Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Pat Boone and LA Times

How is Pat Boone's opinion on this matter in any way notable to this article? We're opening the door to serious coatrackery here if we start reprinting any error-riddled editorial that appears on non-WP:RS blogs like Newsmax. Can we also assume that every quip on this subject by Jon Stewart, Stephan Colbert, etc., should also be included in the article? Also, the out-of-context quotes pulled from the L.A. Times reporter's blog post completely misrepresent the point of that editorial. They seem to be there primarily to push a POV that is actually the opposite of what the author was saying. The editor who added this section seems quite willing to get into a revert war without discussion, so I'll leave it to other editors to remove or change that section, but I see no justification for its inclusion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a notable individual who holds the views discussed in the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times says it's notable, and the LA Times reporter wrote extensively about the Boone statement (which was lengthy and not just a brief remark). This article would be extremely slanted if we only mentioned bizarre wacko "conspiracy theorists" like Von Brunn, while deliberately omitting more credible figures. I supported including Von Brunn (see my comment above), and I support including Boone, for the reasons just described. I also don't appreciate the edit-warring and overreaching that can be seen in the article's recent edit history ("Barry" obviously refers to Obama rather than McCain).Ferrylodge (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have washed those particular love letters from the sand. Let's discuss potentially controversial new material before, rather than after, introducing it to the article. PhGustaf (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss, then discuss. Don't make yourself a part of the edit warring, hoping to bait Ferrylodge. Especially when there is an argument above that remains to be responded to. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you're seeking to add new material to an article (and that material is contentious as this clearly is) you have an obligation to discuss it before adding (rather than getting into a tag-team revert war). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Then dispute Ferrylodge's argument for inclusion. Continuously discussing procedure does not explain why the material should not be included. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The material in dispute should not be the least bit contentious. PhGustaf said in his edit summary that he doubts that the LA Times blog is a reliable source. That is incorrect, per WP:RS: "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a 'blog' style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more 'traditional' 20th-century format of a classic news story." It was equally incorrect for LoonyMonkey to assert in his edit summary that "Barry" refers to McCain instead of Obama. That is just a continuation of bad editing at this article.

PhGustaf evidently disagrees with the LA Times about the notability of Boone, and PhGustaf evidently thinks that only complete wackos like Von Brunn are notable in this context. Correct?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently the Campaigners section discusses only persons and organizations, who have been influential leaders of the Birther movement (Berg, Keyes, WND etc) and those, like James von Brunn, who have been cited (by multiple reliable sources) as representative of the radical right element. Boone does not fall in either of those categories, but I see no reason why we cannot have one-two sentence list of generally notable persons who have lent their name to the movement, even if they have not been particularly central to it. Of course, we should only list those persons whose support has been noted by secondary sources and the the discussion should be weighted in concordance with their relevance to the topic of this article. Are there any other celebrities besides Boone whom we can/should list ? (Lets please discuss this and arrive at a draft on the talk page instead of edit-warring.) Abecedare (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What are the multiple sources that link Von Brunn to the birth certificate issue? If writing a full length op/ed in News Max isn't campaigning, then I don't know what is.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to find related sources for you (although a simple Google news search should suffice.), but that discussion should be in another section in order not to mix up issues. Abecedare (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sourcing shouldn't be the issue here, let's get off that red herring. "Its sourced so it MUST go into the article!" is a line of argument that has been seen all to often in the Obama-related articles of late, and it is getting rather tiring. The issue here is...Pat Boone. Pat Boone is musician. What qualifies him to speak to constitutional matters? He is just a private citizen speaking his opinion, and only the fact that he is famous gets his words quoted by the likes of the LA Times, and trumpeted by unreliable sources like Newsmax. This is the epitome of irrelevance. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We leave it to reliable sources to assess notability. That's not our job. Reagan was a B-movie actor, but some people considered him notable. You don't need to be a constitutional law scholar to be cited in this article, do you? The LA Times has just said that Obama has not released his birth certificate, and you all are trying to cover it up. Why? If the "Birthers" are full of c**p then let it all hang out. Don't start censoring, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at all the lists of endorsements of Barack Obama's campaign. Should they be removed because their opinion is "irrelevant"?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets not compare different wikipedia articles, and lets concenterate on content and sources for this article. Abecedare (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec, possibly not responsive to all of above) The opinion of a blogger employed by the LA Times is not the opinion of the LA Times: that would be on the paper's editorial page. Everything Herb Caen wrote was not the opinion of the Chronicle. But a single mention of an eldering pop star in what's essentially an opinion column is insufficient for notability. Actually, I'm only fifty-fifty about Von Brunn's notability, too, but it got more coverage, and birthery seems more relevant to him than to Boone. The Boone request is purely and simply trivial. PhGustaf (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that Boone played only a peripheral role in the movement and that a paragraph long description of his claims would be undue. But would you be opposed to adding somthing like, "Other celebrities like Pat Boone, X, Y, ... also wrote editorials or supported the Birther campaign". Of course the sentence would nbeed to be reworded and the a better term than celebrity chosen, but you get the idea. Abecedare (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like in your view, all supporting views should be removed, regardless of reliable sources. It has already been explained that the LA Times Blog is a reliable source. It is simply your opinion (which you cannot explain with evidence) that it is trivial. Barack Obama's endorsements by similar individuals are trivial as well, correct? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please AGF ? Abecedare (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do I assume bad faith? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "It looks like in your view, all supporting views should be removed, regardless of reliable sources." Best not to characterize other editors views in plain black-and-white hyperbolic terms. Lets move on, though. Abecedare (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an observation. And a correct one based on their above statements. I stand by it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, I'm afraid that perhaps you yourself may be characterizing things in plain black-and-white hyperbolic terms. The recently removed material contained not just views of Pat Boone, but also additional reporting by the LA Times. So, let's not make it seem like it was all about the view of Pat Boone, okay? If that was the aim, then we could have just included the link to Newsmax. For example, the removed material included the assessment by the LA Times that Obama has not released his certificate, and that he would be eligible regardless of where he was born. Those are facts reported by the LA Times, independently of Boone, and they have been deleted.The LA Times blog has already been cited as a reliable source in this Wikipedia article, so I don't see why it's suddenly become unreliable.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This would be a good time, then, for you to propose an alternative, bearing in mind that Newsmax is no good as a source. PhGustaf (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the first sentence was above my comprehension, since I don't know what you think I am characterizing. :-)

As for the rest: I am supporting the mention of Pat Boone along with other celebrities (if we can find sources for such a list). I thought that was the topic of this section. If I am mistaken, perhaps it would be better to start another section about the "additional reporting by the LA Times" that you mention, so that other editors are not similarly confused. The additional material would not belong in the Campaigners section anyway, right ? Abecedare (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't name this talk page section, of course, and I've just now fixed the heading. The LA Times info is linked with Boone, so I don't see why they can't be together in a single paragraph. Moreover, some sources (e.g. NewsMax) may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. Isn't NewsMax reliable for Boone's opinion? See WP:RS.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Why is "assessment by the LA Times that Obama has not released his certificate, and that he would be eligible regardless of where he was born" inextricably linked with Boone ? Such information would logically belong in Citizenship facts, rumors and claims section. The Campaigners section discusses the central personalities in the Birther movement, and is not a detailed debunking of their argument. Abecedare (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As for Newsmax: Since I believe LA Times blogs are reliable source, that question is moot. I have no problem to linking to Newsmax as a convenience link either (just as we link to court filings and judgments, even though we cannot use them as sources directly). Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Here's the removed material:

In June 2009, entertainer Pat Boone asked Obama to release his birth certificate. See Boone, Pat. “Mr. Obama, Show Us Your Birth Certificate,” Newsmax (2009-06-29). In response to Boone, reporter Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times referred to “the certificate of live birth provided by the Obama staff a year ago, even though technically that's not a birth certificate.” Malcolm also said, "here we go again on the Barack Obama birth certificate controversy that just won't die because it's one of those zombie issues like who really killed JFK." Malcolm added that, in any event, Obama’s mother “could have been on Mars when wee Barry emerged and he'd still be American.” Malcolm, Andrew. “More questions about Barack Obama's birth certificate, still,” Los Angeles Times Blog (2009-06-30).

This seemed to me like a nice cohesive paragraph. The LA Times blog is considered by Wikipedia a reliable source, and even NewMax is a reliable source (not for facts but for the opinions of the authors). Anyway, if you think there's a better way to do this, Abecedare, then please by all means be bold and give it a try. I suppose you could juxtapose the assertion about being born on Mars with Volokh's opinion about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You are, again, missing the point. Reliable sourcing is not the issue. Pat Boone being quoted by the Times about the Birther stuff doesn't mean that that is automatic certification for inclusion in an article. Lindsay Lohan commented on the Palins last fall. When shall we put her opinions into Public image of Sarah Palin? Tarc (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, again, you are not acknowledging that there is more involved here than just Pat Boone's opinion. The LA Times is saying that Obama has not released his birth certificate, and is also saying that he would be eligible even if Obama were born abroad. The LA Times piece is entirely 100% about the birth certificate issue, and you're saying we should not mention it? As for Boone, I don't see the harm in a brief mention here; after all, we mention complete wackos like Brunn, so why not someone more credible? Someone who has not merely made a brief remark but rather has devoted an entire column to the issue? Someone whom the LA Times felt worthy of response?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(after ec, as usual) OK, I'll eschew from critiquing the above paragraph (unless asked :-)), and make a positive suggestions instead:

Add a sentence in the Campaigners section on the lines of "Some prominent figures like Pat Boone, X, Y, Z, wrote editorials and campaigned for the Birther movement". To be copyedited, especially as it would be best to avoid overuse of the term "Birther"; and X Y Z needs to be spelled out (see subsection below).
Add a sentence in the Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii section, "Andrew Malcolm, of the LA Times, has argued that Obama would be eligible for presidency, because his mother was an American citizen, irrespective of ~~whether~~ where he was born, saying, "“could have been on Mars when wee Barry emerged and he'd still be American.”. (to be copyedited; of course the Mars quote is a bit gratuitous ... but fun)

The difference between the Certificate of Live Birth and birth certificate has already been spelled out in significant detail in our article, so I don't see what is to be added in that regard. I am wary of being bold and setting off another editwar; lets get some basic agreement in place first. Comments ? Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That generally seems okay, but I hope you'll try to be chronological. The Boone thing is significant not so much because it happened, but because it happened in July 2009. Also, we already mention Volokh's opinion about eligibility if born outside the U.S., so I'd recommend juxtaposing the LA Times assessment about the same issue. Regarding the birth certificate thing, the LA Times put it nicely: Obama hasn't "technically" released it, and this phraseology seems interesting and something I hope we do not lose.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I have to run now. Later.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, some agreement at last.

By chronological do you mean, "In July 2009 ..." etc. That is fine with me; the final crafting is best done once we have nailed down X Y Z (unless there are no such persons), so that we don't end up giving a single editorial by Boone undue weight.

Also, can you point me to the Volokh's opinion in the article ? Will save me from searching for it.

Finally, the LA Times, doesn't say that Obama hasn't "technically" released the BC, but that the COLB isn't technically the BC. I thought that was undisputed, isn't it ? Abecedare (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"In July 2009" would be fine. Also, there are no more XYZ as far as I know, and anyway the article already mentions plenty of people who question eligibility so I'm not sure why you need more. As for Volokh, it's easiest for you to just press "Ctrl F" on your keyboard and then type "Volokh". And no, it's not undisputed that the COLB isn't technically the BC (e.g. we have a blockquote in the article discussing "the birth certificate he released").Ferrylodge (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I had searched for Volokh, but didn't realize that "Congress cannot retroactively ... is currently in place." addressed the if-born-outside-US case until I read the referenced sources! IMO the sentences are poorly phrased and I'll try to rephrase them tomorrow and move them to the Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii section, where they seem to be more relevant. I agree that Volokh's opinion should be contrasted with (and arguably carries more weight) than Andrew Malcolm's analysis.

Let me sleep over the Boone sentence and get back within the next 24 hours. Would that be okay ? Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. You're right that the Volokh stuff needs some work.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer Tarc's analogy: Many prominent people have expressed opinions about Sarah Palin, pro and con, so there's no reason to try to list them all in an article about Palin (even in the daughter article about her image). By contrast, this article is about a fringe theory, one that gets comparatively little attention from the mainstream media. In describing a fringe theory, it can be relevant to identify the sole such person (or handful of such persons) to have publicly signed on. Therefore, I'd say a mention of Pat Boone's statement is appropriate. On the other hand, I don't see any reason to mention Malcolm's views. He's apparently just some run-of-the-mill reporter. (Andrew Malcolm is a blue link only because of a completely different person.) The Birthers are presumably happy that Malcolm opined that Obama hadn't released his birth certificate, and their opponents are presumably happy that Malcolm opined that Obama was eligible even if born on Mars, but Malcolm has neither the prominence nor the expertise to make his opinions worth including in this article. JamesMLane t c 10:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that an old pop musician's opinion matters or is relevant to the topic, it just smacks of trivia. I'm all for adding any politician, or any Orly-type that has pursued actual legal filings, and the like. But a list of people who weigh in on the birth certificate issue, whose words are picked up just because they are famous/notable for completely unrelated things. Boone pens occasional articles for WND on a variety of political issues, but since WND is un-reliable sourcing, he should not be considered for inclusion from that angle. It could warrant a mention in Pat Boone#Politics perhaps. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is as much a cultural phenomenom as a political one, and Pat Boone has long represented a certain important strain of American culture. If Boone's on board with the birthers, that's worthy of note here. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)James, about 85% of the authors listed in the footnotes are not blue-linked. So what? The more pertinent question is whether the Los Angeles Times is blue-linked.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) To clear up a couple of misperceptions, Ferrylodge, you keep referring to the Malcolm blog post as "the L.A. Times" or saying "the L.A. Times said....." No, the L.A. Times did NOT say this. That would imply that they actually reported this in a news story. No, a commentator for the L.A. Times posted an opinion editorial on the the L.A. Times blog. I'm not arguing that the LAT blog isn't a RS, it's more basic than that. We don't use opinion pieces as sources for factual information, particularly about living people. This is well-established and not subject to argument. Also, the out-of context quotes, as added, were designed not to help the article by reflecting on Boone's essay. Otherwise you wouldn't have stripped out the very derisive tone he took with Boone in favor of a couple of out-of-context quotes about Obama. Rather, by your own admission, you put it in there because it is "notable the LA Times is saying the Pres. has not released his birth certificate." (again, the LA Times said no such thing, one guy did in an opinion piece on the LAT blog that we've already established contains at least one other factual error).

As for Boone, we shouldn't confuse his own notability with his notability to the article. Yes, he's a notable person and has an article, but that doesn't mean that if he said "I love New York" we would edit the New York article to say "Pat Boone loves this town." That said, I have no problem mentioning Boone's editorial as long as we keep in mind that it's riddled with errors and comes from an unreliable source so it should not be used to establish anything other than Boone's opinion. But using that editorial as a backdoor to try to claim that the LA Times is saying that Obama has not released his birth certificate is absolutely out of the question under WP:RS and WP:BLP guidelines. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as Loonymonkey in dismissing Malcolm. If a reputable publication like the Los Angeles Times maintains a website, and one of its staff reporters has a blog- or opinion-type piece on the website, and in that piece the reporter says something like "I attended the Birther rally and heard Fabian say thus-and-such," I'd be willing to accept that as a valid source for the assertion about what Fabian's opinion is. The issue here, though, isn't Fabian's opinion or Pat Boone's, but Malcolm's. We report facts about opinions but only about prominent opinions. There's no reason to report Malcolm's opinions about Obama's eligibility or related subjects. What Ferrylodge misses is that the 85% non-blue-linked authors aren't being cited for their opinions, but for their reports of facts.

As for Boone, many celebrities have expressed admiration for New York, so one more isn't particularly important to that topic. Few celebrities, however, have expressed support for the Birthers. Boone isn't all that big of a fish but he's in an extremely small pond. Loonymonkey agrees with mentioning Boone's view, and a mention is all I was supporting anyway. JamesMLane t c 18:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times piece reported facts, with some opinion mixed in. To say that it was 100% opinion is incorrect. And in any event, opinion from the LA Times is often notable. The lede of this Wikipedia article contains more opinion than the entire LA Times piece, by the way.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times piece mostly mocked Boone, his politics, and his shoes. The birth certificate was mentioned only in passing. Extracting that one bit as if it were the point of the article is CHERRY at best. PhGustaf (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the LA Times piece was mocking Boone, and that was captured too in the material that has been removed from this arrticle: "here we go again on the Barack Obama birth certificate controversy that just won't die because it's one of those zombie issues like who really killed JFK." I supported inclusion of that, and restored it to the present article. I think the main problem here is that some editors want to make sure that no halfway respectable source is cited asserting that Obama has not released his birth certificate. The LA Times piece asserts that, and Boone asserts that too. Better to only tell people that maniacs like Von Brunn are saying it? In case anyone missed it, I am explicitly assuming bad faith here; at some point the evidence of same cannot be ignored, and WP:AGF does not require that it be ignored.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As promised yesterday, I have rephrased Volokh's opinion about if-born-outside-US-scenario for clarity and moved it to the Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii section, where I think it is most relevant. I have also added Malcolm's views on the issue. (diff). FWIW, I have no opinion on which order these two opinions should be presented; it was a coin-toss. Feel free to tweak my edit for clarity, grammar etc. On the other hand, if someone totally disagrees with the content itself, just revert my addition in toto and we can discuss it here on the talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Other prominent figures ?

Can other editors list any other ~~celebrities~~ prominent figures like Pat Boone who have written op-eds or participated explicitly in the Birther campaign, even though they might not be central figures ? As usual, we would need secondary sources to establish the notability of their participation. Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You suggested above a sentence of the form, "Pat Boone, Chubby Checker, and Fabian have indicated, in op-eds or press releases or on talk shows, that they believe Obama should release his long form birth certificate." That seems about the right weight. Three would be enough for a list. PhGustaf (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got interrupted by a lamb chop. The Mars bit is good too. PhGustaf (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll have to look up who those persons are, and we need to find sources ... but we seem to be on the right track. Lets do that over the next day and then add the sentences to the article. Abecedare (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, PhGustaf was pulling your leg about Chubby Checker and Fabian.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Now you see how gullible I can be, when it comes to conspiracy theories. :-) Abecedare (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this, now progress is being made.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If the opinion of Andrew Malcolm, or of anyone else, that Obama is a US citizen even if he was born outside of the US and its possessions is to come in, that opinion needs to be balanced by Obama's claimed birth date being August 4, 1961, by the fact that his mother (his only US citizen parent) was aged 18 at the time, and by the fact that US citizenship law on 24 December 1952 and prior to 14 November 1986 required that in order to transmit citizenship the US citizen parent must have had physical presence in U.S. or its possession for ten years, five years after age 14 (citing this in support of that last bit; other supporting cites could be found if the reliability of that one is considered questionable.). According to the Ann Dunham article, she was born on November 29, 1942. Her 14th birthday would have been November 29, 1956. Five years after her 14th birthday would have been November 29, 1961—not quite five months later than Obama's claimed birth date. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant, since Obama was born in Hawaii. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama's parentage

I just read the examiner.com interview of WND CEO Joseph Farah linked by Ferrylodge, in which he says (about Obama):

I'm not even sure we know who his real parents are.

I haven't seen any other prominent Birther questioning Obama's parentage before. Is this aspect worth mentioning in our article (perhaps in the Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii section) ? Has anyone seen any reliable third-party source discussing this theory ? Note that examiner.com is little more than a blog host, so I would be opposed to including this fringe theory based solely on that interview, i.e., unless there are better and complementary sources. Abecedare (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Another "prominent Birther"? See Andy_Martin_(U.S._politician)#Allegations_of_Obama.27s_father_being_Frank_Marshall_Davis. But, a reliable third party source? No.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious, but unfortunately (?) that wouldn't affect Obama's citizenship since Frank Marshall Davis was an American, so it would be irrelevant to this article. Of course, I haven't seen the CNN interview yet and may be missing some deep birther logic which proves otherwise... Abecedare (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, might it be relevant in the other direction? The Birther argument is that Obama's mother wasn't old enough to confer American citizenship by ius sanguinis, so that his eligibility depends on ius soli and his place of birth, and he's ineligible because he was born in Kenya. Davis as his father could undercut that. If ius sanguinis was at that time applied based on biological parentage regardless of marital status, then Davis's American citizenship would suffice to confer natural-born citizenship on Obama. The Davis-as-father theory would also eliminate the dual-citizenship argument for disqualifying Obama.

Unless the Davis issue is pursued more widely, I don't think it belongs in this article, but it's not completely irrelevant. JamesMLane t c 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole issue is pretty silly -- but you do raise an interesting point -- where there is a "legal father" doesn't Common Law state that there is no "other father"? Men who are "legal fathers" are not able to use a "biological father" arguement to get out of child support AFAIK -- so would not the "biological father" at the time only count if no "legal father" existed? At a quick search, I did not find a case on point where a child was a citizen due to a "biological father" being a citizen where there was a non-citizen "legal father". If such a case is out there, it would be highly interesting to read. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree—including about it perhaps not being completely irrelevant. However, there would need to be some RS support behind it even to show it as fringe speculation, and something on the order of a DNA comparison (very unlikely) would be needed to get closure on this. Is rawstory.com considered a reliable source, even for reporting that person A opined opinion X? They say here that their reporting has been referenced by the New York Times, the Guardian, L.A. Weekly, the New York Post, the Toronto Star, The Hill, Roll Call, the Salt Lake City Tribune and The Advocate; one wonders whether sources such as WND (considered unreliable here) are similarly referenced by major news organizations. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Tone of the article

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Right from the outset you can see that it is heavily biased against the "birthers." While this may be a legitimate position to take based on the evidence, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a political forum. Compare this with the neutral tone of the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

My friend mentioned to me the possibility that Obama might not have been born in Hawaii. I come onto Wikipedia to investigate the possibility and immediately I see politically charged language that suggests I am a loon for even seeking information on the issue. I thought the objective of Wikipedia was to disseminate accurate information? It is more than clear that this particular article has been hijacked by partisans much more interested in discrediting and ridiculing the "birthers" and their theories than presenting accurate information. I will certainly be researching the issue thoroughly, but clearly Wikipedia is anything but a reliable source on this particular issue. Really you need to read no further then the third or fourth sentence which suggests that everyone associated with the issue is "fringe." Really, I had no idea I was fringe for considering the possibility that he might not be born in the US worthy of research. There is clearly no purpose in reading any further if such politically charged garbage is permitted to exist so flagrantly.

Apparently Wikipedia believes Nazism deserves a neutral point of view, but a question of the eligibility of the POTUS... well anyone that mentions that is clearly "fringe".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi

Gregvs3 (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ding! Wasted Time R (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your point proves nothing. A controversial subject like Nazism, the most extreme example has NPOV, yet eligibility of the POTUS does not. The fact that you are aware of Godwin's Law does not invalidate my argument. Actually, since I did not call anyone a Nazi.... you clearly do NOT know what Godwin's Law is.

Gregvs3 (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a fairly inventive introduction of a Nazi analogy, I'll grant you that. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not helpful to discuss generalities of an article. If you disagree with something and have a better way to say it, I suggest doing that. However, if your point is to just complain that this article is not NPOV enough and post no examples with solutions, then this talk page is not the appropriate venue for it. There are a variety of forums that you can use to complain. Also, please expect to work towards a consensus for any change you would like to make. Brothejr (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

One does not need to literally say "you are like Hitler", it merely has to be "a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler", as the article indicates. Usually it is invoked to denote a point where a long conversation has deteriorated into pointlessness, but it is also applicable to someone who begins a conversation with said comparison. As for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it appears to treat the Truthers there in much the same manner as the Birthers are covered here, so your comparison is a bit odd. Both are extreme minority POVs, so far out of the mainstream that they are a joke in themselves. Hence "conspiracy" in both titles. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As for "fringe", that description is accurate. If and when the large-audience Obama bashers like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck join the birther crew, then I'd say the description would no longer be warranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

By way of illustration, the prominent right-wing gasbags whom Wasted mentions have said that Obama is a socialist. That view is even more ludicrous than the charge that he's not a natural-born citizen, but I wouldn't call the "socialism" thing a fringe view. The birther stuff qualifies as fringe because, even with Pat Boone on board, they don't have much visible support. JamesMLane t c 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Gregvs3 is dead on. From the title downward, a fairly significant slant is glaringly evident. The ONLY justification for this is that one will find much of the same derision in many media sources, and quite a few editors agree with and seek to parrot that derision. To me, that's misguided NPOV. JBarta (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Misguided NPOV"? Are you saying the article should be POV? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he means a "misguided view of NPOV." --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank-you... that's what I meant. (or even a misguided interpretation of NPOV) JBarta (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think one of the problems here, is how you as a person view this issue. (IE. your POV) We all have them. To be a good editor you must be able to separate your POV when editing articles. On the flip side, we can only report what the verified reliable sources say. Currently the vast majority of sources call this topic a fringe view and a conspiracy theory. This article does follow what the RS's say. The issue with this article is people's POV's. We hear some editors claim that this article is slanted towards a certain POV. Claims that we should make it more NPOV is more like saying it should be slanted more towards their POV? Maybe make this more serious then it is. Make more an issue then it is. However, moving it away from the way it is written would be introducing a POV to the article. Simple suggestion, and one of the core suggestions for editing articles in Wikipedia, is to separate your POV from your editing. The article is fine and NPOV. Plus, Wikipedia is not the place for battles over Obama's birth no matter the what the form. Brothejr (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, the idea that one can have extremely biased personal views on a subject yet somehow edit in an objective and neutral fashion is a little optimistic. It's sort of like a judge saying he'll give that guilty bastard a fair trial. JBarta (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Birther lawsuit dismissed

I thought that this was interesting and might be worth noting in the birther section - [1]. Remember (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, typepad was not a reliable source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Look again. It's running on typepad, but it's by the Legal Times, a very respectable mainstream source. Don't confuse the platform with the content.

I note that the Washington Independent has provided some background on this - see [2]. I think it's reached the point where we have enough evidence of notability to add this bit to the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't a lawsuit, it was an indictment, or "Crinminal(sic) Allegation" by a self-appointed "grand jury". It's worth a couple of lines, if only to honor the brainsets that coe up with ideas like that. PhGustaf (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I think it's time for a separate article, Patriotic citizens actions against foreign socialist traitor Barack Obama. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've not gone that far! :-) I've added a short new section to cover this - see here. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. PhGustaf (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasted Time, you've always been one for neutrality. What are you trying to say?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a little satire. But I'm seriously thinking of trying to retitle/expand Bush Derangement Syndrome to deal with this whole phenomenon ... this is three presidents in a row where segments of the population have just lost their minds trying to deal with someone they don't like being on top. It's more than a bit crazy. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth a couple of lines, per PhGustaf, but it can't be included under the "Litigation" section. This is not litigation. These ardent patriots can call it litigation, and they even believe their own PR, but their belief does not make it so. JamesMLane t c 01:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but is this really worth a whole new section ? Would it be better if we renamed the Litigation section to (say) Legal actions (I assume a pseudo-indictment counts as an attempt at legal action) and retained this new information as a sub-section ? Abecedare (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, this isn't a "legal action" any more than it's litigation. No, you can't self-appoint yourself to a position of authority, issue an edict or indictment or whatever, and call it a legal action. (Obviously, it's not necessarily an illegal action, but "legal action" would mean a formal proceeding before a duly constituted tribunal, such as a court or an administrative agency.) What this most resembles is the effort to persuade electors to refuse to vote for Obama. That is, it's people trying to persuade others, but not by seeking legislation or by proceeding before a tribunal. If you have a problem with a separate section just for the "citizen grand jury", we could move the Electoral College stuff there as well, so that each of those two items would be a subhead under "Other actions". Alternatively, we could move the "citizen grand juries" so that it comes after the Electoral College stuff. I prefer the former solution, though. A reader wanting to know "What have the Birthers done to push their argument?" should find all that material together. JamesMLane t c 07:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the so-called "citizen grand juries" are specifically claimed to be under the colour of law - however misconstrued - I think "legal actions" is a perfectly appropriate place for this section. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

They can claim whatever they want, and we'll even report the claim, but that doesn't mean we adopt it. If someone shows up waving a piece of paper from the Emperor Ming instructing the Earthlings to remove the Kenyan usurper from office, would we put that under the heading "Interplanetary actions"? After all, it's claimed to be from another planet -- and that claim is about on a level with the "citizen grand juries". JamesMLane t c 09:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Isn't claiming to represent the Naval Academy a federal crime? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii" subsection

I started out to respond to the assertion by Loonymonkey in the "Other prominent figures ?" section above that discussion the impact of overseas birth (if such were shown to be the case) on Obama's citizenship status "... is irrelevant, since Obama was born in Hawaii." The gist of my intended response was that it is relevant to the "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii" subsection. After taking a look at the subsection, though, I want to comment differently and specifically on that subsection.

I don't see any claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii mentioned in that subsection. What I do see is discussion of Obama campaign's defense against such claims and challenges to that defense. I looked briefly for reportage in sources deemed here to be reliable that claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii exist, but could not quickly find such reports. I looked for the fightthesmears.com website, thinking that it might mention such claims, and found that the site seems to be defunct and seems not to be archived at archive.org. I think that it would be useful to mention the claims against which Obama's campaign reacted in defense before discussing that defense. Does anyone know of a source which would be deemed a reliable source on this point for purposes of citation as a supporting source in this article where info on the existence of such claims can be found?

Also, harking back to my comments prior to the aforementioned assertion by Looneymonkey, I think that it would be appropriate in this subsection (presuming that a reliable source supporting the assertion that claims that Obama was born outside of the US exist can be identified), to include some info on the impact that such a situation would have on Obama's citizenship status if it were shown to be true. As I understand it, there is a strong argument that such a situation would negate Obama's US citizenship, based on Obama's claimed birth date being August 4, 1961, and on the fact that his mother (his only US citizen parent) was aged 18 at the time (according to the Ann Dunham article, she was born on November 29, 1942; her 14th birthday would have been November 29, 1956; five years after her 14th birthday would have been November 29, 1961—not quite five months later than Obama's claimed birth date), and on the fact that US citizenship law on 24 December 1952 and prior to 14 November 1986 required that in order to transmit citizenship the US citizen parent must have had physical presence in U.S. or its possession for ten years, five years after age 14 (citing this in support of that last bit; other supporting cites could be found if the reliability of that one is considered questionable.). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I hadn't seen your post before I made it, my recent edit should take care of the issue you raise in the last paragraph. Right ?

As for persons claiming that Obama was born outside US: See Berg v. Obama for an example. Abecedare (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of sources have commented on the rumors about birth location. For example, here's a source that's already cited in the present article. Although some wackos have asserted their deep conviction that Obama was born outside the U.S., it's been much more common for sources to assert that they do not know for sure, or have not seen conclusive proof, or the like.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. I am not asserting that such claims do not exist, I am suggesting that this article, and particularly this section of the article, should mention the claims (citing supporting sources, and perhaps describing the claims themselves and perhaps describing the reasoning behind them) before it goes into a description of the Obama campaign's defense against such claims and challenges to that defense. Your cited source doesn't mention "claims", just mentioning what it terms, "Rumor one: That Obama was born in Kenya", and then immediately dismissing that "rumor" as "Rather unlikely". I see that a link in that cited source points here, to discussion pages on snopes.com where Snopes describes a claim made in "an article on the internet". Perhaps mention of the claim as described by the Snopes entries there timestamped 21 April 2008, 07:50 PM and 21 April 2008, 07:53 PM and supported by that Snopes discussion would be OK as in intro to the section. Barring objection, I'll write something up. If there is objection, would someone else please consider introducing some cite-supported discussion of the claims themselves into the article prior to the discussion of the Obama campaign's defense against the claims?

Meantime, having noticed today that the article once again contains untagged dead links, I'm going to check it for dead links and fix those I can and tag those I'm not able to fix. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that all the material you seek is already in this Wikipedia article. We have Geraghty discussing the rumors, then Corsi disputing the online Certificate of Live Birth, and the section on "Campaigners" has lots of details about the claims and the people making them. You might want to reorganize, but it seems like all the material is there (minus Pat Boone's claims).Ferrylodge (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The only reference to Corsi speaks to the birth certificate questions, not to the claims which are the purported topic of the "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii" subsection. It is supported by citing this source, which mentions the birth certificate claim and then immediately says, "We beg to differ."

Geraghty isn't mentioned in the subject subsection but is mentioned later in the article, I talked about that earlier, here, where I offered to write something based on the Snopes source which Geraghty cites when he says, "Rumor one: Obama was born in Kenya. Rather unlikely, ...", in that already-cited Geraghty source, here. Are you endorsing my doing that? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Geraghty is mentioned immediately before the subject subsection, rather than after it. Anyway, I think the subject subsection could use a better title, and renaming it may resolve some of your concerns. "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii" are rather few and far between, compared to "Claims that Obama may not have been born in Hawaii." And these sorts of claims seem to be motivated more by the non-release of the birth certificate than by affirmative evidence (e.g. the alleged statement by the grandmother which is highly dubious).Ferrylodge (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the location of the Geraghty mention; I was confused about that. You're also right about the title of the subject subsection, it does not discuss its purported subject; that subject is addressed, to the small extent that it is addressed, by the intro of the enclosing "Citizenship facts, rumors and claims" section. Re the subject subsection, if the content is not to be changed to match the title, the title should be changed to match the content (and, as changing section headings is discouraged because of the possibility of breaking links, an anchor named with the present title should probably be provided if the subsection name is changed). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the intro to the "Citizenship facts, rumors and claims" section, I feel that the discussion of the subject "rumors and claims" items in the intro to this section is a bit sparse and presumes too much that the reader is already informed as to what those rumors and claims amount to. I must head out the door in a few minutes, and I cannot add much at this point (insert here the sound of cheering in the background). What I'm thinking at first blush is to expand the content of the Geraghty cite into a footnote which briefly discusses the snopes info to which Geraghty links when he says "Rumor one: Obama was born in Kenya. Rather unlikely, ..." in the cited piece. Barring objections, I'll probably insert something along those lines a bit later. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103306 This] new article from World Net Daily claims that snopes.com had claimed two different Hawaiian hospitals as being the place where Obama was born, and that other sources had also cited different hospitals in Hawaii. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, great. WND, as unreliable a source as can be found, is citing snopes, which is hardly reliable itself? Spare us. PhGustaf (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The White House did not respond to a WND request for comment. . Now that is funny. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to modify article title by replacing "citizenship" with "birth certificate"

According to the Associated Press: "Among the top search terms paired with Barack Obama: biography, Israel, news, jokes, stimulus package, birth certificate (related to those persistent but unfounded rumors that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and thus ineligible to be president.)"[3]

So, how about modifying the title of this article to replace the word "citizenship" with the word "birth certificate"? So, it would read "Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories." Personally, I think we could leave out the last two words which reflect a definite POV, but that's not what I'm suggesting now (when some official asks you and your companion for proper ID, that does not render the official a conspiracy theorist).

Changing "citizenship" to "birth certificate" in the title would focus the article on the most notable aspect of the controversy, and make the article easier to find. Still, it would leave room for discussion in this article of whether a valid U.S. birth certificate renders Obama eligible or not (e.g. in view of stuff like moving to Indonesia, dual citizenship, or whatever). Anyway, I don't think anyone has suggested that his move to Indonesia, or his alleged dual citizenship at birth, involved any conspiracy.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point. "citizenship", though, is the real topic. How about setting up the title you suggest as a redirect here? PhGustaf (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's already a redirect, and this Wikipedia article nevertheless is almost impossible to find using a general search engine with the search terms "Obama" and "birth certificate." What non-birth-certificate issue is there an alleged conspiracy theory about?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As I and others have pointed out before, the "conspiracy theory" in the title covers not just what happened in 1961 but what's happening in 2007-2009 to cover up The Truth. Donofrio is an advocate of the 'born in Hawaii, but still not natural born due to dual citizenship' theory, right? Look again at Donofrio's blog entry where he describes his journey to the Supreme Court:

On Nov. 3, 2008, I went to SCOTUS to file my application for an emergency stay of the national election. I took a Greyhound bus from Baltimore to Washington, D.C. because I was afraid to use Amtrak where I would have had to present ID for a ticket. I took that bus to the Greyhound station in Washington DC and walked from there to Union Station.
I felt that my life was in danger because I knew that if I could get my case filed before 4:30PM, there was a chance, a remote but genuine chance, that if the SCOTUS rules were followed, my case could stop the general election. As you all know, the SCOTUS rules were not followed when a clerk tried to overrule the SCOTUS precedent from McCarthy v. Briscoe.
I had previously felt the evil operate against my case in the NJ Appellate Division where I experienced sabotage I never thought possible. I felt the full force and power of the cult as it tried to stop my case from having proper procedural ground to move on to SCOTUS.
In the days leading up to Nov. 3, 2008… my cell phone and that of a family member were subjected to treachery that only somebody with serious power could have accomplished. Because of the dual attacks upon my sanity, I came to Washington D.C. with fear in my heart, but I was not about to stop. Nothing short of a bullet was going to stop me from filing that application on Nov. 3, 2008.
...

It goes on like that for a good deal longer, with operatives disguised as homeless people, Blackwater types, black helicopters, etc. Clearly, "the cult" is running a hidden, potentially violent operation to get and keep Obama in power no matter what, despite the fact that he's not eligible to be president. That's the conspiracy theory. And it's about all the theories why Obama is not a natural born citizen, so I believe the title should stay as it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted that, conspiracies aside, the proposed "birth certificate" title wouldn't cover Donofrio's substantive allegations. Unlike most of the Birthers, his theory is that, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was entitled to dual citizenship at birth (through his father, who was a citizen of what was then the U.K. colony of Kenya), and that a newborn entitled to dual citizenship is a U.S. citizen but is not a natural-born citizen and is ineligible for the presidency. JamesMLane t c 13:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You all are not pointing to any notable non-birth-certificate issue that is an alleged conspiracy theory. The Donofrio helicopter stuff is tangential and is not mentiooned in this Wikipedia article. You are using this tangential matter to discredit every non-conspiracy-theory aspect of this stupid controversy.

Please note: I have totally given up trying to get your POV "conspiracy theory" language out of the article title. All I am suggesting is putting the words "birth certificate" into the title so that this article will be easier to find.

Also please note: the current article title labels Donofrio's substantive allegations as a "conspiracy theory" which is plainly, blatantly false. Therefore, I do not understand how modifying the title further could have any negative impact regarding Donofrio.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We have differing definitions of "conspiracy theory". You only include the original (alleged) event. I include the (alleged) cover-ups of that event afterward. I think most people use my definition, e.g. NASA's 40 years of supposedly covering up the fake moon landing; the many witnesses in the supposed JFK assassination plot who supposedly met untimely, violent ends disguised as illness or accidents; the many Clinton associates in Arkansas who supposedly met untimely, violent ends disguised as illness or accidents; and so forth. If America has really elected a president who's ineligible to serve, that would be the story of the century; the fact that it's buried in fringe media outlets and in this hard-to-find WP article is surely evidence of the covering up of this truth, etc etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No WTR, I'm glad to include cover-ups and the like in any Wikipedia conspiracy coverage. But you are not entitled to slap a title on this article based on stuff that is not in this article. Donofrio's paranoid rantings are not in this article. And if I ever get to the point of asserting that this WP article is hard-to-find because of the great WTR conspiracy, then you'll be the first to know. I think the tone and content of this article is more related to the natural human tendency to ridicule each other, rather than any nefarious conspiracy.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is hard to find for the same reason that Early political career of Sarah Palin and many other biographical subarticles are hard to find: Google only ranks highly the main article for a subject, and not additional longer-titled articles that have the subject's name in part. In other words, article "XYZ" ranks highly, but articles "The foo of XZY" and "XYZ bar grok" don't. I can't prove that, but it's long been my suspicion. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

People are searching for "birth certificate", not "citizenship."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've seen mixed evidence on this. This search for Sarah Palin Early Political Career doesn't turn up Early political career of Sarah Palin, but this search for John McCain Military Career does turn up Early life and military career of John McCain. This search for Hillary Clinton Senate doesn't turn up Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but this search for Barack Obama Early Life does turn up Early life and career of Barack Obama. I really can't explain this inconsistency. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

All of your searches turn up a Wikipedia article as the top hit. In contrast, searching for Obama birth certificate does not, because the term "birth certificate" is not in the title of this article (as it should be). This article does not describe anything as a conspiracy theory other than the birth certificate business, so there's no reason not to put "birth certificate" in the title.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This search for Obama Conspiracy Theories doesn't find any WP articles on the first page, even though it's an exact match for part of the title. It does find this article at the top of the second page (on my browser). My guess is, even if you change the title like you want, this article is still going to be behind the Snopes, FactCheck, and PolitiFact entries that are there now, which you won't like (since they're all more snarky and 'biased' against the birthers than this article is). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

When I click that link, this article is the third hit. And thanks for ackowledging this article is snarky. This can and will be used against you! :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting, I tried it again and it's still page 2 for me, behind 9 other hits. Shows Google is tailoring search results to the user profiles it keeps ... it must think I distrust WP more than you do! Makes this kind of discussion difficult if we're all getting different results ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It comes up as the second hit with Bing and also the second hit with Yahoo.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should be called "Barack Obama birth certificate controversy," because this entire issue is based on the fact that Obama is only willing to release the 2007 computer printed short form, and not the original 1961 long form. If he would simply release the 1961 long form, this entire controversy would disappear. I don't take either side on this debate, but I am extremely curious as to why he is unwilling to release the 1961 long form. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We've been down this road before. The birthers would say the 1961 form was a forgery, just like many have said the 2007 form was a forgery. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we've been down this road before and yes, that particular justification is as flimsy as it ever was. Putting it forth again and again does not somehow morph it into sound reasoning. (And I would agree that "Barack Obama birth certificate controversy" is much more accurate and neutral than the current title. Although, I'll concede that there are other issues besides the birth certificate.) JBarta (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I am repeating myself on several points. I guess I've said all I have to say; I'm taking this off my watchlist. If Obama suddenly confesses that he was born in Outer Mongolia and is forced to leave office, I'll come back for the rewrite. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Do you really think that? I think that if the LF were released, the birthers would just say what a great forgery it was, or something, or come up with some new angle. They are dedicated to not shutting up about this. The article is about the ~~conspiracies~~ conspiracy theories. The birth certificates are peripheral issues. The title should reflect the content of the article. PhGustaf (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is mostly NOT about "conspiracies". JBarta (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's about conspiracy theories. You just beat me to correcting it. PhGustaf (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is a theory about a conspiracy. If there are no conspiracies (or almost no conspiracies), then there is no conspiracy to formulate a theory about... hence no conspiracy theory. Geez... is this really so tough? JBarta (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the original were released, since whether he was born in Hawaii or not is irrelevant to the birthers, who also claim that since his father was a subject of the UK, the son wasn't a "native born" citizen, or else since his mother was only 18, somehow her citizenship doesn't devolve onto him. There's always something to use to prove their point. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Grundle2600: "If he would simply release the 1961 long form, this entire controversy would disappear." I would take issue with that. It's reasonable to suggest that releasing the original birth certificate (along with other documentation) would open a very messy can of worms and at the very least would supply political opponents with further material with which to challenge his eligibility (not to mention damage to his integrity). The risk is not one of endless trivial challenges, the issue is one of troublesome additional details that would come out in the documentation. The choice Obama made was a deliberate calculation of the lesser of two evils. As it relates to the document title, this is not some sort of "conspiracy theory", this is an issue about the level of documentation required to show eligibility, and on a more human level, an issue about Obama's forthrightness. JBarta (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Speculation and theories are not a convincing argument to rename the article to something other than conspiracy theories. --guyzero | talk 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> Changing the title from "conspiracy theories" to something more appropriate has nothing to do with the speculation I note above. A change would be appropriate because the article (and the issue in general) is just not a conspiracy theory. And yes, I'm aware that it has become fashionable for some folks to call it a conspiracy theory, but that does not make it accurate or preferrable to something a little more neutral. JBarta (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was confused by your "as it relates to the document title..." phrasing and that your comment shows up in a section devoted to discussing renaming the title. The talkpages aren't a forum to post (BLP violating) speculation, though. thanks, --guyzero | talk 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, it has nothing to do with being "fashionable". It has everything to do with reflecting what reliable sources characterize the subject matter as. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as was discussed here a few months ago, as many (if not more) reliable sources do NOT use the phrase "conspiracy theory" as reliable sources that do. So more accurately some (maybe even many) reliable sources mischaracterize the issue as a conspiracy theory. It's unfortunate that several Wikipedia editors have chosen to embrace the wording of reliable sources that make that mischaracterization instead of the many that do not. To me, the end result is an article that reflects the personal views of a slight majority of editors instead of simply a dead neutral examination of the topic. JBarta (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That argument is a logical fallacy ... Do you have any or many sources that specifically state that this topic is not a conspiracy theory? There are several reliable sources that specifically state that it is. thanks, --guyzero | talk 05:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is leading into a discussion about the definition of and use of reliable sources. In a highly political topic such as this, "reliable sources" are often opinion pieces (sometimes thinly disguised as news articles) written by rather biased commentators. Wikipedia editors then choose from those numerous bits of biased commentary and eagerly insert them into the article defending the practice by claiming "that's what the reliable sources say". The article then moves from an encyclopedia to a slanted political statement in line with editors' personal viewpoint. My point is that editors ought to exercise a little more discretion and make more use of UNBIASED reliable sources instead of packing in so many biased ones. To me, that would be be more in line with the spirit of NPOV. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia of knowledge, not a collection of opinions or a reflection of a particular viewpoint. Many reliable sources do not use the phrase "conspiracy theories" because it is plain to see that the circumstances of this issue generally do not fit the accepted definition of conspiracy theory. JBarta (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Several times, you've said something like "Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia of knowledge, not a collection of opinions or a reflection of a particular viewpoint." I've pointed out to you that, per WP:NPOV, the knowledge we collect includes facts about opinions. If you disagree with that policy, try to change the general policy. As long as that policy is in effect, we will apply it, even if it means reporting facts about opinions that you personally would prefer to see suppressed. We will seek to provide a fair explanation of all significant viewpoints. JamesMLane t c 07:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The pending proposal is to leave the article title exactly as it is, but change "citizenship" to "birth certificate."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So, birth certificate conspiracy theories? Personally I think that's just as bad. Ferrylodge, if I'm not mistaken, you too see the inaccuracy of the wording "conspiracy theories". JBarta (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll amend my comment and throw in a bit of mild support for this reason... the birth certificate aspect of this issue, while not the only aspect, is certainly the most prominent and well known aspect. And if helping people find the article is important to editors, an article with "Obama" and "birth certificate" in the title would show up better in search results for people looking for information on the subject using those (logical) search terms. Taken in that light, "birth certificate" may be more appropriate than "citizenship". JBarta (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm neutral to this change and hope that other folks might weigh in one way or the other. "Citizenship" seems like a general catch-all for all of the issues, but "birth certificate" may be more precise. regards, --guyzero | talk 05:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I was responsible for the original article title, and "citizenship" rather than "birth certificate" was a deliberate choice undertaken in order to cover all of the issues. The birth certificate is merely one aspect of a range of conspiracy theories about Obama's citizenship and eligibility for the presidency. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per ChrisO. The BC is only a detail -- Even if Obama spoils everybody's fun by releasing the long form, the loons will still be there and we'll still need the article. PhGustaf (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What "conspiracy theory" does this article describe that is distinct from the birth certificate business?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the excerpt from "Donofrio's blog entry" posted by Wasted Time R, earlier in this section. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Donofrio's blog entry is not described in this article, is it?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, not this question again? Let's summarise. There are at least four distinct conspiracy theories that are being advanced by the birthers:

Obama has conspired to "usurp" the presidency despite not being qualified or suitable for the post;
Obama has conspired to conceal the fact that he's really a secret Muslim, he's not a US citizen, or he is a US citizen but doesn't qualify as "natural born";
Obama has conspired to deceive the country by presenting a fake certification of live birth, which differs from the long-form birth certificate;
Obama has conspired to deliberately prevent his long-form certificate from being released

The birthers' basic assumption is that the information contained in the long-form certificate is different from that in the COLB, and the "true facts" would, when exposed, result in Obama being removed from office and all his acts being undone. It's delusional, needless to say, but that's the gist of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not citing any sources. You're just saying that every word out of the mouths of these people is a "conspiracy theory." The "muslim" matter (in your second bulleted point) is not a citizenship theory, much less a citizenship conspiracy theory. Your third and fourth bulleted points are not distinct from the birth certificate business. All of your bulleted points begin with "Obama has conspired" but it takes more than one person to conspire.

Sure, during the campaign, some people said Obama was not suitable for the presidency. Tens of millions of people, in fact. That does not make them all "conspiracy theorists."

I'm not surpised by your most recent response. Like you, I don't find the arguments of the "birthers" convincing. But I naively thought we might be able to have a neutral article dispassionately describing the matter (instead of constant efforts to smear and attack many of the living people mentioned in this article). Anyways....have a pleasant evening.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, not only do you present a list of disjointed and slightly repeating items that you generously (read inaccurately) label "conspiracies", but you continue to confuse conpiracies with "conspiracy theories". A conspiracy theory requires a secret plot by some sort of hidden conspirators. In our case, it's not a plot (it's the refusal to release a birth certificate) and the "conspirators" are not hidden or unknown (if we wish to call Obama and his mother conspirators, they are most certainly not hidden). Conspiracy theories are not supported by evidence. In our case, there is no dispute that his original birth certificate is being hidden, there is no dispute that there is no documentary evidence (other than birth anouncements) of his birth in any hospital and that the documentary evidence that does exist is withheld. I could go on, but you get the point. This is at its core a case of witholding documents (rightly or wrongly) NOT a conspiracy theory. It is however eagerly LABELED a conspiracy theory by those who find the issue offensive or not worthy of consideration and as a cheap rebuttal, wish to label any questioners as bitter, unbalanced or delusional. JBarta (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We follow the RS's -- including the words "conspiracy theory" in the title of this article is NPOV as we've established and re-established several times as you well know. Consensus has not changed, but insisting to argue against it (ironically, by stating your own BLP violating conspiracy theories) is just disruptive. Please seek DR at RSN, NPOVN, BLPN or RFC. Ferrylodge appears to be trying to focus this discussion to substituting "birth certificate" for "citizenship" and we're doing him a disservice by derailing the conversation back to this dead horse. --guyzero | talk 06:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet the choice is made by many editors to follow the reliables sources that DO use the wording "conspiracy theory" rather than the (arguably) more plentiful reliable sources that do not. Given that most of the issues involved are easily not conspiracy theories and that arguably more sources do not use the phrase "conspiracy theory", why would a Wikipedia editor continue to cling to the current wording? JBarta (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

FightTheSmears website offline

fightthesmears.com has been taken offline, including the archives made by the wayback machine. There was one link to a WebCite archive of the webpage added to the natural-born citizen article here at WP, but that archive was also taken offline by webcitation.org. It seems that the Obama people are using their legal right to enforce their copyrights. So although I added a new WebCite archive to this article, this time of the bing cache, it might actually infringe their copyright, and it could also be taken offline. Not sure what's more important: copyright or right of citation? —85.178.89.19 (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting issue (possibly not for this particular talk page).... but what happens when a cited source disappears into the ether and a replacement cannot be found? Does the previously accepted fact cease to be an accepted fact? JBarta (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, since the fact in question has been reported on extensively by third-party sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, hypothetically speaking, what if a fact was not reported on extensively by third party sources? For example... Elroy says his apple is red and that is noted in The JBarta Online Times and nowhere else. A Wikipedia editor uses that quote in the Apples article because The JBarta Online Times is considered a reliable source. One day, The JBarta Online Times website disappears and there is no further online record of that particular quote. Does that particular quote by Elroy about his apple cease to be a fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned? JBarta (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dead links, which sets out the process to follow in such a case. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

UPI cited two different hospitals as place of Obama's birth

This google cache of a November 4, 2008 UPI news article states, "Obama described his birth at Queen's Medical Center..."

The current version of the same article states, "Obama described his birth at Kapi'olani Medical Center..."

At the end of the current version, it says, "This item was corrected July 8, 2009, to fix the name of the hospital where Obama was born. The original item incorrectly identified the facility as Queen's Hospital, an error made by the writer."

[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103465 Here] is a third party source that can be used to cite this change to the artricle. Or, maybe the comment at the end of the article is more appropriate as a reference. Or, maybe both.

This change to the UPI article is noteworthy in the context of this conspiracy theory, and should be mentioned in this wikipedia article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Responsible news media correct themselves when they are found to be wrong. Whoopee. How many times have how many other editors told you that WND is not a reliable source? PhGustaf (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be applicable if a 3rd party has commented about the UPI misprint AND the resulting fervor that has been generated by WND et al over this misprint. Has an RS done any reporting on this? --guyzero | talk 02:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

See prior discussion on the conflicting Hospital issue. AFAIK, no reliable third party has discussed the issue or the UPI error. Now that UPI has corrected its error, there seems to be even less justification for mentioning this here or anywhere on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A news source is not reliable if it does not report on issues the public is talking about, or distorts it. When did UPI talk about the [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=15294 Jesse Dirkhising] rape? When did it talk about the Boston "prom" with homosexual recruiters? When did it talk about the numerous court cases that have been brought over Obama's eligibility? WND is no less "reliable" than other media, precisely because they're willing to talk about things the major media, with their liberal ideological slant, refuse to talk about. Of course they're going to impugn the WND because they don't want to deal with the issues. Also, the major media distort the news - they called the "tea parties" "teabag parties" because, so I am told, "teabag" is a derogatory term used by homosexuals. BIAS! Wikipedia brags of being liberal and user-written; be liberal enough to admit alternate points of view and stop calling them "fringe"! 70.65.253.235 (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that Queen of Battle told me to come to this article to post my viewpoint. Are you going to say she was wrong to direct me here?! 70.65.253.235 (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is simply not a reliable source for anything other than basic, non-controversial, factual information. They are pretty much the lone beacon for the fringe Birther movement. And I believe that "she" is a "he", fyi. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re `he` vs `she`, how is a person to know? King of Battle would make more sense, in that case... 70.65.253.235 (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

UPI or other editors saying WND is not credible or reliable is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Are we going to let a narrow range of voices tell us what we should think, or are we going to entertain a wide range and think for ourselves?! 70.65.253.235 (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We are most assuredly not going to "think for ourselves", if by that you mean that we should look over a wide range of sources and then decide which is right. Instead, per WP:NPOV, we're going to report the facts about the opinions and let the readers think for themselves.

Of course, we can't clutter an article by reporting the facts about every opinion that anyone holds. We omit the fringe stuff. This article is an exception because it's about a set of fringe opinions, so they can and should be presented here even though they don't qualify for inclusion in the main Obama bio article.

That doesn't mean, however, that World Net Daily suddenly becomes a reliable source for statements of fact. The real issue is how this WND story fits in to the whole birther movement. For us to make a fair presentation of the birther POV, should we report the opinion that the UPI's change in its story is sinister evidence of a nefarious conspiracy, as opposed to the normal and rather humdrum process of correcting a fairly inconsequential error? That depends on how significant this particular point is within the context of the birther movement. (To produce an encyclopedia article, as opposed to a book-length treatment, we still have to exercise some editorial judgment and omit some stuff.) If it's to be included, it would be in a form like "An article in the right-wing publication World Net Daily argued that...."

I see two problems:

(1) Is this point a notable part of birther thinking, so as to merit being reported on here? One WND article isn't enough to establish that it is.
(2) If we report it, what do we say after the "argued that" in my sample form above? The WND article doesn't come right out and say, "This change is sinister evidence of a nefarious conspiracy." It just notes the change. WND was probably confident (and with good reason) that its readers wouldn't require much in the way of logic or reasoning. Is there some coherent argument that UPI's change makes the hypothesis of Kenyan birth more likely than it otherwise would be? (My personal reaction is that the change cuts the other way. If there were a conspiracy here, an obvious early step would be to get the conspirators together and hammer out the story to be promulgated.)

Given all this, how exactly would you suggest we include the WND piece in our article? JamesMLane t c 08:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments everyone, and for the link to the earlier discussion. It's very possible that what UPI did was nothing more than an honest mistake. However, it's still relevant with regard to the conspiracy theory that this article is about. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think a mistake is relevant? Tarc (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it wasn't a mistake, it was a cover-up.</sarcasm> -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz spinoff article?

I think it's time we had a spin-off article on Orly Taitz. As she seems to be the leading light among the birthers, she's been attracting quite a lot of publicity, including this lengthy profile from the Orange County News. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anything really changed since the last time ? Tarc (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Last time I had voted a firm delete; now after the OC Weekly profile, and her dispute with Berg, I will have to debate between a week keep/delete depending upon whether there are any other third party sources that cover her biography (as opposed to mentioning her name incidentally while discussing a case filed by Keyes etc). If this (which is worth including in this article) goes anywhere post arguments, I am sure we will have many more profiles to work with. Abecedare (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd read any proposed article with an open mind, but if it went back to AfD, I tend to think it would still be a case of WP:1E. The OCWeekly profile is interesting, but is there really anything notable to say about her beyond her involvement in these cases, or that isn't appropriately treated in a couple of sentences plus a footnote here?--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reservations about the OC Weekly as a source. It appears to be your usual weekly giveaway entertainment rag, like the San Jose Metro. This doesn't rule it out, but the paper's calling a hamburger comparison and a surfing dog "top stories" gives pause. PhGustaf (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, CBS News, and the Miami Herald all have articles on her. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Those just mention her as the lawyer in Cook v. Obama, and that's already in the article. I don't yet see enough stuff specifically about her to merit an article. PhGustaf (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think Cook v. Obama, not the lawyer, merits its own article. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on that point. I've added a brief paragraph on it to this article, but there simply isn't enough yet to justify a spinout article. See WP:SPINOUT. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Orly Taitz a lawyer or a dentist? I redently deleted a mention that called her a "Russian immigrant dentist" who was filing a suit, but the source that i read called her a dentist. But in other articles the same person has been presetned as a lawyer representing plaintiffs? If she a lawyer or a dentist or is she both? Smith Jones (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

She is a dentist with a law degree from some online university. The way it is written now is extremely awkward though, and comes across like she is a dentist to Russian immigrants. Taitz is mentioned three times in the article, each with a different descriptor ("lawyer", "birth certificate campaigner", "Russian immigrant dentist"), so this needs to be streamlined a bit. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

i agree, and i am concerned abut the racist implciations of that article, with its emphasis on her being a "Russian immigrant", asi if her slavic descent are conencted to her political beliefs!!!! its maddening and extremely offensive, and I am going to go back and revise it so that it mentions her as a lawyer the first time she is mentioned and the remainde rof the times there are no weird descriptors. her dentistry career has no releveance to her relevance in this article, and neither is her Russian descent Smith Jones (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought she was from Moldova? "Orly" doesn't sound like a Russian name to me (unless it's some weird mutation of "Olya", perhaps). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I recall Russian, and Russian names, especially diminutives, are pretty mutable. Anyway, I agree it's not relevant to the article. PhGustaf (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Quo Warranto

What's interesting is that this WP article doesn't mention the fact that none of the cases—even if heard—will be sufficient to remove a sitting president due to the separation of powers. So even if a case goes forward to a hearing (like the one by Taitz in California now), and even if the judge decides that Obama is not eligible, Obama will remain in office. Only the Quo Warranto statute in DC (conferred by Congress) can remove a sitting president, apart from the "usual" removal methods like impeachment. But you can't impeach Obama on a constitutional question that has never been decided ("first impression"). I think the article should mention that Quo Warranto is the only way to remove a sitting president on the issue of ineligibility, and that all other cases (collateral attacks) are destined to fail in this respect. All of this has in fact been admitted by one of the Obama citizenship lawyers on his blog (incl. two follow-up legal briefs). I'm no legal expert, so I can't say if Donofrio's assertion is correct, but to my mind it's noteworthy that one of the lawyers mentioned in this article believes that none of the cases will have any effect whatsoever on Obama's presidency. —85.178.89.19 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In this area that hasn't been thoroughly litigated, I don't think we can make any assertions with the definitiveness that you imply. Suppose it were to be suddenly discovered, definitively and beyond all dispute, that Obama was ineligible. What would happen? Could a federal court set aside the action of the Electoral College and/or Congress as ultra vires? No one really knows. As to reporting an assertion made by Donofrio on the subject, I started skimming the blog you linked to but I lost patience pretty quickly. If there's a specific passage you think should be included in our article, I suggest you present here the language that you would add to our article, including the quotation or paraphrase from Donofrio. JamesMLane t c 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Interesting -- but the aim of the talk page is to improve the article - not to discuss all the nuances of law. IIRC, however, where a person has been found ineligible for office in the past, their oath of office was found to be null and void ... which would make Biden President. In Mississippi: [4] " We affirm the circuit court's decision to remove Mauney from office. " (Lots of similar case law for many states). Quo warranto is not the issue for such a result -- it is actually a legal question posed by the filer. The SCOTUS can not remove a Congressman or Senator due to specific wording in the Constitution, but no case has arisen about the basic Constitutional age requirement, for example, and I would think that courts might well have standing about the specific requirements given in the Constitution which would not be under Congressional authority to waive. As this is all moot, it hardly warrants talk page discussion in depth. Collect (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Only the Quo Warranto statute in DC (conferred by Congress) can remove a sitting president, apart from the "usual" removal methods like impeachment." There no case law that says that, and a fair amount of commentary that explicitly disagrees with that assertion. More importantly, no one has attempted to a file a writ of quo warranto in the courts (Taitz did sent letters to the U.S. and D.C. A.G.'s requesting such a filing, but she got no response). Until someone actually and directly files a writ petition (and not bury the request, like Apuzzo), no need to mention. Weazie (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting lawsuit

Evidently a soldier has filed a lawsuit saying that Obama can't order him to go anywhere because he is not the legitimate president. More of the same claims but an interesting set-up. See [5]. I thought someone might want to add this to the article. Remember (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This definitely merits inclusion - it's already had some significant press coverage and I expect it will have significant consequences (the inevitable court-martial will no doubt result in the plaintiff being declared the first birther martyr). I'll add something suitable to the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a new section on the case. It's already receiving quite a bit of coverage - see [6]. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, CBS News, and the Miami Herald all have articles on this. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Have been seeing claims that the Army has rescinded the deployment?!? I have only seen soldier's side of this so far, anyone have reaction from the Army/Administration? Simply letting the soldier out of the deployment without consequence seems odd. Ronnotel (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Army isn't commenting on the specific of his personal status, citing the Privacy Act. However, he's been sacked from his civilian job [7] and the Army has rejected his claims about Obama's eligibility [8]. I'll update the article accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems OK, but shouldn't we also include a balancing statement from Cook's lawyer? I believe she was interviewed in Military.com. Ronnotel (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the source. What is military.com? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what washingtonindependent is, but they're quoting Cook's attorney, the not-quite-reliable Orly Taitz, so her claim that he's been fired from his civilian job needs a better source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See #The Washington Independent article below for a discussion of that particular source. Regarding Taitz's claim, we're not endorsing it; the article currently says that "Cook was reported" to have been sacked. That's factually accurate. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it then say, "Cook's attorney, Taitz, has claimed in interviews" that he has been fired? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's according to this Application for injunction, linked from the cited secondary source but not itself cited in the article, which says, "... The CEO of Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, explained to Plaintiff over a series of four conversations within the next two hours, that he had been terminated. ...", and at the end of which a notarized statement says, "On this 15th day of July, 2009, the undersigned Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook appeared in person before me and, having been by me duly administered the oath as required by law, and further having been advised that he made all statements under penalty of perjury, he then and there did depose himself and state that he had read the above-and-foregoing Application for Preliminary Injunction to prevent his deployment to Afghanistan under orders of a chain of command headed by Barack Hussein Obama, and that he had personally verified that all the factual statements contained therein. [sic.]" (though the copy at the foregoing link does not contain the signatures) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, whom are you addressing this comment to? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A stopped clock is right twice a day, and even our dauntless dentist might be right on this one. A contributor to the progressive board Democratic Underground has said that application for CO status triggers automatic loss of security clearance. I find some support online for that statement in connection with people other than Cook:

"We did pull his Top Secret Security Clearance as soon as we found out about his CO status request." [9]
"I began my conscientious objector (CO) case in early April 2003.... I lost my security clearance...." [10]
"Petitioner's security clearance was suspended by his Command soon after he told his Command that he was considering applying for Conscientious Objector status." [11]

Cook was working for a defense contractor, so it's quite plausible that, if he lost his security clearance, he couldn't continue to do his work, so his employer had to let him go. Alternatively, maybe someone got a message through the fillings in his teeth telling him that Rahm Emanuel phoned Cook's boss and ordered him fired in revenge. :) JamesMLane t c 04:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Who then was a gentleman? asked to whom I was addressing a comment above (I think that's what the question is about). My comment was sparked by the earlier remark "I don't know what washingtonindependent is, but they're quoting Cook's attorney, the not-quite-reliable Orly Taitz, so her claim that he's been fired from his civilian job needs a better source." and by the ChrisO comment "Regarding Taitz's claim, we're not endorsing it; the article currently says that "Cook was reported" to have been sacked. That's factually accurate." AFAICT, the claim was made, and was sworn by Cook to be accurate. Yes, the article does stop short of asserting that Cook made the claim. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then you have me completely confused. I thought you were addressing me, but since your link doesn't link to anything even approaching a reliable source for the claim that Cook has been fired from his citizen job, so your edit has me flabbergasted. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused too. This article has long ago flabbered my gast.

The article says, "Cook was reported to have been terminated ...", citing this source.
That cited source says, "That’s according to Orly Taitz", linking to this "Application for Injunction" document on her site, which you characterize as not even approaching a reliable source.

The quote, "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more" comes to mind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And as I said above, "they're quoting Cook's attorney, the not-quite-reliable Orly Taitz, so her claim that he's been fired from his civilian job needs a better source". I don't believe the washingtonindependent source is a reliable source, in that it quotes Orly Taitz, and I don't believe that her website itself is a reliable source. If another source can be found that says he's been fired, then that would be fine. Democratic Underground says it, too, but only in forums. I'm not looking for a biased source on either side. I'm looking for a reliable source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They provide a link to the quoted document on Taitz's website. Perhaps you are accusing Taitz of misrepresenting what her website purports to be the literal text of an "Application for injunction" which she claims to have filed.

In any case, I must be on an airplane tomorrow morning and will not be checking in here regularly for the next month or so. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the federal court's dismissal of Cook's case.

David Weigel, the Politics Reporter for the Washington Independent, has a story about Cook's posts on the right-wing site Free Republic. In one post, from March 25, Cook says that he's a plaintiff in the class action suit and gets mailing from Taitz from time to time. Which case of hers was brought as a class action? Our description of that case should note that it sought class action status. JamesMLane t c 06:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe Taitz was soliciting military personnel to bring a class action suit against Obama, on the grounds that they would have standing by virtue of having to answer to him as C-in-C. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Taitz has also been quoted in the past as having called for an armed rebellion against the US government. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

According to freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2294597/posts?q=1&;page=1#46 Major Cook was at the Freeper convention in Orlando a couple of months ago. Any claims that he was duped by Orly Taitz into lying about his "volunteering" in May when he had already signed up with her in February to join in her lawsuits, can be put to sleep if anybody can find proof that he was there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he's also a freeper contributor: freerepublic.com/~roaddog727/ Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://washingtonindependent.com/50789/obama-birther-soldier-is-a-freerepublic-poster. Note that I am not advocating for any of these sources to go into the article, as they are not reliable sources (again, I include the washingtonindependent in this), but it might be useful to show that Cook is not just the patriotic soldier standing up for democracy and against the usurper, but an active participant in a fraud against the US Army and a call not only for all soldiers to throw down the arms in the midst of a war, but giving the enemy the chance to claim that all Americans fighting against them are war criminals and should be tried. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that Cook's Freepishness is relevant to this article.

As for Taitz, she's not a reliable source, so no statement of hers should be reported as fact, without attribution, unless reliably confirmed. She is, however, a prominent player in this dispute, so we can report facts about her statements. The "it was reported" language is inadequate. There's no reason to try to conceal key facts by using the passive voice. An acceptable formulation would be: "Cook's lawyer, Taitz, asserted that she had been told by Cook's employer that...."

Similarly, we have Taitz's assertion in April that Cook was one of the people she was representing, an assertion she made on her blog. We can add this if it's reported as an assertion made by Taitz, not as a fact. It sheds light on a question relevant to the Cook case: Did Cook sincerely volunteer for duty in Afghanistan in May, and then have second thoughts as he became aware of the eligibility issue, or did he volunteer for the sole purpose of receiving orders that he could then ask the court to set aside? I think that Cook, in his press conference with Taitz in front of the courthouse, was telling some story along the lines of the first alternative (change of heart). I couldn't be sure, though, because my computer isn't playing YouTube videos properly. If we have a verifiable and noncopyvio source for any comment by Cook on this point, we can consider it for inclusion. JamesMLane t c 09:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

She also claimed in April that a 2-star general (whose name I can't remember now) was one of her litigants, he issued a statement saying that's not true, and has publicly asked her to remove his name from her lawsuits. I agree that Taitz is not a reliable source, I was looking last night for a reliable source to the claim that he's been fired from his job, but haven't found any. We can report that Taitz claims that he's been fired, but as of last night when I went to bed, I could find none, just repeats of her claims. I thought about my edits above overnight, and I don't think I was making myself clear. I'm not advocating anything here, I'm just brainstorming here about how we can put some background of the litigants involved into the Taitz/Cook section of this article. But I do have another question: Liberal bloggers are claiming that Taitz is only licensed to practice law in California. How, then, can she file suits in the District of Columbia and Georgia? Or are the blogger claims wrong? (I've also read that nobody can verify her dental degree from Hebrew University, and that her law degree comes from an online law school which is only recognized in California, which is why she's only licensed in California. I would love to see some reliable sources as to yea or nay on those claims.) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

One further thing I forgot to mention. Cook is a member of something called the Individual Reserve, which admittedly I never heard of till looking for reliable sources last night. That means he is not in the Army Reserve, nor is he in the National Guard, and he is not a member of any unit, he serves as an individual. Members of the Individual Reserve can contact the Army and request a return to active duty, which Cook apparently did in May (four months after the supposed Obama usurpation of the Presidency, and one month after Taitz's claim that he joined her in her campaign to get the birther contentions enacted in a court). As a member of the Individual Reserve, Cook could, and did, change his mind up to the time of deployment, and the Army will just cancel the orders. Their actions in this case is not unusual. Any Individual Reservist who changes his mind gets his orders canceled. The fact the he decided to file a lawsuit instead of just contacting the Army and letting them know that he had changed his mind, seems evidence of what in Wikipedia would be considered a WP:POINT violation. Taitz's claim that they've won because the Army had to back down because of the truthiness of her lawsuit is wrong on the face of it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re your question about Taitz, it would be very unusual for any lawyer, let alone one whose primary work is dentistry, to be admitted in more than a handful of jurisdictions. Taitz is likely admitted only in California and files suits in other places by seeking and being granted admission pro hac vice. If she's in good standing in California (no disciplinary complaints), this would normally be granted as a matter of routine, even if the court thinks the case she's pressing is garbage. Some courts require that an attorney appearing pro hac vice have an associated local counsel who can receive service of papers. I don't know if Taitz has done so. JamesMLane t c 20:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama and John McCain

X million voters accepted that Obama was an American citizen by birth and Y million voters accepted that McCain had a right to run as the Repubilcan candidate #despite his having being born in Panama#.

Can someone explain to a non-US why there was no protest over McCain's capacity to run?

And what would the situation have been had Obama been born in Hawaii, and Sarah Palin in Alaska before they became US states? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They would all be full citizens, as codified here. As to why hardly anyone made hay about the circumstances of McCain's birth, personally I found the notion to be kinda absurd and left it at that. The willingness to indulge oneself in conspiracies and secret plots finds far more fertile ground to flourish on the right then it does on the left. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but "citizen" is not the same as "natural born citizen". The only statutory (i.e. codified) natural born citizenship ever was in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was revoked 5 years later. —85.178.89.19 (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Might as well post my reply anyway though Tarc beat me to it.

McCain's eligibility is covered in his own article. Short version: The Panama Canal Zone was US Territory at the time, thus he's a US citizen, and his parents were American anyway. No different than French Algerians not losing their French citizenship when France lost control of Algeria.

As for Alaska / Hawaii, that is doubly a non-issue. First, both Alaska and Hawaii had been US territories for some time before statehood. That's sufficient; Americans born in Washington, DC are eligible for president even though they weren't born in a state. Secondly, even if someone had been born there before they were US territory (a hypothetical person running in 1928 who was born in the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1875, say), it still wouldn't matter. The Founders of the US obviously did not mean to disqualify themselves despite being born as British subjects; George Washington was born in the Province of Virginia, but in 1789 it was now the State of Virginia, and anyone born in "Virginia" would be eligible for president. Same with Alaska / Hawaii once they became part of the US. Escaped Quaternion (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. McCain was born in Colon, Republic of Panama (cf. his birth certificate). He was not a US citizen at birth, because the Panama Canal Zone was a noman's land with respect to US citizenship at the time, and he was only retroactively made a statutory citizen by a law that was enacted a few months later. But that law did not confer natural born citizenship, only citizenship. In any case, since he was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, he can't have been a natural born citizen either. —85.178.89.19 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Some corrections not relevant to this article:

Our McCain article is seriously misleading about the Canal Zone. The Canal Zone, unlike territories (pre-statehood) or the District of Columbia, was not part of the United States. Birth in the Canal Zone (or in a U.S. military hospital), without more, was not sufficient to confer U.S. citizenship, and no reliable source supports that assertion, though the misconception is widespread. The real answer is that both of McCain's parents were citizens at the time of his birth, so he was thereby a citizen. See the statute cited by Tarc, in particular section 1403. That section would be redundant if everyone born in the Zone had automatically been a U.S. citizen.
It's true that the Founders didn't mean to disqualify themselves. They could have said "You're eligible if you're born in a place that later becomes part of the United States" -- but they didn't. The actual eligibility requirement is "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". Someone born in the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1875 would not be eligible (unless entitled to citizenship at birth because of one or both parents' citizenship). JamesMLane t c 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory, but there was only minimal discussion about his citizenship. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And Arizona at the time was not a (my coined phrase) "United State," but a controlled territory owned by the US Government. Trentc (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

'To the casual observer' - McCain #appears to be disqualified on grounds of birth# - and if he could run for President, so could Obama.

Surely if Obama had been disqualified on grounds of birth #someone official# in Hawaii would have squawked before the election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Keyes v. Obama, and the Obama-denying soldier

According to a blog on the LA Times website, judge David O. Carter has decided to hear a birther case. This has also been covered in the Washington Independent and Huffington Post. Also, is it relevant to cover the story of a soldier who denies that Obama is president? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I had already entered that information into the article, but it was removed with the usual "fringe" argument. According to Taitz, the judge ruled that there "will be a trial". Everyone else is speaking of a hearing. We should wait for more information on this. —85.178.89.19 (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that someone had decided to add a line to the article about it, which I've now removed There's really no justification for covering it at this stage - it's so preliminary that it's very premature to assign it any significance. It's kind of sad that the birthers feel they have to tout the holding of a prelimary procedural hearing as some sort of great victory. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So just because a judge finally decided to hear such a case is irrelevant when every other court has rejected similar cases in the past? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're falling for the birthers' claims about it. The court has made clear that the merits of the case have not yet been heard and that the discussions so far have been purely procedural.[12] All of the other cases that we cover in this article got at least that far before being thrown out, as this one will inevitably be. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that Stefan Frederick Cook, Stefan Cook, Stefan F. Cook, and Stefan F Cook should be created as redirects to this article. I can't do it because I'm topic banned on all political articles, but I'm sure that people will be using his name as a search term. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; that's how I (finally) got here. Mudville Gazette (a blog) has a detailed story of this. htom (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it, in exchange for your help with unraveling the profession of Orly Taitz (is she lawyer or dentist?) Smith Jones (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. i would apreciate if this was considered for a barnstar or a featured article award :D Smith Jones (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that besides being a lawyer she's also a dentist. ^_^ I've read it somewhere… months ago, when she started her first Obama case. —85.178.114.112 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she's a dentist [13] --guyzero | talk 19:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks! Do you have a link to a website or something? the Google searches ia vhea rleady amade describe her as only representing plaintiffs against Obama. there is one wbesite that mentions her dentist career but there's no proof that its Orly's website and it doesnt mention her law degree or her advocacy for constitutional victims such as Mr Cook or Alan Keyes. Smith Jones (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones, thank you. She is a lawyer and a dentist. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) thanks Gueyzero!!! That can go straight into the article Smith Jones (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already there as a named-ref. Just recite that ref. cheers, --guyzero | talk 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (aka Gueyzero =)

This is the site of her dental clinic in Orange County: http://www.drtaitz.com/staff.htm Orly Taitz is second from left. Apparently it's a family business. According to the website she has a doctorate in dental surgery and a juris doctorate. —85.178.114.112 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. If this ever morphs into a TV movie someday, I so want Edie Falco to play her. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Should be a comedy. I remember she filed quo warrantos against Obama in state courts, not realizing that Obama (as President) is under federal jurisdiction and can only be challenged with a quo warranto in the DC District Court. LOL. —85.178.114.112 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that either of these cases are ripe enough to be mentioned in the article yet. The courts haven't even decided whether to proceed with the cases to actual hearings or not, nor has there been any Supreme Court involvement with the accompanying wider media coverage. Adding these to the article may be pre-mature.Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Frederick Cook redirects to this talk page instead of to the article. Would someone please fix it? Thanks. I am banned from political articles for three months, so I can't do it myself. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Done.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

dsorry that was my embarasing mistake i was in a hurry to finisht eh redirections before the end of the User:Smith Jones 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK - it was an honest mistake. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cook's restraining order against his former employer (which we don't cover in the article) was dismissed today because it was incorrectly filed by Taitz. I don't think we should plan to expand the article on this tangential lawsuit, but if we do, here is the source: [14] --guyzero | talk 18:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The other Keyes case

The First Amended Complaint in this action, dated July 14, 2009, can be found on Taitz's blog, here. (As a side note, it's one of the worst pieces of legal drafting I've ever read.) The case name is stated as "Keyes et al v. Obama et al", although someone named Barnett is the first-listed plaintiff. It's filed in a federal court in California. Apparently Keyes v. Bowen was in state court.

The case has attracted some attention among the birthers because of Taitz's report that the judge promised a trial on the merits. Her account of the proceedings is not supported by this news story from the Los Angeles Times online.

I agree with ChrisO that nothing has happened in this case that merits inclusion in our article. Nevertheless, some readers might be confused about two different cases bearing Keyes's name. I suggest that we add a sentence to the Keyes v. Bowen subsection, stating: "Keyes was also a plaintiff in a later suit filed in federal court in California," with a link to the Los Angeles Times story. JamesMLane t c 05:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My understanding of the Keyes vs Bowen section is that this will be the third lawsuit involving Keyes mentioned in that section. I also agree that we don't (yet?) need a bunch of exposition on the latest case, but we might need to eventually rework that section as it will be referring to much more than just Keyes vs Bowen. cheers, --guyzero | talk 06:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Keyes was a litigant in Keyes v. Lingle, which was filed (and denied) in Hawaii. Then there was Keyes v. Bowen, which was filed in the California Superior Court. It was denied, and is presently on appeal in the California Court of Appeal. Finally, there is Keyes v. Obama, which was filed (but never properly served) in the federal district court for the central district of California. Presently, the court has ordered Keyes to serve the operative complaint on Obama, and then file proof of that service. Weazie (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

National Post article

There's a good article in the National Post today about the rise of birtherism: [15] -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Rise of birtherism"? The article is nothing special... just the same old blather and the same old half-baked derision. I'll give them credit on one point however... at least they specifically mention "short-form birth certificate". Most such articles don't. Quite honestly, this Wikipedia article (even with its flaws) gives the curious reader a better, more balanced and more thorough review of this issue than ANY so-called "reliable source" out there. JBarta (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia article already covers most of the basic facts reviewed in the National Post article, but there are some interesting details, quotes and analysis that may be worth adding:

WND paragraph of Campaigners section: add role of Joseph Farah and the $10,000 award offer.
The Commentary and criticism section: add Ted Goertzel comments about conspiracy theorists.
The Congress section: add Rep. Randy Neugebauer statement (currently the second paragraph of the section seems overly focused on various statements by and about Rep. Posey)

Will add these bits later in the day; feel free though to beat me to it. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re second item above... yet more quotes of some people attempting to paint other people as unbalanced, delusional or stupid is one thing this article doesn't need more of. JBarta (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

exactly, we should be removing hate speech such as "fringe activist" from the article, not adding MORE hate speech. whatever happened to undue weight? Smith-JOnes 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's fringe, it's not hate speech or undue weight to call it exactly that. See WP:Fringe Is this particular theory fringe? Right now, it's close, but I don't think so. That fact that there's a fair number of rabid neocons that support it doesn't affect the fringe/no fringe decision. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Fringe" may be inflamatory and, as used in this article, derogatory and possibly POV pushing, but it's not "hate speech". Again, justification for this seems to be that a number of reliable sources use the word "fringe" and that carries more weight among many editors than the larger majority of reliable sources that do NOT use the word fringe. If this article is to honestly reflect the issue, the article ought to coldly document the issue instead of picking and choosing from reliable sources to support and push a particular point of view supported by a number of editors. JBarta (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

its inflammatory hate speech because its intended to make the socalled "berthers" look ridiculous even before it examines their arugments. like it or not, this article is ABOUT "birtherism", they are the only ones concerned enough to demand that Obama release the real birth certificate, even though many politicans are refusing to do. I think it's is important that we portray them neutrally, using derogatory terms ONLY when the vast majority of major sources use them and reducing their use to direct quote. NO OTHER article on Wikipedia so openly insults its subjects in the lead; if the beliefs of the berthers are ridiculous, simply use sources to portray it that way. dont just call them ridiculoius in the lead just because a few handpicked sources to inflame the passions of readers!! Smith-JOnes 00:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide citations where these groups demanded similar proof of George Bush's etc birth credentials, that would be one thing, if not, then they dare a single issue fringe group. This article is NOT about "birtherism" it is about false conspiracy theories and the type of fringe groups that spread them.13:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.33.54 (talk)

Obama released the only document that the State of Hawaii ever gives to a person that requests a copy of their birth certificate. That is the Certification of Live Birth or "short form". Nobody gets their long form even if they request it, ever. The short form provides all the information that is ever needed to prove citizenship and there is no logical reason to suspect that it is fraudulent. Vivaldi (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

New Assertion from Hawaii

One of the birther claims has been that Hawaiian law would have permitted people born outside the country to have been issued Certifications of Live Birth identical to Obama's. A recent quote from Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health, shows this not to be the case:

“If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”

(http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam)

Should this information be worked into the article? TheMaestro (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. The subject of the requirements for issuance of a certification (with particular reference to someone born outside Hawaii) is a significant part of this controversy, so our article should fairly present the birther argument as well as this information from an official in Hawaii. JamesMLane t c 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The author posted an addendum to his story: [16] --guyzero | talk 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have added it. Paragraph 5 under "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii." -- TheMaestro (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

--and it has been removed. Can we have some discussion please? I see that Weigel's Washington Independent contributions have been cited in the article several times. -- TheMaestro (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's [17] another one in which she states that "The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii" Also:

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."

"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models," she said.

Note that this is from a reliable source, too. Given this, I think we're currently giving far too much weight to the myth of "short-form vs. long-form" birth certificates. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. Note she says that it has been modified over the years. Just because NOW they only issue short form type certificates, that does not mean a long form type certificate from 1961 does not exist. In fact, previous statements from Hawaii suggest that some sort of "long form" DOES exist. At any rate, the long-form vs short form question is hardly a "myth" and is an integral part of this issue. JBarta (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What garbage. My mother and father were born in the 1930s. I had a kid born in 2006. The forms have hardly changed. All three look very similar, and they are from 3 different states. Then there is mine. 4 documents over 60 years and the look basically the same. They look nothing like Obama's Certification of Live Birth. Trentc (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is if I have support for undoing the rescission of my edit. --TheMaestro (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Weigel is an associate editor for Reason magazine, has been published in the LA Times, Time, The Guardian, The Nation, etc. He's not a blogger, and the content of the addition is uncontroversial. --guyzero | talk 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked up Washington Independent on the RS noticeboard, but perhaps we can find the quote from another source. After all, she has made similar statements to news organizations frequently. But given her statement that there is no such difference between short-form and long-form (and the birth certificate Obama released is the only type of document that they issue), we need to re-write many parts of this article. Repeatedly emphasizing "short-form" every time the birth certificate is mentioned is POV and gives undue weight to an unproven (disproven, actually) claim. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be the only type of document they issue NOW. Surely it was standard practice in 1961 to issue a standard hand-written or typed birth certificate. And it's pretty clear that the birth certificate issued in 1961 is a different document than the computer generated COLB issued in 2007. Therefore there ARE (at least) two separate documents. Whether or not they contain the same information or whether the original document still exists at all are separate issues. We can certainly quote Hawaiian officials, but let's not get carried away and infer incorrect conclusions from her statements. JBarta (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As quoted above, Janice Okubo speaks of the format and content of the birth certificate having evolved over the years. Clearly some forms were "longer" than others, in the sense that they contained more information. I don't know if it makes sense to distinguish between a "long form" and a "short form" unless there were two being issued at the same time, creating a basis for comparison. It can certainly be said that there was a discrete transition at the point when the department switched from photocopies of paper documents to printouts of electronically stored data, perhaps justifying a distinction between "old form" and "new form." As for what currently exists, I don't think it's been made clear whether Hawaii has retained a hard copy of an original 1961 paper record. What is clear is that the State has, in its computerized data, more complete information than is shown on the COLB, and presumably that is what many of the birthers are seeking access to. --TheMaestro (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All true, and the point is that she is refuting the notion that there are two different forms, one of which hasn't been released yet. As she said, this is the only type of document they issue, which would seem to refute one of the central arguments of the birthers. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an original birth certificate does not exist (or never existed) or are you suggesting that if it does exist it cannot be released by Hawaii to anyone under any circumstances? JBarta (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is why we have to be very careful about terminology. The term "original birth certificate" can be taken at least two ways, to mean either a record retained by the state for long-term archival or a document issued to parents at the time of birth. Clearly the first existed at one time, but we don't know if it still does. Presumably the second also existed at one time, and AFAIK we don't know its fate either. As to whether the first could "be released by Hawaii to anyone under any circumstances," I don't know the answer. But that's why I raised the other issue -- the birthers may actually be equally interested in the complete data set of birth records currently being stored electronically; and since neither type of hard-copy "original" may still exist, the electronic data may well be the only thing that can be sought. Now, as to whether that could "be released by Hawaii to anyone under any circumstances," that is a separate and, presumably, still open question. --TheMaestro (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey stated, "I think we're currently giving far too much weight to the myth of 'short-form vs. long-form' birth certificates." It's not a "myth" that they are different. The short form was printed by a computer in 2007. The long form was created by non-computer means in 1961. Also, the long form has the names of the hospital and the doctor, but the short form does not. There is no "myth" to it. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now, is the form that's been called the "short form" the only form that Hawaii is producing? If so, that may be the only form of documentation available. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the only form that Hawaii currently produces. However, it is not the only possible source of data. Older hard-copy documents may still exist, and the electronic database from which the COLB is derived clearly contains information that is not being released. This is to be expected in light of the many laws on privacy protection. --TheMaestro (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that "some people" would still object #whatever# proof is provided - even if the long form were provided, countersigned by St Peter etc.

Given that there are seeming quibbles about both Obama and McCain, and the circumstances have changed somewhat since the Constitution was written, perhaps the legislation should be changed (though this is outside the remit of Wikipedia). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(Can this page be archived somewhat.)

Individual sections of this talk page are automatically archived if they have not been modified for 30 days (see note near top of this talk page). JBarta (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the archive setting to 15 days, since the page has been so busy. Can change back if/when the debate(s) settle down. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me - thanks! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Independent article

Okubo's explanation of Hawaii's state policy was removed from the article by Seicer. Seicer did not discuss the matter here on the talk page, but instead merely provided an ES saying, "Washington Independent -- a collection of independent blog articles, is not a RS". I see no support for the charge that the Washington Independent is a blog, or even "a collection of independent blog articles". It's an online publication with an Editor and other employees, according to this page on its website. David Weigel, the author of the piece cited by TheMaestro, is identified as the Independent's "Politics Editor". See his bio there for his journalistic credentials. Another page on the website states, "The Washington Independent belongs to a network of state-based online news sites founded by the Center for Independent Media."

For purposes of WP:RS, therefore, I don't see how this source differs from Slate or Salon or National Review Online. There's no reason that our readers shouldn't see the statement from Okubo, who's obviously a person with knowledge on this subject. JamesMLane t c 01:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message on User talk:Seicer asking to discuss his rescission, but I will revert his edit sooner if a consensus develops here. --TheMaestro (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Seicer is clearly mistaken, and I've restored the section with some rewording. We already cite Dave Weigel's articles at various places throughout the article - however, Seicer may not have been aware of this, as the citation did not reference Weigel as the author of the piece. Weigel has followed the birther phenomenon more closely and consistently than any other mainstream journalist I'm aware of, so his articles are a key reference on this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But my original citation did reference Weigel, and now his name's in there twice! Feel free to fix it, your wiki skills are probably better than mine. --TheMaestro (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops - thanks for spotting that! Fixed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Washington Independent publishes any original content, they just reprint from other sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd be wrong in that case. Looking at their home page, I don't see anything there that isn't original content. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah. You're right. Every link I'd seen before had just been reporting what other people say. But their "articles" look more like what would be considered personal columns in other "newspapers". Who then was a gentleman? And I'd have to include Weigel in that. He isn't reporting, he's opinionizing. (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that either, I'm afraid. If you look at Weigel's most recent article on the birther movement, you can see that he's advancing the story by carrying out old-fashioned reporting - ringing people up and asking for their views - and not just regurgitating other sources. His reports are arguably somewhat slanted, but he's actively developing the story and not simply writing the equivalent of op-eds. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"pounce" and "embarrassing" sounds like opinions to me. And I agree with him. And what would you call this? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying he doesn't flavour his reports with his opinions, which is why I said "somewhat slanted", but his reports are of informational value where they provide new details of a story. And bear in mind that Weigel is a veteran reporter, not just an op-ed bloviator. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope we can find other sources, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I still cannot find a single source that claims that Cook was fired from his civilian job, which does not source the claim to Orly Taitz. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Try this article from the Tampa Tribune. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. The source in that link is Cook. Still not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Who then was a gentleman? (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2009