus should change. However, they should keep in mind that the burden of presenting logical argument and finding supportive sources rests with those that challenge existing consensus, and civil discussion is always more productive than edit warring. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I see nothing here that would support a change to the title. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read the existing materials and don't agree that there's is an existing consensus regarding the lead. If you believe there is... I would be interested in seeing your sources. John2510 (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Moot point. You're proposing a change to the long-time wording of an article. Nobody needs to demonstrate that the current wording has consensus. It's there without opposition, except yours. If you think you can get consensus for a change, go for it. It seems extremely unlikely given that six frequent editors have rejected the notion of removing "fringe" and/or "conspiracy theory", either in current discussions here or by reverting your change. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The antiquity of the language and a wp:vote in the moment don't mean much. Certainly "fringe." is accurate. That's consistent with consensus and I would support adding that to the lead. "Conspiracy" does not accurately describe all theories covered by the article, and is not discussed in the article. That's especially the case since Wikipedia has defined a wp:conspiracy theory, and these don't fit. John2510 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion, which specific theories in the article didn't automatically expand in the minds of their adherents to encompass any contrary evidence? --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question John2510 (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You've indicated that not all the theories in the article are conspiracy theories, so perhaps it would be constructive for you to indicate which ones and why they don't fit as a conspiracy theory. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. wp:conspiracy theory indicates that terms is used, "...to refer to any fringe theory which explains an historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." Using that definition, the theories described in the article are wp:fringe, but aren't necessarily conspiracy theories. For example, The separately-headed set of theories that he was born in Hawaii, but isn't a citizen because of Hawaii's status, etc. (here), while bizarre, don't entail a conspiracy at all. Also, this theory is based on the idea that his mom submitted a false affidavit upon which his birth certificate was based, presumably to avoid the nuisance of naturalizing him. Anything she filed is either lost or properly protected from public scrutiny under Hawaii law. That's a single act by an individual (Obama's mom) and doesn't involve a conspiracy. It would be accurate to say that:

"Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories" are conspiracy and other fringe theories...

That suggests that the article title has taken on a seocondary meaning beyond its denotative one. John2510 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the lead should be modified to something like this: "Conspiracy theories about the citizenship of Barack Obama and other fringe theories reject the legitimacy of the United States citizenship of President Barack Obama or his eligibility to be President of the United States." (?) --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, even though that wording is acceptable(although not anything near what was trying to be inserted), the fact is that almost all(and both of the examples listed above) involve some kind of 'conspiracy' in order for them to be true. Claims of judges, Hawaiian officials, the Obama campaign, Obama's parents and grandparents, all involved in some kind of 'conspiracy' to make it seem as if he is a natural born citizen all fit within both descriptors of fringe and conspiracy theories. Dave Dial (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the established wording (that is, I oppose the change proposed by John2510). The term "conspiracy theory" is commonly used to refer to suggestions that appeal to a minority of people, and which are based on misunderstandings, misinterpretations, wishful thinking, lies, or other non-credible mechanisms such as the promotion of a known-wrong story as a tactic. There does not have to be a literal "conspiracy" between each of the participants. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too. That is, I continue to support the agreed upon title and opening to this article, as has been previously discussed, dissected, and otherwise debated. Tvoz/talk 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We've been through this many times before, and always come back to this or a similar wording. Nothing has changed to alter consensus. PhGustaf (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What you've set forth is the very definition of wp:fringe... which is what these theories actually are. A conspiracy theory, by Wikipedia defnition, requires a consipiracy and calling this a conspiracy theory is both incorrect and misleading. I hope that's not intentionally the case but, in the absence of a rational explanation for the current wording, it's hard to see it that way. John2510 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

I am not going to debate this again, unless something new is raised, which has not happened. But for everyone's convenience, I repost the following from archive 3, as we all know that reliable sources are what we go by, not other Wikipedia articles that may have their own reasons for being written the way they are. (NB: I did not check with the editors quoted from the archives - I am reposting this for its list of reliable sources have called these claims "conspiracy theories".) From archive 3:

For easy reference, here is a blockquoted list, from this talk page archive, originally posted by Abecedare on 29 December 2008, as mentioned above [in archive 3] by Wasted Time R:

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

• Philadelphia Inquirer/ Associated press
• Washington Post
• Le mars Daily Sentinel (T.J. Templeton)
• Honolulu Star-Bulletin
• The Tribune Star
• The Daily Sentinel
• Washington Times (Michele Malkin)
• Times Record news
• Salon
• Salon
• News Press
• Chicago Tribune
• LA Times
• Star Tribune
• Rocky Mountain News
• St. Petersburg Times
• Time Union
• Slate
• The Week
• Memphis Commercial Appeal
• Newsmax (Ronald Kessler)
• The Virginian-Pilot
• New york magazine
• The Atlantic (Mark Ambinder blog)
• [http://www.spectator.co.uk/clivedavis/3077196/among-the-inmates.thtml The Spectator

copied from Archive 3 by Tvoz/talk 00:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, no one is forced to participate in discussion on Wikipedia, but it's a fundamental principle that Wikipedia isn't finished. That sort of mentality would have left us with the earth being flat and the sun revolving the earth. Further, my reading of that discussion suggests that the consensus is to change not only the lead, but the article title. If anyone disagrees with that, they're free to pursue dispute resolution. There may be some argument that Wikipedia, which is a network of articles, has no need to be internally consistent. However, this article specifically links to the definition of a "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia - thereby adopting that definition. Rather than a link, does this article then require a caveat that it is using some definition inconsistent with Wikpedia's? The first of the listed articles I checked didn't describe the Obama citizenship issue as a conspiracy theory. Before I check others... have you actually looked at these? John2510 (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Further, my reading of that discussion suggests that the consensus is to change not only the lead, but the article title." What? No. You do not have consensus to do that. "If anyone disagrees with that, they're free to pursue dispute resolution." WHAT? NO! You have literally NO support for this as far as I can see. Henrymrx (t·c) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW... If I can find an equal number of properl source articles that don't use the expression "conspiracy theory" would we have universal agreement that a different title would appropriate as a univeral label? I'm thinking not. I'm really kind of torn here between a desire for accuracy in Wikipedia and an inclination to let the article stand... since it so immediately warns the reader of its blatant biased. John2510 (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we would not have universal agreement, and the flat earth analogy is ridiculous as are the repeated pronouncements about consensus and the article's supposed bias (are you arguing that the theories are in fact credible?). It is not a requirement that every editor participate actively every time someone decides to resurrect a perennial proposal, or to continue the discussion endlessly while someone who simply cannot accept consensus finally gets tired of it. No, we are not adopting the definition of the "conspiracy theory" article, which you misconstrue rather severely to involve something about superhuman powers or something equally absurd. We go by what the sources say, filtered through some stylistic issues and common sense. We don't apply our own analysis of the definitional logic we think is established by other Wikipedia articles. The bottom line is that the subject of this article, and most of its content, are best described as "conspiracy theories". There may be some more mainstream positions included in the periphery of this article that assume the facts as they are, but the fringe theories and smears that are covered in main are all conspiracy theories. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing, nor do I believe, that they are credible. But, for that very reason, I believe they should be treated with particular objectivity - to maintain Wikipedia's credibility. Calling the theories something the clearly are not undermines Wikipedia. The current label, and particularly the lead, suggests a closed mind. John2510 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the link[2] you just removed. As I hope you understand, internal hyperlinks are here on Wikipedia to help interested readers navigate to further sources of information about important things discussed in an article. They aren't there to define terms, something we don't often do link or no link. If the conspiracy theory article needs improvement (and I think it does, that quotation about superhuman ability seems out of place), the place to address that is there, not here. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you believe "conspiracy theories" needs to be redefined not to require a conspiracy, then I agree... that should be addressed there, but the link is inappropriate so long as the definition requires a conspiracy. The (alleged) counter-consensus here is that this article will be inconsistent with that article's basic premise. John2510 (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You know what, John? My first comment on this article talk page was on December 11, 2008, a day after the article was created, and it was about changing the title of the article. (I was against it.) I held the same position in the RFC and several times last year when this was raised here again, and I'm not even going to get into how many other times I commented on this on the Obama main article talk since I started editing there in 2006. If you were presenting something new, I might participate in further discussion beyond stating my position, but as it is you have not and I choose not to go over the same ground again and again and again. Wikidemon's summary above says it all quite well, and I have nothing to add to it. Tvoz/talk 05:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the article's current title satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. I have no qualms with the use of conspiracy theory, the definition from what I have read is often flexible. With that, I am not astonished when I read the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't change title/lede. "Conspiracy" is accurate, even if the article doesn't explicitly reference (and/or support with citations) every allegation of two or more people scheming to place a purportedly ineligible Obama into the White House, and then using various nefarious methods to keep him there, silence the media, rig court outcomes, etc. Sufficient RSs have used the term (and there's no evidence of refuation of the term); that is sufficient for wikipedia. --Weazie (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Other than "Dems on the Move" self-serving FAQ page, has there ever been a determination of a consensus on this issue? John2510 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ and article belong to Wikipedia, not to one editor in particular. If there were consensus for a change it would have been changed in the past two years. Yes, there have been many determinations of consensus, including the present discussion, both for the article title and for mentioning it in the FAQ. This is getting repetitive. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Where? John2510 (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ entry has links to several previous discussions. Perhaps it should eventually link to this one. PhGustaf (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

John2510, perhaps you trying to make the point that there isn't a specific archived discussion where it was explicitly and officially declared that consensus had been formally established for the article's definitive title to be "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories". However, as Wikidemon pointed out, there is ample evidence over an extended period starting in December 2008 that the issue was raised numerous times with many repetitive attempts to modify the title, rename it, reframe it, etc. All such proposals were rejected. Hence, it logically follows that the article title should remain as is, which is a form of defacto consensus if not a literal explicit consensus. Judging by the comments here on this page, there has been no change in group sentiment among the regular editors here on that issue. Unless you are going to present something truly new and novel for people to consider, this discussion has nowhere to go but circle endlessly. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Over the last two years a number of people have complained about having "conspiracy" in title, only to be shot down by the same small group of editors. It seems to me that consensus is with John2510.173.64.145.97 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system Regards. --Weazie (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The "number of people" are also editors. The "small group of editors" are also people. To put in more neutral terms: some people think the title should be changed. Other people do not. The consensus has been to not change it.--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of editors who are people, which editor are you 173.64.145.97 ? --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not part of the same small group of editors. My position, the title is appropriate and should not be changed. JackOL31 (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Claims vs. misconceptions

The new reference added, does not name a single individual who believes that Hawaii was not part of the US at the time of Obama's birth. Therefore, I changed the describing text from "claims" to "misconceptions". In my opinion, in order to correctly use the word "claim" there has to be a specific person(s) or organization(s) that can be attributed to the claim.
The paragraph itself is marginal, as Cohen does not name the poll nor does he even quote the percentage that responded the way he claims they responded. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not even true that they are confused as to when Hawaii became a State. The poll, and Cohen, just state that the respondents believe Obama is Hawaiian born but do not think Hawaii is part of the United States. It's really not that surprising, given that there are a lot of people who are just not informed or correctly educated on geography or history. Has anyone watched Jay Leno do his 'Jay-Walking' bit? Those are regular people that probably vote. Dave Dial (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Section removed. We have no sourcing as to weight - an offhand comment in an op-ed cannot establish that this is relevant and of due weight for the article. Moreover, it logically establishes the opposite, that in addition to having conspiracy theories, some Americans are just uneducated or confused. This article shouldn't be a dumping ground for every last tidbit of cultural news on the subject. In every political question on any topic, there is going to be a subset of people who have some weird uninformed opinions. It would be pointless to clutter up the encyclopedia with that. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Op-eds are not reliable sources for facts. In this case, Richard Cohen wrote, "still others say... that he was born in Hawaii but do not know... that Hawaii is an American state".[3] We would need a news source for that. The 6% of people who do not know that Hawaii is a state may not know that Obama was born there or that there is a requirement the president be born in the U.S. or even that he is president. There are also some people who believe that Hawaii's inclusion as a state was illegal. TFD (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to remove the section, but not for the reasons cited by the removing editor. WP:WEIGHT does not apply here, as this was a very small section that was NOT blown out of proportion. I agree with the removal based on the reasons provide by TFD . Should better references be found for the fact that there are people who believe Obama was born in Hawaii but Hawaii is not part of the United States making him ineligible to serve as president, I would support re-inserting back into the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Should better references be found for the fact that there are people who believe Obama was born in Hawaii but Hawaii is not part of the United States making him ineligible to serve as president, I would support re-inserting back into the article

And how would that fit into this article? That's not some conspiracy to fool people into believing Obama is eligable to be President, it's either ignorance or not being informed. It might be more apt for discussion in the Hawaii article, but I can't see how that particular claim belongs here. Dave Dial (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

All the conspiracy theories presented in the article are due to "ignorance or not being informed". Therefore this one is no different. The only difference is that this one raises the bar for the level of ignorance. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured Articles for April 1, 2011

I would like to nominate this article, as well as Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories as a fetured article for April 1, 2011. Any thoughts? Victor Victoria (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For April Fool's Day? Nah - while many of the theories are a joke, they are taken seriously by the proponents. Having these as FA's on that day would probably cause a bit of a backlash and vandalism that can be avoided by picking the next day. Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can think of far more funny articles. Also, quality-wise this one probably doesn't even live up to its current B rating, no offense meant but it's just not that tight of an article. Maybe we try to bring it up to A class? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What would we need to do to improve this article to bring it up to A class? Victor Victoria (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is bloated and full of minutia. Also organization could be improved. --Weazie (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose it being nominated for April 1. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose it as well. To add the the comments above, it will probably be under heavy vandalism if on the front page, so TFAR may avoid it. I haven't read the entire article but the one tag stands out as an issue. I can run through more of it later and pick out any obvious problems.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So far the only objections that I'm seeing are:

• fear of vandalism
• article is too verbose
• there are unspecified articles that would be more appropriate for April Fools Day

Unless there are other objections, it seems that this article could potentially be a good candidate for featured article, as the objections can easily be mitigated. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking down the featured article criteria I see issues with:

• 1(a), "well written", described as "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". As of now the tone is uneven and the prose is not at all precise to the points. It is nowhere near engaging, brilliant, and professional, and I'm not sure whether any of the editors around here are experienced at bringing articles to that level. I've rarely been involved in the process myself but from what I can surmise it takes a lot of dedicated work by experienced, capable editors.
• 1(b), "comprehensive" - I think there is a big gap here because for all the description of conspiracy theories the article never gets to what is behind them. Is it racism? Is it paranoia? Populism? Mistrust of government? Poor education? A flaw in the media? Deliberate propaganda? If we cannot get to the substance behind the phenomena this article is not doing a whole lot more than pointing out that there are some false claims out there.
• 1(c), "well-researched" - the strength of sourcing could be improved, but that is doable with some effort
• 1(d), "neutral" - the tone seems defensive and argumentative, as if we are trying to prove to the reader that Obama is a citizen. Indeed he is, but the tone is off. That would be very easy to fix but editors have resisted that
• 1(e), "stable" - time will tell
• 2, style. This can all be fixed but it is a lot of work
• 3, Media. Most of the images are more or less the same, colorful pictures of protesters. We haven't found images that specifically illustrate the various topics.
• 4, "..stays focused.." This is the biggest problem in my opinion. Much of the article is a laundry list of lawsuits, claims, and theories, without a unifying theme. There's too much use of primary sources, and a bit of WP:SYNTH to tie the fact that someone has filed an eligibility lawsuit to the article subject, that there are conspiracy theories. This could be a fatal flaw, because the subject matter of the article as presently conceived is not entirely encyclopedic.

- Wikidemon (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Great feedback and guidance on how to improve the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to improve this article so that it can become a featured article, I have no problem with that whatsoever, but I will vehemently oppose any chance of it becoming a featured article on April 1. That is entirely inappropriate. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you feel it's inappropriate? Victor Victoria (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii

In the last paragraph of this section, there is a statement made by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh which appears to be incorrect. While he states the law as it stood in 1961, it currently has been superseded by a later revision. From what I've seen, this is the current reading of Title 8 Section 1401: 1986 - Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99-653 substituted "five years, at least two" for "ten years, at least five". Based on this information, even under the hypothetical, Barack Obama would be eligible. Do I have consensus to modify? JackOL31 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You might put in something about how the law has since been changed, but that doesn't affect its application to Obama. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a hypothetical that is nonapplicable to Pres. Obama. It's more than just the law has changed, what the Prof said is incorrect (since 1986) and needs to be deleted. Possibly replaced with "the law at that time ...". The statute also states, "This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;". The 1961 version referred to by Volokh is superseded and nonapplicable, eh - of course, none of this is applicable". JackOL31 (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is commentary reporting?

Can someone explain the purpose for references 8 and 9? They link to commentary pages rather than news links. An opinion piece is not a news article. 184.100.46.85 (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)