Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.151.38.178 (talk) at 00:35, 19 May 2011 (→‎Kenyan Birth Certificate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation Template:Multidel


Expert reviews of the new pdf certificate

Hello,

I was wondering if there are any good sources for a review of the new certificate, after two of my comments have been removed, I would like to ask here instead of anyone knowing of any reliable sources on this. The only review I have seen so far is from Fox. My question is how the green background matches up with the form and why there is a page crease in the middle of a window. I think this is a valid question here. Mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a valid question or not is not the point. The point is answers are not to be found, or constructed, or investigated here on Wikipedia. They have to be sourced from reliable sources, where the research and the discussion occurs and the questions are asked. Should you find any good sources that do this please bring them to the article. But if you cannot find any, then that is an indication that Wikipedia shouldn't concern itself with it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comment was removed by User talk:Escape Orbit. Why? This is a talk page discussing an image used in the article. This is a relevant conversation, please do not delete. USchick (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because you were inviting other editors to examine a primary source, conduct their own analysis on it, then present their opinions on the results compared to yours. That's all Original Research and discussion that doesn't belong here. The talk page is about improving the article. Asking others to speculate about what they think about an image compared to another will not do this. No one cares what Wikipedia editors make of the images. If you have cited material that covers this, and would improve the article, then please do contribute. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, to improve the article, this image File:1961HawaiiCertificateOfLiveBirth.jpg needs to be added because it had a different address for the hospital. USchick (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, the suggested addition would be synthesis. However, since the statement is patently false (no address for the hospital being shown), the suggested addition is merely absurd. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Please read the small text of box 7a and tell us what it says. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says "street address." The line for Mother's mailing address is blank. USchick (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is why Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, including synthesis. I'm not going to analyse what's on the certificate, but I believe that Tarc has pointed out your, perhaps understandable, mistake if you read carefully what he says. The certificate layout isn't the clearest, which is why analysis of them is best left to the experts. (That means, no offence intended, no-one here.) --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. USchick, pay attention. I said 7a, which says "Usual Residence of Mother: City, Town, or Rural Location". Now, I don't know how many forms you have filled out in your lifetime, but in every one I have filled out, when there's a section such as 7a, 7b. 7c. 7d, 7e, 7f, and 7g, all of that section 7 is related. So if in 7a it says "...of Mother", then when 7d says "Street Address", we're still taking about information about the mother. It didn't suddenly jump to hospital data. Tarc (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. USchick, pay attention. I said 7a...
Um...so you did...but that's not what she referenced or why. While the suggested content has problems not the least of which may be WP:OR, it is YOU who appears to be confused on the point she raised. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're incorrect too. The poster is referring to the address of the mother, and believing it is the address for the hospital, and trying to compare it to the address of another mother who gave birth in the same hospital. It's pretty simple, and the whole line of OR and accusations is unhelpful to the article. Dave Dial (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jake, I'm not confused in the slightest, but I am more than willing to bring you upto speed. This person tried add this text ("The hospital address on the long form is listed as 6085 Kalanianaole Highway. A sample birth certificate from the same time period lists the hospital address as 2013 Kakela Drive") to the article. This is field 7d. USchick assumed that that field was for the street address of the hospital, and thus created the "Discrepancy" section with the text I quoted above. So not only was it original research, but was also wrong original research, as I have clearly demonstrated by pointing out that any common sense reading of the form would inform one that 'all of section 7 has to do with information on the mother, and not the hospital. Are you satisfied now, or do we need to continue? Tarc (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. My bad...and apologies for MY confusion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unflattened long form

I am disappointed that a copy of the "unflattened" long form is not presented here. It's on the Whitehouse web site. You can't get more bold and offical than that. [ftt] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.43.33 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'll regret asking this, but what on earth is this about? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the latest birther flat Earth thing. In Adobe Illustrator and other Adobe products, image files are manipulated and saved in a number of different layers that can be edited independently. Flattening is the act of merging all the layers (or selected layers) into a single layer. Most likely, the request reflects the new twist to the conspiracy theory by which people claim they have found a way to peel the layers apart from the recently released long form certificate in a way that reveals a hidden image of UFOs or Elvis or something, but that the few experts who actually respond to the birthers anymore say is an artifact of routine image correction processes (as nearly all photocopies, scans, photographs, etc., have some degree of electronic image correction). Perhaps in the spirit of jumping every time the birthers ask for something, the White House has now posted the raw image files and service records of the scanning machine? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of which is highly unlikely, of course, and might be simple obfuscation. I haven't seen a claim that anyone has found a way to peel the layers apart from the recently released long form certificate in a way that reveals a hidden image of UFOs or Elvis or something. Of course, this includes the routine labeling of anyone with a smidgen of a concern as a whacko flat-earther who is part of a Vast Birther Conspiracy. (the Vast Birther Conspiracy has offices right down the hallway from the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, thanks, but I think most of us got the hyperbole in the part about Elvis. On the other hand, I don't think anybody claimed the pdf file itself is an official document produced by the State of Hawaii either. So at best, it's a pot/kettle tied score here. (Where are the offices of the Vast Fraudulent-Document-Production Conspiracy?) Fat&Happy (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of silly theories, until and unless we properly source that the latest photo-editing forgery speculation is discredited I've removed some discussion[1] so as not to turn it into a he said / she said or "one expert disagreed" kind of thing. That's misleading because it gives false credibility to ever more farfetched claims that most aren't even bothering to follow or refute anymore. The theory isn't in dispute because one expert says otherwise, it simply has no support. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on not releasing photocopies

Can we delete the Joshua Wisch statement? Both Fuddy and Corley have made it clear that it is a matter of policy that they don't give out photocopies, not a matter of law. JethroElfman (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed and reverted your delete. Correct or not, Wisch's statements were made and widely reported (and are the subject of considerable discussion in this forum). RS media reportage (from what I can see) has simply chosen not to focus on the seeming contradiction between Mr. Wisch's prior assertions and the release of a "photocopy" several days later. Since WP:SYNTH objections raised preclude simply citing Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18 and 338-13 in juxtaposition without RS sourcing, it must be, at least for now, left to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. .JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsidering this further (and as I think I suggested earlier...which got lost somewhere in the warranted release hoopla), CNN's reportage that copies of the original document could always have been obtained via FOIA can and should be incorporated somewhere in this treatment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only, I think, with inclusion of clarifying reportage from other sources to the effect that Freedom of Information Act (United States) applies to organs of the federal government but does not apply to State governments (apparently, CNN got that wrong). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only, I think, with inclusion of clarifying reportage from other sources to the effect that...CNN got that wrong.
Certainly germane and, assuming your assertion to be true, most notable as well...but I haven't seen any RS reportage on that point. Have you? All I noted was a veritable avalanche of reportage on CNN's purported debunking of the "birther" story which, AFAICS, revealed nothing new save for the FOIA assertion itself. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We still don't have any sources that the Hawaii official's statement was incorrect. The FOIA speculation was a blind alley, and would not be particularly germane even if it were a possibility. There was no FOIA, and no indication that Obama ever considered a FOIA, only a few days worth of birthers propounding and scattered mainstream media speculating (incorrectly, the above comments suggest) over the hypothetical possibility that he could have filed a FOIA request but did not. There's no reliable sourcing that either the (im)possibility of a FOI or speculation over the same was a notable part of the birther phenomenon or course of events. It seems unlikely that mainstream media will return to these particular issues now that the release of the document renders them doubly moot. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reliable sourcing that either the (im)possibility of a FOI or speculation over the same was a notable part of the birther phenomenon or course of events.
Perhaps so, perhaps not (some research on that might prove otherwise)...but the birther assertion that Obama was intentionally witholding release of his original BC has a long and easily documented RS record...and this assertion of "statuatory prohibition" is not unique to Mr. Wisch's most recent one. I have seen it cited at least once before (and that's just in recent memory, well before Michael Isikoff's most recent reportage).
Be that as it may (and returning to the topic of this section), I concur with User:Wtmitchell's recent edit placing Mr. Wisch's comments in a much more appropriate section of the article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re There's no reliable sourcing ..." above, how about http://www.foia.gov/about.html?

What is FOIA?

Enacted in 1966, and taking effect on July 5, 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions of them) are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. A FOIA request can be made for any agency record. Before sending a request to a federal agency, you should determine which agency is likely to have the records you are seeking. Each agency’s website will contain information about the type of records that agency maintains. (emphasis added)
So says the FOIA website from the U.S. Department of Justice, anyhow.
While looking for the foregoing, I came across this. Apparently Orly Taiz is still on the case as an advocate for Terry Lakin and (though the above-linked item does mention "FOIA"), has issued a request for disclosure under the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) (see http://www.state.hi.us/oip/uipa.html). She argues, "... As such the Public Interest greatly outweighs any privacy concerns Mr. Obama may have." My guess is that she won't get far with that due to restrictions in §338-18, but it should be entertaining. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re There's no reliable sourcing ..." above, how about http://www.foia.gov/about.html?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your thinking but you appear to be going down the WP:OR road again. WP:SYNTH would be just as prohibitive in challenging CNN's FOIA reportage (assuming it was ever incorporated in this article as I believe it should be) as it is applicable to challenging Mr. Wisch's assertions. Without WP:RS, both still lack the requisite third-party sourcing for notability.
My guess is that she won't get far with that due to restrictions in §338-18...
My degree from the Google School of Law suggests that a state statute would present little resistance to a Federal appeals court-ordered (and probably court-supervised) litigant acesss to the original BC for forensic examination...but we digress. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re No reliable sourcing ..., I was responding to the assertion above saying, "There's no reliable sourcing that either the (im)possibility of a FOI ...". It appears to me that the source I quoted addresses that more than adequately for discussion here on the talk page and, should an assertion re federal vs. state applicability of FOIA need support in the article, I would argue that it is a reliable secondary source for that.
Re My guess is ..., I'm not a lawyer and your degree from the google school is probably worth about as much as the paper it is printed on. I mentioned the Taliz filing which I stumbled across (about which, incidentally, see [2]) as it appears to be directed towards more or less the same goal as the postulated FOI request being discussed here. I haven't mentioned it in the article, but I think a heads-up here is probably useful as it may be mentioned at some point by more reliable sources than the one where I happened to see it.
Re SYNTH, I've attempted without success to get an explicit clarification on SbyJ on the policy page. See Wikipedia Talk:OR#Synthesis by juxtaposition. As I said in the discussion at the time, I do see the point. I don't see it touched upon in the WP policy, however, except perhaps by implication.
Actually, I don't think we've digressed very far from the "Policy on not releasing photocopies" topic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new sections

I just had all my (non-tinfoil) refs deleated. I tried to add two new sections, how can that be already covered?

---Layers--- Leaders of the so-called 'birther' movement have claimed that the birth certificate produced by Barack Obama is a fake, despite the president providing the the full long-form document last week, the 'birthers', have taken their case to a federal appeals court in Southern California, They claim the birth certificate had been doctored; that the document's serial number was out of sequence, the typing wasn't aligned, and it was printed on green paper instead of white paper like other Hawaiian birth records of that era.[3] The three-judg--panel of the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was told that that the long-form birth certificate released by Obama is 'not a true and correct image, it's very inventive computer art. [4] On the April 27 edition of Fox Business' Follow the Money, host Eric Bolling displayed an enlarged version of Obama's birth certificate and stated that a "green border" on the document "had to be Photoshopped in." [5] One graphic artist says he has discovered something strange about the certificate. There's no doubt that it has been edited and quite significantly, it's not a single document, it's actually compositive of layers, this indication would point to the probability of it being fake. [6]Robert Stanley, weekly correspondent for the Washington Times investigative radio, states that the purported birth certificate released by U.S. President Barack H. Obama on April 27, 2011 is a forensic forgery.

---fake Social Security number--- Another theory of Obama's ineligibility is that, Obama has a fake or stolen Social Security number. [7] That was issued in Connecticut, not Hawaii, and it was issued between 1977 and 1979.[8] As there is no record Obama ever had a mailing address in the state.[9] Private investigators claim his social security number belongs to someone born in 1890.[10] The theory seems to hinge on the idea that President Obama had a different SSN that he used to work in high school, and that he later illegally obtained a second SSN for unknown purposes.[11] It has also been claimed that Internet giant Google is suppressing search results for the new dispute over President Obama’s Social Security number(s) by diverting searches for news reports on the issue to unrelated stories about Elena Kagan, oil, Tampa and the Federal Reserve. [12]--  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 01:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not investigated each of your links, and am basing my comment on the assumption that many of them are of the same nature as the claim concerning "Internet giant Google is suppressing search results". No page at Wikipedia is suitable for advocacy or forum speculation (see WP:NOT). It is true that a zillion websites have either promotions of nonsense, or stories about such nonsense as entertaining space-fillers. However, to introduce such claims into an article would be to given them a false credibility (see WP:UNDUE). When a reliable source performs an analysis of the latest fad, suitable material may be added to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Way to cherry pick and dismiss every ref I have listed. How can topics/information not even covered in the article be undue? More like nonexistant. The layers in the new long form certificate are not covered, nor is the alledged fake social security number. So how are we to cover them if my refs are to be disregarded?--  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 03:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the birth certificate is a forgery is reported in the paragraph immediately above the place the "layers" section was inserted. Unless details of the specific allegations are supported by reliable sources, it's undue weight to accord them more coverage than what is already in the article.
Likewise, the sentence about Obama's father being from Africa is already covered in the previous section.
Since there is no Constitutional restriction on the citizenship or presidential eligibility of people who have Social Security numbers issued in response to requests from Connecticut, any speculation about that topic is completely unrelated to the subject of this article. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fat/Happy I see your point. Can we add some of the info about the layers of the PDF file and how there is two offical copies one with the green backgeound and one with the white, as well many people have called this file a feke in the media, this is not addressed.--  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 14:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are advocating fringe conspiracy theories, and your references have been original research, synthesis, while using non reliable sourcing. You should stop adding content to the article unless or until there is some sort of consensus to add it. The Daily Mail is a tabloid magazine, and opinion pieces by local internet outlets should be weighed properly. Dave Dial (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the matter of ungrammatical, unencyclopedic tone that opines about the nature of the claims, in the authoritative voice (i.e. Wikipedia speaking). For example: "There's no doubt that" - that's obviously a statement that the proposition to follow is both true and obvious, not an uncited literal claim that in the entire world not a single person possesses a doubt about it. But Wikipedia is in the business of presenting facts, not telling people how obvious they are. "..it has been edited and [sic] quite significantly" - no reliable source for this, and it's based on speculative opinion. We don't have a citation to a statement that somebody edited it. Rather it's a claim somebody is making that it looks as if it's been edited. Also, who is to say that the editing was significant or quite so, that's pure subjective opinion.... "this indication would point to" (who is pointing and who is doing the pointing? Again, unsourced voicing of support for an opinion, not a fact. "the probability of it being fake." So we want Wikipedia to say the birthers are right and the certificate is fake? That's out there. Even if we get past the sourcing and biased wording (there are clearly some sources for the proposition that these claims have been made, although none for the proposition that the claims have merit) I don't think any of this needs to be covered with greater WP:WEIGHT than it already is. So I don't find any of this proposal acceptable. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the Daily mail is not the best ref. However I could find others that say the skeptics presented their case to a federal appeals court in Southern California and maybe their claims. That seems relevant to the article. --  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 22:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case to which you refer, Barnett v. Obama, is adequately discussed in the related article about eligibility litigation. --Weazie (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

biased wording throughout

I just read through this article and the wording throughout shows a clear editorial bias towards presenting 'truthers' as nutjobs. Examples of this include, use of 'claim' despite WP:CLAIM; repetitive descriptions of birthers using the pejoratives 'conspiracy theorists' or 'fringe theorists' (the repetition is just bad style in any case); and so on. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We reflect what reliable sources say on the matter, most/all of which treat this fringe nuttery for exactly what it is. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't justify the repetition. The repetition indicates editorial POV. And in any case, as I have been arguing at a different page, if reliable sources regard this as fringe nuttery, because fringe nuttery is not neutral, it should be attributed. E.g. "most have viewed X as a fringe theorist" rather than Wikipedia's voice saying "X is a fringe theorist". Alex Harvey (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken that we should stick with the sources, and avoid both repetition and inserting sneaky editorial adjectives. However, it is well sourced that (1) these are fringe claims, and (2) a number of the proponents are outside the mainstream, have made illogical statements, and have been described in colorful terms. WP:CLAIM applies to using "claim" as a verb to discredit an assertion of fact. However, if it is indeed a claim we can describe it as a claim - not as a belief, theory, position, argument, statement, etc., all of which would give it undue credence. We have to be careful about the difference between balance and neutrality. Neutrality would suggest that we report the majority position, and that confirmed by the sources, as such, and point out where the sources universally describe a position as extreme or untrue. Balance would suggest that we report everybody's position equally, which we cannot do in the case of fringe theories. In other words, "Elvis-spotters have claimed to see Elvis riding throughout rural Arizona in a Winnebago" not "Elvis-spotters reported several vehicles registered to Elvis in Jerome, Arizona. A local government official said he could not recall whether or not residential parking permits had been issued to a person by the first name Elvis." - Wikidemon (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHITE back ground

This should be addressed at some point. [13][14]"This handout image provided by the White House shows a copy of the long form of President Barack Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii." -- J. Scott Applewhite / AP Photo It's in the AP Photo Archives as image #110427018673... --  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... three different media outlets have copies of a handout the article says was given to media outlets. Exactly what should be addressed? Fat&Happy (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What could be addressed is the white house released two differen versions of the long form certificate. 1) With the white background (to the press core seen in the AP photo), 2) with the green safety paper (via the White House blog). Or maybe the White House graphic designer dropped a layer into the white version to make it look pretty. LOL --  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 22:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, since this article already clearly states that two certified copies were requested, made, and delivered, something should be added to the photocopier article, citing this as an example of the technological advantages of modern copiers – that unlike many older processes they are capable of outputting to many different types of paper stock. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To get a bit pedantic here
  • The second paragraph of the "Long form, 2011" section states that what the WH received was, "two requested certified copies of the original birth certificate". Fuddy's transmittal lettter says that's what she transmitted to the WH. Just to be crystal clear here, we're talking about exactly two physical physical pieces of paper.
  • The third paragraph says that on April 27,
  1. "White House staff gave reporters a photocopy of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth and ...". I infer that the WH staff must have xeroxed a bunch of copies of one of those two physical pieces of paper and passed the xeroxes out to reporters.
  2. "... and also posted it on the White House website." I infer the "it" mentioned here is this PDF file, Ref'd in the article at this point, and that the WH staff must have produced that file by scanning one of those two physical pieces of paper received from the Hawaii DOH.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with all that inferring, but I'm at a loss to suggest how to address that. If anyone can suggest some rewording, or add some RS-supported info to reduce it, I think that would be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit uncomfortable with all that inferring, but I'm at a loss to suggest how to address that.
I wouldn't hold my breath awaiting RS major media "explanations". Clearly 2 different "photocopies" were distributed by the WH...one to the media alone and one to the general public via the WH website. That 2 different "photocopies" were forwarded by the State of Hawaii, whose obvious "differences" were neither requested nor remarked upon in any of the now-public communications, seems to be a remote, at best, probability.
Some "journalist" should inquire...but I doubt anyone will. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on release of photocopies

I found an AP article [[15]] where they explain that this was a one-time exception to policy. Also, someone made a transcript of the press briefing [[16]] (despite Carney's request that it be pens only - no audio recording). Here they say that Judy Corley phoned the Hawaii dept of health of Thursday Apr 21. The dept determined that, "there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy". The dept agreed to waive the policy for this special case, and came up with specific wording to go in the request letter. Could we add that to the timeline, and make note of photocopies being a matter of policy, which the dept has the legal authority to set? JethroElfman (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting that this source also printed the transcript, but with the heading "THE WHITE HOUSE : Office of the Press Secretary : For Immediate Release : April 27, 2011", and said "This transcript was provided by the White House." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might also consider this, hawaii slams door on birthers [17] "The law, known as Act 100, takes a detour around the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by allowing state agencies a limited exemption from FOIA requirements when repeated requests for information are made by the same person. The law covers all agencies but it specifically targets people who repeatedly request a copy of Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate, the Honolulu Advertiser reported Thursday."--  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 19:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes needed -- see Donald Trump

The biographical article on Donald Trump desperately needs attention. Some editors believe it omits or 'glosses over' Trump's recent political actions. Others think including recent events would be giving them undue weight. --Tangledorange (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Gallup Poll

Submitted for consideration, USA Today is reporting the results of a May 5-8 Gallup poll...

In a Gallup Poll taken May 5-8, 47% of those surveyed — less than a majority — say they believe the president was "definitely" born in the United States. Another 18% say he "probably" was born here. But a third of Americans remain skeptical or unsure: 8% say he probably was born elsewhere, 5% say he definitely was, and 20% say they don't know enough to say. [18]

This appears to reflect somewhat less than the wholesale rejection of birther allegations that the media had initially portrayed. Given the media/pundit focus on the alleged affects of the release on public opinion, I believe this is probably a noteworthy development that might warrant inclusion here. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, the article does not need to be updated every time a new poll comes out. But the drop in numbers due to the release of the long form is noteworthy. --Weazie (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We now have a long section with 5 different disjointed polls spelled out in full unencyclopedic longhand (e.g. a quote that points out the mathematical truism that 47% is "not a majority"). That's 3 or 4 too many, and does not assist the reader in understanding the phenomenon. The opinion polls are not necessarily a noteworthy part of the phenomenon, other than to establish three facts, all of which should be sourced to secondary analysis: (1) a significant number of Americans were skeptical, despite the facts; (2) skepticism ran higher among Republicans / conservatives (and perhaps in a separate section, among those with negative opinions of African Americans), and (3) the skepticism diminished (perhaps noting that it remained significant but perhaps not, depending on the weight of the sources) following publication of the long form certificate. A single paragraph is enough to do this. Beyond that, excessive detail to polls may say more about polls than it does about the actual subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) a significant number of Americans were skeptical, despite the facts
Characterizing "53%" of Americans as "significant" is rather understated and "despite the facts" strikes me as decidedly POV.
(2) skepticism ran higher among Republicans / conservatives...
...and higher among independents than Democrats / liberals. Again, a POV perspective.
...(and perhaps in a separate section, among those with negative opinions of African Americans)...
Lack of WP:RS (and NPOV) should preclude further developing this, IMHO, partisan-inspired smear...but if you have additional WP:RS, have at it (but be sure to wear gloves).
(3) the skepticism diminished (perhaps noting that it remained significant but perhaps not, depending on the weight of the sources)
But perhaps not? See above. "53%" of respondents (according to relatively "weighty" sources) would not commit to "definitely" born in the US. Dem's da facts (and, I might add, an issue that's probably all but been tabled among those in the forefront of the "eligibility" debate who are more focused on "natural born citizenship" as the overriding issue).
However, the section does appear to be suffering from "list-itis" and probably needs attention. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that's a "birther" sympathizers view of the numbers. Heck, if you polled the average American and asked them to name the 1st President of the U.S. you can bet that up to a third wouldn't know it was George Washington. That doesn't mean that Washington wasn't the first U.S. President, and reflects more on the education system than anything else. The fact is, only 13% say Obama was "definitely" or "probably" not born in the U.S., while 65% say he "definitely" or "probably" was. With 20% not knowing, or caring enough, to answer. Which reflects almost the same percentage as the last poll when 19% answered "they didn't know enough to say". Not knowing doesn't mean they are "birthers", nor does answering that Obama "probably" was born in the U.S. Only you are making that leap. Dave Dial (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You entered this discussion by means of an undiscussed, IMHO POV and contentious edit and are now edit-warring. Not good. Please allow development of this discussion towards consensus before further imposition of your personal POV on this article. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DD2K has been part of the discussion here for a long while. I don't think there's a consensus on how to present the polls and IMO none of the presentations to date does a very good job due to length, focus, being scattershot and disjoint, and lack of context. Polls germane to the subject of an article are always difficult to present. Some reasons: (1) one organization's poll has different questions and methodologies so their polls do not necessarily compare, (2) most analysis tying changes in poll numbers to current events is conjectural, and subject to politicization by pundits and partisans; (3) there's no room to reproduce all results (making graphs of changes over time is a lot of work but can help condense this); (4) otherwise reliable sources say a lot of nonsense about polls, and don't understand the statistics; (5) the importance of social tends is not one person one vote; and (6) people saying something to a stranger on a subject in response to a survey is several steps removed from the subject itself, and may be completely insignificant or irrelevant to the subject. Here there is fairly widespread belief by Americans in a fringe theory (i.e. out of mainstream, unsupported, and false). That's not a POV about the subject of the article, it is the subject of the article, a widespread false belief. Since belief is the subject a hand, a poll of what people say they believe is likely relevant. So is the breakdown of who believes in it, the biggest correlation being that Republicans / conservatives believe it a great deal more than independents / moderates or Democrats / liberals. That should be obvious, but it's a very salient detail. Less commonly mentioned, but nevertheless mentioned often and by impeccable sources, is that people who have some discomfort over African-Americans are more likely to believe it. And in more recent news, the adherence to the belief went down but did not disappear after the latest birth certificate release. Those are the three relevant things I've seen so far about the polls. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning here strikes me as a general flirtation with suppression by WP:OR...
(1) one organization's poll has different questions and methodologies so their polls do not necessarily compare,...
I didn't offer any comparative. I offered a direct quote from one news source whose WP:RS is, I think, established and a cite to Gallup that near mirrors the USA Today reportage as to its import. BOTH lead their treatments with nearly identical reportage on the significance of the 47% finding.
(2) most analysis tying changes in poll numbers to current events is conjectural, and subject to politicization by pundits and partisans...
If the source(s) are WP:RS, any perceived politicization by pundits and partisans can and should be countered by the provision of additional WP:RS making that case. That's the way its done in WP-landia.
(3) there's no room to reproduce all results (making graphs of changes over time is a lot of work but can help condense this)...
You're making, I think, a more generic observation as to the "Poll" section, but I'll address the specific cite in question. Just as with the lede in WP, when two WP:RS sources both have the same "take" on a poll, there's notability there and it needs to be acknowledged here. If there is additional relevant content in the provided cites, then report that as well.
(4) otherwise reliable sources say a lot of nonsense about polls, and don't understand the statistics
That's not our job here. Our job is to incorporate relevant WP:RS reportage...to include WP:RS content that might make your case.
(5) the importance of social t(r)ends is not one person one vote...
Not quite sure what you're getting at here but, if I understand your point, it appears to be flirting with exclusion by WP:OR.
(6) people saying something to a stranger on a subject in response to a survey is several steps removed from the subject itself, and may be completely insignificant or irrelevant to the subject.
Ditto above.
So is the breakdown of who believes in it, the biggest correlation being that Republicans / conservatives believe it a great deal more than independents / moderates or Democrats / liberals.
That's a POV perspective...but easily dealt with by citing the source...fully.
Less commonly mentioned, but nevertheless mentioned often and by impeccable sources,...
Not even gonna go there. Wallow as you will. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording that you added does not reflect the full gist behind the source. Which is that those that believe/know that Obama "definitely" or "probably" was born in the U.S. rose by 9%, while those that believe Obama "definitely" or "probably" was not born in the U.S. decreased by almost half, from 24% to 13%. From the article:

Also:

Which your edit totally ignores, while hi-lighting the irrelevant. I propose the following

A May 5-8 Gallup poll taken after the release of the original Certificate of Live Birth, reported that those who believe Obama was "definitely" born in the U.S. rose 9 points(38% to 47%), while those who state Obama "definitely" or "probably" was not born in the U.S. declined by almost half(from 24% to 13%). Southerners, those with low level incomes and education are most likely to doubt that Obama was born in the U.S., while a partisan breakdown shows that 10% of Republicans believe Obama was definitely born somewhere other than the U.S., double that of Independents(5%) and five times that of Democrats(2%).

Taken from the cited sourced article, the cited Gallup website, and the direct poll link. Dave Dial (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to JIJ - (1) OR is a content policy I have not added article content, so that does not apply - we are figuring out on the talk page how we should deal with the article, and informed personal opinions are the way this is done. (2) No, a source being generally reliable is not a magic ticket to getting into the encyclopedia - even if a source is usually trustworthy, if it is not trustworthy for the specific fact at hand it is not a good source. RS is a threshold, not an entitlement for inclusion. We throw out untrustworthy or inaccurate sources all the time, and a general observation that newspapers are inaccurate when blathering about polls is a good general reason for being skeptical when newspapers blather about polls; (4) absolutely wrong - we don't mechanically reproduce reputable publications here, we make judgments about what to include, and when a source is full of inaccuracies and blatant misunderstanding of the subject (as news of the day sources are when they try to interpret poll results) we can insist on higher standards; (5) A fundamental point - a poll reporting what the responses are is not the same thing as a reliable sources talking about what is an important trend - seriously, you need to understand this about popular culture: the importance of cultural trends is not a democratic vote established by polling; (6) You haven't made your case for POV - if Republicans think Obama is a fraud and Democrats think he is not, there is nothing POV about reporting the fact in the encyclopedia, it is a matter of covering the state of the world and any attempt to ignore this is itself a POV exercise. No wallowing, the connection between racial attitudes and eligibility skepticism is a fact of the world at large echoed by a few studies and widely reported, nothing any of us editors came up with. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my response to your (1) above. I don't believe you address the point I raised, instead commenting on my overview introductory sense of "flirting" with WP:OR (or, perhaps better said utilizing your concept, suppression by "informed opinion"). JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely, the concept of OR does not apply to the process of evaluating the strength of sources. The New York Times is not going to run something that says "newspaper analysis of polls is often not reliable for Wikipedia purposes and should not be cited in a way that gives undue weight or false importance to conjecture". When I comment that a newspaper's pointing out that 47% is not a majority is a trivial observation that shows the shallowness of its analysis, I don't have a New York Times citation for that. No doubt there is some written analysis about the lack of comprehension many otherwise solid journalists have for math and statistics but that's besides the point. Anyway, the point is that polls don't make for strong article content, but that there are three well-sourced things about the polls: (1) high number of people give birther theories credence (suggesting they believe in an untruth despite exposure to evidence), (2) Republicans / conservatives (and people with race issues) more likely to believe birther theories, (3) adherence dropped but did not disappear after new release of document. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that The Gallup Poll is simply that: a poll. By definition it isn't any source of facts, just a poll about what people think they see; but it is true: lately a lot of news "sources" have admittedly been getting away with using a poll as a given fact. As I understand, here at Wikipedia the writers are to cite sources, not opinions, which is all a poll is. Wikipedia is supposed to an encyclopedia of known fact; I forward that your "poll" cannot therefore be used in the manner you are attempting to use it: prematurely cite it as a "fact"; and I do believe that respectable encyclopedias do as well only cite an historical poll when absolutely necessary where there is no other available information since doing so tends to cause a reader to draw his own conclusion in an area the writer can be accused of attempting to steer him into. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyan Birth Certificate

I haven't time to login, but I've actually seen the Kenyan birth certificate; it says "British Protectorate." The arguments in the main article are wherefore refuted. Please goto archive.org and search for "birthers" to find the 9:59 sec documentary entitled: "Barak Obama Born in Kenya - The Documentary." They actually show the authenticated birth certificate; and I'd like to say: using a "blogger" as "credible" evidence of a "faked" or forged Kenyan birth certificate is not acceptable as evidence in any court of law and, as I believe, not good enough as such here at wikipedia. Am I wrong? 207.151.38.178 (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are wrong. That "Kenyan birth certificate" thing was debunked within hours of its appearance. It's a photoshop from an entirely different birth certificate, (and not even one from Kenya.) As for reliable sources, you're really going to trust some guy's conspiracy video on the internet over the preponderance of legitimate news sources? --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that the birth certificate in question used Republic of Kenya despite that fact that Obama was born in 1961 and Kenya was still a British collony until 1963 when it started using that name. So unless there is a good explailnation as to why someone making a valid Kenyan birth certificate would use a name for a country that did not yet exist at the time this is almost certainly a fake.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The certificate says: "Mombasa. British Protectorate of Kenya."; it does NOT say "Republic of Kenya". You're just a liar. Further, Peter Ogego, US Kenyan Ambassador further affirmed Obama's birth there in Mombasa. Obviously your "news sources" haven't been checked by most readers, but amount to nothing much more than scandal pages off a celebrity "insider" magazine. An affidavit to the authenticity of the Kenyan birth certificate was also filed in the Santa Ana, California Dist Court. If there were any faking, it would have had to have been done in Kenya where the affiant, Mr. Lucas Daniel Smith retrieved the document. Alligations of "photoshopping" are merely "sour grapes" until proven otherwise. The embossed seal of Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa however, CANNOT be photoshopped; and no allegations that I have seen allege the biometric foot imprint to be fake. "Hours"?; takes weeks etc. to file in a Dist Court.207.151.38.178 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section is not productive. You are both/all discussing the topic of the article, not suggested improvements to the article. Without coverage in independent reliable sources, there is nothing to discuss here. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Well it seems to follow that one could improve the article by correcting facts such as: the so-called "phoney" Mombasa birth certificate, which it is not. Further, it -- the article -- should be corrected as I stated above: that the "phoney" Mombasa birth certificate does indeed state: "Mombasa. British Protectorate of Kenya."; and that in no way does it ever say anything such as "Republic of Kenya." Allegations of photoshopping need to be proven. I myself am a collector of documents and such, and I have found the video documentary located at archive.org (search: "birthers"; and the article entitled "BARACK OBAMA - BORN IN KENYA - The Documentary") to be completely factual, although some of the citations are a little wordy. You'll see there what one should suspect: a biometric foot imprint, the embossed seal of the delivery hospital, signators of the doctors, etc. The most independant reliable source you can find, sir, is that of the documents that were filed in the court by the affiant(s), which I might add were never stated by any of the courts to be fraudulant. The only question remaining is: does all of this mean that Mr. Barack Obama is illegally seated as President of the United States, and if so; do we as a country have any power at all to remove him as our Constitution does so state that we must? If we do not, then we are simply wide open, sitting political-ducks just ripe for the picking by who knows who. As far as jolly old England is concerned, this couldn't please them more: proving that in fact we are an illegitimate nation; completely unable to enforce our own laws at a most crucial point in our history, rendering our Constitution a worthless scrap of paper. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you just blocked the article? You little coward; I've got a source and everything, here it is: http://www.archive.org/details/BarackObama-BornInKenya-TheDocumentary. And as you can see right there the document is quite obviously an official document repleate with embossed seal, biometric foot imprint, and colored ink stamp of the authenticating agency. Further, in the video it can be seen several Kenyans surrounding Mr. Smith as he shows the document he retrieved while he was yet there in Kenya. What more do you need; the satisfaction America is illegitimate? This is definitely going to sour the relations between your country and ours; I assure you. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories&oldid=429807940"