Misplaced Pages

Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:18, 19 January 2009 editTracyMcClark (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,852 editsm →Title tag: fix← Previous edit Revision as of 01:30, 19 January 2009 edit undoTracyMcClark (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,852 edits →Title tag: 15 edits afterNext edit →
Line 643: Line 643:


:::::::::::::Not at all. --] (]) 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::::Not at all. --] (]) 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I count 15 responses after your initial comment before your latest edit to it.--] (]) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Oh, and why are you taking it as an ''accusation''????????--] (]) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::::Oh, and why are you taking it as an ''accusation''????????--] (]) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


Revision as of 01:30, 19 January 2009

Template:Community article probation

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories at the Reference desk.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconU.S. Supreme Court cases
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19


Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 21 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion reviewThis article was nominated for deletion review on 21 December 2008. The result of the discussion was Endorse keep.

RfC: Is the phrase "conspiracy theories" accurate for the article title?

RFC on article naming and discussion of alternatives

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the wording "conspiracy theories" accurate for the article title or would one of the proposed alternatives be more accurate and appropriate? Please review the discussion and alternate titles above. I would suggest Yes "conspiracy theories" is accurate and should remain, or No, the phrase is not accurate and one of the proposed alternatives should be chosen. If you have an opinion on an alternative, feel free to specify. Jbarta (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Note: Some of the previous article title discussion has been archived.) Jbarta (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the wording "conspiracy theories" accurate for the article title?

  • Yes, present title is fine. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No, "conspiracy theories" does not accurately reflect the issues based on reasons spelled out above. (I don't know if it's appropriate to comment on my own RfC, but since WP:RFC didn't say one way or another, I figured I'd throw in my vote.) Jbarta (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No, As strange as this sounds to me , per Scjessey's sound reasoning above: "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims".Die4Dixie (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes - The claims fit the core concept of a conspiracy theory, namely that there's a conspiracy to hide the truth of the matter. However, it might be a bit "pointy". "Ineligibility claims" is probably more neutral, but it also lends a false air of legitimacy to this stuff. Baseball Bugs 06:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Is it Misplaced Pages's purpose to remain neutral, or to attempt adding/detracting "legitimacy" to a subject as editors may see fit? Jbarta (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It has to do with the "undue weight" concept for fringe theories. Neutral point of view does not mean being blind to reality. Baseball Bugs 07:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I read WP:UNDUE as a control on the proportion of topics to be addressed, not that Misplaced Pages editors should decide which topics are "legitimate" or suitable for derision. So I read it to mean that while a case could be made to limit these minority viewpoints in an article about Obama, I do NOT read WP:UNDUE as license to editors to assign their own notions as to the "legitimacy" of a topic. In other words, atheism may make up a minority of religious views and should be given weight in that proportion, but it's NOT the duty of Misplaced Pages editors to make the judgement that aetheists are crackpots because that's their personal view. Even if a large number of people write in their news columns that atheist's are wacko's, it's possible to find just as many journalists that address the issue responsibly and I believe Misplaced Pages should follow that example. Jbarta (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope you aren't suggesting atheists are wackos? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure I could find reliable sources suggesting that... and it *is* a "fringe" view... and we certainly want to keep these aetheist "religitards" from mucking up respectable religion pages, right? Of course not, I'm being sarcastic. Actually, I'm an aetheist myself. I don't mind if my neighbor thinks I'm nuts because of it, but I would be disappointed to see the world's largest encyclopedia make that judgement. Jbarta (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If I may, could I ask if you believe that the various claims and challenges documented in in the article add up to a "conspiracy theory" as it is defined in Misplaced Pages? Jbarta (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. Jbarta's claims to the contrary are unpersuasive. The bottom line with these claims is that there is an allegation of wrongdoing, at the minimum by Obama himself, in representing himself as eligible for the presidency and that Obama is covering up this "fact" ("why won't he produce his birth certificate?"). This isn't about neutral parties attempting to test a proposition for the public benefit - it's being driven by people who are convinced that Obama has sought to conceal his "true status" in a conspiracy of silence. As such, I think "conspiracy theories" is entirely the right term for this topic. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If a number of people suggest that there was a pattern of lies or misinformation concerning the events at Abu Ghraib or policies at Guantanamo Bay and they bring suit looking for more information or make charges of malfeasance, would those plaintiffs and challengers be considered "conspiracy theorists"? And when the challenged simply avoid the issue or say (paraphrasing) "what we say is the truth, just be happy with what we give you" does that mean that challengers should just accept it and move on? I would say not. I would say that those in a position of responsibility should be held to account... even if we happen to like them. Jbarta (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This is what is wrong with this processDie4Dixie (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Those meet the definition of "conspiracy theory". This issue does not. That's the whole point. If someone suggests that McCain had not done enough to show he meets Presidential eligibility and various claims are put forth describing why he may not be eligible and atempted to hide that fact, it that a conspiracy theory? "Conspiracy theory" here is an attempt at derision and a show of non-support... nothing more. Jbarta (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No - There is only one "conspiracy theory", and even that isn't as widely covered as the slightly-less-ridiculous citizenship-related lawsuits. It is clear that all the fringe theories concern the eligibility of Barack Obama for the presidency, so it makes perfect sense for the title to be "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims" (which covers both the lawsuits and the perceived conspiracy, and is well supported by reliable sources). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The main thrust of this article is to document the various legal challenges seeking to prove that Obama is not eligible for the presidency. In contrast, the article barely touches on the "conspiracy theories" - probably because reliable sources covering them are few and far between. I believe the existing title is both inaccurate and non-neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"Claims" might be OK, as it also carries a little bit of appropriate skepticism but is not quite so pointy. "Legal challenges" gives undue weight and credibility. There is one concern I have about "conspiracy theory" here. It's not that these things aren't conspiracy theories, because they are, as I see it. However, have the media used this term? Or are we just using it ourselves based on our viewpoint? In short, is it "original research" to use the term "conspiracy theory"? The term obviously works with the JFK and 9/11 stuff, as the media not only used it, but the term was practically invented for the many (and contradictory) JFK stories. But have the media used the term in connection with the Obama stories? Baseball Bugs 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There are a few reliable sources that make use of the term "conspiracy theory", but there is by no means a preponderance. Most sources discuss the legal claims specifically, rather than the more nebulous claim of a conspiracy. That's why I feel so strongly that the existing title is inaccurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It is NOT inaccurate. These claims allege that someone is hiding something. That's a conspiracy theory. Baseball Bugs 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*yes keep it "conspiracy theories." All of these theories rest on the assumption that there is a wide-spread, well-coordinated effort to suppress The Truth, spanning continents, various government agencies and private actors. That is, they are conspiracy theories. As for claims, unless preceeded by "false" that's a bad title.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(after ec) - And that is synthesis. You need actual reliable sources that specifically describe these as conspiracy theories. And that still doesn't get around the fact that most of the article is about the court cases, none of which claim any sort of conspiracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
And that's the point I'm making. These items are conspiracy theories. They allege that information is being hidden, one way or another. However, if the media generally don't call them conspiracy theories, then it's questionable whether wikipedia should. That's why I say "claims" is probably the safer term, "safer" under wikipedia standards, that is. Baseball Bugs 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Yes. (It would be accurate if it is rephrased to indicate that there are others, e.g. "Obama ineligibility claims and conspiracy theories".) There should be a section of the article devoted to conspiracy theories, but there is much more here than conspiracy theories. The only conspiracy theory here is that the publicized short-form certificate on Obama's web site was forged. But many of the people described in this article do not subscribe to that position. Donofrio doesn't. Worldnetdaily doesn't. Wrotnowski doesn't. Camille Paglia doesn't. Et cetera. Smearing them with the "conspiracy" label is grossly inaccurate and unfair. A person who simply thinks Obama ought to disclose his original birth certificate is not a conspiracy theorist. A person who thinks that there ought to be stronger enforcement of the constitutional eligibility requirements is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. A person who agrees with the minority instead of the majority in the Wong Kim Ark case is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. A person who thinks that Ann Dunham merely registered her child in Hawaii after birth in Kenya to avoid the hassle of naturalization is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist (note that Hawaii officials would have done nothing wrong in this scenario). I could go on and on. What all those people are is FRINGE or FANCIFUL or NUTJOBS or a SMALL MINORITY, but they are not CONSPIRACISTS. Can't we denigrate them accurately instead of inaccurately, please? Many reliable sources denigrate them without using the word "conspiracy", and when they do use the word conspiracy, they are almost always referring narrowly to the few people who say that the birth certificate was forged. Additionally, even those who suspect that Obama may be hiding something are not necessarily "conspiracy" theorists; look it up in the dictionary (when you get carded buying alcohol, does that make the person doing it a "conspiracy theorist"?).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • "Nutjob" may be factually correct, but might fail NPOV rules. As I found out through long and bitter experience with the Apollo hoax page, conspiracy theorists don't like being called conspiracy theorists. The issue of his birth certificate arises from a conspiracy theory, and those who call for its release (which is not required nor even normally done), because of allegations that the Hawaiian government has somehow provided misleading information, are subscribing to a conspiracy theory. Getting carded at a bar or liquor store has nothing to do with conspiracy theories; it has totally to do with the bar or liquor store trying to avoid the risk of liability for selling alcohol to minors. Baseball Bugs 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Bugs, do you really want to take the position that disliking the "conspiracy theorist" label is evidence of being a conspiracy theorist? I've said repeatedly that I am 99% sure Obama is eligible. The Hawaii government will provide certificates with minimal evidence: "The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era." The fact that they may have issued a birth certificate to someone not actually born there does not indicate any wrongdoing on the part of state officials, much less a "conspiracy" among them.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
        • The issue was originally raised by conspiracy theorists. Buying into a conspiracy theory is part of the process of expanding the conspiracy theory. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. We should always question things. I do consider "conspiracy theory" to be a somewhat pejorative term, but some conspiracy theorists are really offended by it, as per my experience with the Apollo hoax page. And I'll freely admit I was once a conspiracy theorist as regards the JFK assassination, and I don't consider it insulting, as it was fair to raise the questions. In recent years I have become convinced that Oswald not only took part in it (which I never doubted from day one), but also that it is very possible that he acted alone. The conspiracy theories arose in large part because of the close-to-the-vest attitude taken by both the U.S. Government (who wanted to counter the immediate assumption on the part of many Americans that Cuba and/or USSR were behind it) and by the Kennedy clan (who, in retrospect, had plenty of stuff to hide). Similarly, the complainants about the birth certificate, etc., are arguing that refusing to release the original is evidence of a continued coverup. That's a conspiracy theory. It's good to raise questions. The problem is when the questioning goes off the deep end. An example would be that if they did release the original and then the complainants would claim it was forged also. Hence they "win", no matter what. I say again that these claims do qualify as conspiracy theories. That doesn't mean the article title is appropriate, though, simply because of the shortage of verifiable usage of the term for these cases. "Claims" would be more neutral. Baseball Bugs 16:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Only some of the complainants about the birth certificate are arguing that refusing to release the original is evidence of a continued coverup. If you go read Donofrio's brief, he specifically compliments Obama for not releasing the original, given that no court has asked him to do so. And some of the complainants just say Obama is being uncooperative rather than deliberately covering anything up. This is from the Donofrio brief: "As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama's birth certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point out that Senator Obama has not been presented with a genuine legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility to submit or to bend his integrity. And for that, he certainly deserves respect. Appellant believes that if Senator Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put this issue behind him forever." Ferrylodge (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
            • The arguments, by some, that Obama is being "uncooperative" compare to the arguments by some of the moon hoaxsters that NASA is being "uncooperative" in that they won't spend money trying to prove that the moon landings occurred. Donofrio makes the proper legal statement, i.e. that Obama is under no legal obligation to "prove" anything unless the courts tell him to. Donofrio is obviously treading on eggs here, trying to avoid sounding like a conspiracy theorist. I go back to what I consider the obvious: If there were really an issue here, the GOP would be all over it. But they haven't been. So either they don't think it's an issue, or they secretly wanted Obama to win so they could blame the recession on the Democrats (and if you think that's a conspiracy theory, consider that Limbaugh is already labeling the current recession the Democratic recession - despite the fact that the seeds for it were sown in the Reagan administration). Baseball Bugs 17:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
                • Could you live with "Obama ineligibility conspiracy theories and claims"? That leaves it ambiguous whether the word "conspiracy" modifies "claims". And not to digress or anything, but the seeds of this recession were sown in the Johnson administration. Johnson semi-privatized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to finance the Vietnam War. He should have either entirely privatized them, or not privatized them at all. He created a monster that had implicit federal financial backing, but still had the ability to spend gobs of money lobbying Congress. This was a financial monster waiting to wreak havoc, and it finally did. There were other factors too, of course.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
                  • Well, a title like that would almost certainly make it impossible to find, other than being linkable from the Obama articles umbrella. "Obama ineligibility claims" would work for me. And why stop with LBJ? According to Limbaugh, this is all FDR's fault. One funny thing, though - in the 1890s, J.P. Morgan bailed out the U.S. Government. I guess it's finally payback time. Baseball Bugs 17:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It's really is FDR's fault, if you want to know the truth .Die4Dixie (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
We were running a surplus in the 90s. The GOP-led Congress decided that deficits didn't matter after all, so here we are. Baseball Bugs 06:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Then "Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and claims"?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I see the claim very often made that "if there were anything to it, Clinton or McCain would have been all over it". If this talk page is any clue, you can see what would have resulted had either campaign pursued the issue. I believe it's very plausible that both campaigns made the decision to stay away from it because some of the arguments are thin and unpopular, getting into it would be more trouble than it's worth and more bang for buck could be had elsewhere. I don't see it as an acknowlegement there's "nothing to it". Jbarta (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The issue was raised in Congress as regards McCain, and was settled properly. Had anyone raised it with Obama, it could likewise have been settled long ago. Since no one took it on, it must have been thought to be less credible than the concerns about McCain. Baseball Bugs 17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Or else the GOP is generally more concerned about possibly violating the Constitution. Or else the Obama issue has more evidentiary aspects than the McCain matter. Or else....Ferrylodge (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Violating the Constitution how? By asking someone to prove he's eligible to be President? Not hardly. Baseball Bugs 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the question. Anyhow, take Hillary. She's arguably barred by the emoluments clause from serving as Secretary of State. But the Dems aren't seeking a Senate resolution on that. Contrast Orin Hatch who actually turned down nomination to SCOTUS for that same exact reason.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe she's going to turn the salary over to charity??? Baseball Bugs 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Legislators who know they'll be ineligible to fill positions if they raise the salaries, will be inclined to not raise the salaries. That purpose would be defeated (or so the argument goes) if the salary difference could merely be refunded to the Treasury.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

← Look. Not all the lawsuits allege a conspiracy, correct? And not all the conspiracy theorists have filed lawsuits, correct? But all the lawsuits and theories concern Obama's eligibility to be POTUS, correct? Therefore, it makes sense for the title to be "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims". It is a more accurate title, and it doesn't increase the scope of the article to allow all the other nutjob stuff around to get thrown in there as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree that your proposal is better than the current title and more accurately reflects the issues presented in the article. Jbarta (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a pretty good title. Less pointy, not too wordy. Baseball Bugs 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Baseball_Bugs, are you thus prepared to change your Yes to a No? Jbarta (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
No, because the question asks whether it's accurate. I still say it is accurate. However, I think the proposed new title is better, i.e. more in line with policy. So maybe you need to ask a new question. Although I think the part just after the ← above does just that. Baseball Bugs 18:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get buried under questions, but I would suggest that if you believe a better title omits the phrase "conspiracy theories", then it's safe to say the the current title is not accurate or appropriate in your view. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just offering my own analysis of your statements. Jbarta (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"Accurate" and "appropriate" are two different questions. The current title is accurate, but may not be appropriate. The revised idea is both accurate and appropriate. Baseball Bugs 19:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the part about "citizenship" is more problematic, because it's not his citizenship that's at issue, it's his "natural born citizen" status, or lack thereof. Baseball Bugs 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
All of the lawsuits are based on the underlying claim that Obama's citizenship is not as stated by Obama and his campaign. They all assert or assume wrongdoing and fraud on Obama's part in representing him as ineligible for the presidency. They all assert or assume that there are many parties to this supposed conspiracy to conceal Obama's "true" origins - Obama himself, the campaign, the DNC, state governors, secretaries of state, electors and so on. The bottom line is that you can't draw a line between the nutjobs and the supposedly sane litigators, because they're all following the same essentially nutty assumption that Obama's biography has been falsified. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's my argument. However, lacking sources to name them "nutjobs", we can't use that in the title. And "conspiracy theory" is apparently not in wide usage either, so it's questionable as a title. Baseball Bugs 19:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree that suggestions Obama may be hiding something, or that legal challenges to his eligibility are by definition "nutty". That is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on the issue (and challengers), and a first line of rebuttal in lieu of more substantive argument. Point-counterpoint can be made, but accusations of nuttiness are a first line of defense, not a reasoned argument of the claims. Jbarta (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"Suggestions Obama may be hiding something" are conspiracy theorizing, by definition. The conspiracy being theorized is that Obama is "hiding something"; that's the starting point from which all the other conspiracy theories - birth certificate, place of birth, citizenship etc - are being derived. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
But "conspiracy" implies 2 or more people working together to hide something, and that is not the case with everything in this article. One lawsuit simply attempts to get Obama to present his long form birth certificate. Perhaps there is an implication of a conspiracy there, but it is not for Misplaced Pages to say so without a reliable source to back it up. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions Obama may be hiding something" are conspiracy theorizing, by definition -- I disagree. With this statement you have substantially expanded the definition of "conspiracy theory" and show (IMO) that you see little or no distinction between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory". By your definition, anyone accusing others of hiding something is a "conspiracy theorist". As an experiment, substitute another name and see if it make sense to you... Suggestions Bush may be hiding something are conspiracy theorizing, by definition. See what I mean? Jbarta (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, when prosecutors charge someone with conspiracy to commit this that or another thing, are they by definition "conspiracy theorists" or have they simply made an accusation? Jbarta (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
No, prosecutors are not conspiracy theorists. We had a debate on that same question on the moon hoax page. A conspiracy charge is based on evidence against an accused criminal. A conspiracy theory is an alternative to an official (i.e. governmental) explanation. The official story is that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1960 and/or that he maintained his U.S. citizenship. The alternative story is that he wasn't and/or that he didn't. A conspiracy theory is based on someone's interpretation of something, running counter to the official story. Baseball Bugs 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I must admit, that's an interesting argument. I'll have to think about that. (Hopefully I won't hurt myself in the process ;-) At the same time, only some aspects of this issue deal with things that run contary to "the official story". Some are simply questions about definitions or process. Jbarta (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If I'm hearing right, what you're saying is that there may be no actual "official story" as such, at least not an overt official story - just an underlying assumption. Baseball Bugs 21:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little uncomfortable with the phrase "official story". Essentially what we have is a number of claims and legal challenges that all claim in one way or another Obama is either not legally eligible to be President, or that he should provide more proof that he *is* eligible. I'm not sure we can then extrapolate that Obama is eligible and challenges to the contrary are unfounded is the "official story". To me, that's a bit of a stretch. Especially in light of what little has actually been done to prove Obama's eligibility and the questions that have remained unanswered. Sure, legal challenges have gained no traction, but that's not because he mounted a good rebuttal... just that the challenge didn't hit him because the judges didn't want to create a shitstorm, um, uh, I mean didn't see any merit to the challenge. Again, "official story" rings a little hollow in this instance. Jbarta (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, above I misspoke. The challenges were mostly denied due to lack of standing, not lack of merit. Bit of a difference there. Jbarta (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Title change proposal

To change the title to "Barack Obama presidential ineligibility claims"...

There is a difference between person A falsifying a statement and person B failing to determine if that statement is true. Part of the issue is that various entities (DNC, various SoS's etc) did little or nothing to verify that Obama statements and claims were true, nor will they offer specifics regarding what they actually did to verify Obama's eligibility. At least one of the legal challenges charge just that... little or no checking of eligibility. That's a claim of lack of proper action, oversight and discharge of duties, not a suggestion of a conspiracy. Jbarta (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Few reliable sources support the term "conspiracy theory", and the proposed new title does not preclude the documentation of a conspiracy theory anyway - it just attempts to be more neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes - While I agree these are conspiracy theories, that's our judgment more so than it being citable, and that's the problem. There's another problem, in that the current title implies there's an issue of his actual citizenship. I don't think that's really at issue. As far as I know, it's his eligibility that's at issue. So the proposed title is better. Baseball Bugs 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes - I would prefer to add "and conspiracy theories" at the end of the title, but I could live with the title as proposed. Adding those three words would clearly indicate that there are some very sketchy people and ideas involved in this thing (as ChrisO mentioned), while still embracing the people who aren't so sketchy. For example, Donofrio and Wrotnowski did not assert that Obama's biography has been falsified or misrepresented by Obama himself, his campaign, the DNC and many other parties (ditto people who simply think that candidates generally should provide copies of their original birth certificates, or at least candidates with a non-citizen parent).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. While it may not be my first choice as an alternative, and I do have a couple mild reservations concerning the proposal, I believe it's more accurate and a more appropriate title for the article than what is current. I give it my support. Jbarta (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No, don't change title, but redirect is OK. LotLE×talk 21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No, as just said in RfC, don't change title. Tvoz/talk 21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No. These are by definition 'Conspiracy Theories' and should be labeled as such. Precedent includes 9/11 conspiracy theories & Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Unbiased media sources are willing to describe these ideas as conspiracy theories, and there are plenty of legitimate citations. Changing the title gives undue weight and validation to theorists, who are in a slim minority. Would you change the article Sexual predator to Nontraditional sexual activist or some such nonsense at the behest of pedophiles? -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC
Also, I agree with this logic as well as ChrisO's above. Tvoz/talk 21:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't help but wonder if there is any logic put forth by those seeking a title change that you do agree with? Do you find any opinions in common? Jbarta (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
In response to your question, I have often agreed with Scjessey on issues, but I disagree with him on this one. The phrase "conspiracy theory" correctly characterizes what these fringe claims are, and taking it out, in my opinion, legitimizes them in a way that is not neutral. I see these claims as inherently conspiracy claims, as involving at least Obama and his advisors who certainly have had this raised to them, and perhaps his prescient family members 40+ years in advance, the Hawaiian government and a host of others. I am more persuaded by the arguments on the side of retaining the current title. Tvoz/talk 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer my question (very well done however... maybe you should be in politics :-). Let me ask you something more specific: Would you agree that at least two of the legal challenges have nothing whatsoever to do with a conspiracy theory and instead deal with the process of determining presidential eligibility and the definition of natural born citizen? Can you climb aboard on those two points? Jbarta (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought I posted a reply to this, but it's not showing up here - the short response is, no, I am afraid I can't agree. These all are "conspiracy theories" - fringe theories - with an implication that Obama, his advisors, lawyers, supporters, staff, family, the DNC, etc etc have together (read: conspiracy) perpetrated a hoax on the American people pretending he is eligible for the Presidency when they have surely heard the overwhelming evidence that he was born somewhere else, or gave up his citizenship, or held dual or triple citizenship, or was the son of someone entirely other than the person named on his birth certificate and in the 1961 newspapers, or maybe was born in a completely different year before statehood and then had his birth certificate altered to an acceptable year, or perhaps is an alien altogether who took over Barack Obama's body... but wait, the Constitution doesn't say that being human is an eligibility requirement, does it? Paul is dead, and so is this argument as far as I'm concerned. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it valid, and choosing an article title that legitimizes this garbage is not something I would agree to. Tvoz/talk 06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I would simply comment that (IMO) you are first taking the position that it's all nonsense and working your thinking, logic and arguments backwards from that in an effort to support your predetermined conclusion. If however, you approach it objectively, and with no prejudice or preconceived ideas, it's not difficult to coldly examine the various issues and arguments and see that it's not entirely nonsense by any stretch of the imagination and largely does not add up to "conspiracy theory". Jbarta (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You make the point that keeping "conspiracy theories" in the title is partly an attempt to invalidate the theorists... a complete misuse of WP:UNDUE (IMO). And using your "sexual predator" analogy, I would say that if you are describing an 19 yr old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old, then the phrase sexual predator would be inaccurate and attempts to label him as such are inappropriate. In that case, "underage sex" would be more appropriate, although there would be those arguing that calling it something other than "sexual predator" only serves to legitimize the actions of that 19 year old. Like I said earlier take the same circumstances and make the subject someone minor or unpopular and it would then be referred to more accurately as "challenges" and "claims". Jbarta (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that by using the word 'undue' I was citing WP:UNDUE, which I don't think it applicable here. But WP:NAME says to Use the most easily recognized name, which is hard to determine except by consensus. Speaking personally, the current title is almost exactly what I'd search for if I was looking for this topic. Things might be different if I believed the conspiracy, but since it's pretty clear from media coverage that most don't, the current title is more universal than a title referring to 'citizenship claims'. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting position. For the sake of argument, would you say that choosing a popular name is more important than choosing an accurate name? Let's suppose we could agree that A is more popular or well known or common yet B was more accurate and descriptive. Would you interpret Misplaced Pages guidelines as preferring A or B? And could you point specifically to the guideline and section you would use (if any) to justify that interpretation? Jbarta (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
No, not "popular" - the criterion is what would be the most likely phrase for readers to search on. I agree with Hemidemi that Obama conspiracy theories is more likely than Obama presidential ineligibility claims as a search term.Tvoz/talk 06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Just as an example, I tried to think of a commonly used word that is not entirely accurate for what it really is. Luckily my first guess works out well... "silverware" is what most people (AFAIK) call their knife, fork and spoon. Yet the Misplaced Pages title for that is "cutlery". Does anyone say "Where is your cutlery drawer?" Silverware is more common yet cutlery is more accurate (?). The article is titled "cutlery". Jbarta (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh, actually I grew up with the word "cutlery", so yes, I have a cutlery drawer. Silverware is, well, the "good" silver. But my mother was Canadian, so perhaps that explains it. Tvoz/talk 06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV:
"content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias"
"It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively"
"The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints"
When an editor attempts to either legitimize or delegitimize a topic according to his beliefs, that is adding in personal bias and is a complete perversion of neutral point of view IMO. It's not for YOU to determine legitimacy. It's the editor's job to present the facts in an unbiased way and use the most accurate descriptor possible. If you really believe that "conspiracy theories" is an accurate description of the issue, then that's one thing and I will only suggest you have a weak argument. If however, you claim to add neutrality by deciding what is a legitimate or respectable issue according to your own personal views, then I would say you're dead wrong and should read WP:NPOV again. I would suggest that every notable topic and view is "legitimate" and should be described accurately.
And for the record, while one will find reliable sources that use the phrase "conspiracy theories", one will also find reliable sources that do not. So I would argue that's pretty much a wash. Jbarta (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
"legitimize what are decidedly fringe opinions, something no reliable source has yet done" -- I would disagree. There are plenty of reliable sources that use fairly neutral language when reporting on this issue. Granted, the urge to insert editorial comments into news articles is irresistable for some journalists, but many news articles are in fact fairly neutral. I would also suggest that many articles claiming "conspiracy theories" and "lunatic fringe", etc are more commentary than actual reporting. In that vein, I would suggest that "Misplaced Pages is not a soap box/Opinion pieces" should be kept in the back of one's mind. Jbarta (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious, what you mean when you say "polling is evil"? Can you explain it in a way that a novice like me would understand? Jbarta (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Lots of info is at WP:VOTE (and see its "See also" section).Ferrylodge (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
And they are also widely NOT reported as conspiracy theories. I would go so far as to say that while the claims and arguments may be often criticized in news reports, the characterization of them as "conspiracy theories" is arguably a lesser view in reputable sources. And where one does find that phrase often is in commentary rather than reporting. Your position holds little water. Jbarta (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I'm quite blown away by so many flagrant violations of NPOV. Misplaced Pages is not your blog. Misplaced Pages is not your position paper. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a collection of knowledge and facts whose main precept is neutrality. Jbarta (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No, as started in previous section. All of these claims either explicitly or implicitly rely upon the assumption that the country's political, legal, and media elites are completely and willfully ignoring the truth that Obama is not eligible to become president, and thus a great constitutional fraud is about to take place. Check out the rhetoric in this Alan Keyes column: if this goes through, it's the end of the constitutional republic as we know it, and we're on the road to tyranny and soon we'll be no better than the USSR, Red China, and North Korea. And Keyes is the most known and "respectable" of all these characters! The title of the article is accurate. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Alan Keyes and some of the others have a way of shooting off their mouth and saying rather ridiculous things. There's plenty of that on both sides. When he's not carrying on like a buffoon he's actually very intelligent and thoughtful. At any rate, I think it's good to get past rhetoric and hyperbole and examine the substance as objectively as possible. Jbarta (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
And for the record, I don't think this issue damages the Consitution any more than the myriad of other damages it has suffered over the years and Obama won't be a usurper (in a practical sense). However, I do believe a very good case can be made that he may be ineligible on technicalities... and as a general rule, maybe we ought not be so eager to ignore so many technicalitites... especially where the Constitution is concerned. Jbarta (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
the country's political, legal, and media elites are completely and willfully ignoring the truth that Obama is not eligible to become president, I would alter that to millions of people are willfully ignoring the possibility that Obama may not be eligible for the presidency. Jbarta (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No When Jbarta says that "a very good case can be made that he may be ineligible on technicalities," that seems to include the possibility that Obama may be unaware of his own ineligibility. But the vast majority of ineligibility writings that I have read take the position that he knows that he is ineligible and is making efforts to conceal the truth. He could not do this entirely on his own, so to me the existence of a conspiracy is implied in the overwhelming bulk of the claims. TheMaestro (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubt that Obama knows his situation completely. I'm surprised you arrived at that. And yes, if things are not as advertised, certainly there may be other people who know for sure. Without a doubt his mother would have known. His grandmother would have probably have known. Close friends and relatives may know. But the idea that it requires great numbers of people to hide details that may be contained in documents sealed from public view is incorrect. Also, keep in mind the Hawaii Dept of Health said they have his "birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures". That's an interesting way to put it. To me all that says is they have his birth certificate... nothing more. Technically only Obama would have to misrepresent the truth and no one in the dept of health has conspired (they just don't confirm or deny anything). No one has to do much of anything... especially if there is no legal challenge compelling any action. Also, if I recall, there have been other documents that might shed some light on these things but Obama has chosen to keep those hidden as well. (I'm not sure specifically what those requested documents were... that's a gap in my knowledge of the matter... although some sort of school admission documents come to mind... don't quote me though) Add to that, there is virtually no checking by various organizations (DNC, FEC, SoS, etc) of any of this. So the notion that all this has been thoroughly checked by anyone is just plain not true. Without anything to compel him otherwise, Obama can just sit on the truth (assuming I'm not crazy and there is a truth for him to sit on) almost no one else is required. If I'm wrong on any of the facts here, by all means let me know. Jbarta (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, is it possible that there may be something regarding Obama's history that he really is unaware of? I suppose it's possible, but it would take a level of speculation that I'm not entirely comforable discussing with any seriousness, and Obama being the extremely smart and (probably) curious person he is, would have drilled to the truth long ago at the first hint something might not be as advertised. Jbarta (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

←This has been an interesting discussion. I proposed the title because I believe that using the term "conspiracy theories" represents a non-neutral, and not entirely accurate description. Additionally, I believe that "claims" addresses the concerns of those who think the proposed title in some way legitimizes any of the lawsuits and fringe theories. Finally, I want a title that seeks to narrow the scope of the article so that other fringe theory crap doesn't creep in (there is an attempt to shoehorn the "Obama is a Muslim" stuff into the public image article, for example). It is my firm belief that article titles should not seek to characterize the subject of an article, however ridiculous it may be. Incidentally, I would still rather see this article deleted, as I think it does more to legitimize the wack-job theories than the article's title ever will. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that such an intense effort to delete or delegitimize the issue is pretty good evidence that there is actually some substance to it. This is not something that trancends physics or ignores a preponderance of evidence. This is a discussion that many folks simply don't wish to have. To many it's minor thing and we should label it nutty or just ignore it and talk about something else. Instead of viewing it as an examination of an issue, it's viewed as an attack and the first instinct is to mount a defense. The most common defense being the whole thing is garbage. That's not much of an argument. At any rate, Obama will survive, the Constitution will survive, the country will survive and Misplaced Pages will survive. All will survive in spite of us because even with all the messiness... they are all still the best thing going. Jbarta (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why then are you making so much effort to promote the issue? Step back and let the RFC run its course. There is such a thing as posting too much. At some point excessive posting turns into argumentum ad nauseum, a common disruptive editing technique. Jehochman 16:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree and yes it has occurred to me that I'm being too persistant and argumentative. Even in my normal life I need to learn when to shut the hell up and give it a break already. For what it's worth, I'm not wishing to be disruptive, and if I've given that impression or crossed the line, I sincerely apologize. Jbarta (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep "conspiracy theories" in title but tweak title

In the spirit of compromise, and in the spirit of not letting this issue drag too much into 2009, can we please agree on "Barack Obama citizenship challenges and conspiracy theories"? I think this would be a big improvement in the title, and I have it on good authority that I'm not alone. Can others live with this? I won't bother going into all the concerns and reasons since they're already spelled out above.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

*Support (at this point, decided that views on this can wait). kind of. 1st choice -- no change. 2nd choice -- "tktkt conspiracy theories and citizenship challenges." 3rd choice -- your proposal. I guess my statement of support amounts to "don't want it changed, but if it must be changed to move forward, then i can live with this one."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I do not see any citizenship challenges. Such things would be supported by actual evidence and have at least a glimmer of hope of being taken seriously. If any such things appear, we can look at the title. For now, everything in the article is essentially in the realm of conspiracy theories. Let's not add weasel words or "teach the controversy". Let's stick to the facts. There is a need to seek consensus. That does not mean we have to compromise with extreme views. We do not achieve WP:NPOV through tug of war. Jehochman 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, respectfully, I do not feel like you have really engaged those with whom you disagree. You have not acknowledged that many of the people described in this article do not subscribe to the position that there was forgery here. You have not explained how Donofrio's lawsuit was a conspiracy theory, given that he accepts Obama was born in the USA. Worldnetdaily and Wrotnowski likewise do not assert that there was any forgery. Camille Paglia doesn't assert forgery. You have not mentioned any of these people. You have not explained why a person who thinks that there ought to be stronger enforcement of the constitutional eligibility requirements is necessarily a conspiracy theorist, or why a person who agrees with the minority instead of the majority in the Wong Kim Ark case is necessarily a conspiracy theorist. Additionally, every person who is asserting that Obama is conspiring to hide the truth is "challenging" his citizenship. I do not understand how you can see no citizenship challenge here, or why you choose to label everyone who perceives a citizenship "challenge" as an extremist. Isn't there a very important difference between saying that conspiracy theorists are involved here, versus saying that every single person who has the slightest interest in seeing Obama's original birth certificate is a conspiracy theorist?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman does bring up a good point. I don't believe any of the legal challenges are claiming that Obama is not currently a citizen of the US, just that he is not a natural-born citizen, so is not eligible to be President. Granted, that does indicate that even if just "conspiracy theories" is kept in the title of the article, then the current article may need to be renamed to "Barack Obama natural-born citizenship conspiracy theories". --Bobblehead 00:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If there is a conspiracy theory about natural-born citizenship, then that is a type of citizenship conspiracy theory. No need to clutter up the title with details. Also, I don't think that's what Jehochman was trying to say.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This proposal acknowledges conspiratorial elements and aims more towards accuracy and less towards derision. It's better than the current title.Jbarta (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course not. What, will every thread here always be yet another repetition of the same rejected RfC for renaming. I suppose at some point, the proponents of the "gentle" name hope to wear out sensible editors, then declare "consensus" for a (repeatedly rejected) change! Enough already, stop the repeated duplicitous "polls". LotLE×talk 21:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Until now, there has not been any poll about a proposal to keep "conspiracy theories" in the title but modify the title. Regarding duplicitousness, see WP:AGF.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Enough already. I have posted to WP:AN for an uninvolved administrator to review this situation. There is an RFC immediately above. Why are proponents of a name change arguing endlessly when there is clearly no consensus for a change? Jehochman 21:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Until now, there has not been any poll about a proposal to keep "conspiracy theories" in the title but modify the title. Also, as described above, I do not feel that you have answered anyone with whom you disagree. I hope that answers your question.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There's also not a consensus for keeping the title as it is. I for one see some value in trying to engage those who disagree with me and see if we can find some common points of agreement and maybe actually achieve a consensus on the title. (Admittedly I'm not very good at it.) I also agree that for the moment we're going nowhere fast and I'm not entirely sure how to proceed. In supporting this latest compromise title, I was merely attempting to contribute to a consensus by compromising. I have my opinions and I have my arguments, but I'm also reasonable and flexible. As far as wearing anyone down, I think that's a misinterpretation. That's not the intent. However, if one really wishes to jump into a contentious subject, then you had better be prepared to engage with some pretty sharp arguments and be prepared for disagreement. I would suggest that oppositions to a title change (when offered) have very often been general in scope, weak and non-neutral. At least that's my view. Jbarta (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Jbarta, when there is no consensus to make a change, then the default is to keep the current state. At some point the discussion has to stop for a period of time so the different sides can take a breather. At this point I'm seeing 5+ different discussions on whether the name of this article should be changed from the current one, to a different one and none of those discussions have resulted in a consensus that involves a change to the article's name, so the default is for the current name to remain. --Bobblehead 00:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
when there is no consensus to make a change, then the default is to keep the current state. -- I understand that, and I've considered that. However, I'm taking the position that the article has been misnamed from the start.
I wasn't part of the discussion when the article was created or named. Actually, like most people, I had a cursory understanding of the issue and thought there was nothing to it... until I started looking a little closer and seeing that there really were some legitimate questions. I was also pretty surprised how the issue was being treated by various news outlets and anyone commenting on the issue. To me the vigorous attempt to label any questioners as frustrated wackos was pretty bizarre.
At any rate, like any good frustrated wacko, I started sifting through the facts and the arguments trying to separate substance from rhetoric, reality from hyperbole. Soon I learned about this Misplaced Pages article, and reading through it, I saw that it too was a little light on facts and heavy on bias... so I decided to jump in.
Anyhow, fast forward to today. While the article has definitely gotten better (thanks to the efforts of many excellent editors), I believe the title is still wrong and from what I see in Misplaced Pages policies (namely Ignore All Rules and Use Common Sense, I feel justified not only in arguing for a better title, but arguing that it was badly named from the beginning. According to that line of reasoning, what the article is named now carries little or no weight. Jbarta (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Using IAR and UCS won't get you very far, Jbarta.;) Well, it'll only get you blocked. IAR is generally only to be used in non-disruptive situations, so if you were to use it in this one, chances are it'll be deemed disruptive. Also, regardless of the relative merits of keeping this article where it is, it is currently named what it is and until a consensus is established to rename it, then here it shall be left. Grinding down you opposition through never letting a discussion go on hiatus is not an acceptable method in finding consensus. My suggestion would be to let the discussion go for now. --Bobblehead 01:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your advice. And I'm aware that I've been pushing hard... maybe a little too hard for some (I'm even starting to annoy *myself*). That said, I'm still going to chime in where and and when I feel appropriate, make my arguments as I see fit and let the chips fall where they may. You might, however, take comfort in the fact that I've made many of my arguments at least two or three times and some of them don't need to be made again. Jbarta (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
That certainly was not the intent.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if anything that is even worse than the existing title. The conspiracy/lawsuits all concern Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency. If you must insist on the non-neutral label of "conspiracy theories", perhaps it should be the equally unwieldy Barack Obama presidential ineligibility conspiracy theories -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say just plain "Barack Obama citzenship challenges" is the simplest, most accurate and is neutral as dirt. Gosh it's lonely in my world. Jbarta (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned below that for most people the really important information they want is the truth about Obama's status. They don't really care about the details about the challengers. What if WP had an article on "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories" but no article on the Federal Reserve? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of "conspiracy theories" altogether (a suggestion)

I don't think most people come to this article to read about conspiracy theories. What they want is accurate information on President Elect Obama's natural born citizenship status. So why not call the article that: "Barack Obama's natural born citizenship status"? Steve Dufour (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, but the consensus above seems to be to keep "conspiracy theories" in the title. If you can accomplish your objective while keeping "conspiracy theories" in the title, then we can consider it, but for now it seems to be settled that "conspiracy theories" will remain in the title.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a way to "get rid of conspiracy theories altogether" and still keep them in the title. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, we could first give the correct information (or make that "mainstream consensus") and then have a section on conspiracy theories and allegations. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem I see with this view is that, absent the conspiracy theories, there is no issue about Barack Obama's citizenship that has any notability at all. Would we have an article on 'Geroge W. Bush's natural born citizenship status'? Unless and until any of these issues find a court or a reputable legal scholar to take them seriously, they are most accurately represented as "conspiracy theories". HrafnStalk 01:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
In this case the mainstream view, that there is no problem, is more important than the fringe views. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thinking about it, it might be appropriate to replace "conspiracy theories" in the title with something more formal such as "legal pseudoscholarship" or similar. HrafnStalk 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
That would be an improvement. Another issue is that "conspiracy theories" implies a certain kind of, how shall I say I am not an expert, mental state. In this case what seems to be happening is outright attacks and slanders, although they may seem to take the form of conspiracy theories. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the word you are after is "paranoia". As far as I can ascertain, there isn't any claim about Obama's citizenship within this topic that doesn't rely upon some unsubstantiated claim of some sort of a 'conspiracy' to either suppress and/or fake evidence. The label would appear to be entirely accurate, if perhaps a tad informal. 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Me thinks denial is the term being sought. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
That works too. But still the facts about what is being denied are more important that the denials. What if WP had an article on Apollo 11 denial but not one on Apollo 11 itself?Steve Dufour (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
We do have an article that's the opposite of this one. It's called Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
:-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you think these claims are being made because of mental disorders? The expression "conspiracy theory" might imply that they are. Of course in law a "conspiracy" is any two or more people getting together to do something bad. (I'm not a lawyer either.) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
What 'I think' doesn't matter. The claims that are the focus of this article would appear to meet the definition in conspiracy theory. While 'Clinical psychology' is one of the possible 'Psychological origins' listed in the 'Study of conspiracism' in that article, it is not the only one. To argue that this should not be labelled a 'conspiracy theory' because this may imply, as a consequence, that those making them are disordered would appear to be argumentum ad consequentiam -- a logical fallacy. HrafnStalk 17:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that individually, each element of the article can be defined as a conspiracy theory, or that the entire issue in general (the various challenges and claims taken together) are in totality a conspiracy theory? Jbarta (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the main underlying rationale for anyone using the phrase "conspiracy theories" to describe this issue is an attempt to make the whole thing seem unworthy or nutty. When you peel away to the core, that's what it is. Nothing more. And the question is, do we at Misplaced Pages want operate that way? Or do we have a higher purpose that rises above the gutter fighting and name calling below? Simple as that. Jbarta (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously incorrect. There are clearly conspiracy theorists involved in this thing. It would clearly be a conspiracy if Obama, the DNC, his family, and Hawaii state officials all got together to lie about his past and forge a phony short-form birth certificate. Some nuts believe that such a conspiracy has occurred, so there's nothing at all wrong with this article using the term "conspiracy theory". It fits like a glove. On the other hand, there are many people involved in this thing who are not conspiracy theorists; they mostly have a fringe point of view, and there's nothing wrong with describing it as a "fringe" point of view. Additionally, there are simply people who would be interested in seeing Obama's original birth certificate which is obviously better evidence of birth than a laser-generated abstract produced forty years later.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If an aspect of the issue can be accurately described as "conspiracy theory", then that can be correctly noted within the article. The issue has several aspects, most of which are in no way a theory of conspiracy. (You have argued this correctly yourself.) In that the entire issue has been slapped with the label conspiracy theory for purposes of derision, I am most definitely correct. Jbarta (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with that last sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move to Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories

I suggest that this article be moved to Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories. Although most of the theories described by this article are conspiracy theories, some, as has been said above, are not. However, all of them can be characterized as fringe theories, on the basis that none of them are accepted by any significant number of uninvolved mainstream observers. -- The Anome (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  • oppose this and more, endless straw polls on this matter. Every single one of the permutations of the false, ridiculous belief that Obama is not eligible for the presidency rests on one vast conspiracy or another.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If you read the previous arguments carefully, you'll see that the notion of "vast conspiracy" is not necessary and is merely a straw man created by detractors. A little bit of fudging the truth, a little bit of denial, a little bit of looking the other way and a little bit of not answering some tougher questions is all that's needed. A perfectly reasonable proposition and it happens all the time. Jbarta (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I read it all with great care and don't remotely share your conclusions. It aint a straw man, it aint denial, and it aint a "little bit of not answering tough questions." I don't like at all being characterized in this way. Don't do it again. The belief that this man, with a confirmed US citizen mother and a confirmed US birth place, is not a natural born US citizen is classic, conspiratorial nuttery. I understand you have a different opinion. But don't tell me again i haven't thought about this (speaking of straw men).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Are questions posed concerning how presidential candidates are certified eligible a "conspiracy theory"? Is the suggestion that it's odd that Obama has gone to great lengths to conceal his orginial birth certicicate somehow nutty? Is suggesting that a (arguably weak) question about natural born citizenship is part of a vast conspiracy? We'll agree to disagree and I'll still call "vast conspiracy" a straw man. And it's unfortunate that you find that characterization upsetting. Be assured that it's not my intent to insult you personally... just refute your statements. Jbarta (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
What i take exception to is being told when i've come to different conclusions than someone else that "i haven't read carefully." No. I read carefully and reached a conclusion. Now as for you, a challenge: Which of the theories do you see as most likely/plausible as to why he's not an American citizen by birth? Lay it out in 2 sentences. Then we'll examine what other things one might have to concurrently believe for this to be true. Then we'll see if that fits the "conspiracy theory" rubrik.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
For me personally, the most glaring clue that something is probably not right (or at minimum a nasty can of worms), is that Obama has concealed his original birth documents and (AFAIR) other potentially revealing documents as well. Jbarta (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You've made no argument here. Let me clarify what your position amounts to - Question: "On what basis should Obama be legally compelled to release a private record that no previous candidate for this office has been forced to release?" Answer: "His refusal to release this private record voluntarily creates the need to compel him to do so, because his refusal raises grave doubts as to the true nature of his citizenship status." There's another classic logical fallacy here (since you recently misapplied the term straw-man, bonus points are available for correctly naming which one this represents.) Again, I invite you to explain on what basis his eligiblity to be president should be doubted. (Reminder: Reiterating that his "refusal" to allow losers like Berg, Keyes et al to paw through his records is "troubling" isn't logically convincing. There has to be some "real" reason, i.e. "secretly born in Kenya" "secretly renounced citizenship," "mother secretly Polish" "secretely a Martian" etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me approach it this way if I might. Considering there are eligibility requirements to be President, would we assume there is some mechanism in place to verify that eligibility? Jbarta (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's better I suppose, but fringe theory isn't entirely accurate. Leaves a bit of a sci-fi aftertaste. I think it's possible to have an article that contains some fringe and some conspiracy theory without having to put that in the title. Especially when the main purpose of putting it in the title is to discredit the theories, questions and issues in the article. Jbarta (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • support That's an excellent suggestion. Those who are "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" ought to reconsider. This suggestion improves accuracy while in no way legitimazing these fringe theories. It is also supported by article titles in reliable sources. See "President Alien, and Other Tales From the Fringe" in the Washington Post. Also see "Change They Can Litigate: The fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president" in Slate. The notion that the word "fringe" is difficult for people to understand, or implies some "science" connotation is rebutted by these reliable sources and many more. See Fringe theatre and Lunatic fringe, for examples of other Misplaced Pages article titles. I would also be happy with a title that says "Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories and conspiracy theories." Many of the people mentioned in this Misplaced Pages article do not espouse conspiracy theories about Obama (e.g. Donofrio, Wrontowski, and Paglia). Also, WorldNetDaily does not assert that there was any forgery. People who merely want to see better proof are not conspiracy theorists. I personally am 99% sure Obama is eligible, but I wouldn't mind seeing the original certificate myself.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wrotnowski believes that Omaba's birth certificate is a forgery.
  • Donofrio believes that the Supreme Court Justices are "wussies", who "lacked the courage to do their job", "purposely fumbled" and rejected his case on extraneous grounds, and not because it was legally unworthy. He also believes the US supreme court is never going to uphold the constitution, are a "blasphemy to justice" (?), "have no honor" etc. And of course the media is "transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from 'The One Corporation - your source for everything…' "
  • Sure, sound like conspiracy theorists to me ... 66.253.202.164 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It is true that some of the challengers have made some pretty outlandish statements. I would call that more hyperbole than conspiracy theory and would also suggest there has been LOTS of that on both sides of the issue. Jbarta (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, Ferrylodge has cited Donofrio, and Wrotnowski as voices of (relative) sanity on this issue and has repeatedly asserted that Wrotnowski does not challenge the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. I was just pointing out (with reference) that that is factually incorrect.
And no, calling Obama's birth certificate a forgery (in Connecticut Supreme Court, no less!) is not a matter of hyperbole. 66.253.202.164 (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you looked at what Wrotnowski filed in court? It can be downloaded here. I don't see any allegation of forgery there. He challenged the authenticity of Obama's original, unreleased certificate, and asked for it to be released. As far as I can tell, he did not challenge the short-form that Obama has released, much less called it a forgery. In the court papers, Wrotnowski referred to "Obama’s missing birth certificate" and asked that he "produce" it, and Wrotnowski suggested that Obama may not have a valid original certificate, "whether by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, or ignorance on his part." I don't see an accusation of forgery there. As far as Donofrio's remarks on his blog, it sounds like the typical dissatisfied plaintiff to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You are linking to the US Supreme court filing, while I (and the reference I presented) am talking about the Connecticut Supreme Court case, a month earlier. And I don't know how "challenged the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate" can be interpreted to mean "birth certificate is missing".
I agree with you Donofrio. After his appeals were rejected (as was expected by every law expert) he chooses to believe it reflected deliberate malfeasance on the part of "wussy" Supreme Court justices, aided by the biased media. Pretty typical of fringe/conspiracy theorists.66.253.202.164 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Look, Donofrio was rude, and his legal theories were fringey. But cert rejections very often result in griping that the justices cowardly ducked whatever allegedly momentous issue was in the request for cert. That does not make the gripers into "conspiracy theorists". I have no problem characterizing them as rude or fringey. As for Wrotnowski, the New York Post article that you cite does not mention anything about forgery. It says, “The plaintiff, Cort Wrotnowski, challenged the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.” That article doesn't distinguish between the unreleased long form and the released short form. My understanding from the SCOTUS docs is that he challenged the authenticity of Obama's original, unreleased certificate, and asked for it to be released. In the court papers, Wrotnowski suggested that Obama may not have a valid original certificate, "whether by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, or ignorance on his part." Challenging authenticity of the unreleased long-form does not imply that Hawaii officials conspired in any way to do anything. Obama's Mom may have simply registered him after returning to the U.S. (to avoid the hassle of naturalization) which would make the document inauthentic. Again, I don't see a conspiracy theorist here.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
By law he doesn't have the obligation to release his long-form birth certificate or even the short-form (which he did made public) just because some guy or some people are "demanding" it. It is his choice to expose his privacy or not like it is anybody's choice to reveal any private documents (or not) unless demanded by law. As an example (and I keep it as simple as possible), if you would "challenge" my American citizenship I would just ignore you since it is none of your business. On the other hand, when I buy a gun in my home state, I have to show that I'm a "class A" citizen (which means I was born American) by law and so I do. As far as I know there is a press release from Obama (or his lawyers) that he would release his long-form if a legally binding instance would ask for it. That didn't happen yet and it is one in a million that it will. Why? Because politicians in general (as they are human) might kick in when it comes to conspiracies (and in most cases we won't ever know) but usually don't go into conspiracy theories. Why? Because they know they don't have a case. Why? Because the known facts are overwhelming the (unknown to be determent) wishful thinking facts. There is just no (proper) way to escape reality.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That's part of a greater question and is reflected in some of these challenges. How far does a candidate have to go "prove" these things, what are the procedures by which such things are vetted, who is responsible, who has standing to compel, where are these lines drawn, etc. Unfortunately, the current political climate and contentiousness of the issue at this time makes it hard to consider these questions. Jbarta (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't draw the lines; The law does.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you give me an idea where such laws concerning the eligibility verification of presidential candidates can be found? Do these laws describe the process? What's involved? Who is involved? Considering that Obama wasn't even required to put forth a certification of birth, would you agree these "laws" are a little spotty and deserve at least a closer look? Seriously, how far should a candidate be required to go in order to verify his status as natural born citizen? You say the law draws the line. What laws and where have they drawn the line? Jbarta (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Fire up google and try to find that info yourself, Jbarta. This is not the place to find answers to your questions about what was or was not done to verify Obama's eligibility. --Bobblehead 02:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Those weren't really questions looking for information... they were questions posed to demonstrate that various eligibility determination procedures are thin to non-existent. Neither you, I or anyone else would find much with a Google search. Jbarta (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have presented references, which everyone is free to read. JBarta sees it as hyperbole, you see it as rude, and I see it as fringe/conspiracy theorizing - "everyone is entitled to his own opinion." Other than that, I don't wish to speculate further on what Wrotnowski may have thought or meant, what Hawaii officials or Obama's mother may have done etc. 66.253.202.164 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Incidentally, even in the scenario you sketch, the certificate could be possibly invalid, but it would still be authentic. Nice try though. ;-)
My own thinking is that while there have probably been shenanigans surrounding the birth certificate issue on a few different levels, I don't see any actual "forgery" of the recently released certification of birth. That's my personal view. And at this time, loud outlandish charges using the word "forgery" seem to me as being not very well thought out and at best an inaccurate interpretation of whatever "photoshopping" may have been detected. Is it part of a "conspiracy theory"? I suppose this element could be argued either way, but I see it more as a thin and (probably) mistaken accusation of "forgery". Jbarta (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I love it! You're opposing things that may be suggested in 2010!Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, kind of a variant on WP:SALT. But by 2010 the argument may be over the name of Barack Obama presidential actions nutcase perpetual legal motion machine, if the guy mentioned here (I forget which one) goes through with his plan to sue Obama every time he takes a presidential action on the grounds he isn't constitutionally president. Only in America. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Kreep. His name is Kreep.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought you were joking until I looked at the article. Sometimes truth is better than fiction! Wasted Time R (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe what WTR is saying is he opposes all the subsequent, useless, tendentious, boring, repetitive, and disruptive polls that have been conducted on this topic - I've supplied the adjectives, so don't ascribe them to him. I also oppose this new version: "fringe" was (if I recall correctly and I am not willing to waste the time to go back and look for it) tossed out a while ago as editors felt it was less immediately clear than "conspiracy theories". This really has gone on too long, and if people stop replying I strongly suggest that no one take it as agreement with the new flavor of the hour. Many editors have weighed in that the current title of this article is the right one, until and unless something major changes - which no one, not even the most ardent speakers here as far as I've seen - expects. So yes, it is a prediction that if this continues, the people who have already said no will continue to say no. And if anyone here is still arguing about Obama's eligibility for the Presidency in 2010 they ought to have their heads examined for tin foil traces. It is time to stop and move on to something else. Tvoz/talk 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do recall that you in particular advanced the argument that Misplaced Pages readers would not understand what the word "fringe" means. What a fascinating and revealing argument that was.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Not being equipped with total recall, and truly not willing to delve into the archives on this, I don't recall the details or what you're referring to, so I don't get the joke - or whatever that comment was supposed to be. Oh well, my loss I'm sure. Happy new year. Tvoz/talk 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (But my recollection must not be that far off, seeing as "fringe" is not here and "conspiracy" is.) Tvoz/talk 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Now kids... play nice ;-) Jbarta (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You have no idea. Tvoz/talk 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
No idea, whatsoever. And see here ("'Fringe' would be ok, except that it is less immediately understood, in my opinion, by the public....")Ferrylodge (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
A point that at least two editors, Jehochman and The Magnificent Clean-keeper, pretty much agreed with at the time. I don't know why you find that argument "revealing" but I sure am glad I fascinated you. And congratulations, you got me to go into the archives. I'm done - enough of this. Zie gezunt. Tvoz/talk 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I do have a bit of an idea... you two leave trails ;-) Jbarta (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Tvoz, you say above until and unless something major changes. What might change that would cause you to rethink your position on the article title? Jbarta (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on these renaming discussions

It is clear to me now that there is an unwillingness on the part of several Wikipedians to have a reasonable conversation about this matter. Personal views about what these claims represent have infected rational thought and reverence for Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I agree that, for the most part, these claims concern a conspiracy theory; however, not all of them do and there is most definitely not a preponderance of reliable sources stating that they are (whatever people seem to claim). I cannot stress more strongly that using "conspiracy theories" (or some variation thereof) in the title is non-neutral. Whether or not it is appropriate rests entirely on whether or not most reliable sources describe all of these claims as being part of a conspiracy theory, and the fact of the matter is they do not. I must say that I am extremely disappointed with a number of my fellow Wikipedians, and I am surprised at their display of unthinking stubbornness in this matter. It is clear that there is no consensus for a name change, but it is also clear that this lack of consensus is based on ugly bias from Wikipedians I never imagined would do such a thing. What a damn shame. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that WP is feeding the conspiracy theories by taking such a hard line against them. It will be considered part of the "cover up" which is always a part of any good conspiracy. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
People who disagree with you exhibit "ugly bias," "unthinking stubborness" are "unwilling to have a reasonable conversation" and are quite simply wrong. Shame indeed.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You fail to see my point. What we have here is disturbingly similar to renaming Mujahideen to "Terrorists" - while it is true that some of the mujahideen could be regarded as terrorists, this is not true of all of them. The current title of this article unfairly (and non-neutrally) labels everything and everyone when more subtlety is called for. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm with you in that. Unfortunately there are enough people with other notions to make any sensible progress on a title change impossible within the context of how things get done in Misplaced Pages. Personally I tire of hearing myself argue and get nowhere. Like many other institutions, Misplaced Pages has its flaws, but in the end, the overwhelming good that results far outshadows anything we may think is bad. It is what it is. Jbarta (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll claim partial responsibility for this in pushing so hard. Unfortunately, as discussions become more intense, positions become more intractable and people "dig in". I don't know what the solution is. Ben Franklin was good at this. He could, over time, with gentle persuasion convince those around him of his preferred course. He also said "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." So, not all blame can be laid at the feet of those we disagree with. The result belongs to all of us. Jbarta (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm relatively agnostic on the title of this article as it is currently structured. As several have said, the article contains content that covers conspiracy theories and content that does not. None of the suggested titles jump out to me as intuitively right, so I'm not arguing for or against any of them, including the current one. However, it doesn't appear that there is going to be consensus to change the title anytime soon, so maybe everyone might be better off to declare no consensus and move on. And end this time and resource drain, at least for now. — Becksguy (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My edits

The numerous watchers of this page may have noticed that I recently made a series of edits to the article (overall diff). While some of them simply formatted citations and consolidated duplicate references; others corrected factual errors in the article and made the article content match the reference. I have tried to leave informative edit summaries, but if anyone has specific questions about any particular changes, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Archived discussion about Natural-born citizenship.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved There are already links to Natural-born citizen and Early life and career of Barack Obama. --Bobblehead 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about what Obama's critics are saying, nor do I want to learn more about them. Where on WP can I find the simple facts about Obama's birth as a natural born citizen? Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Answering my own question after a quick search: Natural-born citizen is helpful. Early life and career of Barack Obama did not address the topic at all. I made a suggestion on its talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Steve, one of the issues is that his dual-citizenship at birth affects his status as a natural born citizen. This is a basis of at least one of the lawsuits. After sifting through some of this stuff myself (as a curious layman, nothing more) I've come to the conclusion that while exotic circumstances of birth may arguably affect one's status as "natural born", Obama's specific circumstance of having dual citizenship at birth almost certainly does not affect his status as natural born. Some would argue it has zero effect on his status as natural born, but my own take is that while qualifications for citizenship are pretty firmly established, the issue of natural-born citizenship is a little murkier. It's been argued that SCOTUS ought to visit the issue in general and attempt to clarify things a little, but given the highly political nature of the subject (especially now), I suppose it's probably wise that courts eagerly turn it away. After all... regarding Obama, if it has any merit at all it's a really thin technicality more than anything else. At any rate, there are two very interesting law review papers mentioned above that have gone into this natural born issue. You'll find links to them somewhere above. I'd also like to work some of this into the article, but have met resistance. The argument being (paraphrasing) "everyone knows what the law is and there's no reason to make the case that everything is as we've always known it to be" (or something like that). Jbarta (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Jbarta, all other issues aside. Take a look at your contribution log. Look at the contribution log of other people who are involved on this talkpage/article. Then step away for a while. As you know, i strongly disagree with you. I doubt you'll be able to convince me (and perhaps others like me). But I'm certain your chances of convincing others will be greater after having stepped away for a little while.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
My understanding, as a US citizen educated in US schools, has always been that a child of a US citizen or a person born in the US is a natural born citizen. That is born with the right to be a US citizen. I was greatly surprised when this was questioned in Obama's case. (Other words: He is a US citizen because of his birth. No one denys this. How can he not be a natural born citizen?)Steve Dufour (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Steve, we have a winner. If one of your parents is a US national at your time of birth (like Obama's mother) you're eligible to be president, no matter where you were born. If you were born on US soil (after dredd scott was superceded) you are likewise eligible to be president, no matter what nationality or planet one or both or neither of your parents came from (unless they were accredited diplomats of a foreign mission... hmm, maybe that's it? Obama's daddy was a spy for the Kenyans with a diplomatic cover... I demand Kenya hand over all its spy files RIGHT NOW! (If they don't we'll "know" they're "hiding" something.) In all seriousness, for Obama to not be eligible one of two things must be true: 1. His mother was not a US National. 2. He was not born on US soil. Per the law, all the stuff about the nationality of the father is irrelevant.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Didn't you mean to say both have to be true? Steve Dufour (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
No. If i left that impression, i badly screwed up. "Either/or both" is the key phrase. So we're crystal clear: If one or both of Obama's parents were US nationals at the time of his birth, he's eligible. If Obama was born on US soil and neither of his parents were US nationals, he's eligible. If Obama was born on US soil AND one or both of his parents were US nationals he's eligible... If Obama was NOT born on US soil and NEITHER of his parents were US nationals at the time of his birth THEN he's not eligible. So the conspiracy requires believe in two far-fetched, completely unsupported and untrue things: That he wasn't born in Hawaii; and that his mother wasn't American. Hope that's clear. There are no tecnhnicalities.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Steve, this particular element of the issue is about technicalities. Personally I think Obama is as much American as anyone else and in a practical (and almost certainly legal) sense as much a natural born citizen as anyone else. Actually, I would go so far as to say that his circumstances growing up are arguably a benefit to the mindset of a person becoming President. Personally, I'm not arguing that he's not one of us in any way. However, there are those who have exploited these questions and technicalities in an attempt to challenge his eligibility. Sure, there are political motives. Others claim it as a noble attempt to protect the integrity of the Constitution. Whatever the motives, it's a technicality at best. (and some would say entirely baseless so why bring it up in the first place) I suppose we could also get into the claims of Indonesian citizenship in his youth. If that works out the way his challengers say it did, then it may add another technicality to the pot of his potential ineligibility. (And I'm not sure "educated in US schools" has an bearing on the issue.) Jbarta (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It's also good to note that Obama has done very little substantially to put some of these issues to rest. I would argue that if he were more forthcoming, more messy technicalities or outright misrepresentations might come to light and then he'd have a harder time simply turning away from them. He's behaving in a smart and pragmatic way. In the greater scheme of things I suppose he doesn't have much of a choice. Jbarta (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
What does this discussion have to do with improving the quality of this article? It is not the place of Misplaced Pages editors to decide if Obama meets the requirements of a natural-born citizen. If you want to discuss the merits of the arguments of the people questioning whether Obama meets the qualifications to be President may I suggest you do so on one of the many discussion boards that are already doing so at this time. --Bobblehead 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I've considered that as this is getting into discussion of the issue rather than discussion of the article per se. My response is that this discussion is the hashing out and examination of issues with the direct purpose of either improving or renaming the article. Seeing that how these issues are thought of and considered by editors has a direct bearing on the quality of article, I think there is benefit to the discussion. And keeping it all in one place rather than scattered elsewhere is also highly beneficial. At the very least, let's be happy that discussion has taken a decidely more serious and specific tone. Jbarta (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The point I am trying to make is that WP needs to explain the information that Jbarta and Bali ultimate have explained here for us, either in this or in some other article. The thing about "US schools" was about me not President Obama, to show that my understanding of the topic is mainstream American. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Steve, there are already several links to Natural-born citizen and a link to Obama's early life and career article. Natural-born citizen covers the qualifications one needs for being a natural-born citizen and Obama's early life and career article covers his birth in Hawai'i and his American mother. Therefore, problem solved.--Bobblehead 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archive

I would be in support of archiving everything up to and including this. The effort to rename the article has gone nowhere (athough it has greatly expanded the examination of the topic for anyone interested in reading through it). In addition, the page is getting really long and is beginning to render a little slowly. So, assuming there is no dissent, would someone experienced in such things be willing to archive all the above and cease the RfC? Jbarta (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I endorse closing (but not archiving) those discussions and will do so if there is some agreement.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the difference between closing and archiving? Jbarta (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
What you see above in purple is closed but not yet archived.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've archived it up to the start of the current RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Collapse the closed discussions. Heck I'll do it.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Appears I lack the technical skills. Someone else might give it a try.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Any objections to closing the RFC and placing it in a collapsible box too ? Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a fine idea to me. Jbarta (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree also. — Becksguy (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. Done. Abecedare (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some archive housekeeping. If there is consensus, we could establish auto archiving to automatically archive threads after a certain number of days have passed without any new posts, such as 5 or 7 days. Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Adoption" by Soetoro ?

I recently undid this edit to the article. While I understand that the attempt was to link the section title closer to the article subject, the new title "Obama lost citizenship when adopted by Lolo Soetero", seemed to presume as a fact that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. It is indeed a fact that Lolo was Obama's stepfather, but none of the current references state directly that Obama was formally adopted, and I didn't find anything definitive on a quick news search. So I think it would be better to discuss the issue (with reliable sources!) on talk page first - please avoid providing unreferenced opinion or speculation!

Secondly, is Sonoran News a reliable source for this article ? It advertises itself as a conservative watchdog, and this article doesn't read as a piece of unbiased journalism. (For example, "In his memoir, “Dreams from my Father,” Soetoro is silent about his birthplace, although he speaks in detail about his life in Indonesia." (emphasis added) ) Abecedare (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any evidence that Barack was adopted by Soetero... Well, any legal evidence. The claim is that because Barack was registered at one of the school's he attended in Indonesia as "Barry Soetero" and was listed as an "Indonesian" that they only reason that could have happened is if Barack was adopted by Soetoro. Basically, the adoption is another facet of the conspiracy theory. I probably should have worded it differently, but the section as it is currently worded does not make it clear why the claim that Obama's legal name not being Barack Obama should be included in this article. I've seen it mentioned in a couple of reliable sources, I'll see if I can find it.
I'm not sure about Sonoran News. I was getting ready to remove it from the article, but according to the "About page" for Sonoran News, it is a weekly newspaper delivered to 43,000 homes and businesses in Arizona.. It's certainly not unbiased, just not sure if it is not a "reliable source". --Bobblehead 03:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Found the source that mentions the adoption part of Berg's theory. It's the WaPo "Tales from the Fringe" story. --Bobblehead 03:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thius source might clarify the issue some: ]Die4Dixie (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
WND is not in any way a reliable source for factual claims, particularly about living people. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
And this some of the tecnical details of the conspiracy theories ]Die4Dixie (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(after ec) Yes, I had seen that WashPo article. I agree that the adoption theory is part of Berg's allegation; I just haven't seen it stated anywhere as a fact. Google news search for berg adoption obama shows hardly any reliable mainstream sources (note that many of the links are talking about the adoption of the constitution etc), so I wonder if creating a whole section on this particular Berg allegation is not WP:UNDUE anyway. Any thoughts or suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Try a dogpile search with Obama adopt SoeteroDie4Dixie (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We could remove the section header and fold it into the Not natural-born even if born in Hawai'i. --Bobblehead 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
And since some of the conspiracy allegations refer to an alledged conversation that Michelle Ovama had with an African press group, the story probably belongs in the article . One source here ]Die4Dixie (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
As per my understanding WND, IsraelInsider and definitely mountainsageblog are not really reliable sources. Since the article subject has received such wide media coverage, we should take a look at what the mainstream media sources have covered and what weightage thay have accorded to each allegation/legal case, i.e. be aware of not only verifiability but also due weight. Abecedare (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The African International Press links to this youtube video from their sight. I think that the sources would be reliable as to what the conspiracry theorists believe.No?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't use unreliable websites as primary sources for what conspiracy theorists believe, especially (1) for a BLP., (2) since the issue has received enormous secondary coverage (see WP:PARITY) Abecedare (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)D4D, we can't use the sources that you are providing. They are blogs and are not reliable sources... If you can find a reliable source that ties the conspiracy theories to Michele's supposed interview with African International Press, then we can probably add it... But then, we'd also have to include that the Obama's claim the interview never happened and that either the reporter made it up, or was punked.;) --Bobblehead 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course we would. This si not to say they are right, but that the theories exist.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Primary sources are valid for statements of what they believe. Here is a link to the interview with the Kenyan Ambassador done by a radio station and is used by some theorists: ]. It is the first in the list. This is not a BLP article, it is a conspiracy theory articleDie4Dixie (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:BLP encompasses any article that discusses a living person. Seeing as this article's primary focus is Barack Obama, a living person, I would say that yes, this is every must adhere to BLP. Grsz 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely right. Talk pages too. Tvoz/talk 04:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hogwash. "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially..." This from WP:BLP. We are not adding biographical material. We are adding information about conspiracy theories. Please read the polocy.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
D4D, even if it is part of a conspiracy theory, it is still making claims about Obama's biography. --Bobblehead 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:BLP if it is credited( plus we are calling them a conspiracy theory) it can go in. Per the reasoning that you three are putting forward, this article's existance is a violation of BLP. So what line are you drawing for an article devoted to conspiracy theories about Obama's nationality?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To summarize my understanding:

  • Right now we have one mainstream secondary source which verifies Berg's allegation through a single Berg quote: ""He knows he was adopted in Indonesia."
  • We talk about the alleged Indonesian citizenship in the lede and in Berg vs Obama section

I think, unless evidence of more secondary coverage is forthcoming, devoting a whole subsection to discuss this minor issue is undue. I'll look for more such reliable sources, and any help in that will be appreciated. Abecedare (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be correct if Berg were the only one alledging this.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said reliable secondary sources that show this are welcome. I haven't seen any yet. Abecedare (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the subsection header and put it into the born in Hawai'i and still not a natural-born citizen. Does that work? --Bobblehead 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
How about " Born in Hawaii but natural born status lost"?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Definitely an improvement, thanks. However given that searching for Gregory Hollister obama finds only 3 right-wing websites, I don't think this deserves a place in the article at all. After all, dozens of such suits have been filed in local/state court. Abecedare (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean we should remove mention of Hollister's lawsuit? Or that entire paragraph? --Bobblehead 04:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
At least the Hollister's lawsuit :) Abecedare (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
For the sources I offered, we can use them per ]. They are reliable to use to report what the contents of the sources are. Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Ha. I see Salon is being used. that is not any more reliable(or less so) than the sources I offered.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)D4D, the sources you provided do not meet WP:RS. They are self-published sources and therefore can't be used on Misplaced Pages at all. Even if this article is not BLP we can't use them as sources. --Bobblehead 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
WND, israelinsider.com, and a blog are not reliable sources for any thing other than perhaps basic, factual, non-controversial data about themselves. For anything else, they are, to be blunt, crap. Tarc (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Aren't you giving them too much credit, Tarc? Surely you should apologize to crap for comparing WND, israelinsider.com, and the blog to it.... :) --Bobblehead 05:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
For the sources I offered, we can use them per WP:RS]. They are reliable to use to report what the contents of the sources are. Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
D4D, you've been on Misplaced Pages long enough that you should at least have some concept of RS by now, but it would appear that you do not. The reason why Misplaced Pages has a reliable source guideline is because the information that is being sourced has to be somewhat factual. Read the rest of the guideline. The sources themselves have to have a history of accuracy before they can be used for anything but uncontroversial statements about themselves. WND has a history of publishing stories on fringe topics that are very tenuously based upon reality as if they are reality. There is nothing reliable about WND and frankly, it shouldn't be used on Misplaced Pages for anything. I'd be hesitant on using it in WorldNetDaily. --Bobblehead 05:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You should pay particular attention to Misplaced Pages:RS#Extremist and fringe sources. especially in regards to WND... --Bobblehead 05:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely understand this about typical articles. What i'm having a hard time understanding is that we are dealing with a fringy subject. Even the Stormfront (website) uses the fringe source of the web site. Could you clarify the difference?Die4Dixie (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The difference is that this is not an article on WND, IsraelInsider, et al, and even on those articles we wouldn't quote the websites for claims they made about any subject other than themselves.
The fact that this is an article on fringey subject about a living public person does not mean that we can forget about WP:RS and use any source that Google search throws up. In fact, as per WP:REDFLAG and, yes, WP:BLP we have to be particularly careful in using high quality sources for such subjects. For example, we wouldn't simply quote a fringey website that accused Obama of a crime or immoral act here, unless mainstream secondary sources reported on it so that that accusation itself was noteworthy. Does that make the distinction clearer ? Abecedare (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Even if this was a fringey subject about something other than a living person, Misplaced Pages's standards for sourcing does not drop just because the subject itself is questionable. If a source is not a reliable source for the standard Misplaced Pages article, then it is not a reliable source for the fringier ones. --Bobblehead 06:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
So that I am clear: These sources are not reliable sources to state the sources have stated the things that they have stated?Die4Dixie (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

← It is better to say, these sources are not reliable sources that can be used to make claims about Barack Obama and the conspiracy theory surrounding his status as a natural-born citizen. They can only be used as sources about facts about themselves. They can not be used to make claims about a third party. --Bobblehead 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

D4D, If you are still not convinced, or have further questions you can post a question of WP:RS/N and can get independent input. That will be a better venue for such discussion. Abecedare (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, as I was unaware of the existence of this notice board. You have made your objects known here. Will you plan to post to that board on this issue, or allow for independent input?Die4Dixie (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Indonesian school thing, the way I understood it is that in order to gain admission to this Indonesian school, he had to be a citizen of Indonesia... and in order to be a citizen of Indonesia he had to renounce any other (or just US?) citizenship... and a way of achieving that citizenship was to be adopted by an Indonesian... or something like that. As with other things in this story, I'm not sure what can actually be reliably reported in any way (without getting into original research) because any potentially useful or revealing documents have been withheld by Obama (from what I understand) and all that's left is a claim that no one has any standing to pursue. A claim that isn't really reported with much seriousness by "respectable" and "unbiased" press and the only ones that do report it in any depth have proven themselves fairly unreliable. Sort of leaves one standing out in the breeze holding on to not much of anything. Just tossing out a comment here. Jbarta (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Christ on a bicycle Jbarta - I lived in Indonesia for 10 years (coincidentally 2 blocks from the elementary school Obama attended) and allow me to state categorically that many foreign children attend Indonesian public elementary schools and that the Indonesian state does not require these foreign 8-year-olds to renounce their citizenship as the price of attendance. Furthermore, many millions of Indonesian nationals have a second nationality; i personally know dozens of them (not that this last is relevant anyways).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
"christ on a bicycle" -- I'll have to remember that, it's cute. I wasn't asserting any of it as necessarily true, just the various claims as I understood them (I thought it appropriate given the subject and some of it wasn't touched on in the discussion). I also gave a link to a website below that goes through and seems to refute Berg's claims one by one in a detailed manner. I figured that would be helpful as well. I would also suggest that maybe the way things were in Indonesia 40 years ago may be different than they are now. I don't know. I'm not trying to be unreasonable, just trying to add to the discussion the best I can. I will say this, if Obama were more forthright on the matter and everything was in fact as advertised and implied, we wouldn't be having this discussion, this page wouldn't even exist and Berg would be tending to other irons in the fire. Jbarta (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
For the entire duration of the Indonesian Republic it has been almost impossible for any child not born of an Indonesian father to obtain Indonesian citizenship (this has occasionally led to ridiculous and heartbreaking efforts at deporting children of Indonesian mothers whose foreign fathers had died). Why on earth should Obama have to be forthright about things in Indonesian law that have no bearing on him, about which he should not be reasonably expected to know anything? There is nothing to be "examined" here, unless one believes a conspiracy theory that is not supported by a single fact to be found anywhere on planet earth.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
At this point I can't offer you much of a response. This particular issue I'm not entirely familiar with beyond the broad claims that have been made. By my understanding, it's entirely possible that these particular claims are completely baseless. And I'm not sure if you're suggesting Obama 1) has nothing to offer in the way of documentation even if he wanted to or 2) doesn't need to offer documentation unless compelled to do so. By your previous comments, I've understood you to mean #2. Jbarta (talk)
One last time and then i'm done. It is impossible for Obama to provide documentary evidence that something that never happened never happened. I can point out all the reasons why this particular brand of conspiratorial thinking is unlikely (to whit, the Indonesian government isn't in the habit of making 8-year old elementary students apply for citizenship and in fact makes it impossible for children not born of an indonesian father to become citizens) but i can't definitively "prove" this highly unlikely, unprecedented thing didn't happen. No one can.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
So is it your assertion that Obama could not offer any documentation that would have any bearing on any citizenship related issue pertaining to his years in Indonesia because not only are no documents being withheld, no such documents even existed in the first place? That if Moses himself came down and compelled him to reveal any and all such documents he could not because there simply are none and never were any? Does that represent your view? (I'm not arguing, I'm trying to understand... if it looks as if the holy grail never existed, I might re-consider looking for it... just like I stopped looking for a "forged" birth certificate posted on Obama's web site... although don't ask me my other opinions on that "forgery", I guarantee you won't like them) Jbarta (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide documentary evidence that Moses existed? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe i'm getting drawn in again. Ok, real last try. Jbarta -- I demand you provide definitive documentation that you are not now and never have been a citizen of Zembla. Your failure to do so will be highly suspicious and indicative that you ARE a citizen of Zembla.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:RS/N about the sources. It appears that it is ok to say that WND says xyz and use WND as a source. If this is not what was said, please tell me.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, appears the discussion is still evolving.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw where Abecedare now seems to think that WDN is a reliable source. The question now is where when and how we will use this now RS.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I never stated that WND is a reliable source! Please read my comment on WP:RSN and above again. Abecedare (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll take another look in the morning. If I mischaracterized what you said, I apologize and will strike them. It appears that WDN is a reliable source for what they themselves claim. It appears that I will now be sent to other forums until I am told no, right?Die4Dixie (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Potentially useful background info & analysis on the whole Soetoro/Indonesia issue. (unfortunately, some of the links are broken) Jbarta (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think WND is a reliable source under the definition used on WP. Just remember "reliable" doesn't mean "always correct", it simply means the story's been published by an organization with an editorial board. I certainly don't count it as "extremist". I simply suggest qualifying statements attributed to WND as "the conservative news outlet WorldNetDaily said xyz". Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I claim no expertise regarding WND. However, as my 21:46, 29 December 2008 edit showed, they engaged in some blatant self-contradiction regarding their assessment of the COLB authenticity question, with Joseph Farah in December misrepresenting what Drew Zahn had written in August. This should be taken into account when weighing WND's reliability.TheMaestro (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
WorldNetDaily is only reliable for what WorldNetDaily says. There is no way in a million years that WDN could be considered a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
They're an RS enough to quote in the article on what WND says, whether or not a more reliable source quoted them. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
To be absolutely clear. I only think it is reliable source for it's won comments, not for anything with a poistive/negative truth value.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but then that raises notability issues. WND is notable enough to have an article about WND, but that doesn't mean that their opinion on any subject is notable to articles about that subject. We need reliable third-party sources which discuss WND 's opinion on these matters to make it notable enough for inclusion. We can't simply include their opinion as a primary source since they are neither a reliable source nor the subject of this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, Im not so much interested in their opinion, but that page of theirs has a photograph allegedly of the school registration that the mainstream media is tiptoeing around, and a detailed albeit partisian discussion of such. We should simply say that an alleged photograph was discussed on WND. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No, we can't say anything of the sort. Because WND is not a reliable source, we can't cite a "photograph" from their website. Introducing weasel words such as "alleged" doesn't mitigate the situation in any way. WND is only a source for WND's opinion, not factual material and the notability of WND's opinion to this article has not been established in any way. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The photograph came from a site called Daylife which identifies it as an AP photo and says it has a partnership with the Associated Press. While I originally had doubts as to the provenance of this photo ( what you call "weasel words", I call understatement), I checked out Daylife and they appear to be a news site based in NYC. I'm positive this is a real AP photo; while I can't explain why this photo isn't more widely cited, I find it hard to believe that the AP would let a website say they had a partnership with them if it wasn't so. The WND article simply says that if he was formally adopted, then citizenship would be conferred upon him, and it says that it's difficult for noncitizens to register for school in Indonesia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If the photo is by the AP, then perhaps you should find it in a reliable source and a reliable source that dies that photo to the conspiracy theories. As has already been established several times here, WND isn't a reliable source that can be used to support "facts" about the various theories covered in this article. I've done some hunting around and I've only been able to find mention tying the photo (or his registering as Barry Soetoro for that matter) to the conspiracy theories in fringe sites and blogs... If you can find a source that we can use, then it can be included in the article, but until then there isn't much we can do. --Bobblehead 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Could we cite the AP photo itself for the claim the photo exists? Alternatively, there was an article in the Baltimore Sun that detailed WorldNetDaily's prominence in questioning the legitimacy of Obama's taking office, and I believe citing it permits including WND material as a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

← Being recognized as covering a subject that has been deemed illegitimate by reliable sources does not make WorldNetDaily a reliable source on the topic. If anything, the Baltimore Sun article is just more evidence that WorldNetDaily is a fringe site that shouldn't be used in this article. As the guideline says, exceptional claims require exceptional sources and WorldNetDaily is definitely not an exceptional source. --Bobblehead 10:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

An exceptional claim would be if we used WND to flat-out say that he held Indonesian citizenship, which I am definitely not suggesting. The Baltimore Sun article simply shows that WND can be a primary source in an article about Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I suggest using mainstream sources that talk about the school record and the alleged "adoption", but only using WND, after qualifying it as a "right-wing news source prominent in challenging the legality of his taking office" with a cite to Baltimore, to say that WND wrote about the aforementioned photograph. I don't plan to use WND's interpretations of the photograph. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
WND's coverage of the conspiracy theories is already included in the article. That being said, if you can find a reliable source that covers the conspiracy theory and the "evidence" for that theory, then it should be unnecessary to source WND at all. If your only source is WND, then chances are, including the theory and evidence in this article is giving the theory undue weight. That's a round about way of saying, the use of WND is a bit of a catch-22. If a reliable source exists, use the reliable source, if a reliable source doesn't exist, then WND shouldn't be used due to undue weight.. --Bobblehead 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Other media have made comments about a "school registration", but WND went ahead and actually referenced the photo. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen any mention by reliable sources of the school registration in regards to the conspiracy theory. I've seen it referenced in the "He's a Muslim!" kerfuffle, but not the "He's not a natural-born citizen" kerfuffle... Can you provide a link for this? The Baltimore Sun article you linked above doesn't mention the school registration or adoption theory at all. --Bobblehead 16:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

AOL News poll - is there merit to the citizenship controversy?

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved AOL News poll is completely unreliable for use in Misplaced Pages. Jbarta (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is AOL News a reliable source? Thought this was interesting. Possibly we could work into the article that an AOL News poll shows that most Americans think there is merit to the citizenship controversy. Thoughts? Jbarta (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No way. That's a voodoo poll, with no statistical reliability whatsoever. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh... didn't notice that. I thought it was a regular poll. You're right. Interesting maybe, but useless as any sort of a reliable poll. (I was surprised at the numbers, now I understand why) Jbarta (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Right after i finish re-writing my online-poll ballot-stuffing bot is when we should use this non-statistical, non-poll. And no, there's nothing interesting about conspiracy theorists skewing on-line polls. Happens all the time.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The series of polls are all politically oriented so you have to figure there is a pretty good cross section of people voting on these things. (especially as you scan the comments) As far as multiple voting, both sides have equal opportunity to do that (of course, one might argue that nutty conspiracy theorists would tend to cast multiple votes much more than normal, intelligent and rational people). Anyhow, at the very least it shows that large numbers of people see merit in the issue. And I would even go so far as to surmise that if you randomly picked 100 people to listen to both sides of the issue, about half would say there is something to it and roughly half would say there is not. So, to my thinking, that poll may not be too far off. Jbarta (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
With these kinds of polls, it is far more likely that a person would bother to vote if they thought the subject had merit. Therefore, the poll numbers are going to be skewed horribly toward people who think there is an issue. A proper poll would not yield a result anywhere close to that. Indeed, that is patently obvious from the result of the election! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. But even if we halved the yes votes... that's still 27%... a respectable number. And I'm not sure what you mean by "patently obvious from the result of the election" Jbarta (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well if there was anything like a significant number of people who questioned Obama's citizenship, there is no way he would've been able to win the election. The real percentage is probably less than 5%, concentrated in red states. You also need to factor in the "those who are dumb enough to be reading AOL News" weighting as well. --

Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

lock article

If you don't want this article to be edited than why not lock it? --12george1 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be impatient. The members of the plot will be locking it once the correct version has been perfected.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Ding. Dong. Error. Sorry Bali, but the question should only be answered by people who don't want the article to be edited. Personally, I do want the article to be edited. I want editors to go out and find independent reliable sources discussing conspiracy theories, and either make or propose changes to the article that represent the viewpoints of those sources neutrally and giving due weight to their importance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I would simply add that many "reliable sources" take a decidedly non-neutral position on the issue and that slant is somewhat reflected in this article. I would also suggest that when reporting on this issue, it is common for some "reliable sources" to get the facts slightly wrong or present the facts in such a way as to support their predetermined judgement (reliability is relative). One of the benefits of some "unreliable sources" is that the main points of the controversy are made perfectly plain. All that said, despite the moderate slant, the article currently does a pretty good job explaining the issues clearly. Jbarta (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
We just don't want you to edit it... -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Not very sporting of you, and probably violates one or two Misplaced Pages policies. I hope you'll take that back or modify your statement. Jbarta (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This user is bellyaching about the reverts to his attempts to link to websites of the tinfoil, lunatic fringe of this issue. So seeing how their actions are proving to be counter-productive towards improving this article, I see little wrong with the sentiment expressed. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
First, if you must, dispute the edits but don't reject the user as if this were some sort of social club. Second, who is "we"? (Personally I'm not a big fan of self-appointed spokespersons... or should I say we are not a big fan of self-appointed spokespersons?). Jbarta (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should make it clearer when I'm making a joke (see the edit summary)... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, now I see the joke. We still stand behind my statements and we think a joke that has to be explained must not be a very good joke :-) Tis ok though, we forgive you. Jbarta (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of reliable sources, why are we linking to WND articles? I thought we had fairly well argued that since WND tends to be rather fringe that it would be a red flag of a possible weight issue if something was sourced solely to WND. --Bobblehead 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The article establishes pretty well that WND is notable in the campaign against Obama's eligibility, and quotes to WND are qualified as such. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Original intent of the Constitution

It seems to me that the original intent of the Constitutional provision could also be looked at. That was to prevent a European king or emperor from sending his son over to run for president with an eye towards making the US part of his domain. Has this been brought up in the public debate? If it has it could be mentioned in the article.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that i've seen, and would involve a rather lengthy digression that would at best skirt original research, and would only be really relevant in a debate over what the supreme court might or might not do if it accepted a case and was considering "original intent" issues as it tried to make its ruling; the supreme court hasn't accepted any of these cases. No need for shoe-horning this in.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly interesting historical background on the topic, but I would think it would find a better home in the natural-born citizen article. JBarta (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The matter is covered in the NBS article, which is already linked in the first graf. Nothing to do here. PhGustaf (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd say it's touched on by mentioning Jay's letter to Washington, but I wouldn't call it covered. I'd say there is room in the natural-born citizen article for more historical background covering the rationale behind the natural-born citizen clause in the Constitution. That said, I agree with you that it's proper place is not here. JBarta (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking "tinfoil hat" in Salon quote?

Some of us evidently disagree as to whether or not the phrase "tinfoil hat" should be wikilinked in the following Salon quote: In response to the notion that Obama's grandparents might have planted a birth announcement in newspapers just so their grandson could someday be president, FactCheck suggested that "those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat." I added such a link, but it was reverted by another editor who cited the advice in WP:MOSQUOTE: Unless there is a good reason to do so, Misplaced Pages avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.

I feel this particular situation constitutes a more than sufficiently "good reason" and that a wikilink to the phrase "tinfoil hat" is justified. Some people (including non-native speakers of English) could be confused by this phrase or wish to read more about it; and in my view, a wikilink would not be confusing, misleading, cluttering, constitute any substantive "change" to the quotation, or in any other way be inconsistent with the text's original meaning or intent.

Rather than follow my first impulse (to re-revert and boldly put the wikilink back in), I'd like to ask for other opinions about this. If people would prefer to take such a discussion to the talk page for WP:MOS, rather than talk about it here, that's fine. Richwales (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All your points are sound. Go ahead and relink. PhGustaf (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, by all means, wikilink it. That said, personally I'm getting pretty tired of the term "tinfoil hat" all the way around. Until a month ago I was blissfully unaware of the term and under the apparently mistaken impression that I was perfectly sane, intelligent and logical. JBarta (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Everybody's out of step but johnny.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be simple enough to rephrase so that the word "tinfoil hat" is used outside the quotes, and then there's no problem with wikilinking it. I'll rephrase to do that.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I rephrased: "In response to the notion that Obama's grandparents might have planted a birth announcement in newspapers just so their grandson could someday be president, FactCheck suggested that people who think so ought to put tinfoil hats on their heads." I don't see any good reason why we have to use a quote here.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that PhGustaf has reverted me, on grounds of "stylishness". Whatever.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of the policy, as I read it, is to keep the link from distracting from the quote. In this case, though, it doesn't, and destroying the rather good quote to allow the link doesn't serve that purpose. PhGustaf (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we add this to WP:LAME ? :) Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No-obama.jpg

This picture has reappeared. I'm guessing there will be someone else who figures it's not needed. So I figured I'd start a section where we can fight about about it. Personally I don't have much of an opinion either way, although I'd tend to side with leaving it in. I think relevant pictures make an article more interesting. (I just noticed though... according to the sign, the birth certificate is "sealed until after Nov 4th?") JBarta (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to have disappeared at some point - I'm not sure who removed it or why. I agree that it does add interest to the article; it is otherwise rather lacking in relevant images. The accompanying text speaks of how activists have promoted the claims, and the image shows a real-life example of such activism. Re the "sealed until after Nov 4th" claim, that was a conspiracy theory I recall seeing on some blogs before the election - that Obama's birth certificate would show that he was not eligible, but it would not be revealed until it was too late for anyone to do anything about it. Paranoid nonsense, of course... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh of course... nonsense... who in their right mind would ever believe that original birth certificate would ever see the light of day before or after Nov 4th? (At least not without a court order and enough legal wrangling to choke a mule... in an attempt to keep hidden that which no one is trying to hide... pure nonsense... of course.) JBarta (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, you believe that the state of Hawaii is "in on" this "conspiracy?" Okay. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The original certificate is still sealed, so the idea that it would be unsealed after the election seems to be incorrect (so far). I have no problem with the image.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
All birth certificates in Hawaii are "sealed." The state does not release personal records to anyone that asks for them, and with good reason. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the short form released by the Obama campaign is no longer sealed.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, geez. Not this again. First of all, there's nothing at all notable about some nut on the street making a crazy sign about his conspiratorial beliefs. Second of all, the caption, which was originally fought over, gives undue weight to this tinhat belief. He's not simply "protesting over Obama's birth certificate" he's making up a crazy lie about it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the only "crazy lie" is that he was mistakenly informed that after Nov 4th, the birth certificate would be released. Silly protester. JBarta (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is an appropriate forum for promoting these conspiracy theories. It's not. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see if we can't get some consensus here... yes image or no image? JBarta (talk)

That's not how consensus works. It's not a vote. See WP:NOT#DEM for further explanation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, other than just doing things your way, how would you suggest we build consensus on this issue? You'll have to be patient with me (seriously)... I'm relatively new to the ways of Misplaced Pages. JBarta (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey's comment about "notability" is misplaced. The image does not illustrate the notability of any particular flavour of anti-Obama conspiracy theory. What it does illustrate, however, is anti-Obama conspiracy theory activism - in this particular case, at an Obama rally in November 2008, just before the election. It's the activism that is relevant and directly related to the text. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep the picture, if only as an entertaining bit of folk art. PhGustaf (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You leave the dumbass' picture. His family will be so proud.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be some support for keeping the picture so I'll drop it. However, I'm going to restore the original caption. The sign is promoting a conspiracy theory (and a decidedly false one at that). To say that he is simply "protesting about Obama's birth certificate" implies that it is a matter of opinion or that the claim has some sort of validity. It would be giving far too much weight to an extremely fringe claim (and thus veer into WP:BLP problems. Also, don't forget the subject of this article. It's not simply a dumping ground for anything anti-Obama, it's specifically about these conspiracy theories. If you're going to argue that it's not a conspiracy theory, then the photo really doesn't belong in the article to begin with. And finally, there is no way to verify where or when this photo was taken, so we can't really get that specific with it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone mentioned in this article is a conspiracy theorist. Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, for example, were not conspiracy theorists. The person in the image may or may not be a conspiracy theorist---we do not know one way or the other from the image. The word "Why?" is not a conspiracy theory, right? I don't think Misplaced Pages should be in the business of smearing people as conspriacy theorists merely because they ask a monosyllabic question about why President-elect Obama does not release some information that is certainly pertinent to his eligibility, and is very similar to information that he has already released. I will restore the caption of ChrisO.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
"May or may not be a conspiracy theorist?" Considering that he's made a sign espousing a false conspiracy theory, it's not a smear to say that he's promoting a conspiracy theory. And please, stop playing games and pretending that the issue is the word "why." When someone asks "why" of a falsehood, it violates WP:NPOV to say that he is simply "questioning" that which isn't even true. And again, if it's not a conspiracy theory then it doesn't belong in this article anyway. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see your birth certificate, Looneymonkey. I think you must be Hillary Clinton ("vast right-wing conspiracy...oooh....vast, vast I tell you").Ferrylodge (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Instead of silly edit warring, let us just caption the image with a straightforward description of what it is: a John McCain supporter holding a banner that questions the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. The scare quotes around "birth certificate" and the "Why?" clearly indicate the intent, and the McCain logo in the corner indicates the allegiances of the person who made the banner. If this caption argument is going to continue, it would be better to simply remove the image completely - particularly because of its dubious origin and conflicting copyright information. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the dubiousness? I asked the photographer if it could be used, and he gave permission and changed the licensing to allow us to use it. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess captioning it "Village idiot draws attention to failings of US educational system" won't fly?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I personally believe the claims about Obama's birth certificate having been forged are wholly baseless — but for whatever it might be worth, I have no objection at all to the current caption ("A John McCain supporter questioning the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate") — or perhaps to a more general caption along the lines of "A John McCain supporter questioning Obama's eligibility as a candidate for President". I don't feel any pressing need to explicitly dismiss the protestor as a loony conspiracy theorist in the caption of the photo. Richwales (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Give him points, at least he spelled every word correctly. Unlike the "morans" guy... I'm content with the current caption, by the way. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Current caption is okay.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Title tag

I notice that an editor’s comment about the title was recently deleted, so I’ll restore it below (the deletion was understandable, since the comment was inserted into a closed discussion). Also, I notice that an editor recently inserted an NPOV tag on the article due to the title, and the tag was subsequently removed. The following tag would be more appropriate: {{Disputed title|date=January 2009}}.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward installing that tag. There was a majority for naming this article as it has been named, but considerable opposition as well.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, after suggesting this tag, and then reminding people about it, and seeing that there was no opposition, I inserted it at 7:03 on 18 January. Then along comes an editor who reverts it with this edit summary: "Please don't add disruptive tag on issue that has been polled and RfC'd almost daily for weeks." First of all, I don't care for the insinuation that I've been disruptive. Such derogatory and insulting accusations are all too frequent at Misplaced Pages, and it's a royal pain in the ass. Regarding the title, yes, it was polled and RfC'd almost daily for weeks, because....obviously....the title is disputed. So what's wrong with saying it's a disputed title? Give me a break. There was zero previous discussion about inserting the tag.
It says at the top of this talk page: "Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, banned by an administrator from this and related articles and pages, and/or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages." If I did not know better, I might think that this flimsy accusation of disruption was an attempt to get me blocked or banned. Perhaps the editor in question might want to withdraw the absurd accusation?
It seems like it ought to be possible to disagree with another editor, and even to revert another editor, without making inflammatory and false accusations.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you just changed your comment I have to squeeze my response in here. The title was discussed before as was pointed out and if there was zero discussion as you said you somehow missed it even so you where involved if I'm not mistaken.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I changed my comment before anyone responded to it. Care to provide a diff for this latest accusation ? What is this, Accusation Day? As for the rest of your comment, I do not understand what you're saying. There was previous discussion about what the title should be, but zero previous discussion about whether to insert the tag or not. And please try not to insert comments in the middle of other people's comments. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I count 15 responses after your initial comment before your latest edit to it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and why are you taking it as an accusation????????--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


The title is biased and seeks to add editorial commentary to the issues surrounding the eligibility of president elect BO|BS. Case in point "A number of fringe activists, pundits and political opponents" is false. There are a significant portion of the US population that are primarily concerned with upholding the law. Period. Rename the article or delete it because objectivity is out the window here.72.46.221.164 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The law is being upheld. That is not at issue here. Kooky conspiracy theories that are not supported as fact by a single reliable source are the subject of this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Where is the "kooky" conspiracy in this? Who has to conspire to be sure ONE MAN's long form birth certificate isn't given out? No one conspires to do that, one person signs for it. This isn't a conspiracy, it's everyday laziness by government officials who can't be held accountable to do their job so they don't. Here's the single fact, the long form hasn't been produced and the short form doesn't hold water. This is what I call the tiger in the woods phenomenon - a man sees a tiger in the woods, or is it a shadow? Should he really wait around to find out? The mind is good at finding patterns, especially ones that have an outside chance of being deadly. There are plenty of good and solid minds seeing a tiger here - so word to the wise be careful who you are calling kooks at the cost of your own credibility. Huckit (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to see the bias. Use a parallel fiction replacing terms with counterparts of equal toxicity: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - becomes - Barack Obama citizenship indolence theories; A number of fringe activists, pundits and political opponents of the Illinois Senator alleged that he was not a natural-born citizen...- becomes - A number of corrupted officials, fatuous asses and something-for-nothingers assert he is a natural-born citizen; And so forth. Misplaced Pages seems like the Constitution of the US, if you don't uphold the {objectivity|law of the land} you lose your {credibility|representational democracy}.Huckit (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Like the faked moon landings or Jewish complicity in 9/11, the notion that Obama is somehow ineligible to be president simply falls into the lunatic fringe of Tinfoil Conspiracy-Land. The allegations simply aren't credible or notable, as much as the truthers would like them to be. So, the title is more than apt to describe the situation. Tarc (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You have seen the long form of the birth certificate? Or maybe you've seen the Harvard records? Likely not, and you haven't addressed the bias but you did use language characteristic of someone incapable of discussing an issue with maturity.Huckit (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Would a title like Challenges to Barack Obama's eligibility as President of the United States be more palatable (or, perhaps better said, more equally unpalatable to people on all sides)? Richwales (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
WIthin the past week or so there were four straw polls on a name change with a clear consensus on no change. There is no new information that would have changed that majority opinion.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Bias is bias. Get rid of it or lose credibility.Huckit (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Labelling them as "Challenges" gives the false impression that they hold much water. Grsz 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Call it speculation and be clear that the long form of the birth certificate isn't made public domain. Explain why Kenyans say he was born in Kenya.Huckit (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Which "Kenyans" are you referring to? Can you cite a single reliable source that Claims Obama was born in Kenya? --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Kenyan ambassador says his birthplace is well known in a phone call on a public radio show. Maybe you want to call that unreliable but why leave something to chance if it doesn't have to be especially considering the stakes. Also if I'm wrong about that then I want to know. The long form hasn't been produced and there's sufficient doubt. The short form in that state proves a parent applied for a birth certificate, nothing else. Hold this man to the same standards as any citizen. This is not a conspiracy, this is just plain old alleged fraud. Mainstream isn't synonymous with correct, unbiased or objective. Lots of people have an axe to grind on this subject, so this article should have it ground on both sides - then it would be sharp.Huckit (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Haha, no, you need a reliable source to make your argument. And using wording such as "why leave something to chance" and "Hold this man to the same standards as any citizen" indicate that you seem to have a certain agenda to push here, and it would be better for yourself and everyone if you dropped that. Grsz 04:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

← I note that the "disputed title" tag was added, with no discussion here other than an assertion by one editor that he's inclined to do so. Seems to me the overwhelming and repeated consensus, as Bali ultimate points out, was that the current title was the right one. Numerous "straw polls" were conducted, all with the same result. If consensus is that the title should stand, is adding this tag not just another way of re-opening the same futile discussion? I realize that the tag just states that there is a dispute, but the dispute was repeatedly rejected, so what is the point of the tag other than to perpetuate the discussion? Is there consensus for the tag? Can other editors weigh in please? Tvoz/talk 08:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tvoz. We just closed an RFC on this like 12 days ago. I understand that consensus can change, but barring some new development "Conspiracy theories" or "Fringe theories" are the most WP:NPOV, WP:V (policy) compliant titles. Note that this new discussion does not contain a single reliable source to back up any of the arguements presented. --guyzero | talk 08:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Insertion of the tag was simply a bad-faith exercise in WP:POINT. This was extremely inappropriate (and sanctionable) behavior by Ferrylodge. Cut out the nonsense! He knows better perfectly well, and should discontinue this abuse of WP before a user conduct RfC is necessary. LotLE×talk 09:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed your comment here, LotLE. I've already responded to your accusatory edit summary above. I would suggest that you get a grip, and stop making blatantly false accusations. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

The Misplaced Pages policy about Youtube is as follows:

YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution. They may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere, such as Wesley Autrey's appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation.

In view of this policy, we may want to consider mentioning the following two Youtube vidoes in this article: Keith Olberman Interviews Jonathan Turley and Keyes Interview.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We couldn't link to the YouTube video of Turley's appearance on Olbermann because it is a copyright violation and, thanks to US law, knowingly linking to copyright violations is contributory infringement (See WP:COPY). If you can find a clip of the video that is authorized by MSNBC, then I could see it being linked, until then you'll be stuck using a link to the transcript. --Bobblehead 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
How about the Keyes interview?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm disinclined to allow a link to a YouTube video in general due to WP:SPS. I'm even less inclined to believe that an interview on a YouTube channel called IlluminatiTV is even remotely allowable on Misplaced Pages. That being said, you could come up with a suggested wording for a sentence for it to reference and then post it on WP:RS/N for review. --Bobblehead 23:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure it's worth my time. It's clearly Keyes speaking about the subject of this article, and I have no doubts about the video's authenticity. But I think I'd rather go see Gran Torino (film) tonight, rather than haggle about this.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The first two google hits for the Keye's interviewer 'Molotov' Mitchell (, ), don't inspire confidence as to its journalistic/encyclopedic value. Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The video is not relevant for the perspicacity or neutrality of the interviewer, but rather for the remarks of the interviewee. If we had reliable evidence that Keyes had published the same exact remarks in some unsavory print publication, then there would be no question about footnoting it here in this article. When a politician gives a speech, Misplaced Pages doesn't ignore it merely because of who the audience was.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
You missed the point. If a reliable source, say Wall Street Journal or Washington Post had interviewed Alan Keyes and published his quotes in the newspaper, that would establish that the content has undergone editorial review and is noteworthy. On the other hand, when a person known for his open bias and "inflammatory YouTubing" interviews Keyes and publishes it on Youtube, it does not make the comments noteworthy, unless some respectable source, like the aforementioned newspapers, specifically refers to them. So yes, the savoriness of the publication of an interview is a factor to consider in weighing the value of proposed article content. Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, but I think you're getting a bit bogged down in the rules. To the extent that this Misplaced Pages article is about Alan Keyes, the video is basically equivalent to a self-published statement by him, which is often fine per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. But like I said, I don't intend to push for inclusion of the video. Better things to do.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is not about Alan Keyes, to the extent that this article is about a person, that person is Barack Obama. It is true that Alan Keyes is a player in the conspiracy theories swirling around his eligibility status, but any use of a self-published source that is not by Barack Obama would be inappropriate use here. As noted in the verifiability policy, self-published sources can only be used to support uncontroversial claims about the person in the source in their article. It's a bit of a stretch to say that comments Alan Keyes is making about Barack Obama meet the criteria of WP:SELFPUB. --Bobblehead 11:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, you've convinced me. We'll leave out both the Olberman and Keyes videos. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Article probation removal

Seeing as the fever pitch leading up to the election & inauguration has subsided and troubles occurring in this article are no more than any other article, I propose that we remove the Article Probation tag. There hasn't been a sanction in over two months and except for one, there hasn't even been a post on the probation talk page in nearly a month. JBarta (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The lack of sanctions simply shows that the probation is working. And this article is particularly susceptible to troubles. Leave it be. PhGustaf (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the only way to deal with article vandalism and disruptive edits is to place an article on probation? Let's assume we were to remove the probation tag, what do you suppose would happen and how might the absence of the probation tag hamper any effort to deal with such vandalism? And no, I don't entirely buy that lack of sanctions means the probation is working. If there were still a serious problem, then I would think there would still be a steady stream of sanctions. (I'm reminded of a law that apparently was on the books in Cleveland until recently that cattle could not be driven down a particular main avenue in the city. It could have been argued that since no one had been driving cattle down that road in decades, it was obvious that the law was working.) JBarta (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The probation is not specifically applied against this article, but rather against all of the articles related to Barack Obama. If you want to get the probation on this article lifted, you will need to have that discussion on WP:AN/I and get the probation lifted off the entire topic. --Bobblehead 21:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It would seem most Obama related pages are actually NOT on article probation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 If all Obama related articles have been put on probation, but in reality most are not... is there a reason for that contradiction? JBarta (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It just means that most articles don't have the template on them, it does not mean that they are not covered by the probation. Please read Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation for a definition of what is covered by the article probation. --Bobblehead 23:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I take that to mean one of two things, either the template is optional, or the other articles have them incorrectly omitted. Which is correct? JBarta (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
All Obama related articles are under probation even if they don't state so.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose end of "probation." No strong reason for it, good reasons against it.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's probably a little of both. The template is meant as a warning to new users to save people from having to warn them that the article is under probation, but the lack of the template does not mean the article is not covered by the probation. --Bobblehead 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When an article probation is established at WP:AN, it has to be removed there. A little side discussion at a sub article talk page is not sufficient. Jehochman 00:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(Admin hat on.) This is an instance of topic probation, not the much narrower article probation applicable to a single page. In this case, all articles related to the general topic of Barack Obama (broadly construed) are subject to editing sanctions for an indefinite period. This is applicable whether or not any specific article has been flagged as being under probation. It is only withdrawn when the topic probation itself is withdrawn. Removing the template would not end the probation on this article; only the ending of the topic probation as a whole would do that. I don't see much chance of that any time soon, so any talk about ending it for this article is moot anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly deserve your "admin hat" here as you pointed out the facts of the probation in a clear and non-challengeable manner.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Categories: