Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:33, 18 April 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

faq page Frequently asked questions (see also: Barack Obama FAQ) Q1: Isn't the use of the terms "conspiracy theories" and "fringe" in the article title and body a violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality? A1: No. A preponderance of reliable sources have treated and referred to the topic as a fringe conspiracy theory, rather than a legitimate controversy. The article reflects these sources as per Misplaced Pages's policy of verifiability. Consensus on the article title has been established through a RFC and has been repeatedly reaffirmed since. Q2: What about the word "false" or "falsely"? Is it appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article to state that claims are false? A2: Yes. Misplaced Pages policy is that fringe theories should not be given undue weight. Presenting a fringe theory as an unchallenged possibility gives undue credence to that theory. ("...we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other ... for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence.") Q3: Can we discuss renaming the article or removing the "fringe" or "false" labeling? A3: Yes. Consensus can change, so new perspective on this issue is welcome, but please do not rehash old arguments. Please review the archives to see past discussions on this topic, and keep in mind Misplaced Pages policies and reliable sources when you frame your discussion. Q4: The Certification of Live Birth isn't a Birth Certificate, is it? A4: Hawaii has never issued a document with the title "Birth Certificate". Instead, their certificate is titled, "Certification Of Live Birth". The law stipulates that it fulfills all of the functions for which anyone needs a birth certificate. It is therefore misleading to suggest that it is somehow not a birth certificate.

Template:Community article probation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Supreme Court cases This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Presidents This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Multidel

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories at the Reference desk.

Proposed changes

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

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Eligibility litigation
• Legislative initiatives and responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening sentence (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Denialism"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the current version of the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Wtmitchell , the IP started off by making claims(anyone can get a Hawaiin COLB, even via mail, with no proof) that everyone here knows are false(

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has been proposed in this section that Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories be renamed and moved to Barack Obama citizenship controversy. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

• Oppose - It was inevitable that Donald Trump's hand-waving was going to bring renewed "interest" in this article, but nothing has really changed since the many previous times this was discussed. Renewed interest in a lunatic fringe theory doesn't make it any less conspiratorial. Tarc (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• This has been proposed before and soundly rejected more than once and nothing has cahnged since then, so it is not worth a full airing of this proposal. There are few if any sources indicating that there is a controversy over Obama's citizenship. Rather, per the sources there are false claims and rumors that Obama is not a citizen. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing has changed, despite Trump's silly efforts to get ratings for his TV show. Also, there are no reliable sources that are "discussing the issue in a serious vein". None. The only "sources" that don't ridicule the continuous refusal to ignore reality by birthers, are other birters. As for the "WP:COMMONNAME" point, that's incorrect too. There are a vast number of sources that refer to the birther efforts as Barack Obama conspiracy theories, even mentioning that these birther attempts are often catered to the fringe of American politics. This seems like a non-starter on many levels. Should be a snow close. Dave Dial (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Arizona legislation just passed today and that is the single most important new evidence that this issue no longer fits neatly into the discounted "conspiracy theory/fringe" garbage can. It would be awfully presumptuous and psedo-intellectuallish of us Misplaced Pages Editors to clump the Arizona Legislature into the tin foil hat crowd of "conspiracy theorists" just because they have a different opinion about the worthiness of the challenge to Obama's place of birth. At least that is a point worth considering, I think, before embracing the status quo of this title. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does not at present discuss why the Arizona legislature joined the tin foil hat crowd. However, as the new child article United States presidential eligibility legislation makes clear, a number of state and federal politicans have done so. That is not "evidence" of anything in particular other than that certain politicians have supported the conspiracy theory. We do not evaluate the positions of politicians for evidence that their positions reflect truths about the world. They are the last thing one would take as a reliable source. Anyway, this discussion is a perennial proposal that has been rejected before, so unless there are any new arguments it does not require full consideration again. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are wrong factually and logically to conflate the now fully passed and brand new Arizona legislation with the bunch of "introduced" legislation in other states which are covered by the United States presidential eligibility legislation article. Its like saying Obamacare is not an important development because Hilary Clinton tried to do something similar awhile back. I doubt, once you think about it, that you will retain this "nothing's new" opinion about the Arizona legislation. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikidem, I wonder if you could do me one teeny tiny favor. Since you are undoubtedly an outstanding personification of NPOV, would you please explain to our audience why it is essential for this wikipedia article to characterize the legislature of Arizona as a bunch of conservative tin-foil nutcases, while omitting any mention of the fact that liberal God Chris Matthews has likewise called on Obama to release the damn thing? Thanks soooooo much.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the blasphemy, I will point out that those who have been saying "release the thing" have invariably said it in the spirit of "Give the whiny little crybabies their lollipop and maybe they'll shut up"; not in the spirit of "Maybe there's something there." Opponents of this position believe that such indulgence will instead encourage such nonsense. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the Arizona bill (specifically at the part adding section 16-507.01), I don't see anything there which can be reasonably described as showing that "the Arizona legislature joined the tin foil hat crowd" — certainly not from a NPOV position. Does this side issue bear on this talk page section topic? I think it might, in illustrating the WP:LABEL character of the current article name, and the polarizing effects of such article naming. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is polarized. It's a false claim, not a disputed position with two sides. To describe it otherwise would be inaccurate and introduce bias. Neutrality is a matter of reflecting the sources without injecting opinion, it isn't an effort to find the balance point on every issue however lopsided. Anyway, I didn't start the language about tin foil nutcases, it was added in a mocking tone by Mr.grantevans2 above to argue that it must not be a fringe theory because the Arizona Legislature acted on it. Leaving aside any of a number of easy potshots about Arizona politics, it's clear that it is a fringe theory and that Arizona's law is a response to it. The facts speak for themselves and the article can leave the interpretation up to the reader about just how nutty that is. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as the other times this has been raised. Nothing has changed - the title is accurate and appropriate. Agree with Dave that this should be a snow close. Tvoz/talk 04:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As previously explained, the topic of this article is a conspiracy theory, and attempts to portray it as anything else are misguided. For the last twenty years or so, a "conspiracy theory" is not a literal conspiracy where people A, B, and C agree to undertake a campaign to achieve some objective. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons stated above and in previous discussions, as well as the fact that the proposed title is inaccurate, there being no actual "controversy" in reliable sources. However, if there are objections to the current title on the grounds it is somewhat contrived and not an actual "common name", I might support a rename to a shorter title reflecting a name commonly applied by reliable sources; something like "Birther craziness" comes to mind. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Make it "lunacy" and I might sign on. Tvoz/talk 07:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, The editor proposing this change seems unclear on the term "conspiracy theory." It does not imply an actual conspiracy. Quite the opposite, as in this case and others, it is an unfounded theory that a conspiracy exists. And yes, reliable sources do commonly refer to this as a conspiracy theory, not a "controversy." Donald Trump pretending to run for president as a publicity stunt and spouting some stuff he read on the internet to get attention is not a "controversy" for anyone but him. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Question It's certainly a fringe theory, but is it really a conspiracy theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, I understand the desire to not legitimize the topic in the title, but conspiracy theory doesn't really fit. That name implies a significant number of people working together for sinister motives. Maybe we could come up with something better. Maybe Barack Obama citizenship allegations? –CWenger (^ • @) 18:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That's basically my point as well, conspiracy theory doesn't really fit. I am sure we could come up with a better title (than the current one) if the one I propose is not good enough. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If one were to believe this fringe theory, one would have to believe that his mother, grandparents, the state of Hawaii, the U.S. State Department archive and a host of other entities all conspired together to fabricate evidence that he was born in Hawaii and bury all evidence that he was born elsewhere. And they did this....in the early '60's to insure that some random African-American baby would one day be eligible to be president? Sure, sounds plausible. No wait, actually, it sounds like a classic crackpot conspiracy theory. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Or that he and his top staff forged his birth certificate a few years ago. Not saying I believe it, just that it makes it a fringe theory and not a conspiracy theory. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And that they got the State of Hawaii to collude with them on this? Whatever your definition of "conspiracy theory," how would that not apply? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

They wouldn't need the state of Hawaii to help forge a document... –CWenger (^ • @) 23:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

They'd need their help to "confirm" it though. Ravensfire (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give you that. But it's still not a multi-party conspiracy like most conspiracy theories. I still think fringe theory/theories would be more appropriate. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just splitting semantic hairs (and incorrectly at that). I'm not really following your made-up definition of "conspiracy theory" but how many parties need to be involved for this to be "multi-party"? By your own count, it's up to Obama, his staff, and the State of Hawaii (including the officials quoted in this article). How many more are needed? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

3 people have questioned whether or not it is a conspiracy theory, so it's possible there is some validity here... –CWenger (^ • @) 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A willingness to stick to a position in the face of contrary evidence (and the apparent dismantling of one's own argument) does not lend validity to one's position. Rather, at a certain point, it just becomes another case of "I didn't hear that!" --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You act like I'm suggesting we change the article name to Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen!!!!! I am simply raising the possibility that fringe theory may be more appropriate than conspiracy theory. Both fit, it's just a question of what works better. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you didn't suggest that title. But you did, however, suggest changing it to Barack Obama citizenship allegations. Which seems to imply that the article is not about some fringe theory derided by reliable source after reliable source, every judicial forum commenting on the conspiracy theory, and every Hawaiian Government official that has been forced by birthers to look into this silliness. It's equally as bad of a title as the one you seem offended by above. And by the way, I was on my IPhone earlier when I undid the NPOV tag, and couldn't log in. You are not supposed to use tags as weapons because talk page discussions are not going as you want them to. The explanation for insertion of the tag was ridiculous. Dave Dial (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at my initial comment above, I also said "I understand the desire to not legitimize the topic in the title". Maybe you guys should relax and save your energy for somebody who actually believes in this stuff. As for the NPOV tag, I thought it was unfair to remove it mere minutes after it was added (by another editor, not me), and without a response on the talk page. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It was right to remove the tag. 14+ editors have weighed in on this most recent round about the article title, and if I recall correctly all but two them are in agreement that the title we have accurately reflects the article and should not be changed at this time - reaffirming the consensus that we have reached several times before. Throwing on an NPOV tag is uncalled for, doesn't change the facts, and shouldn't be used to further one's losing position in a talk page discussion. Is this a good time to remind everyone that this article is subject to the ArbCom article probation sanctions? Can we please move on. Tvoz/talk 05:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The state of Hawaii doesn't need to be part of a conspiracy in order to confirm a document. How many birthers actually claim that the Hawaiian government is part of a conspiracy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The theories are not grounded in logic, so it's not terribly helpful to apply logical deduction to finding their basis. "Conspiracy theory" is not a terribly precise term, but it is a term that has been used to describe this. Language usage is what it is. Obviously, "monkey wrenches" aren't used on monkeys, nor do "google bombs" explode in google's offices. The meaning of "conspiracy theory", which has been discussed here, is a statement about the type of theory, not about its implications. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, The editor proposing this change seems unclear on the term "conspiracy theory." FX (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose because it is a conspiracy theory. To call it a non-conspiracy controversy indicates there's something valid on the side of the birthers, but this whole birther thing has been discredited several times. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, this has been done to death over and over. The article is correctly titled as it is 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per the last time and the last time and the time before that. There is no "controversy". PhGustaf (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• oppose - there is no controvesy only conspiracy theories.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no controversy—no serious challenge by scholars and neutral parties—only political sniping by Obama opponents who have no evidence. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The issue is widely described as a "conspiracy theory" in reliable sources. these are some from just the past week.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to section title and document description

What is pictured is exactly what it says it is , a "Certification of Live Birth". so our section title should say that, I think. I was just reverted by Tarc on that point. Reliable sources say there is a substantial difference between a birth certificate and a certification of live birth and even the section itself states that the Certificate is a longer form with more information on it. Also I think reliable sources say that the actual certificate would have a signature. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Q3 in the FAQ list, above. You will find plenty of discussion on how to caption Obama's birth certificate if you search the archives. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize this is unintentional, but the term "birth certificate" in our section heading is obviously (albeit mistakenly) false and inadvertantly misleading to Readers. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It is not. Please read Q3 on the FAQ and search the archives for discussions on the image caption. It's been debated extensively and there is no doubt that the image is Obama's birth certificate. Dave Dial (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand Q3 in the FAQ. But still, why not just say certificate of live birth? It is patently true and nobody can argue with it. –CWenger (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Because, although different jurisdictions print different official titles on their documents, the universally accepted term for such documents is "birth certificate". If the document cannot legitimately be called a birth certificate, then the question "Where's the birth certificate?" takes on a new level of silliness, since Hawaii does not issue a document with that exact title. In response to a request for a "birth certificate", Hawaii sends out the document shown. Calling it something else gives rise to ridiculous arguments trying to make a distinction where none exists. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What if we added a short phrase to the caption to preempt any such arguments? For example: "Scanned image of Barack Obama's birth certificate released by his presidential campaign in June 2008; Hawaii refers to these documents as a certificate of live birth." –CWenger (✍ • @) 07:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer to Q3 on FAQ is misleading at best and is directly contradicted by the content of this very article; Q3 gives the impression that the Certification is the same thing as the Certificate through the use of the word "instead"; "Hawaii has never issued a document with the title "Birth Certificate". Instead, their certificate is titled, "Certification Of Live Birth"." This takes a statement which could have been technically correct (as apparently the term "birth certificate" is not used) and turns it into an outright falsehood since Hawaii does issue a different document (not an instead document) which they call, according to our article, a longer form "Certificate of Live Birth". From our article:"The image posted online at Obama's website is a "Certification of Live Birth" and is sometimes referred to as a short form birth certificate. It contains less information than the longer "Certificate of Live Birth"." I think this whole article needs a fresh review and clean up by Editors who have not been involved before. I notice in the primary Obama article's FAQ, Q4 has a dead link to an image of the "birth certificate". But to stay on point, it is misleading at best for us to knowingly be calling a white rose a red rose in a section title. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of the paragraph? The next sentence states that "The Hawaii State Department of Health no longer issues the long-form Certificate and issues only the shorter Certification upon request." Also, in the lede: "Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii 'does not have a short-form or long-form certificate'" To state or imply that there is another certificate which could be released but hasn't been would be absolutely factually incorrect, as the cited reliable sources indicate. There doesn't seem to be much more to discuss here.--Loonymonkey (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see what you are talking about. Are you saying that there is no long form certificate anywhere for Obama? It is clear that when he was born they had a long form birth "certifiCATE" and it is grossly misleading to our Readers and absurd to be calling a clearly titled "CertifiCATION" a certificate. That's my opinion based upon what I think is common sense and I find the insistence upon calling something titled a "certification of live birth" a "birth certificate" very bizarre. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I went to article source #35 which supports what Loonymonkey is saying about the State no loger issuing the long form. That Source clearly distinguishes between certificate and certification and supports my view that the terms are not interchangeable but are to the contrary defined by the State as being distinguishable from each other and I quote from that source;

*"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Denialism

I propose that someone create a link to the article on denialism. The Obama Birth Certificate conspiracy theories are a perfect example of denialism.

Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth: " is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".

Also, we could create a link in the Denialism article that uses this Obama Birth Certificate article as an example. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.94.23 (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent suggestion for the future,perhaps, but not today; being neutral about this issue today is similar to being neutral about whether "Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction" in 2002; and unless one is neutral, one can not see the applicability of denialism. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard

I have opened a discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard and any Editors may comment there if you wish. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Today Show content

Content of an Interview with Donald Trump reverted with an edit summary saying "Trump is not an authority on these matters", meanwhile directly above the reverted sentence is a block quote with the opinion of a National Review columnist whom likely is also not an authority on these matters. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because it did not seem like very good judgment to include such a potentially problematic statement without prior discussion, given the precarious situation of this article. I don't have an opinion of whether Trump is enough of an authority, but the phrasing that you included was clearly problematic. If there is a general consensus that including it is fine by me. But given the discretionary sanctions at this topic I would suggest that you begin by suggesting any potentially controversial changes on the talkpage before putting it into the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, I will follow your suggestion. I suggested adding:

• "Donald Trump, in a Today (NBC program) Show interview on April 7,2011, said that the released "Certification of Live Birth" document is "not even close" to being equivalent to a "real birth certificate".

I think it is reasonable in light of the block quote currently in that "Release of birth certificate" section from a Nastional Review columnist.:

• "Referring to this release, National Review columnist Jim Geraghty, wrote on June 12, 2008:...this document is what he or someone authorized by him was given by the state out of its records. Barring some vast conspiracy within the Hawaii State Department of Health, there is no reason to think his birth certificate would have any different data." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is somewhat of a false parallel being drawn here. Jim Geraghty is known for his commentary on political issues for a conservative magazine; both he and the magazine are largely opposed to Obama's policies, and he is cited earlier in this article as having been among the commentators calling for release of a birth certificate copy. His comment is as much on the political issues as the document itself. Donald Trump is known for his commentary on – Donald Trump. He is not recognized as either a political commentator or an expert on the "realness" of a signed, sealed and certified official state document. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Department of Redundancy Department

In reference to this edit, The article does explain that they're false. Over and over again. Please consider the article in its entire context (and not just one sentence) and you'll see that the language is repetitive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Three bits of information were removed in a series of edits here, here, and here. I implicitly agreed that two of the bits seemed awkward, forced, and unimportant, but do not feel that applies to the one I restored, which is in an introductory passage and applies to an entire set of rumors, some not fully covered in this article. If there is a consensus to remove this fact, which is contained in the cited source, then that's fine. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the edit restored should stay, and the other two edits were fine. But I will say that I went to read the article to get an understanding of what was removed and why, and it just reads very poorly. Most of which is because it seems jumbled with no set order of events. Dave Dial (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that too much redundancy isn't necessary, but I have restored the first of the three edits mentioned above as it's a pretty significant piece of information not explicitly stated elsewhere or covered in this article. It's just one phrase and isn't redundant, so its restoration shouldn't be problematic. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Motivation for people who claim this, and motivation for Obama?

I see very little on this regarding the motivations of people who want to claim Obama is not a citizen or national, and also very little of people explaining why Obama would willingly do this if he were not truly eligible.

Arnold Schwarzenegger never tried to pretend he was born in the US, Mel Gibson wouldn't have to pretend (because Mel was born in the US), just to name a couple of famous people who would be not eligible or eligible.

So the part that puzzles me, and probably needs to be answered more completely, is *why* do people claim Obama is *not* a citizen? For the most part, we are seeing nothing more than a LOT of speculation here, but not a lot of evidence.

And for the other side, why would Obama continue this charade if he were not a citizen? It seems like a rational person wouldn't mess with it. For the *chance* potentially to be president? Is this supposed to have been some pre-arranged plan for the last 50 years? It doesn't add up logically. We've had people rise to very high levels in government who aren't citizens, so it would be silly, no matter how popular you are, to continue down such a path.

So, no matter how many supposedly reliable sources we have in this article, the big bits of evidence are missing completely. We have here a huge amount of fluff with a bunch of laypeople's opinions, most of which have no direct connection to anything, nor any reason to believe they are experts, and yet they are all talking. What is their motivation? Is this simply a political ploy? And if it is, why are they being presented here in the article as credible or reliable sources to something when they have no expertise or background in the subject? -- Avanu (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We have very little reliable information as to why people believe what they do. It's hard enough to figure out what people believe in the first place, much less why - mostly we just know what they say. Why Obama might be committing a fraud if the theories were true is speculation. Even if we had sources, it would be sources speculating. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Current Pic in Lead Paragraph

I had removed it because it is a pretty biased initial image. It was soon reverted with the comment "Reinstate pic, I don't see how a picture is biased", which seems to be a fairly naïve comment. Words are able to be biased, imagery doubly so (or 1000 words so, according to some). Since the immediate image one sees upon coming to the page says "Where's the Birth Certficate?", it casts a light on the article as being solely biased toward that point of view (See WP:UNDUE). A more neutral image (or none) should certainly be available (perhaps 2 people debating the issue), and would better represent the weight of various viewpoints on this topic more accurate. -- Avanu (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a reasonably emblematic image to me. The article is about the fringe theory that Obama isn't eligible for the US Presidency (and those who believe it), not about the reality that he is. I don't see the problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you totally. The title of the page includes the words "Citizenship Conspiracy Theories," and the billboard is a fine representation of the subject matter. Simply showing a famous billboard doesn't give any more credence to the conspiracy theory. A picture of two people debating wouldn't add any further understanding of the CCT. Dayewalker (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
• Unknown-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
• WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles
• B-Class law articles
• Unknown-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• Unknown-importance United States Presidents articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Requested moves