Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JakeInJoisey (usurped) (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 21 July 2011 (→DISPUTE - POV - "False Claims" Section Title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: 10 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 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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following 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: Presidents 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. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance). 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. 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 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.

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: 10 days

New Gallup Poll

Submitted for consideration, USA Today is reporting the results of a May 5-8 Gallup poll...

In a Gallup Poll taken May 5-8, 47% of those surveyed — less than a majority — say they believe the president was "definitely" born in the United States. Another 18% say he "probably" was born here. But a third of Americans remain skeptical or unsure: 8% say he probably was born elsewhere, 5% say he definitely was, and 20% say they don't know enough to say.

This appears to reflect somewhat less than the wholesale rejection of birther allegations that the media had initially portrayed. Given the media/pundit focus on the alleged affects of the release on public opinion, I believe this is probably a noteworthy development that might warrant inclusion here. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the article does not need to be updated every time a new poll comes out. But the drop in numbers due to the release of the long form is noteworthy. --Weazie (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We now have a long section with 5 different disjointed polls spelled out in full unencyclopedic longhand (e.g. a quote that points out the mathematical truism that 47% is "not a majority"). That's 3 or 4 too many, and does not assist the reader in understanding the phenomenon. The opinion polls are not necessarily a noteworthy part of the phenomenon, other than to establish three facts, all of which should be sourced to secondary analysis: (1) a significant number of Americans were skeptical, despite the facts; (2) skepticism ran higher among Republicans / conservatives (and perhaps in a separate section, among those with negative opinions of African Americans), and (3) the skepticism diminished (perhaps noting that it remained significant but perhaps not, depending on the weight of the sources) following publication of the long form certificate. A single paragraph is enough to do this. Beyond that, excessive detail to polls may say more about polls than it does about the actual subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) a significant number of Americans were skeptical, despite the facts

Characterizing "53%" of Americans as "significant" is rather understated and "despite the facts" strikes me as decidedly POV.

(2) skepticism ran higher among Republicans / conservatives...

...and higher among independents than Democrats / liberals. Again, a POV perspective.

...(and perhaps in a separate section, among those with negative opinions of African Americans)...

Lack of WP:RS (and NPOV) should preclude further developing this, IMHO, partisan-inspired smear...but if you have additional WP:RS, have at it (but be sure to wear gloves).

(3) the skepticism diminished (perhaps noting that it remained significant but perhaps not, depending on the weight of the sources)

But perhaps not? See above. "53%" of respondents (according to relatively "weighty" sources) would not commit to "definitely" born in the US. Dem's da facts (and, I might add, an issue that's probably all but been tabled among those in the forefront of the "eligibility" debate who are more focused on "natural born citizenship" as the overriding issue).

However, the section does appear to be suffering from "list-itis" and probably needs attention. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that's a "birther" sympathizers view of the numbers. Heck, if you polled the average American and asked them to name the 1st President of the U.S. you can bet that up to a third wouldn't know it was George Washington. That doesn't mean that Washington wasn't the first U.S. President, and reflects more on the education system than anything else. The fact is, only 13% say Obama was "definitely" or "probably" not born in the U.S., while 65% say he "definitely" or "probably" was. With 20% not knowing, or caring enough, to answer. Which reflects almost the same percentage as the last poll when 19% answered "they didn't know enough to say". Not knowing doesn't mean they are "birthers", nor does answering that Obama "probably" was born in the U.S. Only you are making that leap. Dave Dial (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You entered this discussion by means of an undiscussed, IMHO POV and contentious edit and are now edit-warring. Not good. Please allow development of this discussion towards consensus before further imposition of your personal POV on this article. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

DD2K has been part of the discussion here for a long while. I don't think there's a consensus on how to present the polls and IMO none of the presentations to date does a very good job due to length, focus, being scattershot and disjoint, and lack of context. Polls germane to the subject of an article are always difficult to present. Some reasons: (1) one organization's poll has different questions and methodologies so their polls do not necessarily compare, (2) most analysis tying changes in poll numbers to current events is conjectural, and subject to politicization by pundits and partisans; (3) there's no room to reproduce all results (making graphs of changes over time is a lot of work but can help condense this); (4) otherwise reliable sources say a lot of nonsense about polls, and don't understand the statistics; (5) the importance of social tends is not one person one vote; and (6) people saying something to a stranger on a subject in response to a survey is several steps removed from the subject itself, and may be completely insignificant or irrelevant to the subject. Here there is fairly widespread belief by Americans in a fringe theory (i.e. out of mainstream, unsupported, and false). That's not a POV about the subject of the article, it is the subject of the article, a widespread false belief. Since belief is the subject a hand, a poll of what people say they believe is likely relevant. So is the breakdown of who believes in it, the biggest correlation being that Republicans / conservatives believe it a great deal more than independents / moderates or Democrats / liberals. That should be obvious, but it's a very salient detail. Less commonly mentioned, but nevertheless mentioned often and by impeccable sources, is that people who have some discomfort over African-Americans are more likely to believe it. And in more recent news, the adherence to the belief went down but did not disappear after the latest birth certificate release. Those are the three relevant things I've seen so far about the polls. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning here strikes me as a general flirtation with suppression by WP:OR...

(1) one organization's poll has different questions and methodologies so their polls do not necessarily compare,...

I didn't offer any comparative. I offered a direct quote from one news source whose WP:RS is, I think, established and a cite to Gallup that near mirrors the USA Today reportage as to its import. BOTH lead their treatments with nearly identical reportage on the significance of the 47% finding.

(2) most analysis tying changes in poll numbers to current events is conjectural, and subject to politicization by pundits and partisans...

If the source(s) are WP:RS, any perceived politicization by pundits and partisans can and should be countered by the provision of additional WP:RS making that case. That's the way its done in WP-landia.

(3) there's no room to reproduce all results (making graphs of changes over time is a lot of work but can help condense this)...

You're making, I think, a more generic observation as to the "Poll" section, but I'll address the specific cite in question. Just as with the lede in WP, when two WP:RS sources both have the same "take" on a poll, there's notability there and it needs to be acknowledged here. If there is additional relevant content in the provided cites, then report that as well.

(4) otherwise reliable sources say a lot of nonsense about polls, and don't understand the statistics

That's not our job here. Our job is to incorporate relevant WP:RS reportage...to include WP:RS content that might make your case.

(5) the importance of social t(r)ends is not one person one vote...

Not quite sure what you're getting at here but, if I understand your point, it appears to be flirting with exclusion by WP:OR.

(6) people saying something to a stranger on a subject in response to a survey is several steps removed from the subject itself, and may be completely insignificant or irrelevant to the subject.

Ditto above.

So is the breakdown of who believes in it, the biggest correlation being that Republicans / conservatives believe it a great deal more than independents / moderates or Democrats / liberals.

That's a POV perspective...but easily dealt with by citing the source...fully.

Less commonly mentioned, but nevertheless mentioned often and by impeccable sources,...

Not even gonna go there. Wallow as you will. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your wording that you added does not reflect the full gist behind the source. Which is that those that believe/know that Obama "definitely" or "probably" was born in the U.S. rose by 9%, while those that believe Obama "definitely" or "probably" was not born in the U.S. decreased by almost half, from 24% to 13%. From the article:

Also:

Which your edit totally ignores, while hi-lighting the irrelevant. I propose the following

A May 5-8 Gallup poll taken after the release of the original Certificate of Live Birth, reported that those who believe Obama was "definitely" born in the U.S. rose 9 points(38% to 47%), while those who state Obama "definitely" or "probably" was not born in the U.S. declined by almost half(from 24% to 13%). Southerners, those with low level incomes and education are most likely to doubt that Obama was born in the U.S., while a partisan breakdown shows that 10% of Republicans believe Obama was definitely born somewhere other than the U.S., double that of Independents(5%) and five times that of Democrats(2%).

Taken from the cited sourced article, the cited Gallup website, and the direct poll link. Dave Dial (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to JIJ - (1) OR is a content policy I have not added article content, so that does not apply - we are figuring out on the talk page how we should deal with the article, and informed personal opinions are the way this is done. (2) No, a source being generally reliable is not a magic ticket to getting into the encyclopedia - even if a source is usually trustworthy, if it is not trustworthy for the specific fact at hand it is not a good source. RS is a threshold, not an entitlement for inclusion. We throw out untrustworthy or inaccurate sources all the time, and a general observation that newspapers are inaccurate when blathering about polls is a good general reason for being skeptical when newspapers blather about polls; (4) absolutely wrong - we don't mechanically reproduce reputable publications here, we make judgments about what to include, and when a source is full of inaccuracies and blatant misunderstanding of the subject (as news of the day sources are when they try to interpret poll results) we can insist on higher standards; (5) A fundamental point - a poll reporting what the responses are is not the same thing as a reliable sources talking about what is an important trend - seriously, you need to understand this about popular culture: the importance of cultural trends is not a democratic vote established by polling; (6) You haven't made your case for POV - if Republicans think Obama is a fraud and Democrats think he is not, there is nothing POV about reporting the fact in the encyclopedia, it is a matter of covering the state of the world and any attempt to ignore this is itself a POV exercise. No wallowing, the connection between racial attitudes and eligibility skepticism is a fact of the world at large echoed by a few studies and widely reported, nothing any of us editors came up with. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please reread my response to your (1) above. I don't believe you address the point I raised, instead commenting on my overview introductory sense of "flirting" with WP:OR (or, perhaps better said utilizing your concept, suppression by "informed opinion"). JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, the concept of OR does not apply to the process of evaluating the strength of sources. The New York Times is not going to run something that says "newspaper analysis of polls is often not reliable for Misplaced Pages purposes and should not be cited in a way that gives undue weight or false importance to conjecture". When I comment that a newspaper's pointing out that 47% is not a majority is a trivial observation that shows the shallowness of its analysis, I don't have a New York Times citation for that. No doubt there is some written analysis about the lack of comprehension many otherwise solid journalists have for math and statistics but that's besides the point. Anyway, the point is that polls don't make for strong article content, but that there are three well-sourced things about the polls: (1) high number of people give birther theories credence (suggesting they believe in an untruth despite exposure to evidence), (2) Republicans / conservatives (and people with race issues) more likely to believe birther theories, (3) adherence dropped but did not disappear after new release of document. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that The Gallup Poll is simply that: a poll. By definition it isn't any source of facts, just a poll about what people think they see; but it is true: lately a lot of news "sources" have admittedly been getting away with using a poll as a given fact. As I understand, here at Misplaced Pages the writers are to cite sources, not opinions, which is all a poll is. Misplaced Pages is supposed to an encyclopedia of known fact; I forward that your "poll" cannot therefore be used in the manner you are attempting to use it: prematurely cite it as a "fact"; and I do believe that respectable encyclopedias do as well only cite an historical poll when absolutely necessary where there is no other available information since doing so tends to cause a reader to draw his own conclusion in an area the writer can be accused of attempting to steer him into. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

== Kenyan Birth Certificate ==

Going over Birth Cert

O.K. I don't come in here too often to wikipedia, but I did notice some suspicious sources (nos. 53 and 54) that should be reread by all. I did also notice the purported Mombasa Birth Certificate and arguments made on that Huffington Report don't add up. The father, of course it is saying on the Mombasa Birth Certificate, was born elsewhere in Nyansa. Please be more clear. WB2 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

These two sources support the text following text:

On August 2, 2009, Orly Taitz released and attached to court documents a purported Kenyan birth certificate which she said, if authenticated and shown to be genuine, would significantly narrow and shorten the discovery and pre-trial litigation period in the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit. Legal documents submitted describe the document as an "unauthenticated color photocopy of certified copy of registration of birth"

I believe they fully support this uncontroversial text, and the second is a UPI source, clearly reliable. The following material states that the purported certificate Taitz produced was a forgery, and that too is sourced (though many other sources are out there). - Wikidemon (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about which "Kenyan birth certificate" is meant at any given point in the discussion, the Orly Taitz one or the later Lucas Smith eBay one with "footprint". Unfortunately, there don't seem to be too many reliable sources discussing them, especially the eBay one. It's somewhat interesting to note that, according to the links above, even Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily has called them both fakes. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

New Section editing

Why are new sections being put under the non-editable section for "Kenyan Birth Certificate"?WB2 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, a computer program puts a new section under the heading of the previous section. I noticed this before, but did not think that it was was worth complaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... Oh, come on. --PhGustaf (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I went to contest only to see it was already contested. This page was nominated for deletion twice and was kept twice. It was also reviewed once, with the decision upheld. It's not a candidate for speedy deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See User_talk:Muboshgu#Speedy_Deletion. It was a misunderstanding/accident. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Too long?

Can we please have more opinions on the 15 July 2011 revisions? Check the main article history and revision summaries. If no one manifest soon please ask for Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. Tukkek (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Article is fine. If you have a specific proposal, please make it. If your proposal is to remove the "Political candidates and elected officials" section and move it to another article, you can already see the view of other editors that the current article is ok. Per WP:BRD, when a bold edit is reverted, a case for the edit needs to be made, and "too long" is not enough. Yes the article is long, but there are plenty of longer articles and no requirement that articles only be short. If the section in question ever expands rapidly it might be worth revisiting the question of splitting the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit, but not the actual edit. In my opinion, sections 4 thru 6 ("Campaigners and proponents"; "Political impact"; "Commentary and criticism") are all bloated, convoluted, and addressing the same basic topic. If length really is an issue, I would prefer an approach where these sections are revised and trimmed for content, rather than merely creating another orphan article. But because this article is primarily about how these conspiracy theories affected the political discourse, removing the politicians from this article makes no sense. --Weazie (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

   File size: 453 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 85 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 16 kB
   Wiki text: 124 kB
   Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8764 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 1138 B

Readable prose size is what matters here. Per WP:SIZERULE, an article above 50kB in readable prose size "may need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". So, a discussion is fine to have, but there is no impetus to split at this point, especially since there is no logical reason to split out the "politicians opinions" into its own article. I agree with Weazie that the size issue could be better dealt with by paring bloated sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My intention on splitting the politicians is that there's enough information about different points of view elsewhere in the article, and the (long, 13 subsections) list of individuals seem to me to merely be detailing the issue, hence justifying the use of the "details" template and a new page. Just wanted to clarify - maybe it's not the best solution. I agree with both that cleaning the sections would be better, but I'm not up to this task. Anyway, to add my opinion: the article is clearly long, and keeps repeating itself without adding anything new. I feel that it could certainly have 50% of the actual size and still keep roughly the same general informational value. Tukkek 189.61.227.222 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

racism

I added a line about racism to the lede. This is much too important a topic to be restricted to the body, and especially a single short paragraph buried half-way to the end. This is obviously racist to a large number of observers, part of the emergence of a lot of overt racism that had been largely hidden until Obama's election. — kwami (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. This article has been discussed at length with little or no attention paid to your allegation that I'm aware of. You are quite correct in your observation that the article itself pays alleged "racism" inherent in conspiracy theories little heed save for a sentence or two. That should suggest to you that current editorial opinion does not support mention in the lead per WP:LEAD. If you want to develop your position, then present RS content appropriate for main body inclusion rather than editorializing in the lead itself. That's the way it works here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a considerable body of strong sources to say that a lot of people have made the racial connection, and even some scholarly work to the effect of race and racial attitudes playing a part (see prior discussions). However, "widespread" opinion is a tough call to make. What does widespread mean? More than a thousand people for sure, but this is a big subject. I think the real question isn't how many people think or say it, but whether it's a prominent part of the overall phenomenon. That's a tough call. The racism claims have been bubbling under the surface a long while, and came out in a big way during Donald Trump's period of grandstanding. But looking back it's hard to say. Probably too soon, we'll let history be the judge. JakeInJoisey is right, though. It would have to be developed first and gain sources and consensus in the body, and only then consider it for the lead. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, "widespread" is a fairly meaningless term. (I changed it to "often", also ambiguous, but we can't just say "are seen" without any qualification.) But it is a common understanding of what is going on, and therefor belongs in the lede. The body may have to play catch-up, but this is regardless a fundamental aspect of the issue. — kwami (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Some refs:

The Guardian

USA Today

Christian Science Monitor

The Week

Jackson at Politico

The New York Times

Fareed Zakaria at CNN

Detroit Free Press

Standard-Examiner

Daily Show

— kwami (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the WP:LEAD requirement for notability as first demonstrated in the main body of the article. You are putting the lead cart before the main body horse. Please stop edit warring and, instead, support your position with WP:V, WP:RS content edits. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

While I for the most part agreed with Wikidemon's objection, I then went and read the article and there is a large paragraph dedicated to this with considerable sourcing. I also agree with both Wikidemon and Kwamikagami that there are numerous sources that state race is a key factor in believing this type of nonsense, while also pointing out that JakeInJoisey has been a pretty reliable birther sympathizer, at the very least. I'm not totally sold on "often" in place of "widespread", but it's much better than leaving it out of the lede altogether. The main body sourcing and the sources provided by Kwamikargami show plenty of sources, so weight is also satisfied. Dave Dial (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the sentence out. Here it is for reference:

The theories are often seen as part of a racist reaction to the first black president of the United States.

That is WAY to weasely and accusative in its current form, especially just dropped into the lede without clarifying text. Kwami, as an admin I expect better judgment from you. I don't dispute that the role of racism is significant, and well sourced. But this wording strongly implies that anyone who doubts the President's birthplace is a racist, and I can't stand for that. This statement needs to be worded better. --JaGa 04:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not every Nazi was antisemitic, yet we have no problem saying that Nazism was an antisemitic movement. What would you suggest? — kwami (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be good if we could illustrate this, if copyright allows. For example, there is this photo of Obama as a monkey emailed by an elected Republican official in CA with the comment, "Now you know why — No birth certificate". And there's this from a birther blog, adopted from the racist hysteria of the "Obamacare" movement. And here's a Rep. politician apologizing for rampant racism within his party. All of these are on blogs, so I'd want to verify them, but surely the ugly side of the issue should be included. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the current rush to label individuals with differing views as "racist", it seems quite clear that for the most part, the fact that Obama Sr. was from a foreign land is what fuels these rumors. Let's leave the political hyperbole out of the lead.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This isn't hyperbole. Have you been paying attention? John McCain wasn't born in America, but that was never an issue. It's not a matter of "different" views, it's a matter of racist views. The same people who say he isn't American say he didn't deserve to go to college (he stole a white student's place), that he's getting a free ride, that he's a chimpanzee, that he has a bone in his nose. I suppose we shouldn't label the Nazis as "antisemitic" just because they have differing views? Of course not everyone who says this stuff is a racist, just as not all Holocaust deniers are antisemitic—some are just idiots and believe whatever they hear around them. But we have well-sourced, credible opinions from a broad range of people that at its core this is racism, and whitewashing that point of view would be irresponsible and dishonest. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What in the world does John McCain have to do with this discussion? His father was from the United States. The above rant (comparing birthers to Nazis) shows that you are not editing this page from a neutral stance. You have your mind set that birthers are either racists or idiots. This is a completely irrational view of the matter. As if a candidate with African-American ancestors such as Jesse Jackson faced these same accusations.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You really don't understand the parallel? You said that this was because Obama's father was from Kenya. Of course that has something to do with it. But his mother was from the United States, so it really wouldn't matter. And McCain wasn't born here, which is what the whole birther thing is about: not where his father was born, but where he was born.

No, not all birthers are idiots or racists. Some are political opportunists profiting off of idiocy and racism. But my opinion doesn't matter: what matters is that this is an essential element of the issue, and so belongs in the lede.

I can't parse what you said about Jackson: are you saying he did or did not face the same accusations? Of course, he was never president, and was never his party's candidate, which is when the racists really started coming out of the woodwork for Obama, but there's still been an amazing amount of racist crap about Jackson over the years.

Goldie Taylor sums it up nicely here.

I'll wait for JaGa to suggest a more appropriate wording, then back it goes. No censorship on WP, even if you don't like it. — kwami (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In actuality this movement began when Obama was running for president, so plausibly a similar movement could have developed against Jackson, which it did not. There's been no other president in recent times whose father was from a nation other than the United States. If Obama's father was from Sweden and he had the same political views as he does now, I'm sure this movement would still exist. The problem with stating in the lead that this has been called racism "widespread" is that it fails to state that these calls come from people with an agenda (just like the birthers). It's much easier to label something "racist" than to argue against it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide RS's for that POV. Who says they have an agenda? Many are simply offended by what they perceive as racism. No agenda required.

I don't recall specific racist reactions to Jackson, but he was never a serious contender for the presidency. He was never a threat. But there have been all sorts of accusations against him regardless. They simply escalate the higher s.o. gets. — kwami (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is just common sense. You should be able to have the editorial judgment to determine political rhetoric. Additionally, that's a bit of historical revisionism on your part to downplay the two campaigns of Jesse Jackson. One could label that revisionism as racist since Jackson was the first serious African American candidate. But a reasonable person could see that the one making that charge is doing so in an attempt to gain a rhetorical advantage.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

First serious candidate doesn't mean he ever had much chance of winning, which IMO he didn't. But if you're going to throw around accusations of racism against the people you're debating with, it could also be argued that it's racist to say that those taking offense at racism are merely making it up for political gain, a typical blame-the-victim mentality. Let's stick to the subject at hand without making insinuations against each other. Besides, arguing that this can't be racism because it didn't happen to Jackson is OR: we're not supposed to make judgments on history, but only to report what our sources say. And our sources show that many people, including many who are well respected and qualify as RS's, believe this movement to be racist. — kwami (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Once Godwin's law rears its ugly head, it's time for a break. --JaGa 06:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think that was worth responding to, but perhaps I should. This is not an example of Godwin's law. I did not slander anyone here; what I did was to compare racism in the US to Nazism in Germany. That's a fair comparison (KKK, Neo-Nazis: not so different; pogroms against US blacks and pogroms against European Jews (apart from the Holocaust) again not so different), and Godwin argued that it is because comparisons may be warranted that Nazi similes should not be made frivolously. — kwami (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you do not plan to work on the wording of the statement for the lede? — kwami (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. You should suggest changes here, and get consensus (and not 15-minute, oh-one-other-guy-liked-it consensus either) before you add any accusations of racism to the lede. And in case you're tempted to simply restore your previous statement to the lede, I remind you that this article is under probation, and restoring content that has proven controversial without consensus would be edit warring. --JaGa 06:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So you do not plan on improving the article in this area, but you reserve veto power against those who do? Sorry, that isn't going to fly either. This is widely seen as a racist movement—and AFAICT "widely" is accurate: no-one said "universally". That belongs in the lede. Either you can suggest improvements, or you can accept my best efforts. To delete relevant, sourced, due-weight info from the article is effectively censorship, even if your motivations are stylistic.

Since AFAICT this is a widely held view, but you see that wording as weasely, I honestly don't know how to make it non-weasely in your opinion. You're going to have to do your fair share in this case. As for it being accusatory, of course it's accusatory: Those holding this widely held POV are accusing the birthers of being racists, or of pandering to racists. To make it non-accusatory would be inaccurate.

What do you mean by "consensus"? The approval of any birthers watching this page? That would be like getting the approval of promoters of pseudoscience on pseudoscience articles. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wording

AFAIK the wording as I initially wrote it is accurate and appropriately summarizes the situation. Please adjust if you can improve it. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The theories are widely seen as part of a racist reaction to the first black president of the United States.

Edit1: The theories have been characterized by some commentators as "racist".

I improved the wording above, but still oppose the addition of the text to the lead as it gives undue weight.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It clearly gives it due weight, as others have noted. — kwami (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support the 2nd line being added, or modified as such(These theories have been characterized by commentators as racist, or a racial reaction to the first black president of the United States.), to the lede. I am slightly irritated by both the removal(instead of rewording to make better, even with the acknowledgment it belongs in the lede) and the Nazi comparisons. The sooner we decide and move on the better, imo. It's well sourced and fits into both the article and guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your wording is fine by me. Let's try that. — kwami (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the lede's current wording is fine (as is the justification why it deserves mention in the lede). My only quibble is with the sentence in the body that references "Trump's comments" -- it ought to give an example of Trump's purportedly offensive comments. --Weazie (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We've got a couple examples in the links I provided, and others are easily found. Care to try your hand at it? — kwami (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

DISPUTE - POV - "False Claims" Section Title

I am tagging this section title as one of the more blatant violations of WP:NPOV policy I have yet to encounter. Surely this title must have been objected to in prior discussions and I can't imagine how consensus agreement on this title could have come to pass. I will be reviewing the archives for discussion related to this titleing and will reserve further comment pending completion of my review. In the interim, interested editor comment is solicited and appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not what NPOV means on WP. NPOV does not require that we shy away from an objective presentation of the facts because someone might disagree with it. It does not violate NPOV to say the Earth is round, just because someone from the Flat Earth Society might scream "POV! POV!". A good example of this is the long-fought resolution at WP:Pseudoscience, where we not only can say that astrology etc. is pseudoscience, but as a responsible encyclopedia we should say it is pseudoscience. I take the same approach to any article, including this one: People are making false claims, demonstrably so per our sources, so we are duty-bound to present them as false claims, not to hide that fact behind weasel words meant to avoid offending people who might believe otherwise. That is not POV, it's simply encyclopedic. — kwami (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur; however, similar articles (i.e., Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracies, faked moon landing) do refer to simply claims. --Weazie (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, IMHO and under WP:NPOV, cannot be represented as an arbiter of absolute "TRUTH" on ANY matter in DISPUTE by two or more opposing parties, no matter how frivoulous one view might be perceived by an alleged majority. It must REPORT, utilizing WP:V and WP:RS sourcing, what those SOURCES might offer on the relative veracity of those opposing views...NOT represent one or the other as veracity dominant. That is EXACTLY what "False Claims" does and it is an absolutely FALSE dichotomy to equate "conspiracy theories" with the absurd "flat earth" comparative. "Conspiracy theories and rebuttals" should be the title of this section and the current title is a mockery of WP:NPOV and what this project purports to represent. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a large section discussing this somewhere, and I forget the editors involved, but the gist was that the main title would state "False Claims" instead of labeling each section with "False claim about....etc.". So I am sure the compromise consensus is in the archives somewhere. In any case, it's not POV to lable false claims as false claims, especially in an article with BLP implications. Dave Dial (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You have done this before(using tags to push a fringe view), but I don't have time to dig through the archives right now. All I can say right now is that you need to step away from this article if you are going to start edit warring and tagging the obvious as POV. I'm sure it is objected to...by other birthers who don't rely on reliable sources and think there is some mass conspiracy here. Dave Dial (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

They're sourced as false claims, and that's the very subject of the article and reason for its notability. People advanced false claims about Obama's citizenship and birthplace. Perhaps we repeat the word "false" too often and it seems defensive, but that's more a matter of tone and style than POV. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Dave, you remember correctly. See this discussion in archive 15 from earlier this year. The agreement was for the wording as it appears. Tvoz/talk 01:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I stated, I intended to review the archives for discussion related to the titleing of this section and have read the section you referenced. I have not yet begun my review on the evolution of this title and will reserve further comment until I do so. I concur that there was a consensus for this title evidenced in that discussion. However, I strongly disagree with a consensus that appears to be merely an accommodation to multiple problematical WP:NPOV existing entries and my POV objection, based upon what I perceive to be a clear violation of WP:NPOV still stands.

I believe a more credible consensus on the legitimacy of this title under WP:NPOV consideration may benefit from a more broad exposure and editorial expression of opinion than I've seen thus far. However, a thoughtful and persuasive comment on this subject could dispatch my concerns post-haste. Anyone got one? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• 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
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• Low-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles