Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Caption to billboard photo.

The billboard does not say anything about a "long form". It just challenges him to release a birth certificate. Since he did, the billboard challenges the validity of the document he released. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

wrong; he released a "Certificate of Live Birth", not a birth certificate. Trentc (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not true, but why should the truth stop the birthers? Corvus cornix_talk 19:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You were saying??? http://www.uspoliticsguide.com/images/barack-obama-birth-certificate.jpg It amazes me how many people just accept things as fact without even bother to make sure it is even true. And now those same people wonder how he even got into office. Trentc (talk)19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's what the whole discussion is about. The colb is his birth certificate. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The billboard says, "Where's the Birth certificate?" The current caption, purporting to clarify this not very unclear content, says, "A billboard questioning the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate and by extension his eligibility to serve as President of the United States. [...]" The billboard does not challenge the validity of the released documents, and it is original research to assert that it is the opinion of Wikipedia that it does. The billboard does not challenge Obama's ability to serve as President, and it is Original research to assert that it is the opinion of Wikipedia that it does. The billboard asks (depending on the reader to understand about the COLB document which has been released) that the long-form birth certificate be released. It is original research to speculate about what motivates the question without citing a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the birther logic. Unfortunately for the birthers, and those that sympathize with them, it's not real logic or anything close to sourced. The fact is, the birth certificate was released and confirmed by every media outlet that inspected it, and every court has upheld that fact. It's the birth certificate you receive when asking for your birth certificate. It's the birth certificate you use when applying for a passport or any other official document. So no, your reasoning is(birther) original research and synthesis. The current caption is well documented. Dave Dial (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not "birther logic", whatever imaginary figment that might be. The billboard says what it says, and does not say what it does not say. Asserting without citing supporting sources on behalf of Wikipedia that the billboard says or implies something which it neither says nor implies is WP:OR, and is not WP:NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(added) I have boldly removed the caption entirely. The message on the billboard is simple enough not to need interpretation, particularly interpretation containing POV editorialization. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(another addition) I suggest that this photo be moved to the "Release of birth certificate and its rejection by conspiracy theorists" section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a well established fact, and sourced throughout the article many, many times, that the Obama campaign released the birth certificate of Barack Obama. It's a fact, and it's sourced. We are not going to have a lead image on top of this page without describing those facts. Personally, I liked having Obama's birth certificate as the lead image, but whatever image is the lead image is going to describe the facts inside the article. Your claims of NPOV are like saying we have to give equal weight to fringe conspiracy theories to the facts that are backed up by reliable sources. That's definitely not the case. Dave Dial (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the dispute. Here are the facts

1. Billboard asks "where's the birth certificate?"
2. Barack Obama released his birth certificate in 2008

The billboard therefore questions the validity of the birth certificate that Obama released (and as stated by Dave Dial, the questioning of the certificate is referenced throughout the article).

Of course, the only reason anybody cares about Obama's birth certificate is because of questions about whether he is eligible to serve as president. This is documented in the article with all the litigation challenging the validity of the Obama presidency.

I am therefore puzzled as to the WP:NPOV and WP:OR claims.

Victor Victoria (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The caption adequately expresses WND's view on this matter. Would a cite to a WND article clarify? (WND can be cited to demonstrate what WND espouses.) --Weazie (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Beg to differ. Joseph Farah states the WND position here (and probably elsewhere). There, he asks the rhetorical question, "Is Barack Obama constitutionally eligible for the presidency?" and answers that question with "We don't know." I've tagged your reinsertion of the caption asserting otherwise {{POV-statement}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just rhetoric; the truthers who ask "Did George Bush cause 9/11?" really aren't asking a sincere question, but are planting the idea through the asking of the question. And I did not reinsert anything. --Weazie (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

HuffPo's WorldNetDaily's Birth Certificate Fraud. --Weazie (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You lost me here, Wtmitchell. You provide a reference showing that WND is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to serve, and then you add a template to the article questioning the neutrality of the statement that the billboard is questioning Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president of the United States. What gives??? Victor Victoria (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, Farah's statement of WND's position ("We don't know") says that WND is not completely convinced that Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president. I accept that as a sincere and truthful statement. Others may hold the opinion that Farah speaks insincerely and/or untruthfully here, but such opinions should not be used to cast Farah's stated expression of WND's views on the matter as something other than what those views have been stated to be.

Also, to my mind, being unconvinced that something is true is not the same as being convinced that it is false. Describing a statement by someone that he is unconvinced that an assertion is true as a statement that he is convinced that said assertion is false is a distortion.

Also, though we are not in a courtroom environment here and compliance with the best evidence rule (paraphrase: secondary evidence will be not admissible if an original document exists, and is not unavailable due to destruction or other circumstances indicating unavailability) is not a requirement, it is still a pretty decent rule of thumb. The billboard simply asks that the best available evidence be disclosed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't asking "Is Barack Obama eligible to serve as president?" and providing any answer other than a "yes" constitute "questioning whether Barack Obama is eligible to serve as president"? Victor Victoria (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that providing the answer "I don't know" does not. I think that providing such an answer indicates that one is unconvinced by whatever evidence has been presented that the answer should be "yes". See also "Responding to Weazie", below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We are not going to get into this circular logic debate over and over. Each time it's the same reasoning, and each time there has been no reliable source given, and only synthesis based on original research from websites/outlets that are not reliable sources here(Free Republic, WND, etc). The fact it, it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. With clear and convincing evidence provided(birth certificate, birth announcements, statements from government officials). To everyone. You might as well tag a picture of the moon as violating the NPOV standards because someone questioned if it was made of cheese. In other words, if WND put up a picture of the moon and asked "Is it made of cheese?", it's the same thing. You seem like a smart and intelligent editor, but you should stay away from these conspiracy theory articles. You become unreasonable and refuse to accept the standards that are used here as facts. Dave Dial (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly there is no concensus for the tag inclusion. And to paraphase an example from the rhetorical question page, "Who knew that smoking causes lung cancer?", the questioner is not asking for a show of hands. Given the volumunious -- and uncontradicted -- evidence that President Obama was born in Hawaii, WND's "question" is not sincere, especially because it ignores all that evidence. Oh: The best evidence was provided (Obama's COLB), but WND refuses to accept it on the very bases discribed in this article. --Weazie (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between the noun form of the word "question" and the verb form of the word "to question". The "question" that is on the billboard "questions" the validity of Obama's birth certificate. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should use tags as a proxy for discussion, but I'm sympathetic to Wtmitchell's point that the caption includes some analysis of things not there in the words on the billboard, and that is not sourced. The billboard asks a rhetorical question, where's the birth certificate, based on the false premise that Obsma's birth certificate is not accounted for. Just why they have arrived at the false premise or how they would support it if they chose to debate it (he never released it, it's not the real birth certificate, it's real but not valid, it's valid but does not show that he was born in Hawaii, whatever) is not for us to speculate. Without that analysis, and with a little more cleanup, the caption might read:

A billboard asking rhetorically where Barack Obama's birth is, bearing in the bottom right corner the URL for WorldNetDaily, which argued at the time that Obama's eligibility for the office of President was in question.

- Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, saying that the question is rhetorical is Original research. In my opinion, they really want an answer to their question. The fact that the answer is "released to the world June 2008" implies that they are questioning the validity of the document that was "released to the world in June 2008". Victor Victoria (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems obviously rhetorical to me (as in "where's the beef"), probably as obvious as it is to you that the question is premised on the acceptance that Obama did release the birth certificate but that it was invalid. Point taken, though. We shouldn't include speculation either way. Best to strike the word "rhetorically" in my proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Wikidemon, I think that an assertion that WND argued at the time that Obama's eligibility for the office of President was in question would need to be supported by citation of a WND piece clearly making such an argument. I don't think that neutral reportage by WND re others making such an argument is equivilant to WND making that argument itself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Weazie: I erred earlier when I described the question "Is Barack Obama constitutionally eligible for the presidency?" which Farrah asks here as a rhetorical question. Actually, it's a hypothetical question used as a rhetorical device. The best info I've found in WP on hypothetical questions is at Thought experiment#Uses. I do not believe that asking a hypothetical question as a rhetorical device is equivalent to taking a position in support of whatever can be argued to be contained in the hypothetical question. The point of such a rhetorical device is to highlight one's response to such a hypothetical question, not to highlight the question. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "Where's the birth certificate?" is more of a battle cry than a question. In many places in the U.S., that phrase is instantly understood, and to suggest that it is simply a question to be taken at face value contradicts commonsense. The billboard pictured in the article cost someone thousands of dollars; people don't go to that much trouble unless there is a serious issue at stake (such as undermining people's beliefs re the eligibility issue). Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in the U.S. and last visited there in 2003, so I haven't experienced that "battle cry" atmosphere. Your comment did, however, cause me to search for info. That search turned up this April 25, 2010 WND article, which says that the billboard campaign started one year previously. That would have been on April 25, 2009 -- just over two months after Obama's inauguration. I doubt that "Where's the Birth Certificate" was a battle cry back then, and don't see how that relates to this article topic, to the subject of the photo caption, or to the question of whether the present caption is or is not OR or NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that WND was on a campaign, both before and after the election, to foment mistrust of Obama by promoting the fringe conspiracy theory that he is not an American citizen. Whether they did that as political partisans, wingnuts, or just a stunt for the notoriety and ratings is harder to tell. The point is that they were not sincerely interested in finding answers to that question, and the billboard was not an attempt to seek answers - it was a political act. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as an expression of your opinion, which may or may not be valid. If that is asserted in the article, though, please cite a reliable source which supports the assertion. AFAIK, the most reliable source about WND's editorial policies and about what WND has published is WND itself. While looking at the WND article mentioned in my response above, I noticed this link to what is billed as WND's complete archive of articles on the issue of whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve. That may be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether one prefers to label "Where's the birth certificate?" a rhetorical question or a hypothetical question, it is clear from WND's articles that it is aware of the 2007 COLB (which is a birth certificate); WND simply refuses to accept this as sufficient proof. This denialist behavior is exactly what is described in this article, and thus accurate. In any event, the inclusion in the caption referencing the citation you provided sufficiently addresses your concerns; the discussion on this edit has run its course. --Weazie (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WND says here [1] that the purpose of the billboard is to raise the eligibility issue; to "join in a campaign to generate public debate and discussion". They ignore the 2007 COLB entirely, so you can't really say that the billboard questions the validity of the COLB, or accepts the COLB while requesting further evidence. Of course, the lawmakers were wary of someone using the best-evidence rule as an argument, and in statute 338-13 declared that legally, a printout such as the 2007 COLB is just as good as having the 1961 original. JethroElfman (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's my summary of WND's history of birther claims, not my opinion about them. WND is not a reliable source regarding its own actions, editorial practices, motivations, or opinions. I don't think we can safely treat any of WND's advocacy as part of a larger coherent position on the subject - it's just printing stuff for whatever reasons it has. We've seen in some other cases that the organization and its writers have said things about the organization that are not fully true. The existence of a story attributed to WND on the WND website is reasonably (not completely) reliable as a primary source to support the fact that WND published the story. The WND name on the billboard and the statements on the site that they engaged in a billboard campaign are reliable to source that WND is in some way responsible for the billboard(s). But I would not go too far beyond that without solid secondary sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Re WND as a source about itself, I was think of it in the spirit of WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. I still see it that way, not having seen those assertions supported by reliable sources (re its writers having said things about the organization that are not fully true and that the existence of a story attributed to WND on the WND website not being reliable as a primary source to support the fact that WND published the story—note, I've deleted "supported by reliable sources" here, as it is not a WP requirement that cited sources must cite their sources). Perhaps the assertions have been supported and I've just missed seeing that, but I looked at the WorldNetDaily article, and didn't see it in the WorldNetDaily#Criticism section there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. Weighing whether a source is reliable or not is a matter of Wikipedians editorial discretion based on their analysis of things. The argument doesn't go WND is not trustworthy as a Wikipedia source as to its own history [cite to New York Times]. Specifically on the birther matter, WND in early 2009 attempted to edit war birther claims into Wikipedia's Barack Obama article as a breaching experiment (they admitted), published a misleading account that ignored their involvement then, once caught, changed the original posting of the story rather than issuing a correction. David Shankbone has a pretty good summary of this on his blog.[2] There is a little sourcing for this (you can look at the Klein article), but the more convincing direct evidence is in the Wikipedia article history archives. At any rate, I would not trust WND's self-published statements about their motivations for questioning Obama's birth certificate. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Re your assertion a couple of comments back, "WND is not a reliable source regarding its own actions, editorial practices, motivations, or opinions.", that sounds like a matter for WP:RSN. I'll ask there, linking this exchange (that'll probably be in a few hours -- I'll have to get moving in a few mins from now).

I'll take a look at the blog you mention just out of general interest. That may or may not be a citeable supporting source -- my guess is not, but I haven't looked at it yet.

You say, "The existence of a story attributed to WND on the WND website is reasonably (not completely) reliable as a primary source to support the fact that WND published the story.", without citeing a supporting source. Perhaps that's intended to be supportable by info from the aformentioned blog. If that "not completely" assertion is supportable by a solidly reliable source, I'd take it as a pretty solid indictment of WND's reliability about anything at all. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This exact article already has spurred a similar RSN discussion. --Weazie (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That discussion concluded that WND is not a reliable secondary source, and though reliable as a primary source as to the content of its own statements does not by itself establish the due weight of those statements. However, that discussion is stale because it occurred before WND was caught misrepresenting its birther advocacy on Wikipedia, and editing its own back story to cover up the misrepresentation. Getting to the bottom of this doesn't require secondary sourcing - we have better than that, the User:Jerusalem21 edit history. But it is covered to some degree in the sources that the blog, and Klein article, link to. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I had lost track of where we are and how we got here, so I looked back. To recap:

• You suggested modifying the caption to read A billboard asking rhetorically where Barack Obama's birth is, bearing in the bottom right corner the URL for WorldNetDaily, which argued at the time that Obama's eligibility for the office of President was in question. (subsequently striking the word "rhetorically" from the suggested wording.
• I opined that assertion that WND argued at the time that Obama's eligibility for the office of President was in question would need to be supported by citation of a WND piece clearly making such an argument.
• You provided a link (it's a dead one, but I think this is the page you meant) said to be to an article where WND says that the purpose of the billboard is to raise the eligibility issue; to "join in a campaign to generate public debate and discussion" (I see that they speak there of having "relentlessly pounded the eligibility questions"). You say, "They ignore the 2007 COLB entirely, so you can't really say that the billboard questions the validity of the COLB, or accepts the COLB while requesting further evidence."
• Looking at that WND web page, I see that it says, "... The idea is to make sure Obama cannot avoid this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn." The only reasonable meaning I can see to assign to the "it" of which they speak there is the document sometimes called a "long form certificate of live birth" -- the unreleased document said to be on file in Hawaii.
• I continue to believe that the WND billboards asking "Where's the birth certificate" are asking that that unreleased document be released.
• That WND web page goes on to say, "WND previously launched a petition campaign that has collected more than 370,000 names demanding Obama's eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly." I read that as having been a demand that Obama's eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly (to WND's satisfaction by releasing that unreleased document). I do not read that as having asserted that Obama is ineligible to serve. I think that describing it as an assertion that Obama is ineligible to serve would be a distortion.

Getting back specifically to the caption which we are discussing at such length, its initial sentence currently reads, "A billboard questioning the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate and by extension his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.", citing [3]. The cited item comes up as a dead link for me. Can you provide a live link? I would like to verify that the source cited here (1) does question the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate and (2) does question his eligibility to serve as President of the United States. (If you cannot provide a live link to the cited web page, could you quote a relevant snippet? I'm guessing that googling for some literal text on the page will turn it up at a different URL.)

This may come down to a question of interpretation of the words "has relentlessly pounded the eligibility question". You seem to believe that it means that WND has relentlessly questioned and/or challenged Obama's eligibility to serve. AFAICS, it means that WND has relentlessly campaigned for Obama to better demonstrate that he meets the constitutional eligibility requirements by releasing the unreleased document said to be on file in Hawaii (hence the question: "Where's the birth certificate?" (concluded hastily and posted from an internet cafe -- I need to get moving on to someplace else) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be conflating what several people say here. At any rate, because of WND's functioning as as a political advocacy group for fringe matters and having misrepresented its actions on the matter, rather than a media outlet reporting news, we cannot accept its statements as trustworthy. If WND says that WND collected Y names on a petition demanding Z, we cannot take on face value that any of this is true. If a billboard attributed to WND says N, all we can gather is that a billboard attributed to WND says N - to be careful we ought to find a secondary source even for the fact that WND actually sponsored the billboard. We cannot rely on WND's claims that it did, or its explanations for why it did so. It would certainly be a mistake to derive from its statements a consistent overarching argument about Obama's citizenship status. By all indications it was simply trying to discredit Obama, not trying to lay out a cogent argument or stating an actual opinion it held. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to there about conflating. If you are speaking of the bullet-pointed list above, I was speaking of recent comments by you in this discussion, of a dead-link WND link which you (you, not I) provided in those comments, and of a live-link to the WND content to which I believe you were referring when you provided that WND link.

Following that, saying "Getting back specifically to the caption which we are discussing at such length," I got back to the caption. This discussion began with unsupported (and POV AFAICT) assertions in the caption. I see that the assertions in the caption are now supported by a cite of a WND web page[4] That link (again, added not by me but by someone else) was dead for me when I checked it during my last comment, but it's live now; it points to a WND web page offering to send a report by email. That WND web page (added as a supporting cite by someone other than me) does not appear to support the assertions in the caption which cite it for support. I filled out the form on the web page (again, not a page cited by me) and submitted it, which produced an email sending me to another WND web page which says, in part

Is Barack Obama constitutionally eligible for the presidency?

We don't know.

That also does not appear to support the assertion in the caption (the cited URL for which led me to look at it).

I downloaded the report offered on that web page. That report wanders all over the place, but eventually gets down to the point relating to the caption which is under discussion here in its "Conclusion" section. There, it says, "President Obama could quickly and easily resolve the issue by releasing his personal historical documents to authenticate his claims."

I continue to believe that WND is seeking the release of the document sometimes called a "long form certificate of live birth" which is said to be on file in Hawaii when they ask, "Where's the birth certificate?"

I still have not seen any support for the assertion in the caption describing the imaged billboard as "... questioning the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate and by extension his eligibility to serve as President of the United States." As to the first part, I've seen assertions that the released document might possibly not be valid (The Report document which the current cite eventually leads to discusses this at some length), but I've not seen a claim that it is invalid. Likewise, I've not seen an assertion that Obama is not eligible to serve as President (I have seen assertions that he is ineligible if he does meet constitutional eligibility requirements, indications that WND is unconvinced by the released document, and assertions that the unreleased document said to be on file in Hawaii should be released to resolve the matter, but I have not seen an assertion that he is ineligible).

As I see it, still, neither the billboard not any other WND document I've been referred to questions Obama's eligibility to serve as president. Rather, they express doubt that the released document fully, completely, and finally settles the issue, and they ask that the issue be resolved by release of the unreleased document said to be on file in Hawaii.

If I've missed finding a source which would unequivocally supports the current caption, the current very dodgy supporting cite should be replaced with a better cite of such a source. If no solid supporting source is available for the assertions in the caption, the assertions should be changed to say something which is supportable. (again, saved in haste -- I've been told that I've got to get moving and get back to real life issues) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot make out your point. Are you suggesting that WND may only be requesting a clarification on the birth certificate because they happen to be very interested in such matters? And there is a possibility that the billboard is not a comment on the elligibility issue? In that case, why aren't you asking how we know that the bilboard is about Obama? You also seem to think that a comment like "is he elligible ... we don't know" should be taken at face value, when it is obviously a political attack (how would you expect a voter to react to repeated comments like that?). Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say or do all those things here -- other people did -- but no matter. Absent a reliable source all we can say about the photograph is that it depicts billboard with the WND logo that contains the question, where is the birth certificate? WND is not a reliable source as to its own actions, motives, or opinions, so it is not helpful to include their statements on the purpose of the billboard campaign. Johnuniq is on the money that the most obvious thing is that it's a political attack. Political attacks are best understood according to the political goals they are trying to achieve, who is trying to achieve them, and to what end, not the make-believe logic in which they are cast. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you seem to have arrived at the same point I was at before this discussion heated up: "Absent a reliable source all we can say about the photograph is that it depicts billboard with the WND logo that contains the question, where is the birth certificate?" Don't include WP:OR, attributed or unattributed WP:SYNTHESIS, or WP:POV unless it passes WP:DUE and is attributed and source-supported. For whatever is included, comply with WP:V. AFAICT, the caption in its current form flouts all of that.

I would disagree somewhat about the harsh exclusion of citing WND -- They are a reliable source to support an assertion that they have published whatever it is that they have, in fact, published (e.g., the snippet I quoted a comment or two back from the "Conclusions" section of that report I dug up by following the WND cite in the current caption), but I'm getting pretty sick and tired of beating my head against the stone wall of this article and I'm not going to argue hard at the moment about including any assertions which WND's publication of that snippet might be cited to support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(added) I've placed a {{failed verification}} tag after the Ref in the caption with the relevant cite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(added) See here for a discussion about whether this tag should be retained or removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How about just changing the caption to A WND billboard bearingn the question, "Where's the Birth Certficiate" - ? (or something like that). I've lost track. Is there any opposition here to simplifying it so as not to include any analysis of what WND specifically means by it? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is. About 4 or 5 other editors have either undid that attempt by the above editor, or tried to explain to him on here that WND is definitely questioning the validity of Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to serve as President. It's sourced throughout the article and I just added another source. What we have here is the same God Damned circular argument that presented every month or so, by the same editor. This thread should be closed and this issue put to rest. It doesn't matter which edit this particular editor has a problem with, the essence is ALWAYS the same. Making claims that the birthers only want Obama to release his "original" birth certificate. No matter what the edit is, that is the general gist of Wtmitchell's point. And no matter how many editors show him there is no freaking difference, and Obama definitely DID release his birth certificate, he just repeats the same lines over and over. If that picture is going to be the lead photo, it needs to be explained in the caption. Dave Dial (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

JethroElfman, I take your point re 336-13 to be that WND should not be unconvinced that the released certification demonstrates Obama's eligibility. WND has probably detailed the reasons why they remain unconvinced somewhere in their published articles. Not being convinced may or may not be unreasonable of them, but it is supportable that they are unconvinced. The billboard photo (the caption of which is the topic of this section) is one manifestation of their being unconvinced. I'm not sure where this is leading. Are you saying that the challenged unsupported photo caption is not POV because WND should be completely convinced and are not? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This WND article, describing a WND-produced report on President Obama's eligibility, contains these two quotes about the report: "An explanation of Obama's 'Certification of Live Birth' posted on the Internet and how it falls short of providing proof" and "Should state officials who claim to have 'seen' Obama's 'original birth certificate' be believed?" --Weazie (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to an earlier comment by Johnuniq. Apologies. Here's a belated response:

• I'm not suggesting what WND might or might not be doing. I am unable to read their minds (others may believe that they are able to do that, but I do not have that ability). I may have drawn some conclusions about that, and if I did it was inadvertent and based, probably, on what they said they were trying to do.
• You ask why I am not asking how we know that the billboard is about Obama. I've seen WND articles which said so, and I took them at their word. Those articles could be cited in support of that point, but they would probably meet a storm of protests about WND not being a reliable source about what WND's billboards are about.
• Yes, I think a comment like "is he elligible ... we don't know" should be taken at face value. It might be discredited, but that would need strong support. Absent such strong support, it should be taken at face value.
• It is not obvious to me that such a Q&A is a political attack by the party saying, "I don't know."
• If someone is unconvinced that Obama meets eligibility qualifications but is also not convinced that he does not, I would expect his truthful answer to the question "is he elligible?" might be "I don't know."
• Re the foregoing point, I don't think that consideration of what a third party hearing that question and answer might think about it should influence the answer.

Are WND a bunch of underhanded agenda-driven people with a blind hatred of Obama, his political philosophy or his political party? Maybe; maybe not. Are some others a bunch of underhanded agenda-driven people with a blind devotion to Obama, his political philosophy or his political party? Maybe; maybe not. Are such agenda-driven people editing this article? Maybe; maybe not (I'd personally guess that this is probable). 10:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Biased Deletions

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Terrence L. Lakin. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WND article about the deletion; I'm "quoted" in the article. --Weazie (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

COLB and the lede

Growing our of a long discussion elsewhere on this talk page, I've looked here and there in this article. One thing which caught my eye is the second paragraph of the lede, which opens, "The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a 'Certification of Live Birth')" Is the document spoken of truly a certified copy of some other document? I was under the impression that is was an original document in its own right, presenting some of the information which is contained on the Certificate of Live Birth document said to be on file in Hawaii. If the released document is not truly a certified copy of some other document, I suggest that its description in the second para of the lede is inaccurate, and needs rewording. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the third paragraph of the lede and, I concur, it should reflect, from the Politifact cite already referenced, the following...

WorldNetDaily is correct that the Obama campaign didn't post his original birth certificate on the Internet.

The paragraph needs correction.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement in the lede is correct per sources that the campaign posted a certified copy of his birth certificate. Selectively quoting a source that says that WND made a semantically correct statement that the version posted is not the original version recorded, as part of making a false claim that he did not release his birth certificate, would not be helpful here. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it's not a certified copy of a certificate. It is, as they call it in 338-13, "the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof". It is in itself a (birth) certificate, rather than being a copy of some other certificate, so rewording the sentence would be appropriate. JethroElfman (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the statement, citing the politifact article. Feel free to improve my edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked it as that wasn't technically correct. The implication was that they only put a scan online when in fact, journalists were allowed to examine and photograph it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tag in caption of billboard photo

I have reverted this edit, which removed a {{fv}} tag with the explanation, "Consensus in talk page is against this tag". The tag was just recently added (in the immediatly-preceding edit) and has not been specifically discussed on this talk page. The insertion of the tag was mentioned here but I've opened this separate section for discussion to save it becoming lost in that very long other section. Actually, I have no objection to the tag being removed if it can be demonstrated here that the cited source does support the assertions to which the source citation is attached. Those assertions are

1. A billboard questioning the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate
2. and by extension his eligibility to serve as President of the United States

I did look for clear and specific support for the assertions in the cited supporting source [5]. I didn't find it. Perhaps I screwed up and missed it. If I did miss it, could someone please quote the supporting snippet from the cited source here for each of those two assertions? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously there and you are being very tedious. I have to go on a trip this morning to research our family history, but will be back tomorrow evening. Dave Dial (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (except the going on a trip part). --Weazie (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is tedious (long and tiresome). That word, "tedious", is wikilinked above to the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing project page. The lead sentence there reads, "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole." I don't believe my comments here have been partisan, biased or skewed. It seems to me that this article (in particular, the lead image caption which has been the topic of so much recent discussion) flouts WP policy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope that with this edit the discussion will now come to an end, as it has gone into WP:DEADHORSE territory. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that with this edit, Dave Dial removed the {{fv}} tag again, without mentioning its removal here. The edit summary said, "Yes, they are there. Stop inserting this against consensus, its very tedious."

I reread the cited source once again and do see what looks to me like pure innuendo saying, "... 'Birthers' movement, people who doubt that President Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as president." and "The conservative WorldNetDaily.com Web site is the conductor of the Birther train." If that's the quality of support on which this article rests, so be it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Synthetic fluff in Official Response section

I just undid someone else's unexplained undo of my removal of the sentence "Although commentators have suggested that it would not be advantageous to President Obama to address the conspiracy theories, both he and his press secretary have had to respond to reporters' questions about the issue" from the Official Response section. It's facially apparent that that sentence is semantically unacceptable, for several reasons:

1. "Although", which is defined by the wiktionary as "though; even though; in spite of" is being used inappropriately. In this sentence, the clause does not express a concession to the premise.
2. "commentators have suggested" - see WP:WEASEL.
3. The phrase "he and his press secretary have had to" suggests that they were compelled to respond to reporters question. That is not bourne out by the article's sources (nor is it correct).

Moreover, it's hardly noteworthy that there are commentators who don't think that the president and his press secretary are behaving to their own advantage. Leave it out. 24.177.121.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Synthetic fluff?? that's your Point of View. The sentence in question provides a great transition from the paragraph above it which states that commentators have advised against responding to the conspiracy theories, and the fact that Obama and his White House have responded to the conspiracy theories, as given below. It is an essential transition sentence that should be returned to the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yah, except not really. It's an awkward sentence that's lacking in citations or notability, and implies inaccuracies. I'm pretty sure that the article is better off without it. Maybe take a shot at rephrasing it if you think there's a desperate need for a transition sentence there, but the very fact that you've acknowledged that it's just a transition sorta makes my point that the statement is fluff. 24.177.121.39 (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Although it is the responsibility of the editor proposing a change to establish consensus before edit warring, I do kinda agree with 24.177's position here. "Although..." sets a narrative tone that is not encyclopedic. What commentators have suggested is not as important as the nominal subject of the heading, the official response - about Administration actions, not commentator viewpoints. The issue is not what is advantageous to Obama, but how Obama responded. There is an implicit assumption that actions should be measured up to advantage -- in other words political expediency. Why is that? We don't do that in most articles. We do not say "Although it would have been advantageous for Gallileo to praise the Pope, he..." And finally, "have had to" is incorrect. Nobody pointed a gun at anybody to make them do things. Political actors did what they did for their own reasons. To imply that they had no choice misses the point. All in all, the presently-deleted sentence inserts more commentary than clarity in my opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Victor's original undo had no summary - it was as likely a mistake or vandalism as it was a legit edit. There's no WP:EDITWAR here. 24.177.121.39 (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Don't like "have had to"? replace with "could not avoid".
• Don't like "Although"? replace with any other transition of your choosing. Suggestions: "Even though", "In spite".

Some transition is needed in order to bridge the dichotomy between the paragraph saying that commentators have suggested he not respond and the paragraphs saying that he did. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with the new wording. Thank you, Wikidemon. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Texas birther bill

Texas is now another state that has a birther bill on its plate. If anybody is interested in reading and then summarizing to add to the article in the appropriate section, here are a couple of references: one, two. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments re a recent edit, and a possible source to satisfy an inserted {{who}} template.

I don't have this article on a personal "hit list". Honest, I don't. However, I do have it on my watchlist and I do look at it when it pops up.

This edit recently popped up. I looked at the cites supporting the first assertion changed in that edit, not expecting to find an issue. Supporting an article assertion which says, "...[previous cite support] Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii 'does not have a short-form or long-form certificate'." This is supported by two cited sources;

• Reyes, B.J. (2008-10-31). "Certified". "Political Radar". Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Retrieved 2010-01-01. {{cite web}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |work= at position 1 (help) That article does not appear to support the Okubo quote.
• "Hawaii: Obama born in U.S." The Seattle Times. Seattle, Washington, U.S.: The Seattle Times Company. Associated Press. 2008-11-01. ISSN an AP article 0745-9696Cites an AP article. Retrieved 2010-01-01. {{cite news}}: Check |issn= value (help) That is an item from AP in the Seattle Times. A headline writer at the Seattle Times apparently retitled the AP item; the AP headline writer had titled it "HONOLULU — State officials said Friday there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii." The body of the article, however, makes no assertion regarding Obama's place of birth. Also, this cited source does not support the Okubo quote.

Note that WP:V requires that a reliable source be cited in support of the direct quote of Okubo.

Re the {{who}} change made in that edit, WND is one entity making such a claim. This is covered in a WND report mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. The report is available from WND via an emailed link (see [6]), but I'm not sure that WND would be regarded as a reliable source here regarding whether WND has claimed that foreign-born children could acquire Hawaiian certification of live birth (the report makes such a claim on page 7). Also, I was going to mention a note in the article's Notes section which pointed to a Western Journalism Center article containing a report purporting to detail means by which Hawaii birth certificates could be obtained in 1961 for children born overseas, but I see that the edit which prompted this comment removed the Notes section and links to it from the body of the article. I'm not sure whether or not the Western Journalism Center is considered a reliable source in this article regarding whether or not they have asserted that Hawaii birth certificates could be obtained in 1961 for children born overseas but, if so, see this. Actually, the WND report relies on the Western Journalism Center info for this, though they don't specifically cite the relevant Western Journalism Center link I've just mentioned. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither WND nor the Western Journalism Center are reliable sources for this topic. Sorry. 24.177.121.39 (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I take it, then, that the {{Who}} tag at the end of the following article snippet:

“ Some people claim that the certification of live birth produced by Obama does not prove that he is a natural born citizen because, they claim, foreign-born children could acquire Hawaiian certification of live birth (COLB), so that Obama's possession of such a certificate does not prove that he was born in Hawaii.{{who}} ”

Is within a context where neither WND nor Western Journalism Center are reliable sources to support assertions that such claims have been made by WND or Western Journalism Center (they have). That seems a bit insane and/or Orwellian to me, but is probably not considered so within the context of this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me put this as plainly as I can. WND is an advocacy organization, not a news source. They have flat-out lied in their publication about their statements and actions in support of the birther conspiracy theories. We therefore cannot take them to be a reliable source as to their own beliefs and actions. If they publish something saying that in the past they made a claim, we need to verify that they did in fact make that claim in the past, and cannot take their word for it. However, if they publish a claim that Obama is not a citizen, we can take that as a valid primary source that they have made such a claim. If there is anything Orwellian about this obvious observation, it comes from WND's actions, not the commonsense point that if you're caught lying about something you can't be trusted to tell the truth about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, WND hasn't published a claim that Obama is not a citizen (they have reported on others making such claims). The {{who}} template spoken of above isn't related to the question of whether WND has published such a claim. That template asks that sources be identified which have published claims that "... the certification of live birth produced by Obama does not prove that he is a natural born citizen because, they claim, foreign-born children could acquire Hawaiian certification of live birth (COLB)". Western Journalism Center has published an unedited report by an unaffiliated investigator which made such a claim. Based on that, WND echoed the claim in a report they've published. My understanding is that the gatekeepers of this article consider that neither WND nor Western Journalism Center are reliable sources to support assertions that WND and Western Journalism Center have published this material. Are you saying that these reports by WND and Western Journalism Center are reliable sources in the context of this article for the purpose of supporting assertions that that those sources have published whatever is contained in WND or Western Journalism Center articles cited for the purpose of establishing that they have published that material? (I would think so, but for the "Neither WND nor the Western Journalism Center are reliable sources for this topic." stonewall) If so, is there any disagreement with this from other editors acting as screeners of RS-ness in the context of this article? My earlier attempt to cite the Western Journalism Center article for this purpose was removed by this edit.

In case it becomes an issue, I'll mention that the edit summary of that removing edit quibbled with the words "placed on record" in the note added by the removed material, saying, "... 'placed on record' implies it wasn't always there." To clarify that wording, it came from the statement in the cited article saying, "In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record.".

Just out of curiosity, can you clarify what WND lied about, and point me to where they published those lies? I know that they've published assertions which they've later retracted, but that happens in journalism. I'm curious about the specifics of their lies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you intentionally obfuscated that question, but I'm also pretty sure that the answer to the question of "Are... reports by WND and Western Journalism Center... reliable sources... for the purpose of supporting assertions that [they] have published whatever is contained in [their] articles cited for the purpose of establishing that they have published that material?" is still "no", because they constitute a primary source for assertions as to what they have published. Again, sorry, but I take umbrage at your characterization of this position; it's not a stonewall, it's an accurate interpretation of WP:RS vis-a-vis WP:PRIMARY. (boo-yah). 24.177.121.39 (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Intentional obfuscation? Give me a break (otherwise known as assuming good faith). Guys (you guys posting anonymously as well as those posting with revealed WP userieds), can we please discuss things in a reasonable manner rather than in an atmosphere of making and fending off personal attacks?

Re "umbrage at your characterization of this position", my understanding is that you (the editor posting anonymously from IP address 24.177.121.39) assert that reports by WND and Western Journalism Center that their reports reporting (whatever) are not reliable sources supporting assertions that their reports reported whatever their reports reported. Do I have that right? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that any rational discussion has any been had, once you begin talking about stonewalling and article gatekeepers. You are making a deliberately obtuse point out of a simple question of reliable sourcing, in order to mock the implied irony of not trusting what a publication says about itself. I have already described the circumstances of WND's misrepresentations after it engineered a fake story about Wikipedia, then denied it, and pointed you to a blog that goes over the facts, here. That's easy enough to reconstruct directly if you go through the edit history of the Barack Obama article and talk page from the period, as well as that of the WND sockpuppet account that edited there and on the Aaron Klein article. If there's a proposed edit to come out of this I would like to see the proposal and we can give it a simple up or down discussion. Meanwhile I would ask for alternate sourcing of anything at all that is potentially controversial that relies on WND as a secondary source, including in particular statements made by WND about itself. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's what you meant re assertions about WND having lied. I thought that you might have been speaking of some other incident. I think that you're right in saying that there's nothing to be gained in discussing that here. I did find the extreme bias in the article at the link which you provided entertaining, though. "right wing foamers-at-the-mouth", "pathetic right-wing conspiracy hopes"; priceless.

Re a proposed edit, I'm not sure (in light of this) whether we've come to a consensus about whether WND or the Western Journalism Center are considered reliable sources here for citations of articles they have published for purposes of illustrating the fact that those sources actually have published the articles cited, but what I would like to do is to redo the note which I added in this edit to satisfy the {{who}} tag (that note having subsequently been removed and the {{who}} tag reinserted by this edit -- which is part of what we've been discussing here.)

Another part of what we've been discussing here is support for an Okubo quote. Checking, I see that the particular quote at issue here is now supported. However, another Okubo quote citing this is now unsupported because the cited source says, "This item has been removed by the uploader!" (one wonders about the RS status of that source, but nevermind). That quote needs a different supporting cite. Perhaps this will do. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)