Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

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

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

Again, per my comments on Talk:Where's the beef?, I don't think so. It's giving way too much weight to one fairly trivial aspect of a larger, unrelated issue. If there were some secondary source implying the original advertising campaign was significant to the conspiracy theories, then maybe. That seems really unlikely, though. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, WorldNetDaily is not generally considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The cited WND article, if used here at all, would be admissible only per WP:SELFPUB, as a source of information about the writer of the piece (Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND. IMO, if this factlet is to remain anywhere in the article, it needs (IMO) to explicitly mention Joseph Farah — e.g.: According to Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WorldNetDaily, the question "Where's the birth certificate?" is a reference to the 1984 catchphrase "Where's the beef?" And something this verbose clearly does not belong in an image caption; rather, I would suggest it be added to one of the other places in the article where Farah's "Where's the birth certificate?" campaign is already being discussed. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
World Net Daily need not be a reliable source on anything other than itself. See WP:SELFPUB. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
And more additionally, Farah doesn't say anywhere in the cited column that his slogan was a reference to, or inspired by, the Wendy's slogan. Only after he gives a two paragraph explanation of why the slogan was chosen does he continue with a reference to "Where's the beef" as an old commercial that was on the tip of people's tongues. 2600:1006:B163:761B:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Not quite sure what your point is -- you seem to concur that he does link the two. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A one-off joke made by the billboard proponent in a single column, neither mentioned nor referenced by any other source puts this matter far, far into the realm of irrelevant trivia. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It certainly would not be the focus of the article, but it does add perspective to the photo of the billboard. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If it's not relevant to include in the article, it shouldn't be added as the caption. The caption should be very basic, not adding information not otherwise present in the article. As for including it in the article, I just don't see the relevance especially with no other secondary source bothering to note any. Ravensfire (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with other editors that it shouldn't be included in the article, and certainly not in the caption. --Weazie (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
People who were around in 1984 would instantly recognize the connection between "Where's the birth certificate?" and "Where's the Beef?" catchphrase. However, people who either did not live in the United States in 1984, or were not around in 1984 to remember, would not be able to make that connection. Since the connection is confirmed, the association should be made. Although the connection was WP:SELFPUB source, policy allows for its inclusion.
I do recognize that there is an issue with the length of the caption, so I'll have to think about how to overcome that. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if any of us were around in 1984 (I was, for the record), it does not make it any less a bit of a piece of trivia. All the image is there for is to show a piece of advertising funded by the birther crowd; the billboard itself, and the catchphrase it cribs, is not itself the object of critical commentary. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it is thanks to the 1984 catchphrase that allowed WND to shorten the message on the billboard to just 4 words, w/o even mentioning Obama. Without the catchphrase, they would have had to put something like "Why can't Obama produce a birth certificate?". This is why it's important to mention it in the caption, to help explain the brevity of the billboard. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
How does it allow the reader to determine it is about Obama? There is no correlation between the two. It was possible to not mention Obama simply because it was an obvious topical reference to what was a very common topic of conversation and news coverage at the time. It makes sense in its own right if you had any awareness of topical politics at the time. Others could have put up a poster saying "Where's the WMD?" and it wouldn't have needed a mention of Bush, or any knowledge of a decades old advert. But this doesn't really matter. The inspiration of the phrase is a trivial side issue. I don't see it really adding anything of value, particularly if a questionable fact. It may only muddy the waters. Does it imply that there is something more in common between the two, other than they both start with "Where's the"? If so, where's the source? If not, why mention it? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
In the context of the discussions at that point in time, anyone asking that question outside of being at a driver's license bureau would clearly have been referring to Obama. I had one of the "Where's the beef" t-shirts back when those commercials were airing and I did not immediately make the connection between the billboard and that old add. Honestly, I didn't really make that connection until you started this discussion. In the context of the discussion back then, there were a fair number of conservative commentators who were repeating the question about the birth certificate. Asking "Where's the birth certificate" was parroting those questions and it was not immediately obvious it was inspired by some add campaign back in the 80's. Ravensfire (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
A point made by Farah himself;

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

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

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

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

Concession

Given that

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2015

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015

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

There are surely sources that say Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the US, but not reliable sources. The courts have decided these claims are without merit. Since it is common for publications to say things like "the alleged murderer" while a trial is in progress but "the murderer" after conviction by a court, I believe it is proper for Wikipedia to state as a fact that the claims are false.
In addition, the instructions for {{edit semi-protected}} say that consensus for the change should be obtained before the template is used. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Your understanding of the American legal system leaves much to be desired. In those examples, the defendants would be defending themselves only after a prosecutor has presented actual evidence. That has never happened regarding Obama and citizenship. Armchair supposition, guesses, and conjecture by..well, the likes of you, to put it mildly...do not rise to the sort of thing that the President of the United States has to stoop to respond to. Tarc (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
We're an encyclopedia, not a court. We sometimes report on what happens in courts if it's relevant to the subject of the article, but our standard for whether factual claims can be verified are much different than a court's standard (in the US or any country) for whether a fact is established for purposes of the legal proceeding at hand. It's not necessarily a higher or lower standard, but a very different purpose and procedure. Anyway, it's clear from the sources that Obama was born in Hawaii to a US citizen mother and a non-citizen father. Whether that makes him a natural born citizen or not is a legal matter, not a factual one, but the overwhelming and possibly unanimous consensus of the reliable third party secondary sources — the ones we use to build the encyclopedia — tell us that the legal conclusion is that yes, he is a natural born citizen. Two other facts, that the Obama citizenship claims are false and are conspiracy theories, are both well-sourced and a significant part of what makes the subject notable. Basically, this is a non-issue fact-wise. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Misleading claims?

Find it odd that 1. bio's were purportedly self-written (unable to verify yet), and 2. Obama's bio was edited multiple times over the years, with Kenya-born never being removed. Possible he wanted to make himself sound more exotic by claiming foreign born.

http://therightscoop.com/uh-oh-obamas-literary-agent-required-clients-to-write-their-own-bios/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.247.133 (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

To the extent these are suggestions for improving the article (and not merely discussing the article), there is no reliable source to support including these contentions. --Weazie (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Origin

This assertion is provided without any evidence of the source of the e-mail in question: "During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced..." If the origin was anonymous how can it be known they came from Clinton supporters? Anyone capable of such dirty politics could reasonably be expected to provide false attribution to tarnish both Obama and Clinton in one stroke while at the same time hiding their true origin. Please remove "from supporters of Hillary Clinton" or provide citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neworion (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That content is sourced to an article by Ben Smith called "Birtherism: Where it all began".[1] That in turn refers to something on Snopes. You can probably google around for more discussion. Smith's story says the following: "That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship" — and quotes part of the emails. Regarding how the sources can conclude that someone is a Clinton supporter without knowing their identity, that seems plausible. Their identity is not clear, and their email seems to be in support of Clinton. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

A link that has gone dead needs to be replaced.

This is the old link, which has gone dead. It is currently note 35, and the article is called 'Born in Kenya': Obama's Literary Agent Misidentified His Birthplace in 1991, abcnews.go.com, May 16, 2012

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566#.T7V48eLZgUM

The new link should be:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120706093227/http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566#.Vj6h4r9mqjc

Thanks.

74.98.37.40 (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. You're welcome!--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias.

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

We are under no obligation to pretend that bizarre theories unsupported by the facts and evidence are even vaguely valid. Indeed, we have a positive duty to point this out to the reader who may have been misled by the nonsense which has been circulated. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What birther arguments so far reported by RS doesn't the article yet cover? I thought I'd read them all, but don't underestimate anyone's ingenuity. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
On top of what was mentioned WP:WEIGHT is also a factor.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I will have to agree with the user above that the article seems biased. The author has taken a stand in this case and therefore we hear his conclusion. Claims that the birth certificate are faked are "false". This is the opinion of the author. I believed that wikipedia worked along the lines of ethics in journalism where you distinguish between reporting in a case where you refer the facts and opinions where the journalist makes clear that this is his opinion. Ask yourself if this article would pass the editor's desk in a newspaper. This article is a mixture between opinion and reporting. If this is in line with wikipedia policy, I am sorry to hear that. Better rewrite this piece and show the evidence that Obama is indeed born in Hawaii, but let the readers decide for themselves. If you want to make judgements, post a link to your blog or something. To Orangemike I would say that you can achieve what you are talking about better by simply stating that theories that are unsupported by the fact are "unsupported by the facts" and why it is so. Your use of the word "bizarre" or "conspiracy theory" doesn't help you bring your point across. Thank you. (Esperion (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, which have repeatedly called these claims false. If you can find a reliable source that says otherwise, please include in it the article. --Weazie (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I expect it's because no editor has cited a reliable source with such information.—ADavidB 13:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
This exact topic is discussed in the related article about lawsuits against Obama; it was long ago decided that the lawsuits (and the issues surrounding them) should be in their own article. --Weazie (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


This article was clearly written by someone with a pro-Obama bias. Not only is it completely one-sided in its approach, it completely ignores other issues, such as President Obama's admission into Columbia University as a "Foreign Student" under the name Barry Soetoro... Ormr2014 | Talk  00:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources to support the validity of those allegations, so they are not included in this article. Weazie (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Weazie You're kidding, right??? This is an article about "conspiracy" theories, not "verifiable facts". That's why they're called "conspiracies", and why your explanation isn't valid... Ormr2014 | Talk  00:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The article already documents the April Fool's hoax that Obama applied to Occidental as a foreign student named "Barry Soetoro." Barry Soetoro, of course, never attended Columbia. Weazie (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
That does not change the reliable sourcing requirements of an article. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The nature/gist of this article is that the conspiracy theories were advanced, who advanced them, and why they are false. The Wikipedia is not here to argue with birthers (are there still any actual birthers in 2015?) about there theories. Not every debate has equal sides; the subject of this article is analogous to the whys and whos of 9/11, not tpo, say, anortion or gun control where the arguments are valid all-around. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious you're an Obama supporter in the way you've responded here. You speak about reliable sources then use a Snopes article as proof about some "April Fools Hoax".

It's equally obvious you haven't been keeping up on the news because Presidential candidate Donald Trump spent quite a bit of time referring to the Columbia University claim in his recent speech. According to Wikipedia's Notability Clause, (which is probably what you meant in any event), if there are enough reliable sources that mention something, it becomes notable (http://www.westernjournalism.com/mainstream-media-silent-obamas-possible-ineligibility-president/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/23/trump-ebola-twitter-obama/17815841/, http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16855539-judge-jury-and-executioner-legal-experts-fear-implications-of-white-house-drone-memo just a few...).

So you see, Weazie, not only is this Notable under Wikipedia's rules, it is discussed pretty extensively by reliable sources.

Your argument is 100% inapplicable here. Suppression of this and some of the other allegations circulating around about Obama, in an article that is supposed to cover "conspiracies" about him can only be deemed bias... Ormr2014 | Talk  02:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there an actionable proposal for an improvement to the article? This talk page is not a suitable place to speculate about who is and who is not a supporter of Obama, nor is it a forum for discussing "bias" without a proposal for an edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Charitably assuming Ormr2014 thinks the article ought to state that Obama actually attended Columbia as "Barry Soetoro" (and as a foreign student): His first citation is a Western Journalism article; Western Journalism is not a reliable source. His third ciation appears to be a NBC article, but the "Barry Soetoro"/Columbia reference is in the comments section and not in the body of the article. Comment sections are not reliable sources.
His second source, the USA Today article, does say, "In one [tweet, Trump] made reference to the name Barry Soetoro, which appears on Obama's Columbia University identification card." The author does not explain how she came to that conclusion, nor is that her thesis (as the article actually discusses Trump's attacks on Obama); she referenced "Soetoro" only to give context to Trump's tweet. On the other hand, countless reliable sources have discussed Obama's time at Columbia, and none of them have said that used the name "Barry Soetoro" or that he attended as a foreign student. --Weazie (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Ormr2014, the fake id was the creation of a Free Republic denizen in 2011, in a threaded discussion about deliberate fakes and Photoshops and such. You are aware of this, yes? Tarc (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Weazie What part of "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories " don't you understand? The entire article is about non-verifiable theories that are circulating about Obama's citizenship. This is one of those theories. Of course it can't be proven to be true or accurate. That's why it is a conspiracy. The foreign student accusation is widespread enough to gain coverage in the mainstream media. Proving it true is not relevant or even appropriate here because nothing in this article can be verified as being true.
Johnuniq, yes the talk page is the place to discuss such things when it relates to the article and those contributing to the discussion about what should and shouldn't be included in the article illustrate a clear bias about the subject. Wikipedia's Neutrality clause makes it abundantly clear that individuals who do not have a neutral point of view on an article should not have a say-so in how the article is written.
As for an "actionable proposal", there most definitely is one: the article is about conspiracies surrounding Obama's citizenship; include all the conspiracies that received widespread coverage in the media. The Columbia University foreign student accusation is part of the whole citizenship debate and did receive widespread coverage in the media. It should be in this article. Ormr2014 | Talk  13:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
No one said it did, so quit with the strawman arguments. The fake id / foreign student is not a notable part of the conspiracy, as it has not nee covered in reliable sources. As I said above, the id itself was created by a forum user not as a deliberate deception but rather as a humorous photoshop. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Tarc Quit with the manipulative arguments. This did receive widespread media coverage and anyone who did a simple news search on Google would see this. In order for something to be considered Notable, it simply needs to be mentioned in 2 or more reliable sources. This more than meets that criteria. Furthermore, Donald Trump's reference of this in his presidential speech not once, but both times he's run lends more than a little credibility to the notability of this accusation. Ormr2014 | Talk  13:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:Notability and the 2-source requirement is in regards to the overall notability of a Wikipedia article itself; the 2-source rule does not govern the content within. There are many factors to consider when deciding the content of an article, such as fringe material, giving undue weight to a minor criticism or point-of-view. The "foreign student" ID story only appears in fringe sources, of which Mr. Trump is, sadly, one of. It will not be appearing in this article. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Tarc Funny you should say "It will not be appearing in this article.", as if you were someone of authority here. You are just another editor here like me. I have half a notion to include it myself. The 2-source requirement pretty much covers anything included in Wikipedia, whether it's the "article itself" or an item inside of an article. Stop taking liberties with the rules to suit your own purpose; no such inference exists in Wikipedia. That an accusation about Obama's time in Columbia University which states he attended as a foreign student was mentioned in numerous places in the mainstream, including a presidential candidate's speech before the entire nation makes this accusation notable. It makes no difference if it was originally covered by fringe material, because as soon as major media outlets began to mention it, it gained notability. If you're honest, everything in this article received the bulk of their mention by fringe material. I really think it's funny you said "The "foreign student" ID story only appears in fringe sources, of which Mr. Trump is, sadly, one of" because I heard it on NPR's coverage of his presidential announcement speech. The speech, along with it's accusations, was aired on NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR and numerous major as well as local radio stations. There is nothing "fringe" about that and I find your use of the word "sad" interesting... Ormr2014 | Talk  13:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This renewed conversation is perhaps a non-starter, beginning and continuing as it is as an accusation of "Obama supporters" by somebody who appears to subscribe to the conspiracy theory. If it doesn't improve soon we need to wrap it up, because Wikipedia is not a forum for engaging in debate and flaming. However, if it can be demonstrated by sourcing that claims that Obama was some kind of foreign student at Columbia are a noteworthy part of the conspiracy theory, whether or not Donald Trump was one of the proponents of this, then it could be included as such along with all of the other parts. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
ABC, NBC, etc....covering the Trump speech, where Trump tossed a single birther bon mot to the rabid masses, is the not the same as "reliable sources have covered the fake id story". Not even remotely. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
CONCUR to the exclusion of the proposed material. The Soetoro/Columbia falsehood has not been adequately covered by sufficient reliable sources as to merit inclusion. And the Soetoro/Occidental falsehood is already in the article, so the Columbia falsehood adds little to article's premise that some people incorrectly believe that Obama is lying about his citizenship. (And Trump's use of "Soetoro" is not necessarily a reference to the Columbia branch of the falsehood that Obama's real last name is Soetoro, as that falsehood has been circulating since 2008.) Weazie (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Wikidemon For the record, I do not "subscribe to the conspiracy theory". In fact, I don't believe it at all. I've read the articles that prove it false and I've seen the real ID the photocopy was taken from and it most certainly was NOT Obama (AKA Barry) in that original. My issue is with the complete lack of objectivity and neutrality being expressed here by Obama supporters who don't know how to separate personal feelings from their editing. It does not matter if you love or hate Obama, this is an article about conspiracy theories regarding his citizenship. When you allow your personal feelings about the man to conflict with the neutrality of the article, suppressing things you simply don't like, you destroy the credibility of the article as being "encyclopedic". Oh and by the way, I actually voted for Obama. Ormr2014 | Talk  15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with personal feelings; if anything, if there was an editor who was also a rabid, non-objective Obama fan, that editor would want to see every scrip and scrap of conspiracy theory included in this article, just to make the birthers look absurd and out-of-touch with reality. Wanting to keep it out is just because the sourcing isn't there to make it a notable criticism. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Some people believe in this particular falsehood. But those who author reliable sources haven't sufficiently written about this particular mistaken belief. Weazie (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This has everything to do with personal feelings. They've been expressed quite liberally throughout this entire discussion. Statements like "incorrectly believe", "sadly", "that falsehood", "make the birthers look absurd" and numerous other statements clearly illustrate a bias on the matter.
That the "sourcing" is there is pretty apparent in the fact that the aforementioned Snopes citing felt it worthwhile to devote an entire article to debunking the assertion. It's funny the Snopes article was cited as proof the ID was fake, but it isn't sufficient to illustrate a degree of notability in the same case.
To be completely honest, I couldn't care less if Obama's student status makes it into this article or not. What bothers me is that so many editors are willing to hijack articles they have a vested interest in and censor them. You may think you're not doing that, but every contribution you've made to this discussion has been rife with non-neutral and biased terminology. Ormr2014 | Talk  16:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2016

I suggest that Donald Trump's Birther claims paragraph be moved from the "Public Figures" section to the "Politician" section. This better reflects the current state of events in the US political realm.

NO1JGFN (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Do mean the "Political impact" section? I don't think the section needs to be moved because this article is about what is largely a part of history, and the fact that Trump is now a Presidential candidate is not relevant to what happened in 2011/2012. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias in "Origins" section

The "Origins of the claims" section of this page looks very odd to me, in a way that I believe introduces political bias into this article (given recent claims that Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign organization was the origin of the theory, which most fact-checkers seem to label as false). Specifically, literally nothing in the section as currently written discusses the actual origins of the theory. Instead, it begins by talking about a Clinton strategy memo that made no claims about Obama's citizenship or birthplace, and then talks about a Clinton staffer "circulating" a conspiracy theory that already existed (she forwarded an email about the theory). That second item might be relevant for inclusion in the section if there's evidence that the staffer's "circulating" had broad impact (outside of the Iowa county where that staffer was a volunteer coordinator, for example, and despite the campaign immediately firing her and offering an apology). But regardless, by starting the section with these comments about the Clinton campaign and not discussing any other source, the article currently could give the impression that the campaign itself originated the theory.

The actual origin of the idea, according to this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers.html, was "a splinter group of hard-core Hillary Clinton supporters", but evidently not affiliated with her campaign in any way. That would seem to be the proper initial content for this section.--Steuard (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I just added a Snopes article which dates the origin to at least a month before the email chains. Still, the rest of the section could use some work. FallingGravity 16:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


In addition to Breitbart's images of the literary agent's 1991 brochure stating that Obama is born in Kenya, the agent's website apparently repeated this statement in a bio of Obama until 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:FFC0:65:580:C8A5:1B16:2C90 (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the "Origins of the claims" section. FallingGravity 00:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Earlier exact sources could be included

As seen in the discussion on this page with many references

http://barackryphal.blogspot.de/2011/06/secret-origin-of-birthers.html

archived here

http://archive.is/uyqK1

On February 28, 2008, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh posted to The Volokh Conspiracy a short item where he stated that he was certain that John McCain was a natural-born citizen. In the comments thread to this post, one commenter posited this legal scenario:
Let's change the hypothetical (just for grins and giggles).
Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya. What would Senator Obama's citizenship status (and Presidential eligibility) be if:
1) He had been born in Kenya, but taken by his mother to the United States immediately after birth and then spent the rest of his life as he has subsequently lived it?
2) He was born in a third country, and like my first hypothetical, immediately taken to the United States? Does that change the analysis?
3) Would these results change if Senator Obama had been raised in a foreign country for any length of time before his mother returned with him to the United States?
That was posted at The Volokh Conspiracy at 2:02 a.m. on February 29, 2008. Just over 24 hours later, FARS was sharing at FreeRepublic what he had “been told today” about Obama having been born overseas, but taken by his mother to the United States immediately after birth. All the details subsequently expressed in the rumor are there, a rumor that shows no signs of having existed prior to February 29.

With the given references, this data from the source post should be included to really put the question to rest. Note that FreeRepublic, etc is a conservative website, as is The Volokh Conspiracy.

Ema Zee (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Harvard requires a birth certificate. This could have been settled immediately by Harvard. Maybe legacies are handled differently. 2601:181:8301:4510:7022:9701:E115:958D (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

He would be a natural born citizen no matter where he was born.

But curiously, that information seems completely missing from this article. Or did I read it too fast? [2] --OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As various reliable sources have stated, Obama would not be a U.S. citizen if he was born outside of the United States because his father was not a U.S. citizen and, under the laws in effect at the time of his birth, he could not have obtained U.S. citizenship from his mother. (The law later changed, which is why Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen despite being born in Canada.) This is why the article does not say Obama would be a natural-born citizen regardless of his place of birth. --Weazie (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Birther is pejorative

Birther is called "pejorative" at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/birther . This should be included in the section on Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.37.147 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There is already a link to wiktionary's definition in the third paragraph of lead section. --Weazie (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017

The article is a prejudice against any challenge of Obama's birth certificate, by calling people "birthers" a made up derogatory term. Why is there not mention of Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., WND senior staff writer and author of “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”. Nor is there mention of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigation with Mike Zullo, and their investigation.

Wikipedia should publish balanced articles, 2001:56A:72E2:C500:51EE:DFB6:9428:207 (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

An edit request is a request to make a specific change, with reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The article accurately reflects that people who ascribe to these theories have been labeled as "birthers"; the article itself does not call them birthers. Corsi and Arpaio are referenced in the article; no reliable sources, however, have reported favorably on their efforts, and WP:FRINGE explains why Wikipedia does not give "balance" to their fringe theories. And the article is already in semi-protected status; no need to request another one. --Weazie (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Somehow, I suspect that if any Reliable Source commented favorably on Corsi and Arpaio's investigations, you and many others would declare that automatically means that those Reliable Sources cannot possibly be Reliable Sources. See the problem? 71.222.50.217 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I see the problem: Your suspicions about others' motives are not suggestions on how to improve the article. Weazie (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Your abject confusion is noted. I am looking for a DEFINITION of "Reliable Sources", especially one that is not politically biased. Do you know of one? 71.222.50.217 (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources at your leisure. --Weazie (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not a DEFINITION. That's a vague set of guidelines. If the issue truly is a "reliable source", then it should be possible to collect and maintain a list of "reliable sources" that can be consulted, as well as the list being studied for the presence of political/ideological bias. Not having such a list, even only a partial list, implies that the lack of such a list shows that any challenge to a given sample of text will be purely subjective, dependant on the specific content of that text, and whether it comports with the current definition of (say) Political Correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.50.217 (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry that Wikipedia does not operate as you think it should. If you think the reliable source guidelines could be improved, however, this talk page is not the appropriate forum to advocate such change. Perhaps you are not aware of the the reliable-sources noticeboard, where concerns about a particular source's reliability can be discussed. With respect to World Net Daily, it has repeatedly been decided to be unreliable. --Weazie (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sheriff Joe Arpaio press conference Dec 15, 2016

Response to the claims made in this press conference need to be monitored for secondary sources.Phmoreno (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk3KRxTfkLM Wikipedians - it was a month ago. what about your response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.101.202 (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What further response do you consider appropriate here? Notice of Arpaio's December event is included in his section of this article, with three sources. —ADavidB 18:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The article blatantly construes Arpaio's report as a debunked conspiracy theory, which is inaccurate. In fact Arpaio's is a plausible argument against the posted birth certificate's validity. The article should be updated to reflect this. For example, a section should be added summarizing the analysis and results Arpaio presented. Bias elsewhere in the article can also be corrected, such as removing "falsely" in the opening sentence ("...falsely asserting that he was not a natural-born citizen..."). Arpaio's is in fact a strong assertion. The article as-written portrays it as a debunked claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9701:9BFB:589F:181D:E6B7:7943 (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources have repeatedly and expressly said Arpaio's claims were debunked, and that these conspiracy theories were false; wikipedia only collects what reliable sources have said about a topic. And per WP:FRINGE, fringe theories do not deserve "equal weight." --Weazie (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
You said, "...Arpaio's claims were debunked". Plural. All of them? Each and every one? Did those "Reliable Sources" address, item by item, each and every such claim? Somehow, I suspect that they didn't do that. Where are the specific cites? 71.222.50.217 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
CBS called it a "debunked conspiracy"; the LA Times called it a "thoroughly debunked idea". If you disagree agree with their assessments, I suggest you take up your concerns with them. --Weazie (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
No doubt it was called "debunked"! It was called "debunked" in 2009, long before the detailed font analysis was done. And, no doubt, it will still be called "debunked" after having been proved. The problem is the over-expansive use of the term "debunked": It should be called "denied" instead. Nobody actually "debunked" anything; they merely denied it. 71.222.50.217 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The article as presently written notes the December 15 conference, that Arpaio presented 9 points of forgery, and that Arpaio said he would present his findings to the appropriate authorities; the article says nothing about Arpaio being debunked. As such, any implied suggestion regarding improving this article appear to be satisfied, as at no point does it say Arpaio was "debunked". --Weazie (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No such reliable sources exist that the authentication experts that dispute the certificate are false. Polls consistently show that questions over the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate are not fringe. Reed Hayes who is on the board of the Scientific Association of Forensic Examiners and who's expert opinion on forged documents has been admitted in federal court is also not fringe. Total re-write needed. Obviously this is wikipedia though so I'm not holding my breath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.5.117 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Opinion polls don't determine whether a theory is fringe or not, reliable sources do. USA Today still describes Cold Case Posse's accusations that Obama was born in Kenya as "debunked," hence, it is a fringe theory. FallingGravity 23:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
In addition, Hayes' expertise is being overstated. Regardless, no realiable source has written anything significant about Hayes (and his purported expert opinion), which is why he is not included in this article. --Weazie (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I would add that since officials from Hawaii with access to the original certificate repeatedly state it exists and confirms the relevant facts about Obama, the electronic image posted on the White House website and analyzed by Arpaio et al. is irrelevant. If any investigation were justified, it would examine the documents stored by the Hawaii Department of Health. If such an investigation were ever ordered, it's certain that Arpaio would not be involved since he is neither an official of the State of Hawaii nor a federal official. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like you are getting very close to admitting that the BC document released by the White House HASN'T been actually been confirmed as being visually identical to the document released by the State of Hawaii and sent to the White House!!! Good, that's progress of a sort. In effect, you are seemingly confirming the allegations here: http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/investigator-hawaii-never-verified-obama-birth-certificate-image/#5yCbuMDwPOuskUQY.99 Perhaps you suspect that the "document" released by the White House was forged, but with information (dates, names, locations, etc) that are asserted by the State of Hawaii to be correct, and you are anticipating the revelation of this fact. That's why you sneakily said, " the electronic image posted on the White House website and analyzed by Arpaio et al. is irrelevant." Have you ever watched the movie, The Wizard of Oz, when the dog Toto pulls aside the curtain concealing the Wizard, and he responds by bellowing through the microphone, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!! The Great and Powerful Oz has Spoken!!" 71.222.50.217 (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The talk page is not a forum to discuss the topic of the article; the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article while following Wikipedia's policies, which include relying on only reliable sources. --Weazie (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I keep asking you to define "reliable sources", or at least give us a list of those sources which you deem "reliable". And then explain why YOUR opinion of "reliable source" is the only correct one. 71.222.50.217 (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, for the purposes of improving articles on Wikipedia, the only relevant definition is Wikipedia's guideline regarding reliable sources. This talk page is not the appropriate forum to discuss how Wikipedia defines that term, or applies its definition. --Weazie (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You don't often get to see so perfectly formed a logical fallacy in actual discussion. I claim to have fairies that live at the bottom of my garden. No reliable sources exist to dispute this, therefore my claim has merit until such time that you produce reliable sources to debunk my claim.
It doesn't work that way. You provide the reliable sources to show the authentication experts that dispute the certificate are true. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
For clarity's sake: Arpaio's "investigation" looked into only the digital image that had been posted on the White House's web site; it was not concerned with the actual, paper certificate, as no one (purported expert or otherwise) has "examined" that. Regardless, of interest to this article is that the December 15 press conference occurred (as its occurrence was documented in numerous reliable sources) -- and not the minutiae of the topics discussed at the conference (which is not in reliable sources). That the conference occurred is noted in this article; that is sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. --Weazie (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The section under "Joe Arpaio" includes the statement, "Rejecting this claim, an assistant to Hawaii's attorney general stated in July 2012 that "President Obama was born in Honolulu, and his birth certificate is valid"". When that assistant said that, do we know for sure if he was referring to the actual document released by the White House? There is a challenge to the validity of that latter document suggesting that the State of Hawaii has never actually confirmed that the White-House-released document itself is genuine; merely that the information (names, dates, locations, etc) is accurate. http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/investigator-hawaii-never-verified-obama-birth-certificate-image/#5yCbuMDwPOuskUQY.99 ("INVESTIGATOR: HAWAII NEVER VERIFIED OBAMA BIRTH-CERTIFICATE IMAGE Confirmed 'information' but not the White House-released computer file ") 71.222.50.217 (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia chronicles what reliable sources have said, and a reliable source reported on what the Hawaiian officials said. WND is not a reliable source, so its reporting on this "challenge" cannot be included in the article. --Weazie (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Where is WP's list of Reliable Sources? Is it merely those meeting the "Politically-Correct Seal of Approval"? 71.222.50.217 (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Post at WP:RSN with a proposed source and the text that the source may verify, and ask if the source is reliable in the context of the proposed edit and this article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In other words, you are unwilling to supply either a definition, or a list, of Reliable Sources. Your suggested tactic amounts to seeking some sort of politicized "approval" of a specific text. If the issue was truly whether something was a "Reliable Source", you wouldn't have to look at the specific text to establish that. Hence, it's entirely subjective, as you now admit. 71.222.50.217 (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, this talk page is not the appropriate forum to discuss Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. Johnuniq correctly pointed you to appropriate forum where a source's reliability ought to be discussed. --Weazie (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Why were the claims by Obama's book publisher and NPR that Obama was "born in Kenya" removed from the introduction?

In this edit, someone removed the following from the introduction:

The earliest known example of anyone claiming that Barack Obama was born in Kenya happened in 1991, when his own book publisher made the claim. On October 9, 2008, an online article at npr.org, the official website of NPR, referred to "Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama."[why 1]

The person commented: "Not lede worthy; certainly not opening sentence worthy."

I think this should be included in the introduction, because it shows that there were reliable sources that made the claim before it ever became a conspiracy theory.

What do other editors think about including or not including this content in the introduction?

  1. ^ Trial and Triumph: Stories Out Of Africa, NPR, October 9, 2008

Rzw3454gtbg76 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It definitely goes in the article. It is also acceptable for the lede if there was no retraction by Obama or his publisher within any reasonable time period. I don't think there would be nearly as much of a case for Obama not being born in the U.S. if it hadn't been stated in his biography. The forged birth certificate does not prove that he wasn't U.S. born, it is only lack of proof that he was.Phmoreno (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The claim mentioning the book publisher cites Breitbart, which is an unreliable source. The NPR story doesn't say Obama was born in Africa, it says his father was. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It was not a "claim by his book publisher". It was an error in a brochure from his literary agent that went unnoticed for decades. Putting it in the lead gives it undue weight.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I made the edit that removed the information from the lede (it is all still in the article). In addition to agreeing with the above comments, let's look at the two sources. An October 2008 article significantly postdates when the conspiracy began to grow, as rumors were circulating in March 2008, and the National Review wrote its article in June 2008; the COLB was first published online also in June 2008. With respect to the 1991 pamphlet, it certainly predates 2008. But there is no indication than many people knew about it until 2012, when Breitbart published its article about the pamphlet. To say the 1991 pamphlet was a significant contributor to a conspiracy that grew in 2008 would require a reliable source saying that. --Weazie (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
If it's in an advertising pamphlet rather than in the book it doesn't belong in the lede. However, that fact does deserve mention in the article because a lot of people, such as myself, misunderstood where that statement was made.Phmoreno (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The Breitbart article in question described it as a "promotional booklet" "distributed to 'business colleagues' in the publishing industry"; this article, in the "origins of the claims" section, repeats the "promotional booklet" descriptor. So the information already is in the article, just not in the lede. The "born in Kenya" language never appeared in any book written by Obama. --Weazie (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Footprint

The website 'Is this Obama's birth certificate?' displays an officially-sourced Kenyan birth certificate that includes his footprint, clearly stamped in black ink. President Obama could have simply proven that it was not his footprint.

If it is not President Obama's footprint then is it the footprint of another Barrack Hussein Obama, perhaps wandering the streets of Mombasa, that the media has ignored?

Speculation: Perhaps Pres. Obama's sponsors needed an African-American to become President but that would has been embarrassing if genealogists discovered a former slave-owner whose present descendants are prominent people today. To avoid this scenario they sponsored an African.1.129.97.122 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no website "Is this Obama's birth certificate?". I believe you mean "Was Obama Born in Kenya?" (or perhaps "Where's Obama's Birth Certificate?"). Regardless, the fake Kenyan birth certificate is already discussed in the article. (And, yes, it is fake; certainly no reliable source has said it is authentic). --Weazie (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that no reliable source has said the Kenya Birth Certificate is authentic does not, in itself, prove it is fake. You imply otherwise. 71.222.50.217 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
No reliable source has said it is authentic, which is why this article does not say it is authentic. This article does say that the Bomford birth certificate is fake because reliable sources have said it was fake. If any editor's opinion (unsupported by a reliable source) appears in the article as written, please identify the unsourced statement. --Weazie (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The "footie" birth certificate is again making the rounds; this article bluntly calls it a forgery. I don't think Wikipedia's article would be improved, however, by explaining that Taitz tried to submit two different fake birth certificates to the same court. --Weazie (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Misleading quotation used.

The last paragraph of the section, Not born in Hawaii, states: "In an editorial published on July 29, 2009, the Star-Bulletin pointed out that both newspapers' vital-statistics columns are available on microfilm in the main state library. "Were the state Department of Health and Obama's parents really in cahoots to give false information to the newspapers, perhaps intending to clear the way for the baby to someday be elected president of the United States?" the newspaper asked.[90]". However, the use of that quotation is misleading. It falsely suggests that Obama's -parents were necessarily "in cahoots" with the state Department of Health, and moreover for the highly-improbable (one in 100 million chance?) situation that one day, Obama was going to be burdened by the inability to run for U.S. President, due to being born outside of America. But in fact there is a far-more-highly-likely chance (one-in-one, or 100%) that if born outside the U.S., Obama wouldn't be a U.S. citizen at all, because his mother hadn't been resident in America for at least five (5) years after achieving her age of 14 years. See the "Born in Kenya" section, above, which states in part: "A contrary view is promoted by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, who has said that in the hypothetical scenario that Obama was born outside the U.S., he would not be a natural-born citizen, since the then-applicable law would have required Obama's mother to have been in the U.S. at least "five years after the age of 14", but Ann Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born.[72]". It is quite misleading to suggest that Obama's parents would have only been concerned with the extremely minor potential disability of his not being able to be elected President 47 years hence, rather than the certain, immediate, and very serious disability of not being considered an American citizen at all. Further, it is very plausible to imagine the situation where a baby is born outside of a hospital, either by plan or by accident. Hawaiian law no doubt would have required that such a birth be registered, probably within a few days or weeks. But assuming that the parent or parents are willing to lie, what is to stop them from simply falsely claiming where (or when) that birth actually occurred? Nothing I can see. No "cahoots" with the state Department of Health would be required: That Department wouldn't have to be aware of the fraud at all. No doubt that newspaper is legally entitled to write what it did in its editorial, obviously. But that doesn't mean that we should quote it in WP, as if it somehow reflects logical reasoning. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no dispute that the (rhetorical) question appears in the Star-Bulletin. Nor is there any dispute about the existence and accessibility of the archives of Hawaii's vital statistics. The Star-Bulletin is not suggesting that Obama's parents were "in cahoots" with the Hawaii Department of Health; a fair reading of the article indicates that the Star-Bulletin is expressing its disapproval of the reasoning of the proponents of the argument that Obama's parents conspired with (or perhaps duped) the health department over the much more plausible conclusion that Hawaiian records show Obama was born in Hawaii because Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. In other words, the Star-Bulletin's question is merely a colorful application of Occam's Razor. --Weazie (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You said, "Nor is there any dispute about the existence and accessibility of the archives of Hawaii's vital statistics". But you should also have said that those statistics aren't available to the public, nor the news media. It isn't possible for me, or you, to walk into the Hawaii office and obtain a copy of that document. It is said that a copy of some document was sent to the White House at Obama's request by Hawaii officials, but it isn't clear that the document that the WH later publicly released was the same document. (the Hawaii officials never confirmed that; merely, they confirmed that the information, such as names, facts, dates, locations, present in the publicly-released document contained accurate information; there's a difference.) You are correct to say, "the Star-Bulletin is not suggesting that Obama's parents were "in cahoots" with the Hawaii Department of health..." But that is because the Star-Bulletin is itself constructing a strawman, by means of suggesting that those who are challenging the claim of Obama's birth in America are themselves indicating the existence of them being "in cahoots". The newspaper said, ""Were the state Department of Health and Obama's parents really in cahoots to give false information to the newspapers, perhaps intending to clear the way for the baby to someday be elected president of the United States?" the newspaper asked.". The Star-Bulletin's intent was to suggest that it was thoroughly improbable that Obama's parents were in cahoots with the Hawaii officials for that specific reason, ensuring he could someday be elected President, so Obama's birth certificate must have been genuine. I say, instead, that this claim misleads: No such collusion between the parents and the staff of the Hawaii office was necessary; the only thing necessary was for that Hawaii office to accept some sort of certification by the parents that might not have been true. So, the Star-Bulletin's application of Occam's Razor is bass-ackwards as a construction of a strawman: It is actually focussing on what must be, by far, the more improbable idea: The idea that Obama's parents were somehow concerned that Obama wouldn't be able to be elected President some day, rather that the far-more-probable idea that they were acting to ensure that Obama has American citizenship. Which hypothesis is more likely? I say the latter. It is proper to employ Occam's Razor, but only if it is done correctly. In addition, there is no indication that the Star-Bulletin's staff was aware, when that editorial was written (July 2009) that there was a residency requirement for Obama's mother, in order for her to have automatically ensured that Obama himself had citizenship. Attorney Volokh explains it well, at: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_30-2008_12_06.shtml#1227910730 There was, indeed, a requirement present in 1961 that for a person born outside of the United States, his mother must have resided in America for 10 years, at least five would have had to have been subsequent to her attainment of the age of 14. Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, hadn't done that, because she was under the age of 19 when Obama was born. This correct statement of law shows why Obama's actual place of birth is important to the question of his citizenship; had the law said otherwise (not having such a citizenship requirement for the mother), it wouldn't have mattered where Obama had been born. Ordinary (non-lawyer) people would not have known of this obscure requirement. However, Obama's American grandmother, who worked for the Social Security Administration, might very well have learned of it. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The talk page is not a forum for the topic of the article. Concerns about what the Star-Bulletin wrote (and its motivations) should be directed at it. Weazie (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I intend to remove the quotation from the editorial by the Star-Bulletin, because it is apparently based on a false assumption about the relevant law during 1961. I also intend to look for a more relevant quotation (from Reliable Sources, obviously) that more usefully and accurately documents the issues involved. No specific quote "has to" be cited in WP, and WP shouldn't actively mislead or assist in misleading, either intentionally or inadvertently. I have just explained why that newspaper's editorial statement is based on a false understanding of the relevant law in 1961, falsely implying that the only reason Obama's parents had to want to falsify the record was to ensure that one day, he would be eligible to be elected to the U.S. Presidency. No doubt there will be plenty of relevant quotations by others that do not misunderstand the facts or law during that period or later. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I anticipate such an edit would be reverted. The Star-Bulletin is cited for two non-controversial points: (1) the existence (and security) of Hawaii's vital statistics, which help show that Obama was born there; and (2) the disapproval (note: this article clearly notes it is a Star-Bulletin editorial) of those who question the legitimacy, accuracy, and reliability of Hawaii's vital statistics. That the Star-Bulletin's opinion might have been based on purported "false assumptions" and "false understanding" does not significantly diminish its relevance to this article: to document that conspiracy theories about Obama's citizenship were created in an attempt to explain away the evidence that disproved that he was born elsewhere. The Star-Bulletin did not invent the notion that Obama's parents conspired with (or duped) Hawaii; it was writing in response to those accusations. --Weazie (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The Star-Bulletin's July 29, 2009 editorial was in response to those circulating a conspiracy theory about Obama's citizenship. For example, [http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/107337/ in this July 18, 2009 WND article] by Jerome Corsi (one the earliest proponents of this conspiracy theory), there is much discussion about whether Obama and his mother really lived at the address referenced in the newspaper announcements. The Star-Bulletin correctly noted it was the conspiracy theorists who were advocating the rather implausible notion that Obama's parents were "in cahoots" with Hawaii in order obtain for Obama U.S. citizenship. The Star-Bulletin article's inclusion in this article therefore helps explain that such a conspiracy was not only incredible, but that its own involvement in this asserted conspiracy was factually impossible. --Weazie (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparently it escaped the awareness of the people who cited the Star Bulletin that it isn't a RS (Reliable Source".) in this context. Even if newspapers are normally considered "reliable sources" for the purpose of what they are named for (news-papers), that's not the case here. The relevant quotation here is from merely an editorial, a statement of opinion, not a statement of actual news or fact. The editor who wrote that editorial no doubt want the public to accept his opinion as if it were a fact, but there is no examination of the question that the editorials usually contained in the Star-Bulletin are "reliable". The fact that Hawaii keeps vital records on its citizens is so obvious as to virtually not need any support, but there would be nothing wrong with finding an appropriate alternate source. Also can be included that such records mention Obama's own record. But it is essentially irrelevant that this newspaper "disapprov[es]" (your word) people who "question the legitimacy, accuracy, and reliability of Hawaii's vital statistics". First, the people who seem to do this don't challenge in general the accuracy of Hawaii's records; they challenge a very specific record: Obama's Birth Certificate. No doubt there is absolutely no motivation to fake or forge such records in general, at least not in 99.99% of the cases. This newspaper's "disapproval" is merely evidence of their biased, partisan nature. It adds nothing to the actual evidence available, and there will be hundreds of citations available which can substitute for anything they said. In reality, that editorial takes no position, in general, on the accuracy of any vital record stored by Hawaii other than that of Obama himself. Thus, they are demonstrating themselves to have an agenda specific to Obama's cause. No doubt there are many statements available about Hawaii records' reliability that have nothing to do with this specific case; such statements will no doubt be sufficient to make that case. You are also overstating your case to claim "to explain away the evidence that disproved that he was born elsewhere." Plenty of people _denied_ that Obama was born elsewhere; I am not aware that that anyone has "disproved" that he was born elsewhere. (The word "disproved" indicates successful, unchallengeable denial.) Even a person who claims that the birth certificate image released by the White House is forged (fake) need not assert that this "proves" that Obama was not born in America; it merely challenges the quality and reliability of the evidence that can be used to support the idea that he was born in Hawaii. What, exactly, is the "evidence" that Obama was born in America (Hawaii), other than a birth certificate?? Barack Obama, like all people, has no recollection of where he was actually born, being very young at the time (!!!) His mother and father are dead; his American grandmother died the day before the 2008 election. In some cases, Obama's African relatives have asserted (with varying degrees of reliability) that Obama was actually born in Kenya. In one case, his grandmother needed to be "corrected", twice, by her interviewer; evidently, the grandmother was not aware that there would be a problem if Obama hadn't been born in America! Politifact attempted to "debunk" this, only to point out that the grandmother was adamant that she was present at Obama's birth in Kenya, until "corrected" by her other grandson. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-president-obamas-grandmother-cau/ http://www.politifact.com/letter-from-bishop-ron-mcrae/ And if there were actually Hawaii hospital records (other than the BC itself) which establish that Ann Dunham was admitted as a patient shortly before Obama's reported birth, that would go a long way to confirming her physical presence in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth. Therefore, I suggest that anything the Star-Bulletin cites which is "non-controversial" can and should be replaced with other, non-controversial quotations to support the same ideas: In other words, you can't justify citing an admittedly biased and flawed editorial, when anything relevant it contains is also available elsewhere without such flaws and bias. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The Star-Bulletin is reliable, and their opinion, which is already presented as such, is relevant for multiple reasons. Tangential distractions about what would "go a long way..." (as if any proof would ever suffice at this point) have nothing to do with the Star-Bulletin. This is a WP:FRINGE theory and will continue to be presented as such until vastly better sources are presented. Grayfell (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
You say, "The Star-Bulletin is reliable". How do you know that? Do you read it on a regular basis? Is there some sort of newspaper-accuracy-ratings system that you consulted to find that idea? I think you are just engaged in what is called by salesman, "puffery": Definition of puffery: Advertising or sales presentation relying on exaggerations, opinions, and superlatives, with little or no credible evidence to support its accuracy. Are you calling it reliable merely because it's a newspaper? And you are falsely conflating its reliability concerning reporting the news, and its reliability in its editorials. Did you consider the distinction between those two things? And if you believe "...is relevant for multiple reasons", List them. And you are defending your position by now demanding "VASTLY better sources" are presented. How would you measure "vastly" in this context? This would imply you are admitting that if you were faced with many merely-better sources, rather than "vastly better sources", you would refuse to use the better sources instead, because they weren't quite "vastly better". You are therefore admitting you intend to obstruct the improvement of the article for an obscure reason. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Concur; until at least comparable sources are actually presented, this article is not improved by removing the Star-Bulletin quote and citation. Weazie (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem at all keeping the portion which states, "In an editorial published on July 29, 2009, the Star-Bulletin pointed out that both newspapers' vital-statistics columns are available on microfilm in the main state library." That's obvious and non-controversial. What I object to, instead, is the attempted straw-man presented in the editorial by suggesting that the motivations of the people involved (in 1961) had anything to do with the hypothetical possibility that this one person, out of tens of millions of others, was going to go on to be elected to the Presidency. That's foolish. The idea that somebody at one time speculated on such a thing does not raise it above being trivially hypothetical. Ann Dunham's motivations had nothing to do with the idea that Barack would be President someday. Far more important was the legal fact that given the state of Federal citizenship law in 1961 (requires the American mother to have been resident for at least 5 years after attaining the age of 14 years; see the attorney Volokh reference in the article and above), Ann Dunham simply could not have automatically passed on her citizenship IF Barack Obama had been born anywhere outside U.S. states or territories, since she was younger than age 19 when Obama was born. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
In addition, the Star-Bulletin is not "partisan" and "biased" (therefore unreliable) because it defended its own integrity, the state's integrity, and reality. Saying "Glenn Beck does not kick puppies" is not a biased and partisan statement; it is a statement of fact because there is no evidence that Glenn Beck does kick puppies. --Weazie (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
You say the Star-Bulletin "...because it defended its own integrity". I say, to the contrary, that the integrity of that newspaper was almost in no way involved. At some point in 1961, a birth announcement was transmitted to it, a very common occurrence, and the newspaper proceeded to print it. If that birth announcement arrived in the usual way, that newspaper had no reason not to publish it as they usually did. And, of course, nobody knew how important the underlying birth would eventually be. Nobody would have realistically faulted any newspaper for publishing such an announcement, merely because there might have been some fraud promulgated in that announcement's production before it arrived at the newspaper. Would the newspaper even have had a reason to check? As for the state's integrity: Fraud happens. I doubt anyone would think appreciably less of Hawaii simply because in 1961, somebody managed to get a birth certificate through the system. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

In an effort to wrap this conversation up, I removed the clause "perhaps intending to clear the way for the baby to someday be elected president of the United States" from the article. That Hawaii's vital statistics exist and are accurate is not disputed. The rhetorical "were the state Department of Health and Obama's parents really in cahoots to give false information to the newspapers" adequately conveys the sting of the Star-Bulletin's questioning of the reasoning of the proponents of the conspiracy theory about Obama's citizenship; removing the "perhaps..." clause avoids any speculation about any imaginary fraud, as, of course, there is no reliably sourced evidence that Obama's parents actually committed birth-certificate fraud. Which was the Star-Bulletin's point, and why it merits inclusion in this article. Weazie (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That is definitely an improvement. BTW, I think the title of this article should be renamed: "Barack Obama citizenship controversy". The term "conspiracy theories" is POV and prejudicial. Further, the headers for this Talk page include the lines: "This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism." Assuming you are limiting this reference to Barack Obama himself, he is not running for office nor has he recently run for office, he is no longer in office, and he is not campaigning for re-election. Nor is Obama involved in some current political conflict or controvery, at least nothing I am aware of. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The use of "conspiracy theory" is the first question answered in the FAQ on this talk page. As for the politician box on this page, the text is auto-generated. As Obama or his administration continues to be in the news (e.g., accusations of wiretapping) on a daily basis, the final qualifier (involved in a political conflict or controversy) applies. Weazie (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Going to correct misleading statement.

Per WP:NOTFORUM this page is not available to discuss theories; see WP:RSN to ask whether a source is reliable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is a statement in the article "An incorrect but popularly reported claim is that his father's stepmother, Sarah Obama, told Anabaptist Bishop Ron McRae in a recorded transatlantic telephone conversation that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya." However, this claim is in itself incorrect. First, there is no source cited for this conclusion. Second, even if relevant sources are investigated, say http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-president-obamas-grandmother-cau/ and http://www.politifact.com/letter-from-bishop-ron-mcrae/ those sources indicate that Sarah Obama did indeed claim, twice during a phone call, that she had been present (in Kenya) when Barack Obama was born. The second source goes on to claim that Sarah Obama was corrected by one of her other grandsons, who was one of the translators during the trans-atlantic phone call. If this exchange occurred during a lawyer's questions to his own witness at a trial, it would have been objected to as "leading the witness", which is highly frowned upon. An unbiased person, aware of both these references, would be very hard-pressed to come to the conclusion that the claim that Sarah Obama told McRae that Barack Obama was born in Kenya was "incorrect". At most, it could be said that Sarah Obama eventually accepted the correction of her other grandson and repeated his assertion that Barack Obama was born in America. Very suspicious. Sarah Obama, being a Swahili-speaking Kenyan, would likely not have been aware that her claim, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, might have been a problem. But her English-speaking other grandson may have heard that, and it might have motivated him to correct her as strenuously as he did. I will remove the unsourced assertion that this claim is "incorrect". 97.120.31.14 (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This Talk page does not reflect any sort of protection or semi-protection of the article, yet that seems to be the case. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, but not the talk page (obviously). Talk pages do not necessarily indicate the protection status of an article. It's just as well, as this change was unlikely to be accepted. The politifact source rates the statement as "false". Anything else would be a misuse of the source, and would be WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the comment added by one person explains that Sarah Obama was clearly corrected. In other words, she gave one specific answer, twice. Only after the translator (a grandson of hers, thus a relative) "corrected" her, then she seemed to change her mind. But nobody who was familiar with interrogations would believe that she believed anything other than her initial two answers. Sources which appear to be aware of this fact at the time they write their comments should be consulted. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I added yet another source for the first paragraph, which was just an introduction for the remainder of the section. In any event, the reliable sources cited all say that Sarah Obama clarified her original statement; no reliable source says she "accepted" someone else's "correction". And, as this article notes, in 2012 she again stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. As this article accurately conveys what multiple reliable sources actually say, I anticipate the attempt to so "correct" this article will be reverted. (And, yes, the article has semi-protection -- for around another year due to persistent vandalism.) Weazie (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
"Clarified" is a weasel-word which is used to indicate that at best, Sarah Obama's story COMPLETELY changed from her first and second telling, to being "corrected" ONLY AFTER numerous people challenged and interrupted her initial two recollections. How do you explain that obvious attempt and manipulation of the record by those interviewing her? Biased news organizations that want there to be no dispute couldn't stand the idea that somebody who claims to have been there at Obama's birth said that clearly and distinctly. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The very cite you quote says the claim is false. Everything else about your point is your own speculation with neither fact or source. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The cite I referred to had its own biases, as was internally clear. This point needs to be further researched so that unbiased sources can be used too. For instance, consider: http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/107524/ , which was cited as a source by: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-president-obamas-grandmother-cau/ [quote begins] " The controversy over the tape centers on the interpreter, who at the end interjects repeatedly that the grandmother said Obama was born in Hawaii. One of the WND sources who listened to the tape knows Sarah Obama and has met with her in her home village. The other holds a respected position in the Kenyan government. The source who knows the grandmother declared: “I have keenly and attentively listened to the tape over and over again, and I can confirm from Sarah’s own confession that Barack Obama was born in Kenya in her presence.” The source said that while Sarah Obama’ voice is hard to hear on the recording, “she admits of actually having been there at his birth.” He said that while the people in the room with Sarah Obama “tried as much as they [could] to change the tone of the whole story … to me it seems someone is coaching her from the background and seemingly trying to guide her on what to say.” The Kenyan government source agreed. " [end of long quote] To me, it is quite obvious that much evidence of "coaching" the witness existed. People shouldn't embarrass themselves by saying that Sarah Obama answered the question based on her (incorrect?) recollection first, and second, and only then did she get corrected. Moreover, since the recording of the interview still exists, despite the fact part of it is in Swahili, anybody who argues the opposite point should at least address this matter. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Note also this statement, from McRae, cited by Politifact, at: http://www.politifact.com/letter-from-bishop-ron-mcrae/ [quote begins] "Upon Sarah’s two admissions to having been present when Barach Obama was born in Kenya, her step grandson realizes the seriousness of his grandmother’s response and immediately begins to respond to the contrary, while moving his hand towards his grandmother’s mouth to silence her from saying anything further, while he tries to answer my pointed questions himself and correct what his grandmother has revealed. You see Mr. Farley, we have witnesses that were present during that conversation, including police officers and soldiers. All of my subsequent questions concerning Obama’s birth were not translated to Sarah, but the step grandson insisted on replying immediately to me himself in English, while continuing to move his hand towards Sarah’s mouth motioning her to be quite. "[end of long quote] This is a truly amazing statement of what happened! If this is true, any claim about what Sarah Obama actually, eventually, said is highly questionable. When people claim that SHE "clarified" her statements, who actually was doing that "clarifying"? It sure looks from this statement that Sarah Obama was being shut up, and other people were speaking in her place. Not very reassuring!!! 97.120.31.14 (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I will add the next part of the statement by McRae: http://www.politifact.com/letter-from-bishop-ron-mcrae/ "The only portion of the conversation and questioning that Sarah was allowed to respond to me about was the initial question if she was present when Barack Obama was born in Kenya. To that question she clearly responded twice, that Barack Obama was born in Mombassa, Kenya and that she was present when he was born. " [end of partial quote] Tell us again how Sarah Obama "clarified" what she previously said. SOMEBODY "clarified" her statements, but that somebody wasn't Sarah Obama!!! 97.120.31.14 (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Notice the article from Salon, at http://www.salon.com/2009/07/24/liddy/ "In that interview, Sarah Obama does in fact say at one point that she was there for her grandson’s birth. But that was a mistake, a confusion in translation. As soon as a jubilant McRae began to press her for further details about her grandson being born in Kenya, the family realized the mistake and corrected him. And corrected him. And corrected him. (The audio is available for download here.)" [end of quote] Read it carefully. THE FAMILY REALIZED THE MISTAKE. Not "Sarah Obama realized the mistake". That, at least, seems to be a valid interpretation of what actually happened. Above, Weazie claimed: "In any event, the reliable sources cited all say that Sarah Obama clarified her original statement; no reliable source says she "accepted" someone else's "correction". " Sorry, but this Salon article clearly shows Weazie to be quite wrong in his assertion. Further, I did a Google search for '"Sarah Obama" clarified birth', and looked through many pages of results. I didn't see the results that Weazie indicates ought to exist: Results which contain statements where Sarah Obama (HERSELF!!! not merely her family, or others) "clarified" what she had meant. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The second sentence, of the paragraph, "Obama's paternal step-grandmother's version of events", states: "The McClatchy newspapers gave an explanation of how the story about Obama's step-grandmother began. The tape is cut off in the middle of the conversation, before the passage in which she clarifies her meaning: "'Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America,' the translator says after talking to the woman. ... Another response later says, 'Obama in Hawaii. Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii.'"[74]" [end of quote]. A somewhat more complete version of this requires use of the Internet's "Wayback Machine": [quote begins] Despite Bergs assertions, the response didnt actually confirm a birth in Kenya. Moreover, a longer version of the tape shows the elder Obama decidedly denying a Kenyan birth immediately after the first tape was cut off. "I would like to go by the place, the hospital where he was born. Can you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?" McRae is heard asking. "Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America," the translator says after talking to the woman. "I thought he was born in Kenya," McRae asks again. "He was born in America, not in Mombasa," says the response. Another response later says, "Obama in Hawaii. Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii." Still, the charge has spread despite no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya and compelling evidence that he was born in Hawaii." [end of quote]. However, seeing this makes it clear that this is a false and misrepresented use of the article. The statements implicitly attributed to Sarah Obama were NOT actually HER response to McRae's questions. They were merely the statements of others, including Sarah Obama's family. The misleading part includes the references to the "response", above. The response? By whom? The implication is that these were Sarah Obama's responses, but that is apparently not true. Armed by McRae's own statement, it is clear that Sarah Obama's involvement had ceased after she twice claimed to have been present at Barack Obama's (jr) birth. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Concur with Escape Orbit: Multiple reliable sources (of which WND is not) have expressly rejected this claim; this article accurately represents what these sources say. (And the accusations of the "bias" of these reliable sources should be directed to those sources, and not Wikipedia.) The effort it takes to deconstruct both the letter and the spirit of these reliable sources to come to a conclusion contrary to their obvious theses would constitute (to be very charitable) impermissible original research and synthesis. Weazie (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, go ahead and cite the "multiple reliable sources" which, you claim "have expressly rejected this claim". And cite the statements which, you assert, evidence that they have "expressly rejected this claim". As with the Salon article, I think you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature of such statements, to get to your desired outcome. You are obviously trying to manipulate falsity and turn it into "truth". I am simply going to the very sources that others are themselves citing, and showing the serious errors and inconsistencies that they contain. Stop trying to defend your preferred outcome. I'm in this for the truth, not to protect an ex-politician's reputation. You also need to explain why WND isn't a "reliable source". Merely because you disagree with the political philosophy often presented there? 97.120.31.14 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The multiple reliable sources are the ones cited in this article, which is why this article says what it does. You are free to think that a Salon article titled No, Obama's grandmother didn't say he was born in Kenya actually says the opposite. As for WND, Wikipedia has a reliable-sources noticeboard; the reliability of WND has been repeatedly discussed -- and rejected -- there. --Weazie (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes, headlines and articles contradict.

Weazie claimed:

I added yet another source for the first paragraph, which was just an introduction for the remainder of the section. In any event, the reliable sources cited all say that Sarah Obama clarified her original statement; no reliable source says she "accepted" someone else's "correction". And, as this article notes, in 2012 she again stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. As this article accurately conveys what multiple reliable sources actually say, I anticipate the attempt to so "correct" this article will be reverted. (And, yes, the article has semi-protection -- for around another year due to persistent vandalism.) Weazie (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice that Weazie said, "the reliable sources cited ALL say..." Other than the Salon cite, which contains its own internal contradictions, he fails and refuses to identify which other cites actually say that Sarah Obama clarified her original statement. Some may say, as does Salon, that her family clarified, but again, I see no cite which actually shows how Sarah Obama herself did that "clarification". Weazie, since you clearly show that you WP:OWN this article, it is your responsibility to make sure it is accurate. Don't just vaguely say there are other sources; name them specifically. Or give up. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Weazie also said:

The multiple reliable sources are the ones cited in this article, which is why this article says what it does. You are free to think that a Salon article titled No, Obama's grandmother didn't say he was born in Kenya actually says the opposite. --Weazie (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it says the opposite. It clearly says: "MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya? OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born."

And I suppose that you will claim that Mark Antony was criticizing Julius Caesar when he gave that famous speech which began: "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." https://www.presentationmagazine.com/famous-speeches-friends-romans-countrymen-11673.htm 97.120.31.14 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, the talk page is not a forum, and there's no edit request pending. --Weazie (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi

Note: I've semiprotected this page for a couple of weeks because of the persistent WP:BLP and WP:SOAP violations. I apologize to the non-disruptive IPs who might have wanted to post here. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC).

I am proposing an edit based on the following paragraphs from Salon and Politifact

Non-actionable proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk • contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From: http://www.salon.com/2009/07/24/liddy/ "In that interview, Sarah Obama does in fact say at one point that she was there for her grandson’s birth. But that was a mistake, a confusion in translation. As soon as a jubilant McRae began to press her for further details about her grandson being born in Kenya, the family realized the mistake and corrected him. And corrected him. And corrected him." However, the claim that this was "a mistake, a confusion in translation", is unsupported, so I will also quote McRae, whose statement was included and published by Politifact, and is thus from a seemingly reliable source. The Salon quote itself makes clear that "the family realized the mistake", not Sarah Obama, "and corrected him". Sarah Obama didn't "correct" McRae. Her family did. And cited by Politifact, http://www.politifact.com/letter-from-bishop-ron-mcrae/ "The question that I asked Sarah, was repeated to her twice, and both times she adamantly answered very proudly that yes she was present in Mombassa, Kenya when Barack Obama was born. Upon Sarah’s two admissions to having been present when Barach Obama was born in Kenya, her step grandson realizes the seriousness of his grandmother’s response and immediately begins to respond to the contrary, while moving his hand towards his grandmother’s mouth to silence her from saying anything further, while he tries to answer my pointed questions himself and correct what his grandmother has revealed. [...] All of my subsequent questions concerning Obama’s birth were not translated to Sarah, but the step grandson insisted on replying immediately to me himself in English, while continuing to move his hand towards Sarah’s mouth motioning her to be quite [sic]." Importantly, and while misleadingly, Politifact in 2011 was clearly and repeatedly referring to the truncated version of the audio, the audio which is cut off immediately after Sarah Obama twice claimed Barack was born in Kenya, and was commonly cited for the principle that Sarah Obama said Barack was born in Kenya. Politifact goes on to say that it was _TRUMP'S_ claim which was false, in 2011, not the original assertion by McRae, in 2008. While I assert that Politifact's assertion was in itself false, because it contradicted what Sarah Obama had actually said, Politifact was clearly referring to the truncated audio promoted in 2011, claimed it to be misleading, and not the underlying issue, the full and complete audio from McRae's Oct 16, 2008 interview. While I agree that the version with the truncated audio should have been augmented with the material that came afterwards, that does not in itself mean that the claim Trump made was "false". It was, at most, a portion of the truth that would arguably have benefited from the extra audio material to understand the context. The Wikipedia article now doesn't mention the connection to Trump when it states, " An incorrect but popularly reported claim is that his father's stepmother, Sarah Obama, told Anabaptist Bishop Ron McRae in a recorded transatlantic telephone conversation that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya." Therefore, it is highly improper to use Politifact's reference to Trump's statement in 2011, "false", to explicitly or implicitly apply broadly to anyone who employs or refers to McRae's full interview and 2008 thesis. But nevertheless, that is what this WP article misleadingly does. As stated at the end of Politifact's 2011 article, "Anyone who listens to the tape of the phone conversation with Sarah Obama can hear how tightly you need to edit this interview to present it as evidence of a presidential cover-up." This implicitly indicates that Politifact was complaining about THAT editing, not McRae's unedited position. Some people, in 2011, were apparently editing it tightly. But not McRae, and not in 2008. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Among the considerations for an edit request is specificity, e.g., "Change [X] to [Y]"; "remove [Z]"; "add [A] as a citation in support of ....". The only specific request above is to not use this Politifact article as a source. Which is easy enough to do because the "Obama's paternal step-grandmother's version of events" section cites two Salon articles, a McClatchy article, and a Hartford Courant article; it does not cite that Politifact article. So that "request" is already in the article. The rest is a discussion about the topic, but, again, the talk page is not a forum. --Weazie (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparently you feel that you are an expert in avoiding the issues I raise. Try not to Wikilawyer this issue. Go back and actually address them, or at least don't obstruct other people's efforts along those lines. If nobody else is inclined to oppose my suggestion, I propose that you are merely attempting to be obstructionist. I am suggesting, for example, that the content of the Politifact article is being misrepresented: (It does not challenge McRae's fundamental assertions about what Sarah Obama said; rather, it challenges the truncation of the interview with Sarah Obama, three years later, apparently for being misleading.) I have given a good example of arguments as to why that is true. You haven't challenged them. One possibility, as you seem to suggest, is to not cite that Politifact article, at all. That is not what I am proposing, however. It is an excellent, seemingly Reliable Source that shows (along with its cite of McRae's letter) that Sarah Obama did not correct herself, at least as far as we can see, in regards to the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Her relatives not merely corrected her, they also tried to shut her up, before she made matters much worse. (However, in June 2012, in a different citation, she had gotten the message and knew what to say.) In an ordinary legal case, in a civil courtroom, this would be enormously revelatory as to their motives and honesty. The proper legal terminology is "impeaching the witness": Showing that the witness lied, or made contradictory statements before or after, or show that somebody tampered with that witness. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor johnuniq is trying to conceal my attempt to discuss an edit to the article, by means of reverting a large amount of discussion, above. This amounts to highly improper manipulation of the WP article-editing process. Some people apparently want to prevent the main article from being edited, and their line of defense includes protection of the article itself from valid edits. That left the Talk page, which I have attempted to use to discuss the issue. Then, they move the goalposts once again, claiming that there must be a proposal for an edit. However, such proposals don't necessary appear out of thin air; their contents can and should be discussed. So, I discuss those issues. At that point, the goalposts shift again, saying that there has to be a "specific proposal". Oh, really? This wild abuse of the WP system is outrageous and thoroughly disgusting. I will initiate a complaint to WP:ANI, since it is clearly warranted now. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Aren't these(probably) tabloid website?208.114.45.44 (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you specify which sources cited in this article might not be reliable? --Weazie (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What does a prospective candidate tell election officials about citizenship?

This page is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

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.

Significant to “birther” is the question of what citizenship credentials a candidate for president must supply to the Federal Election Commission when registering, if any. As far as I can tell from the basic form one submits, none are required. Form 2 doesn’t ask about citizenship, but about the candidate’s campaign committees, each of which fills out Form 1. Most material on FEC’s web site relates to campaign finance.

Of course, the candidate must file for ballot access in each state as well. In the states I’ve looked at, the query covers party certification or, absent this, petition signatures but not proof of identity or citizenship. In Utah, for instance, candidates (or their agents) declare in person at the Lieutenant Governor’s office on specified dates. It does not seem a special form is filled out for this; rather a written statement from the candidate of intent to run is submitted along with the letter from the party or completed petition. Presumably the Lieutenant Governor could ask verbally about citizenship at this time, or the candidate affirms eligible status on the written statement, although I don’t know if this is the case. See

Hence it’s not obvious to me that candidates need be who they say they are, the candidate screening process instead reliant upon outsiders challenging a candidate’s constitutional eligibility if it is in doubt. A rational basis for a controversy such as “birther,” even if one does not credit Obama’s detractors, therefore arises. A section on these requirements would improve the article. Jessegalebaker (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This point really says nothing about birtherism, other than demonstrating that few candidates prior to Obama were ever pushed to prove their citizenship, and none to this degree.
It turns out that for 2012, the Secretaries of State of at least two states did ask for and receive proof of Obama's citizenship. Not to mention that prior to the 2008 election Obama's campaign did show the standard proof of birth that all people born in Hawaii would have been given at that time.
If this article were "let's relitigate birtherism," I could see maybe adding this, but it's not, so no.--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Lede

In the first sentence the word falsely should be removed. It's too biased a word to be included and tries to influence the reader rather than allowing the reader their own conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCDE:C180:F1BF:AF90:3169:721E (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. The facts are clear, and we're obliged to keep to the facts (actual facts, not "alternative facts"). --18:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
I agree, as far as substituting “During Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for president and subsequently, a series of challenges were brought, most from members of the Republican Party, asserting incorrectly that he was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and therefore ineligible for the presidency under Article Two of the US constitution. This affair rapidly generated a body of conspiracy theories on the Internet, where they were picked up by American news agencies, including Fox News” for what actually appears in the article. Obama’s birth status is not in question today, having been settled by 2011 when related litigation had been dismissed and Obama had published copies of his birth records. John McCain did not object to the election as we might expect had a foreign birth been likely.
However, while many of the challenges were malicious, it’s far from certain all were, especially among the earliest of them. Nor can we call it an irrelevant question: The electoral process in the USA does not explicitly provide for verification of identity. A reference to the Wiki article, Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation, is appropriate somewhere in the paragraph, as the issue went to court. Jessegalebaker (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
It isn't definitive to claim that "John McCain did not object to the election as we might expect had a foreign birth been likely.". The person who wrote that might not have realized that John McCain, himself, had been born in the Panama Canal Zone, at that time perhaps it was called an American territory by treaty. The U.S. Constitution doesn't define what a "natural born American citizen" is, and whether a person must be born within the 50 American states to qualify for that label, or not. Even in 1964, the Republican Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, had been born in Arizona TERRITORY, in 1909, a few years before Arizona became an American State. Would that have qualified? What were the rules for determining if a person was a "natural-born citizen"? It would have been somewhat odd for John McCain to have been the one initiating such a challenge, therefore, in 2008. If a challenge were made, it could logically have come from any American citizen, as they would all be affected by the answer to the question. Also, I have to question your statement, "while many of the challenges were malicious". What, in your mind, is a "malicious challenge"? What about a challenge to a potential candidate's qualifications for holding that job becomes "malicious"? Are you suggesting that a challenge to Obama's citizenship made by, for example, a Democrat is okay, while if challenged by a Republican is somehow "malicious"? 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Larry Klayman

TL;DR: Klayman should be included, but not in his own section. Klayman's support for these conspiracy theories is well documented by reliable sources; he should be included in the "notable" list. My only concern is exactly where, as the list of proponents worthy of a separate third-level section was intended to be limited to only elected politicians. There appears to be some "creep," as Tracey Mann was only a candidate (never elected), and Andy Martin is a perennial candidate (also never elected). This article's conspiracy theories, however, were part of their campaigns, whereas Klayman's only candidacy pre-dated these conspiracy theories. --Weazie (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a third level should be labeled Other notables.Phmoreno (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The issue is the sourcing; we shouldn't be sourcing wild, absurd, false claims about living people to the YouTube channels of people making those claims. We should find a reliable secondary source which discusses Klayman's nuttery. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Klayman was in the youtube video; it was Klayman himself making the "wild, absurd, false claims". Regardless, I swapped in a better source. I also moved the Klayman reference into the section's (now) second paragraph. --Weazie (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but we can't use self-published YouTube videos as a source for negative claims about living people — the principle is that if the claims aren't notable enough to be republished in reliable secondary sources, they aren't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
That is nonsense in this case where the person is making the claim himself.Phmoreno (talk)
It's not nonsense; please see the biographies of living persons policy. If a claim about a living person can't be found in a reliable secondary source, the claim is not important or notable enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see #Using the subject as a self-published source). A person's own YouTube video is not a reliable secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Regardless,there are secondary sources.Phmoreno (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The above comment is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. At least try to engage with points raised to demonstrate a basic ability to comprehend written advice. What secondary sources have chosen to write about the issue in a manner suggesting that an encyclopedic article should record the claim? Johnuniq (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

...we shouldn't be sourcing wild, absurd, false claims about living people...

No, we're not using an unreliable source about someone, we are using the person's own words, obviously spoken by himself. This is the highest and most verifiable form of reference.Phmoreno (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The subject of the article is Barack Obama, not Larry Klayman. Claims mentioned about Barack Obama must meet the the biographies of living persons policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
We need a good reliable source that isn't Klayman's own Youtube channel. This would demonstrate that Klayman's opinion of Obama is particularly relevant or notable in the context of this article. Otherwise, he's just another guy with an opinion. Save it for his own article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I've already replaced the youtube link with a link to a USN&WR article that discusses Klayman's advocacy. The policy discussions are interesting, but don't really belong here and, in any event, have been resolved with respect to this article. --Weazie (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing specific improvements to this article, not for general discussion of the topic Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As long as the original (not a copy) certificate in Hawaii has been forensically analyzed - paper, signatures, ink, etc then what is the problem? 2601:181:8301:4510:59A6:8182:936A:3F6C (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A challenge (albeit a partial, incomplete one) can be performed on a copy of a document. Remember that case from 2004 involving Dan Rather, called "Killian documents, where CBS news had been tricked into accepting the validity of documents ostensibly about George W Bush. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather Some people thought that those documents, ostensibly generated in the 1970's, looked okay and genuine. Turns out that they were actually forged, probably by printing off from Microsoft Word, and then repeatedly copying them in a copier machine a few times, helping to disguise their origins. Perhaps the first fatal clue was discovered to be inclusion of a small, raised suffix, perhaps is was "1st" or "2nd", with the "st" or "nd" raised. While it was eventually recalled that there might have been typewriters in that era capable of generating such a font, they were generally unavailable in the military at that time, and thus there was the realization was that the documents had indeed been forged. If the analysis of a copy reveals evidence of a forgery, then it is not necessary to analyze paper or ink, or other physical analyses, to reject the document. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither the original nor a copy can be analyzed because they have not been produced because they do not exist. If they did, none of this discussion would be necessary. What has been produced is not a copy of the original as is obvious when compared with birth certificates generated on the same day which are posted on the internet.True Observer (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Jzg, according to what WP guideline should secondary sources not be used? The Politico ref seems particularly important to keep, otherwise we have an unreferenced blurb about a billboard, which itself should be removed if it can't be sourced. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Only if they are reliable, independent and secondary. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"racially conservative"

user:UpdateNerd, what exactly does the phrase "racially conservative" mean? (diff) Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It was part of a quote, and I agree it's unclear, so I reworded it based on "racial resentment" being included as a keyword on the source page. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the source since it is primary and in a field smack dab in the center of the replication crisis; trying to agree how to summarize it without agreeing that we should even be citing it, is premature. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed research by recognized experts are the best sources. Your view that peer-reviewed research shouldn't be cited because of the "replication crisis" is absurd... just completely utterly absurd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
yes expert works are great -- expert works that are summarizing knowledge, not publishing new work. This is a primary sources and not at all the kind of thing we should be going after. We have no idea if this work will be replicable or accepted in its field. (The replication crisis is a real thing and is just external validation of our basic policies; we shouldn't get hung up on it). Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Snooganssnoogans. Although primary "peer-reviewed"-style sources shouldn't be the main ones used, they are still good to include for balance, while making it clear what sources the potentially controversial views reflect. Putting "racially resentful" in quotes would be better, although I'm not sure it appeared that way in the body of the cited article. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The study is published in a reputable journal by recognized experts and has been peer-reviewed. Whatever unspecified beef you have with political science or science in general has nothing to do with this content or Wikipedia policy. Should we start a RS noticeboard discussion that goes along the lines of "Can we cite peer-reviewed research in reputable journals by Duke and Uni of Michigan political scientists on Wikipedia?"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure we can take this to RSN. But that is a non-neutral statement of the question. Before we take this to a board, let's see if we at least agree that this is a primary source.. do we? Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The way to word this content is "white Republicans who hold racial animus and are politically knowledgable are the most likely to believe conspiracy theories about Obama's birthplace." I.e. the study says that white Republicans who are racist and who pay attention to politics believe birther conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I am still baffled by the "racially conservative" term. I emailed the authors to see where it comes from -- it is used only in the abstract and summary, and is definitely standing in for "racial animus" and "racial resentment". Such a weird... euphemism? It kind of makes my head explode. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
It's political science for "racist". Same with "racial resentment". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
That was my interpretation too; it's a politically correct (while probably more offensive) term. If the content is included—which I don't have specific strong feelings about—it should be phrased as the results of a study, not as an assumed fact as Snooganssnoogans' wording implies. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll let you know if she emails me back and in the meantime will do some looking. So strange. (this is now just a matter of curiosity since no one is arguing to use it anymore) But yes, if we are going to cite this, we should attribute. That was a good move. Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd definitely be interested to hear what you find out if you get a reply. One way to incorporate the information is to include it in just the body, but not the lead. That would be a fair way to balance it; it's at least as valuable as much of the body, but unless it gets widely reported by secondary sources, it shouldn't be in the lead. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There is often hype in popular media when a primary source from academia is published (this happens all the time in health and medicine and sociology too - the famous When contact changes minds paper for example... that is not the kind of secondary source that we want for scientific/sociological work like this paper. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
If the article's conclusion really just is, "Birthers are racist Republicans who follow current events," then I'm not sure it is really adding anything (other than confusion). --Weazie (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah and their definition of "politically knowledgable" was how many of 10 questions about politics someone was able to answer correctly - people were rated 1 to 10 based on how many they got right. They don't say what the questions were.Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone read the actual article? --Weazie (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I added it and read it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I read it and can send it to anybody who wants it. Just email me. Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Categorization

Would it not be appropriate to place this page in Category:Anti-black racism in the United States? Is there really any doubt in anyone's minds that the Birther movement wasn't rooted in the long-standing racism towards Black people that has existed in the United States for centuries? Peadar Ó Croidheáin (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Added a new Q/A to the FAQ on use of "false" to describe claims

Since this just got asked again (in an edit comment), and it is indeed a frequently asked question, I added a question to the FAQ about whether the use of "false" is appropriate.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It's rather improper to suggest that every possible theory must definitely be false, regardless of future finding of evidence, or eventual studying of unanalyzed documents. Bias is clearly at work. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Our rules on Neutral Point of View do not constitute an intellectual suicide pact. The overwhelming evidence is that the claims are utterly false, and we should not pretend otherwise just because there are a few people who won't put down the stick. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
You say, "the claims". Which claims? Be specific. You seem to want to lump all such arguments together. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
All of them. Each and every one of them is as false as the last. It's turtles all the way down! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Also from the FAQ:
Q3: Can we discuss renaming the article or removing the "fringe" or "false" labeling?
A3: Yes. Consensus can change...
That does not seem to "suggest that every possible theory must definitely be false, regardless of future finding of evidence".--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Obama is no longer President so there is very little need to chat about an entry on the talk page of this article. Please make an actionable proposal to improve the article or move on. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I [implicitly] asked for input to a change I made to the FAQ, anon provided input, I responded. That seems to be an appropriate use of the talk page.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Archives?

We seem to be missing the customary links to the archives on this page, though there is a search-box. Can someone who knows how fix this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I added an archive box template. It now displays to the right of the TOC. —ADavidB 14:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Loretta Fuddy Death Conspiracy Theory

There is a theory out there concerning the death of Loretta Fuddy. I am not expert on the theory, but shouldn't such be included based on the title of this article. I ask because I came here looking for reliable details, and I found nothing. Link about her death:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/12/hawaii-obama-birth-certificate-fuddy/3996657/

Trump even got in on the fun with this tweet: "How amazing, the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama’s “birth certificate” died in plane crash today. All others lived"

Shouldn't this article be a place to debunk such things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhester (talk • contribs) 14:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Jwhester, please dig up some RS coverage of this conspiracy theory so we can make a decision on the matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories/Archive_18&oldid=1136548989"