Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Requested move Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories -- to "Barack Obama citizenship controversy"

This article's content does not fit with any definition of "conspiracy theory" (who are the alleged conspirators?) and "conspiracy theory" is not typically used in RS articles on the subject matter, thus it does not meet WP:COMMONNAME policy. Also, now that Arizona has passed a so-called "Birther Bill"[1] and there is an avalanche of new articles [2] discussing the issue in a serious vein since Donald Trump's recent interviews, the conspiracy theory label has become much too biased to continue its use and it no longer fits the "fringe" category either. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'm again reverting this change again in part,[3] per WP:BRD (minus the "vague" tag) as the language proposed does not improve the article. Calling the rumors "false, disproved" rather than just "false" is erroneous in three senses. First, it is not supported by the source cited, which uses neither "false" nor "disproved" to describe the rumors. We can infer that they are false from that and other sources. However, the sources do not say they were proven false. Second, it is illogical and probably untrue. The sentence is about how the rumors started. It seems unlikely (and there is no source support) to say that the rumors were already proven false at the moment they were created. Before they existed, there was nothing to disprove. If "disproved" is supposed to refer to the fact that after the rumors began circulating they were refuted, that's not clear from the language and it would be out of chronological order - later parts of the article make clear that the rumors were refuted. Third, (and apropos of my dead horse comment), this sounds like the argumentative language that sometimes creeps into the article and has to be regularly pruned. The point of this or any article is to lay out facts about the world as described by sources. It's not to argue for or against any disputed proposition, even a proposition as fringe-y as these conspiracy theories. The article is about the theories, not an exercise in proving them wrong. The same reasoning applies to the out-of-place quote that investigators determined there is "not one shred of evidence" for the theories. That would be something that also happened later, and it is not supported by the source, which flatly says that there is no evidence but does not speak of investigations. If it's not abundantly clear from the totality of the article, and specific places calling them "false" more than once, we're not going to convince anyone by adding yet more assertions of their falsity to sundry article sections. Rather, that actually weakens the point by (correctly) making it seem as we are trying to prove something. It's also not relevant to that section. The source article made that as a general background statement about the conspiracy theories overall, as part of an exposition of how the rumors got started. We do that too, elsewhere. It is background to the entire article, not just this section, and already adequately covered elsewhere. I should also note that it's not a fully reliable source for that kind of statement, based on the tone and purpose as a "perspective" piece. I'm removing the "vague" tag as I had already restored "origin, religion and birth certificate" as the subject of the rumors, which had replaced the less informative "background". - Wikidemon (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so my question is answered here. Probably a better place. heh. Sorry for not responding quicker, I've been gone all weekend. In any case, while I mostly agree with your assessment and my intentions to make the the entry more specific and remove the "vague" tag are met, I say that the source provided is a definite reliable source to make the conclusions stated. A Pulitzer Prize winning piece from Politifact.Com(The St. Petersburg Times) who most certainly did investigate not only the birth certificate claims, but a variety of all the claims made by the fringe conspiracy theorists. In which the source states "PolitiFact has researched all of these accusations and none of them are true." The section is titled "Origins of the claims", so I thought adding the portion you removed fit the section. But I'm not going to keep insisting the portion be expanding, especially considering the sections below to trim the article, which I agree with. Dave Dial (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I can hardly think of a more reliable source. It should be used liberally. Is there a problem here? I'm not familiar with the background. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article clearly has a right wing slant to it. For only 11% of the country believing he isn't American, this article overly represents that view point. We have a lot of opinions from Republican who think he isn't American compared to Democrats or Independents who dispel those rumors. Look at the pictures, 4 are non citizen related while 0 are citizen related. CTJF83 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone responds to this, note I'm headed to work so won't provide a response for 9+ hours. CTJF83 02:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your issue. This is not an article about Barack Obama or the facts of his birth and childhood. It's about a fringe set of conspiracy theories. The goal of the article is to explain the theories as advanced by their proponents while still making it clear that they are fringe, not mainstream. A similar article might be Flat Earth Society, which mentions, almost casually, that overwhelming scientific opinion says the Earth is "round", and then proceeds through the rest of the article to discuss the Society and its history, beliefs, and leadership. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, per F&H. The article is about the theories and it must discuss and explain them. Since they are untrue and the RS prove that to be the case, the RS are clearly used to full effect, so I see not problem. If there are other aspects or other RS that can be used, please suggest them, but don't tag the article before seeking to resolve the matter here first. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, You are leading me to your thoughts, but I'm not quite there....how does this being a wacko fringe theory affect it being neutral? CTJF83 12:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I share F&H's thoughts in that I don't understand your concern. This article is about fringe, wacko theories, the 11% who believe them, and the ones who have been lying to them. That means it would naturally be mainly about them. That's obviously not a neutral presentation of the whole big picture since we aren't dealing with the big picture here. Like a psychiatrist who specializes in mental illness and/or disturbances, we're not looking at normal people, but delving into a fringe, wacko way of thinking and documenting it. That's the nature of these types of articles. What saves it is that NPOV requires inclusion of the opposing POV, so we have plenty of well-sourced facts and opinions that rebut the nonsense.

This is the proper approach to dealing with all conspiracy theories at Wikipedia. No one should be in doubt about what's fringe supposition and lies and what's fact.

IMO, in the end I suspect that most "reasonable" people should come away with a clear impression that some people just aren't qualified for public office, and in this case it's those who repeat this nonsense. In fact some have ruined their credibility. This subject is political poison and suicide. Unfortunately not all people are "reasonable" and insist on believing and repeating this stuff. If there were an article devoted to figurative Darwin Award recipients, lots of those mentioned in this article would fit there. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

By analogy, let's take the politics out of it and imagine a completely different type of false belief, held in this case by certain children: there is Santa Claus, Bogeyman, the Tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny. The articles go into considerable detail to describe the supposed appearance, activities, origin, etc., of these folkloric figures - with nearly 100% bias in favor of describing the phenomenology of the believers, and nearly zero critiques or rebuttals. I haven't checked all of these, but if you look in other realms like phrenology, spontaneous generation, and the loch ness monster, you'll probably find similar results. It's only when we get to contemporary political conspiracy theories that currently have many adherents in the English-speaking world (climate change, 9/11 truth, etc.) that we sometimes feel the urge to present both sides of the case, and sometimes actually advocate and argue for the mainstream position. I think that's a mistake because it plunges Wikipedia into the fray, instead of simply describing what the sources say. This article is about the conspiracy theories themselves, not about a supposed controversy on the subject (which the sources would say is not a bona fide controversy, because there are not two viable sides to it). - Wikidemon (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in partial agreement that there should not be an overkill of proclaiming the fringe theories "false" over and over. But let us also remember that a vast difference remains between an article that covers the Easter bunny and one that covers Barack Obama. The two immediate differences that come to mind are that this falls under the BLP and article probation guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that this is a "controversy" AND a "conspiracy theory" article. The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, etc. are in a very different class. There is no controversy or conspiracy theory, and no serious harm to society from them. This article deals with a subject that potentially destabilizes the political system of a country and inspires potential internal terrorism and assassination attempts. Remember that the Tea Party includes many zealots who openly sympathize with Timothy McVeigh. When Sean Hannity, while speaking in front of Tea Party members, called them "Tim McVeigh wannabes", they cheered him(!), so this is no joke or bedtime story. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You could choose conspiracy theories that have serious consequences - like Jews poisoning the wells, the (name tribe in country) secretly practicing black magic and needing to be slaughtered, or vaccines causing Autism, and it's the same thing. We cover the phenomenon on fringe beliefs, rather than doing a point-counterpoint. I do not agree that there is a controversy over Obama's birthplace or citizenship anymore than there is a controversy over whether childhood vaccines cause autism. The simple answer is they don't, and beliefs to the contrary are considered a social phenomenon rather than an argument to be critiqued. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand....the article is about the wacko theories, not discussing if he was born here or elsewhere. CTJF83 20:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of this being different from the Easter Bunny, etc.; however, what's with the remarks about the Tea Party? I've been to Tea Party rallies and have seen no such sympathy for Timothy McVeigh. The Sean Hannity clip was taken out of context (and there are other videos that show this). He was speaking in jest because that is how the Tea Party is portrayed by others. - 75.81.1.78 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Length

Vis-a-vis the other tag, I think this article is getting a little long. Per WP:PRESERVE I hesitate to simply delete stuff. My suggestions are as follows:

• Break the list of lawsuits into a separate subarticle.
• Break the state-by-state roster of legislation into a separate subarticle. I had proposed this or the one above several weeks ago (I forget which) and got no objections.
• Round up all the proponents and put them in a single section. They seem to be strung across 2-3 sections. Possibly make a separate subarticle, but I think not. That's more directly related to this subject.
• Condense the "criticism" section. It has too many long quotes and expositions. Perhaps the same thing could be said in half the words.

I think the first three can be done very easily, basically by shuffling around existing content with little change. Once it's in more manageable pieces it will be easier to edit things further for quality. Any thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How about starting with a trial version of a condensed criticism section and placing it here? Let's look at it. Your idea may have some merit and a consensus version might prove usable. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Stricken as this section should really be prominent. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How about putting lawsuits and state legislation in one article, called maybe Results of Obama citizenship conspiracy theories or something similar. CTJF83 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I second Ctjf83's idea. These two sections could be split off into one article leaving the lede from that article and a "main article" link as the sole content of a section here:

• Eligibility litigation
• Legislative initiatives and responses

This would significantly shorten the article. I'm not sure about the suggested title. Maybe Reactions to Obama citizenship conspiracy theories? It should be similar to the remaining section heading here. I'd like to hear more suggestions. Once that is done, we can see if more is necessary. That might be enough. Let's start there. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be two articles, not one, because of a slight apples and oranges problem. The eligibility litigation specifically targets Obama, under current law, based on these conspiracy theories. It therefore falls entirely under the subject of this article and is a good child article here. The legislative initiatives are for the most part inspired by this issue, but are changes that would apply to all future candidates but not Obama specifically (and presumably would not retroactively apply to Obama, for the current term at least). Their proponents would claim that they are not singling out Obama, but rather ensuring that all presidents meet existing eligibility criteria or else change those criteria - and some distance themselves from making overt fringe claims about Obama. They are also a little closer to birthright citizenship issues and are related to wider perennial attempts to exclude children of non-Americans from citizenship. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as they shorten up this article, either is fine for me. CTJF83 19:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree generally with your points. As this issue "matures," it appears to be less about what is true, and more about who believes it. The proponents and criticism sections are mostly about people's beliefs (and how that affects politics), whereas the lawsuits and bills sections are rather fact based: i.e., when a lawsuit was filed, its decision, etc.; who sponsored a particular bill, how it fared in the legislature, etc.

At this point, I would suggest the "main" article be about people's beliefs, and the secondary article be the "treatment of the eligibility issue by legislative and judicial branches" or "legal ramifications of the eligibility issue." (But something less unwieldy.) --Weazie (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind that both types of content are legitimate. We document what RS say regardless of whether they are fact, fiction, true or false, opinion, whatever. The article is about the subject from every imaginable angle. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - but it has been getting so long that it is hard to read and even harder to edit. There's a lot of valid content, and it's better to find a place for it all than to reject things just because we don't have room for them. I've gone ahead and moved the litigation to its own article. I'll wait a bit to see if that broke anything or if anyone objects, before I do the same with the legislation. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Look good to me, and I agree this article is much, much too long. And yes, there is a lot of "valid" content in both the litigation and legislative sections, so agree that they should be moved to their own articles. As much as I think all of these things are silly wastes of time, there isn't much doubt there is enough coverage and actionable legislation to deem them worthy of encyclopedic value. Now, about the celebrity mentions and such. They should either be deleted or put into the person mentioned article, if sourced and weighted. Dave Dial (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, next step. I've branched out the legislation into a new article, United States presidential eligibility legislation. I deliberately gave that article a broader focus rather than including solely the legislation directed at Obama or arising from these conspiracy theories - that special focus would be less encyclopedic IMO than a survey of the entire subject, and has bigger POV issues. However, there isn't much content on the encyclopedia as yet about pre-Obama eligibility legislation. I know there has been some over the centuries, so that would be an interesting area to flesh out. Also, I couldn't come up with a good lede so that needs to be done. Hope that's okay. Final step in my cleanup work will be to organize all the proponents into one place. Frankly, we could create a list article "list of Obama citizenship conspiracy theory proponents". I think the current list is fine but it's a little selective and incomplete. If you do a wikipedia search on Obama citizenship you'll find far more people and organizations advancing these theories than we cover here. In terms of organizing the information and providing a service to the readers a list article (or category, or template) could be a good navigational tool. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Doesn't most of this stuff belong (if anywhere) on the article about Trump, or if he does launch a serious presidential campaign, in that article? This article is long enough as it is (see previous discussion), and any irony or criticism regarding Trump's own life situation is just a journalistic riposte, not really related to Obama conspiracy theories. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the irony/criticism should be cut. Trump is a potential candidate and suddenly a major spokesperson for these issues; he deserves to be mentioned. Also, Trump just released his "long form" certificate. Completeness would dictate that the release of his first certificate also be noted, but brevity would dictate only this last one be mentioned. --Weazie (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree Trump should be mentioned as a johnny-come-lately member of the birther brigade. Publicity stunts he chooses to stage with his own birth certificate have no relevance to this article, though. Trump was born in New York City, which has different forms, rules, and procedures than Hawaii – and for that matter, than the State of New York. Trump released the birth certificate he had from New York City; Obama released the birth certificate he had from Hawaii. If we're going to start mentioning everybody who releases a copy of their birth certificate, should we not also have a section listing the 35 men who served as president, from Van Buren to Bush, whose birth certificates we have not seen? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's any part we should keep as most relevant, it's how his birther remarks have been received. That's why they are notable. Per the section heading, Trump is a notable Republican who has plopped right down into the dilemma as if he didn't know it existed, which has made him a target for some pretty strong ridicule.

As to the length of the article, I thought we were reaching agreement that we'd split much of that content off into a fork. Are we there yet? Let's just do that and forget about cutting good content because of length concerns. That's an irrelevant concern since we're going to split the article anyway. Some of what was removed was done in a manner that, if it had been done by a drive by IP, I'd have called it blatant vandalism. Since it wasn't, I won't, but it did seem a bit rude (but the length concerns are a mitigating factor , so we can deal with it later). Anyway, please be a bit more careful with deleting carefully sourced content.

Let's split the article. Can we do that now? Then we won't have these types of situations. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, his comments are (marginally) notable because, as mentioned, Trump is yet another Republican who decided to enter the fray, augmented by the fact that, unlike Chuck Norris or Luke Scott, he has publicly expressed an interest in entering the race for president – something he has the visibility and resources to do if he chooses. This was the reason accepted by several editors to include a brief statement on his expressed opinions, even before the personal insults started being thrown around by a couple of news anchors and a partisan politician in Obama's party. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm....F&H.....are you forgetting which article this is? It is only his remarks about "this topic" that are relevant here. The fact that he's entering the race for presidency is of no direct relevance here. That only influences his notability as a Republican and public person. It's his remarks that relate to the conspiracy theories that are relevant here, and especially their reception by the media and other notables.

Thus the various criticisms and ridicule he's received are highly relevant here and their deletion by you is very problematic. They aren't my words and they don't violate BLP. The thing that makes his birther remarks most notable is the reaction to them, and there have been many and they've been strong. What I quoted was mild. We aren't allowed to whitewash things. If a source is disparaging or expresses ridicule, we aren't allowed to diminish the POV expressed in the source. That's POV editing. NPOV REQUIRES that we cover the subject from all POV expressed in RS, and leaving out a POV is a violation of NPOV. To avoid BLP problems we cite RS and quote the source. That's exactly what I did, so I don't see any policy-based reason for your deletion of the very part that was relevant in this article. Please explain. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a misconception about reliable sources in evidence here. Being reliably sourced is merely the minimum requirement for content inclusion. There is no policy that all content appearing in a reliable source must be, or even may be, included in articles. None of the people quoted are recognized experts in identifying someone as a "joke" or a "fool", or an opinion as "ridiculous". Those are merely personal opinions by non-expert – and in one instance partisan – sources; as such, I contend their inclusion is a violation of BLP policies. Additionally, the personal opinions expressed add nothing to an understanding of the conspiracy theories which are the subject of this article. So to put it in the Wikilawyering terms you ask for, my policy based reasons for removal of the comments are that they violate BLP by including personal insults from non-expert and partisan sources; even if it were not a BLP violation, it is purely ad hominem commentary, adding no insights to the article topic. The content, contentious on its face, was boldly added and subsequently reverted. Now under discussion, it has yet to gain a clear consensus for inclusion. If you dispute the contentiousness of the content, or my assertion that it is a BLPvio, you are, of course, free to seek alternative opinions through an RfC or at WP:BLPN. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that in the removed material Trump obliquely criticized Obama, and then Ben Smith criticized Trump's criticism. WP:BLP says, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.", and goes on to say, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; ...", wikilinking WP:DUE, which says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." I gather than both Trump's and Smith's viewpoints have received substantial media attention (perhaps Trump's more than Smith's). Given that, it seems to me that the Trump's viewpoint should be represented, and perhaps Smith's as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ben Smith portion was a pure undue weight issue, more regarding Trumps actions than Smith's response, as discussed (far) above in the third paragraph of this section. I'm still not sure of the relevance to this article of Trump releasing any version of his own birth certificate, but the Smith article was probably a proportionate response if the stunt is to be included. (I really don't follow The Donald stories all that much – has there been quite a bit of third-party commentary on the Smith article?) The larger disagreement centers around what had been the section's third paragraph, regarding the CNN discussion. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

F&H, the CNN discussion was significant coverage and the part that was relevant here (about Trump) got deleted, but the part (not about Trump) that was only generally relevant was kept. It's relevant that the CNN anchor had been to Hawaii and interviewed people who knew Obama as a child, but that's not relevant to the Trump section. When media like CNN comment on Trump's birther statements, that's notable enough for inclusion. Opinions, including disparaging remarks, are okay when properly sourced, which specifically makes them NOT a BLP matter. If unsourced it would be different. (That applies to Trump's opinions about Obama - which would be a BLP violation if unsourced - and to others' opinions of his opinions. It works both ways and we include both.) Are you here to defend Trump? Just how far are you prepared to go in whitewashing him by refusing to include negative media reactions to his comments? Would you act the same if they had been positive reactions? I'm really wondering if this is worth taking higher up or if we can settle this here. I don't see why you're making such a big deal about a RS like CNN. Anywhere else we'd include it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. The retained portion, regarding interviews with people who knew Obama as a child, is directly pertinent to Trump's claim that "growing up no one knew him." That's actually the only bearing it has on the subject of this article, since memories of him as a child could be just as vivid if he were born in Kenya, Germany, or Antarctica. Unsupported opinions that Trump is a joke or a fool add nothing. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But they do add something. They show how his statements have been received. That's very encyclopedic information. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that banter about his statements adds anything to the understanding of the conspiracy theories. And the entire Trump fiasco is hopelessly overblown – for the current 15 minutes, at least. But if we must submit to this round of recentism and pump the story, rather than relying on cheap personal shots from the usual suspects, we would be better including surprisingly rational commentary from an unexpected source or possibly even an attempt at (gasp) intelligent analysis of the situation. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence (2)

I keep having my addition to this Talk page deleted for no valid reason. I was told that my addition is being deleted for "discussing the subject, and not improving the article". I AM NOT DISCUSSING THE ELIGIBILITY/CERTIFICATE/THEORY subject, I AM TALKING ABOUT IMPROVING THE ARTICLE BY CLARIFYING THAT ENTIRE ISSUE IS A FRAUD AS ANY LITERATE PERSON CAN SEE!

As I previously posted here: THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE IMPROVED by making it clear in the opening statement that the entire issue is a fraud upon the public since there is no "natural born citizen" requirement that is applicable today. That is fundamental to an informative relevant foundation to the article, not a matter of opinion, and a matter of grammatical fact.

If I say "No animal except a mouse, or a rat, at the time I give the signal, shall be captured", then I am saying only mice and rats shall be captured AT THE TIME I GIVE THE SIGNAL. My order has no validity at any other point in time. Similarly, the requirement for "natural born citizen" only applied AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION. It does not apply today, and the following clause should be part of the article, since it is the clause at the foundation of the issue in the article:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

209.112.188.15 (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Your suggested edits violate WP:NPOV. If you want more info on this, read the Barack Obama FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

IP209, please read 'Natural Born Citizen' clause of the U.S. Constitution and Birthright citizenship in the United States, then throw your personal opinion out the window since it's not a reliable source here. Your rather limited interpretation isn't shared by any authorities, the Supreme Court, or Congress. If the current legal interpretation gets changed, we'll change the article, but not before then. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

IP209, you have some serious reading comprehension (and logic) problems. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Denialism"?

I'll admit, I have a hard time taking these "theories" seriously, but isn't adding the "Denialism" category to it taking it just a wee bit far?
The other two categories certainly fit: It's certainly a "conspiracy theory" - that's totally objective, and it's related to Obama - kooky theories about Obama clearly relate to Obama.
But adding 'Denialism' is a value judgement. It's the difference between me calling it absurd, and Wikipedia calling it absurd. Frankly, NPOV rules don't allow the latter.
I'd strongly suggest removing the category. Not because it isn't true, but because it's a gross POV violation to actually say it. 139.57.100.63 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Removed category. ^rossnixon 03:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the theories are pretty ridiculous, but I agree that having the category makes us seem biased, especially to people who might be coming to the article with genuine questions about whether there is anything to the theories. "Denialism", I think, is a term that refers specifically to denying something's existence, such as the Holocaust, the Holodomor, or an HIV-AIDS link (and I believe reliable sources do link the word "denialism" to those stances on these issues). In sum, I support rossnixon's removing the category. Kansan (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, there a "Wikipedia fraud" or "corporate-controlled propaganda" category we can put it in instead? I know that the rather worn-out "conspiracy theory" pejorative helps identify the category, but there is difference between the conspiracies that intelligent, educated people believe in (e.g. JFK, 9/11) and some of those popular in heathen masses (e.g. fake moon landing, fluoride, HAARP, chem-trails). 24.11.186.64 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to differentiate between which conspiracy theories are respectable and which are "popular in heathen masses". Taking on value judgments like that violates our core principle of NPOV. Our job is simply to report. Kansan (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is an encyclopedia's job to distinguish between conspiracy theories and legitimate statements of fact, and in the former case to detail where they came from and how they gained currency. The expression of disdain that people could believe such a thing can be left on the talk page. I suspect that's what the category was expressing, a judgment that people who refuse to believe Obama's an American despite overwhelming evidence that he is are in denial. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your statement regarding an encyclopedia's role. However, the IP was stating that a category should make a difference between conspiracy theories that they deem "respectable" (like Kennedy/9/11) and those that they think are not respectable. As our article does not present the 9/11 conspiracies as fact, there is no reason to say it is a more "respectable" theory. Their standards seem to be completely arbitrary, so I stand by my comment that the IP is calling for inappropriate value judgments. Kansan (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I don't understand the removal of the category here. There are literal dozens upon dozens of reliable sources equating birthers with "denial-ism". Atlanta Journal-Constitution-"Birtherism is denialist claptrap", LA Daily News-Jonathan Dobrer--"..birthers are the messy afterbirth our presidential election. They live in rage, fear and denial", Star Tribune--Obama's eligibility to be president keeps them in denial about the new America that has room for people of different backgrounds, Hartford Courant--1 Even Karl Rove makes the comparison. I am not going change the category, but it's beyond obvious that reliable sources, a plethora of courts and Government officials have completely dismissed these claims as denialism. Dave Dial (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave, are those sources used in the article? If not, how about writing a single sentence to the effect that "various commentators have described the objections to Obama's citizenship status as denialism."^{[ref][ref][ref]} Go for it. When you've done that, you'll be very justified in restoring the category, because it's obviously true. It just has to be backed up by RS, and you've got them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Certificate of Live Birth" versus "Certification of Live Birth"

This page should explain the difference between a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Certification of Live Birth" in Hawaii before the 1980s.

The Government of Hawaii itself distinguishes between these two things, as shown on their own government website [4], which states:

"The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth."

An explanation of this text can be found in this PolitiFact article [5], which is not at all supportive of the Birther claims.

I myself reject the Birther theories entirely, and find them absurd. But the fact is that what the Hawaiian government website quoted above calls the "original birth certificate", the Certificate of Live Birth, has not been made public in the case of President Obama. His Certification of Live Birth has been made public. THis is not suspicious, and it fully accords with Hawaiian law. However, it is still technically true that the president's "original birth certificate" has not been publicly released. This fact should be mentioned on this Wikipedia page in the interests of NPOV, and to make sure that this fact is not misinterpreted, we will need to explain the difference between a "Certificate" and "Certification".

Does everyone agree? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that this is not the first item in article, it is another prefect example of what a fraud Wikipedia is. So not only should this be done, but what Hawaiian law required about the time of the birth of Barry Soetoro (aka Barrack Hussein Obama) to get a "Certification of Live Birth" should also be documented as I have read that one only needed to mail-in a form. Finally, it would excellent to list situations where a "Certification of Live Birth" is unacceptable such as when applying for security clearance. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, you stirred the troll's nest. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Does everyone agree? No, as has been shown time after time on this talk page. It used to surprise me that editors would come on here stating, "Now, I not a birther, but.....", and then go on to make excuses or much the same claims the birthers make, but not anymore. So I will just point you here(Q3,2,3). In any case, the link to Hawaii that you gave(1) is a link used by birther outlets to "prove" that there is a difference and the original is preferable, even though that's not true. Which is verifiable by an overwhelming amount of reliable sources. The link points to the "Hawaiian Home Lands program", which tries to determine eligibility of people for that program, which is for genealogical purposes. By the way, the link also states "the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth". As this portionstates, from the actual State of Hawaii---

When one goes to get your birth certificate, that is what they give you. It's regarded as your original birth certificate(with the raised seal), and that is what is recognized by every official outlet.As described by Hawaiian law:

§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.(b) 'Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original...

And since all certified(raised seals) copies are to be considered the original birth certificates, while the State never issues the old versions The document released is Obama's birth certificate. Dave Dial (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you didn't read me carefully enough. I agree with you that "The document released is Obama's birth certificate." I also agree with the Hawaiian government that this document "shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original" in Hawaiian law. But that doesn't mean it is the original. It is not, as is explained on the Hawaiian government website I quoted. I am not saying that this fact is significant. I am merely saying that it is notable enough to be mentioned on this extremely long Wikipedia page. I have heard many people ask, "Why doesn't Obama's birth certificate look like that other one from Hawaii in 1961?" That is a notable question, and it is easy to answer -- the answer is that an "original" 1961 birth certificate ("Certificate of Live Birth") has a different format and slightly more information than the legally valid copy ("Certification of Live Birth").

Let me ask you this. Suppose, tomorrow, the Governor of Hawaii were to publicly make available for photographs and examination President Obama's originaly "Certificate of Live Birth", on fifty year old paper. Wouldn't you agree that the national newspapers would cover this event and run pictures of the document? Of course they would. Because they know there is a difference between these documents -- not a legal difference, but a difference in public perception. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

'I have heard many people ask, "Why doesn't Obama's birth certificate look like that other one from Hawaii in 1961?" That is a notable question, and it is easy to answer'

It's easy to answer, but it's not as easy to answer correctly.

There are many reasons why different certificates will look different, and those reasons do not map directly to "'Certificate' vs. 'Certification'." And unfortunately, those looking for a conspiracy tend to hone in on the idea of the differences being equated to these putative "two kinds of certificates", and then go on further to treat this as a material issue in whether he has offered sufficient proof of natural born citizenship.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the current version of the article:

The image posted online at Obama's website is a "Certification of Live Birth" and is sometimes referred to as a short form birth certificate. It contains less information than the longer "Certificate of Live Birth." FactCheck.org states that the short form is "prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding".^[19] Obama's short form was laser-printed and certified by the State of Hawaii on June 6, 2007. The Hawaii State Department of Health no longer issues the long-form Certificate and issues only the shorter Certification upon request.^[55]

So exactly what is the issue here? Fat&Happy (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph you quoted does address almost all my concerns, and I apologize that I overlooked this earlier. I should have read the entire page from top to bottom before commenting. However, I think it would be better if this paragraph were moved up higher, in the Release of the birth certificate subsection, rather than being included in one of the many Claims subsections. (However, the fact that it was lower on the page doesn't excuse my oversight, and I'm sorry about that!)

However, there is one more piece of information that I am unclear on; perhaps someone here knows the answer. I assume that Hawaii (like California, where I am from) has some kind of documentation about a birth that sits in a drawer somewhere, for many years, even if nobody ever requests the information. And when someone requests information, they are given some document which is not the physical paper from that drawer -- obviously, because if they gave away the piece in the drawer they would lose their only copy! There are two ways to do that: print a new document, or xerox the one in the drawer. Clearly the "Certification of LB" is a new document, created by someone who has seen the one in the drawer, but not a photocopy of it. What, then, is the "Certificate of LB"? Is it a photocopy of the one in the drawer? Or is it, too, a brand new document? The reason I ask is that a lot of folks have talked about "the original" birth certificate. I would think that, logically, the so-called "original" would be the one in the drawer that never leaves the government building it's in. Yet the Hawaiian website mentioned above uses the word "original" for the "Certificate of LB". That seems odd to me, unless the "Certificate" is a photocopy of the one in the drawer.

Does that question make any sense? It's something I'm curious about. Again, I reject the insane Birther / Trump theories. My interest is that after hearing so much silly talk about it, I honestly thought that reading the Wikipedia page would explain everything to my satisfaction, and yet so far I still find this pretty mysterious. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Today, according to Google, there are 580 media outlets carrying articles on the Hawaii Appellate Court decision denying a private party's request to inspect Obama's Birth Certificate. Obviously, this Birth Certificate isn't the same as the one posted in this Article. Shouldn't Wikipedia explain the difference. Shouldn't that be the entire article? What else is this topic all about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.110.67 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This topic is about what the title says: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. In addition, Barack Obama's birth certificate redirects to this page, and therefore this page is required to give reasonable coverage to that topic as well. I believe that this article succeeds in both of those things, although I think there is some room for improvement of clarity. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Then the title is wrong. Although there are serious questions about whether Obama effectively lost his citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and claimed Indonesian citizenship, traveled under a Indonesian passport and then failed to re-claim any US citizenship on his 18th birthday (although he probably was not entitled to it), the main concern here, obviously, is whether or not he was born in the USA. So only if a bone fide, long form birth certificate publicly established that Obama was in fact born in the USA would the question of his citizenship really matter (again in terms of whether he lost it). 24.11.186.64 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No. There is no such serious question. Ignorance of applicable law is evidence only of ignorance, not of a serious question about the law. There are many variations of the claims, but they all concern Obama's citizenship, so the article is perfectly titled. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Up until 1972, when the immigration laws were changed in Hawaii, a Hawaiian resident could obtain a birth certification for a child that was born outside of a hospital with only the residents signature as proof. No other proof was required to substantiated the birth, no doctor, no witnesses only the residents signature. Prior to 1972 Hawaii was rife with immigration fraud because of this loop hole. Primarily the immigration fraud was from the Orient, but others used it as an easy way to bring a baby born overseas and obtain a birth certification with no legal application. For that reason any birth certificates that predate 1972 (or when the law was changed to required evidence such as witnesses to verify the birth) are suspect." I think the article should document the extent to which statements like this are true. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Provide a reliable source for the statement; then someone might bother to find other reliable sources discussing it. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

IP24, that is all a moot point since he was born in Hawaii, and the newspapers included the official birth announcement, just as they did with all other babies. Nothing that happened after that point changes the fact of his natural born citizenship status. Only if he, AS AN ADULT, had renounced his citizenship, would he have lost his citizenship (but still been born in Hawaii). Obviously he never did that. He was only out of the USA for a relatively short time as a very young child, whereupon he returned to Hawaii and continued his education. His teachers remember him. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Title: "Citizenship" versus "Birth Place" or "Presidential Eligibility"

discussion not a good faith attempt to improve article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention Wiki-propandists: (1) This article is about "birthers". Starting in the second sentence, the word "birther" appears 30 times in the current article. They are not called "citizenship-deniers. Duh! (2) The image of a bill board at the top of the article reads "Where's The Birth Certificate?" (3) In the latest flare up of this controversy last week, Donald Trump traveled the media circus and demanded to see Obama's birth certificate. (4) The current governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, stated the he intended to settle this controversy by releasing Obama's birth certificate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Abercrombie#Governor_of_Hawaii (5) Mere US citizens are not eligible to President, as the article states in the first sentence they must be "natural born citizens". (6) And so on... seriously, I could continue here ad nauseam. Clearly, the title of article of wrong. It should be something like either "Barack Obama birth place controversy" or "Barack Obama Presidential eligibility dispute". Moreover, to the extent that you can not even get the title reasonablly correct, it clearly shows that you do understand the subject matter and writing in bad faith, political POV and hence systematically violating your own plastic Wiki-rules. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC) That's been raised and discussed here, and probably elsewhere. So far, the apparent (and it is clearly apparent) denigration by implication endures. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC) I've restored this talk page section, which was removed by User:Fat&Happy in this edit. The removal appears to me to be a violation of WP:TPG#Others' comments. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC) You might want to revisit that accusation. The above was originally part of a larger removed post containing personal attacks, and which, by specifically stating an unwillingness to work cooperatively to improve the article was purely disruptive. Neither of those reasons are prohibited by WP:TPG. The post as you re-factored it (is that allowed by WP:TPG?) still contains a minor attack on other editors, but at least consists primarily of legitimate discussion of the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC) It's perfectly fine to delete unacceptable discussions here. I'll go ahead and close because this is not a productive topic to discuss in this way, but in the future please WP:DFTT. Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Inside the discussion above closed by User:Wikidemon, User:Fat&Happy invited me to revisit what was characterized as an accusation by me. The discussion was closed 25 minutes after that invitation was issued, before I had a chance to respond.

Wikidemon — besides being somewhat put out that you slammed the discussion door shut before I had a chance to respond to Fat&Happy, I want to say that I strongly disagree with your stated reason for closing the discussion. That reason was, "discussion not a good faith attempt to improve article". At least on my own part, the discussion certainly was good faith attempt to improve the article. I suspect that this was also the case with the anon who created this talk page section and began the discussion which you have closed. In your edit comment inside the closed discussion explaining the closure, you say, "It's perfectly fine to delete unacceptable discussions here. I'll go ahead and close, but in the future please don't restore inappropriate material here." AFAICT, the material in the discussion is not unacceptable and is not inappropriate. Please reopen this discussion which you have closed. Also, please explain in terms of WP policies and guidelines your reasons for treating this material as such.

Fat&Happy — First, your allegation that I had made an accusation was in response to a statement by me regarding your removal from this talk page of content added by others, saying, "The removal appears to me to be a violation of WP:TPG#Others." I had deliberately cast that as a statement of opinion rather than a flat accusation. TPG#Others says, in part, "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." My opinion is that you did not exercise sufficient caution when removing the material at issue. For the record, please note that objections (plural) to your removals have been raised. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, in a certain sense you are right. There were elements in IP24's comments that could be construed as genuine content issues. Unfortunately the history of this IP should be examined for any rationality. It's pretty much lacking and they were repeatedly trolling the issue here and being unconstructively disruptive by refusing to accept evidence and proposing policy violations. It was blatant advocacy of a very radical conspiracy theory. We're dealing with a conspiracy theorist. I therefore support the hatting of that matter. I'm surprised the troll isn't blocked!

OTOH, there may be parts of it that should be dealt with, but in a rational manner, not in the manner suggested by the IP. The IP was refusing to accept evidence, and we can't use that approach. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following the anon's comments -- which I gather include comments outside of this talk page section. I stumbled into this when one of Fat&Happy's removals of this section showed up on my watchlist and looked questionable to me, and my edits related to this section have been focused on this section and on the now-closed (I think improperly closed) discussion contained herein. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wtmitchell, semantics can certainly be a fun game to play. If someone were to go on TV and say "it appears that Wtmitchell robbed the bank on the corner", do you think most listeners would fairly characterize the statement as an accusation? But if it makes you feel better, and Wikidemon doesn't object to reopening the closed discussion for a moment, I will be glad to go back and strike "accusation" and substitute another noun. Do you have a preference between "claim", "statement", "allegation", "opinion" or some other?

There were objections (plural) to the deletion. Two from one person (though only one of them preceded the restoration). There was also an intervening deletion of much the same content by a second editor, a subsequent closing of the section by a third editor with a comment that it should not have been restored, and another subsequent comment by a fourth editor that the content was generally inappropriate. So OK, I've noted that.

You might also note that in my previous comments I implicitly pre-agreed with Brangifer's statement that there is some material in the post, as last added, which is possibly appropriate for discussion – though previous comments by the original IP poster stretch WP:AGF to the breaking point. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not and am not playing games with semantics. WP:TPG#Others' comments isn't crystal clear, and I didn't spend much time trying to divine its intended meaning at the time I chose (and I did think about it, and I did make a conscious choice about it) to explicitly say "appears to me to be a violation". TPG offers "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" which, AFAICS, don't come anywhere close to resembling the editing (expungement is editing) of others' comments (including mine) which was done in this section. Once again, from TPG, "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and I'm not worried about nitpicking terminology. Leave "accused" the way it is, even though I'm not in the habit of throwing accusations around.

I think that the closed discussion should be reopened. As you probably have gathered, IMO the title of this article is and long has been a bad one, as discussed here -- I agree with the editor there who characterized it as a good example of WP:LABEL. Even so, I don't plan to open a campaign myself to get it changed.

I would still like to know by what criteria in terms of WP policies and guidelines this section was deemed unacceptable and/or inappropriate, but I'll not push for editors who made that determination to provide that information. Hopefully, they'll at least mull the question over. Yes, the anon's opening rant at "Wiki-propandists" was intemperate; when he got down to discussing the article title, though, (following on his topic heading for the section), I don't think he was at all out of line. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not wish to discuss talk page management here, except to note that for the past few years a firm hand has been necessary to keep the Obama-related pages on track. When untended they have gone wildly off track. I have zero interest and little patience for hand-wringing over that. If anyone has a good faith suggestion for improving the article and can present it in a workable way we can have a discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell , the IP started off by making claims(anyone can get a Hawaiin COLB, even via mail, with no proof) that everyone here knows are false([1,2). When asked to provide a reliable source for these claims, the ip responded with "I am not providing any sources for this blatantly fraudulent Wikipedia article...Clearly, you and this Wikicrap you write is political bullshit that is explicitly designed to subvert the US Constitution". Which was then rightly removed by an editor for personal attacks and obviously having no interest in improving this article. The IP then responded with more personal attacks, "Attention Wiki-propandist lemmings...the extent that you Wiki- clowns can not even get the title reasonablly correct, it clearly shows that you do understand the subject matter and writing in bad faith, political POV and hence systematically violating your own plastic Wiki-rules". Which was then removed by another Wikipedia editor. The IP went on to restore(1,2,3) the same kind of blatant personal attacks and battleground behavior, without providing any sources whatsoever. Which was rightly removed again. The you inexplicably restored the comments with personal attacks and blatant refusal to provide any sources at all, and with an accusation of TPO to boot. The offending posts were removed again(along with your comment(I guess explaining this has been discussed before). You then made a partial restore(cherry picking) of the post by the IP, which is in itself a violation of Talk page guidelines. The discussion was closed by yet another Wikipedia editor, but you still felt the need to continue this matter? My suggestion to you is to include this latest bit in the hat above and forget about it. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

... and be all of that as it may be, the discussion above in this talk page section relates specifically to the removal, reinstatement, re-removal and re-reinstatement of this talk page section (including removal of a comment made by myself), and the closure of the discussion in this section on what appears to me to be highly questionable grounds. I had not been following what the IP may have done before I saw the initial removal of this section in my watchlist, and haven't tried to look to see what he might commented about outside of this talk page section.

I had put this aside and moved on -- until your comment above brought it up anew in my watchlist.

OK, I've looked back at previous versions...

• My initial involvement in this was when I say this reversion] on my watchlist. The edit summary said, "Revert to revision 423242814 dated 2011-04-09 22:37:10 by Dayewalker using popups". I saw it removing an entire section without much explanation. Truth be told, I didn't notice the additional snippet outside of the removed section but it probably wouldn't have made any difference if I had.
• I reverted that reversion here with an edit summary saying, "Reverted good faith edits by Fat&Happy (talk); Unexplained reversion questioned in light of WP:TPG#Others."
• Here I added a comment in the restored talk page section regarding the talk page section topic and providing a wikilink to past discussion of the topic in relation to this article in another forum.
• Next, this edit reverted the talk page back to (I presume but have not checked) an earlier version. The reversion removed the comment I had just made along with the rest of the talk page section. The edit summary said, "rv personal attack & specific denial of interest in improving article, as stated previously by 2 editors"; I didn't follow that but, looking at the diff, i saw that it removed quite a bit of talk page content besides the section which was at issue for me.
• After one intervening edit, here I restored just the section at issue for me. Apparently, from the edit summary, did that with the +/- tab. The restored section included an added comment which said, "}I've restored this talk page section, which was removed by User:Fat&Happy in this edit. The removal appears to me to be a violation of WP:TPG#Others' comments."
• Here, Fat&Happy responded to the comment I had added, saying, "You might want to revisit that accusation. The above was originally part of a larger removed post containing personal attacks, and which, by specifically stating an unwillingness to work cooperatively to improve the article was purely disruptive. Neither of those reasons are prohibited by WP:TPG. The post as you re-factored it (is that allowed by WP:TPG?) still contains a minor attack on other editors, but at least consists primarily of legitimate discussion of the article."
• As I was preparing a response to this (a response along the lines of the above), User:Wikidemon closed the discussion. From that point on, it played out here, in the talk page section at issue, below the (still-closed) discussion.

FWICS, Fat&Happy and I have differing interpretations of the guidance at WP:TPO regarding what removals of others' comments are allowable -- at least specifically as it relates to the removal of comments by the anon and by myself in this talk page section.

Also FWICS, Wikidemon and I have differing understandings relating to what is necessary to determine whether a talk page discussion (specifically the closed discussion in this talk page section) is or is not a "discussion not a good faith attempt to improve article" in order to close such a discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines follow established and consensus-supported behavior, and it is standard operating procedure to remove or collapse unhelpful commentary, particularly on pages like this. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)