Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Bias.

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

We are under no obligation to pretend that bizarre theories unsupported by the facts and evidence are even vaguely valid. Indeed, we have a positive duty to point this out to the reader who may have been misled by the nonsense which has been circulated. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What birther arguments so far reported by RS doesn't the article yet cover? I thought I'd read them all, but don't underestimate anyone's ingenuity. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On top of what was mentioned WP:WEIGHT is also a factor.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I expect it's because no editor has cited a reliable source with such information.—ADavidB 13:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This exact topic is discussed in the related article about lawsuits against Obama; it was long ago decided that the lawsuits (and the issues surrounding them) should be in their own article. --Weazie (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This article was clearly written by someone with a pro-Obama bias. Not only is it completely one-sided in its approach, it completely ignores other issues, such as President Obama's admission into Columbia University as a "Foreign Student" under the name Barry Soetoro... Ormr2014 | Talk  00:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources to support the validity of those allegations, so they are not included in this article. Weazie (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

WeazieYou're kidding, right??? This is an article about "conspiracy" theories, not "verifiable facts". That's why it's called "conspiracies" and why your explanation isn't valid... Ormr2014 | Talk  00:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Article is Canted and One-sided

Discussion that follows is more balanced, but reading the article leaves out all the facts against his US birth and portrays oponents as indisputably wrong. Yet there are dozens of places where you can see proof the Long form was modified and Kenya has produced his original hospital records and birth certificate. His birth was registerred in Kenya on the 5th at the hosptial and on the 9th at their district office. One of many sites that have the images: http://thepowerhour.com/news4/obama_kenyan_birth_certificate.htm but the official version still seems to hold that the obviously falsified document is real. Also why was he spending millionis of dollars to try to keep his records hidden if there was nothing hinkey about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.232.192.10 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 November 2014

That it is "indisputably wrong" is how reliable sources describe the topic, so our article reflects that. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Where's the beef? <=> Where's the Birth Certificate?

If the group that paid for the bulletin boards claims that Where's the beef? served as the inspiration to the bulletin board, would that not be relevant? Victor Victoria (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, per my comments on Talk:Where's the beef?, I don't think so. It's giving way too much weight to one fairly trivial aspect of a larger, unrelated issue. If there were some secondary source implying the original advertising campaign was significant to the conspiracy theories, then maybe. That seems really unlikely, though. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, WorldNetDaily is not generally considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The cited WND article, if used here at all, would be admissible only per WP:SELFPUB, as a source of information about the writer of the piece (Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND. IMO, if this factlet is to remain anywhere in the article, it needs (IMO) to explicitly mention Joseph Farah — e.g.: According to Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WorldNetDaily, the question "Where's the birth certificate?" is a reference to the 1984 catchphrase "Where's the beef?" And something this verbose clearly does not belong in an image caption; rather, I would suggest it be added to one of the other places in the article where Farah's "Where's the birth certificate?" campaign is already being discussed. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

World Net Daily need not be a reliable source on anything other than itself. See WP:SELFPUB. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And more additionally, Farah doesn't say anywhere in the cited column that his slogan was a reference to, or inspired by, the Wendy's slogan. Only after he gives a two paragraph explanation of why the slogan was chosen does he continue with a reference to "Where's the beef" as an old commercial that was on the tip of people's tongues. 2600:1006:B163:761B:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Not quite sure what your point is -- you seem to concur that he does link the two. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A one-off joke made by the billboard proponent in a single column, neither mentioned nor referenced by any other source puts this matter far, far into the realm of irrelevant trivia. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It certainly would not be the focus of the article, but it does add perspective to the photo of the billboard. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's not relevant to include in the article, it shouldn't be added as the caption. The caption should be very basic, not adding information not otherwise present in the article. As for including it in the article, I just don't see the relevance especially with no other secondary source bothering to note any. Ravensfire (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that it shouldn't be included in the article, and certainly not in the caption. --Weazie (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

People who were around in 1984 would instantly recognize the connection between "Where's the birth certificate?" and "Where's the Beef?" catchphrase. However, people who either did not live in the United States in 1984, or were not around in 1984 to remember, would not be able to make that connection. Since the connection is confirmed, the association should be made. Although the connection was WP:SELFPUB source, policy allows for its inclusion.

I do recognize that there is an issue with the length of the caption, so I'll have to think about how to overcome that. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if any of us were around in 1984 (I was, for the record), it does not make it any less a bit of a piece of trivia. All the image is there for is to show a piece of advertising funded by the birther crowd; the billboard itself, and the catchphrase it cribs, is not itself the object of critical commentary. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is thanks to the 1984 catchphrase that allowed WND to shorten the message on the billboard to just 4 words, w/o even mentioning Obama. Without the catchphrase, they would have had to put something like "Why can't Obama produce a birth certificate?". This is why it's important to mention it in the caption, to help explain the brevity of the billboard. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How does it allow the reader to determine it is about Obama? There is no correlation between the two. It was possible to not mention Obama simply because it was an obvious topical reference to what was a very common topic of conversation and news coverage at the time. It makes sense in its own right if you had any awareness of topical politics at the time. Others could have put up a poster saying "Where's the WMD?" and it wouldn't have needed a mention of Bush, or any knowledge of a decades old advert. But this doesn't really matter. The inspiration of the phrase is a trivial side issue. I don't see it really adding anything of value, particularly if a questionable fact. It may only muddy the waters. Does it imply that there is something more in common between the two, other than they both start with "Where's the"? If so, where's the source? If not, why mention it? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In the context of the discussions at that point in time, anyone asking that question outside of being at a driver's license bureau would clearly have been referring to Obama. I had one of the "Where's the beef" t-shirts back when those commercials were airing and I did not immediately make the connection between the billboard and that old add. Honestly, I didn't really make that connection until you started this discussion. In the context of the discussion back then, there were a fair number of conservative commentators who were repeating the question about the birth certificate. Asking "Where's the birth certificate" was parroting those questions and it was not immediately obvious it was inspired by some add campaign back in the 80's. Ravensfire (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A point made by Farah himself;

But some people want to know why I chose this simple slogan to raise this issue. Why not include Obama's name on the billboard?

There are several reasons I chose the message: "Where's the birth certificate?" There is only one birth certificate controversy in the country today - despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests.

2600:1006:B149:3FF4:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how people selectively quote in order to make a point. The above quote is taken from the same reference as the one where Farah clearly says that the "Where's the Beef?" campaign was factored into the decision (in fact, it's two sentences above the sentence about the "Where's the Beef?"). Meaning, while the "Where's the Beef?" slogan was not the sole motivator, it was certainly a motivator. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Concession

Given that

1. the "Where's the Beef" was only one of the motivating factors for the text of the billboard
2. this article is not about the specific ad campaign (or the billboard in question) but about the broader conspiracy theory
3. During the time that the billboards were up the connections to the Where's the Beef campaign was not widely made

I hereby concede that it does not add value to add a link to the Where's the Beef? article from the caption of the billboard photo (and just for the purpose of full disclosure, it should have no bearing on the outcome of the discussion, I'm the one who took the photo and uploaded it to Wikipedia). Victor Victoria (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2015

source 25&26 do not exist. Thusly the first paragraph under "Origins of the claims" "During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign. These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion and birth certificate.[25][26]"

Should be removed. Please amend 99.127.245.193 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

References fixed. Tarc (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015

Remove the word "falsely" from the first paragraph. It is of obvious concern. It is not for Wikipedia to judge whether those conspiracy theories are true or false. There are multiple reliable sources that claim Obama to be not a natural US citizen. 43.224.156.66 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There are surely sources that say Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the US, but not reliable sources. The courts have decided these claims are without merit. Since it is common for publications to say things like "the alleged murderer" while a trial is in progress but "the murderer" after conviction by a court, I believe it is proper for Wikipedia to state as a fact that the claims are false.

In addition, the instructions for {{edit semi-protected}} say that consensus for the change should be obtained before the template is used. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No court has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen. They have ruled that they don't have the authority to make that ruling because of standing or other reasons. That was nice cop out with "The courts have decided these claims are without merit".True Observer (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Courts do not have to prove a negative, they waste their time with frivolous claims. Tarc (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether someone is qualified to be President is not exactly a frivolous issue. Courts allow litigants to prove a negative all the time. Courts allow men to prove that they are not the father of a child. Courts allow businesses to prove that they are not discriminating. Courts allow defendants to prove that they did not commit a crime.True Observer (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Your understanding of the American legal system leaves much to be desired. In those examples, the defendants would be defending themselves only after a prosecutor has presented actual evidence. That has never happened regarding Obama and citizenship. Armchair supposition, guesses, and conjecture by..well, the likes of you, to put it mildly...do not rise to the sort of thing that the President of the United States has to stoop to respond to. Tarc (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a court. We sometimes report on what happens in courts if it's relevant to the subject of the article, but our standard for whether factual claims can be verified are much different than a court's standard (in the US or any country) for whether a fact is established for purposes of the legal proceeding at hand. It's not necessarily a higher or lower standard, but a very different purpose and procedure. Anyway, it's clear from the sources that Obama was born in Hawaii to a US citizen mother and a non-citizen father. Whether that makes him a natural born citizen or not is a legal matter, not a factual one, but the overwhelming and possibly unanimous consensus of the reliable third party secondary sources — the ones we use to build the encyclopedia — tell us that the legal conclusion is that yes, he is a natural born citizen. Two other facts, that the Obama citizenship claims are false and are conspiracy theories, are both well-sourced and a significant part of what makes the subject notable. Basically, this is a non-issue fact-wise. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)