![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
If the group that paid for the bulletin boards claims that Where's the beef? served as the inspiration to the bulletin board, would that not be relevant? Victor Victoria ( talk) 05:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
But some people want to know why I chose this simple slogan to raise this issue. Why not include Obama's name on the billboard?
There are several reasons I chose the message: "Where's the birth certificate?" There is only one birth certificate controversy in the country today - despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests.
It's funny how people selectively quote in order to make a point. The above quote is taken from the same reference as the one where Farah clearly says that the "Where's the Beef?" campaign was factored into the decision (in fact, it's two sentences above the sentence about the "Where's the Beef?"). Meaning, while the "Where's the Beef?" slogan was not the sole motivator, it was certainly a motivator. Victor Victoria ( talk) 21:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Given that
I hereby concede that it does not add value to add a link to the Where's the Beef? article from the caption of the billboard photo (and just for the purpose of full disclosure, it should have no bearing on the outcome of the discussion, I'm the one who took the photo and uploaded it to Wikipedia). Victor Victoria ( talk) 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
source 25&26 do not exist. Thusly the first paragraph under "Origins of the claims" "During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign. These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion and birth certificate.[25][26]"
Should be removed. Please amend 99.127.245.193 ( talk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the word "falsely" from the first paragraph. It is of obvious concern. It is not for Wikipedia to judge whether those conspiracy theories are true or false. There are multiple reliable sources that claim Obama to be not a natural US citizen. 43.224.156.66 ( talk) 16:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No court has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen. They have ruled that they don't have the authority to make that ruling because of standing or other reasons. That was nice cop out with "The courts have decided these claims are without merit". True Observer ( talk) 23:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Whether someone is qualified to be President is not exactly a frivolous issue. Courts allow litigants to prove a negative all the time. Courts allow men to prove that they are not the father of a child. Courts allow businesses to prove that they are not discriminating. Courts allow defendants to prove that they did not commit a crime. True Observer ( talk) 00:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Find it odd that 1. bio's were purportedly self-written (unable to verify yet), and 2. Obama's bio was edited multiple times over the years, with Kenya-born never being removed. Possible he wanted to make himself sound more exotic by claiming foreign born.
http://therightscoop.com/uh-oh-obamas-literary-agent-required-clients-to-write-their-own-bios/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.247.133 ( talk) 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This assertion is provided without any evidence of the source of the e-mail in question: "During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced..." If the origin was anonymous how can it be known they came from Clinton supporters? Anyone capable of such dirty politics could reasonably be expected to provide false attribution to tarnish both Obama and Clinton in one stroke while at the same time hiding their true origin. Please remove "from supporters of Hillary Clinton" or provide citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neworion ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the old link, which has gone dead. It is currently note 35, and the article is called 'Born in Kenya': Obama's Literary Agent Misidentified His Birthplace in 1991, abcnews.go.com, May 16, 2012
The new link should be:
Thanks.
74.98.37.40 ( talk) 01:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The article has serious bias issues. Both sides should be reflected fairly. It also misses out on many "birther" arguments, which in turn loses then out on the counterarguments. -- 41.151.220.254 ( talk) 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I will have to agree with the user above that the article seems biased. The author has taken a stand in this case and therefore we hear his conclusion. Claims that the birth certificate are faked are "false". This is the opinion of the author. I believed that wikipedia worked along the lines of ethics in journalism where you distinguish between reporting in a case where you refer the facts and opinions where the journalist makes clear that this is his opinion. Ask yourself if this article would pass the editor's desk in a newspaper. This article is a mixture between opinion and reporting. If this is in line with wikipedia policy, I am sorry to hear that. Better rewrite this piece and show the evidence that Obama is indeed born in Hawaii, but let the readers decide for themselves. If you want to make judgements, post a link to your blog or something. To Orangemike I would say that you can achieve what you are talking about better by simply stating that theories that are unsupported by the fact are "unsupported by the facts" and why it is so. Your use of the word "bizarre" or "conspiracy theory" doesn't help you bring your point across. Thank you. ( Esperion ( talk) 00:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC))
Why is there no mention of the law firm Obama hired to fight lawsuits that sought to force him to allow his original birth certificate to be released? He supposedly spent over $2 million in legal fees to prevent the release of the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.128.35 ( talk) 08:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious you're an Obama supporter in the way you've responded here. You speak about reliable sources then use a Snopes article as proof about some "April Fools Hoax".
It's equally obvious you haven't been keeping up on the news because Presidential candidate Donald Trump spent quite a bit of time referring to the Columbia University claim in his recent speech. According to Wikipedia's Notability Clause, (which is probably what you meant in any event), if there are enough reliable sources that mention something, it becomes notable ( http://www.westernjournalism.com/mainstream-media-silent-obamas-possible-ineligibility-president/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/23/trump-ebola-twitter-obama/17815841/, http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16855539-judge-jury-and-executioner-legal-experts-fear-implications-of-white-house-drone-memo just a few...).
So you see, Weazie, not only is this Notable under Wikipedia's rules, it is discussed pretty extensively by reliable sources.
Your argument is 100% inapplicable here. Suppression of this and some of the other allegations circulating around about Obama, in an article that is supposed to cover "conspiracies" about him can only be deemed bias... Ormr2014 | Talk 02:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikidemon For the record, I do not "subscribe to the conspiracy theory". In fact, I don't believe it at all. I've read the articles that prove it false and I've seen the real ID the photocopy was taken from and it most certainly was NOT Obama (AKA Barry) in that original. My issue is with the complete lack of objectivity and neutrality being expressed here by Obama supporters who don't know how to separate personal feelings from their editing. It does not matter if you love or hate Obama, this is an article about conspiracy theories regarding his citizenship. When you allow your personal feelings about the man to conflict with the neutrality of the article, suppressing things you simply don't like, you destroy the credibility of the article as being "encyclopedic". Oh and by the way, I actually voted for Obama.
Ormr2014 |
Talk
15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest that Donald Trump's Birther claims paragraph be moved from the "Public Figures" section to the "Politician" section. This better reflects the current state of events in the US political realm.
NO1JGFN ( talk) 14:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The "Origins of the claims" section of this page looks very odd to me, in a way that I believe introduces political bias into this article (given recent claims that Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign organization was the origin of the theory, which most fact-checkers seem to label as false). Specifically, literally nothing in the section as currently written discusses the actual origins of the theory. Instead, it begins by talking about a Clinton strategy memo that made no claims about Obama's citizenship or birthplace, and then talks about a Clinton staffer "circulating" a conspiracy theory that already existed (she forwarded an email about the theory). That second item might be relevant for inclusion in the section if there's evidence that the staffer's "circulating" had broad impact (outside of the Iowa county where that staffer was a volunteer coordinator, for example, and despite the campaign immediately firing her and offering an apology). But regardless, by starting the section with these comments about the Clinton campaign and not discussing any other source, the article currently could give the impression that the campaign itself originated the theory.
The actual origin of the idea, according to this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers.html, was "a splinter group of hard-core Hillary Clinton supporters", but evidently not affiliated with her campaign in any way. That would seem to be the proper initial content for this section.-- Steuard ( talk) 12:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
In addition to Breitbart's images of the literary agent's 1991 brochure stating that Obama is born in Kenya, the agent's website apparently repeated this statement in a bio of Obama until 2007:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2607:FCC8:FFC0:65:580:C8A5:1B16:2C90 (
talk)
19:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
As seen in the discussion on this page with many references
http://barackryphal.blogspot.de/2011/06/secret-origin-of-birthers.html
archived here
With the given references, this data from the source post should be included to really put the question to rest. Note that FreeRepublic, etc is a conservative website, as is The Volokh Conspiracy.
Ema Zee ( talk) 19:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Harvard requires a birth certificate. This could have been settled immediately by Harvard. Maybe legacies are handled differently. 2601:181:8301:4510:7022:9701:E115:958D ( talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
But curiously, that information seems completely missing from this article. Or did I read it too fast? [2] -- OpenFuture ( talk) 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Birther is called "pejorative" at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/birther . This should be included in the section on Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.37.147 ( talk) 22:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is a prejudice against any challenge of Obama's birth certificate, by calling people "birthers" a made up derogatory term. Why is there not mention of Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., WND senior staff writer and author of “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”. Nor is there mention of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigation with Mike Zullo, and their investigation.
Wikipedia should publish balanced articles, 2001:56A:72E2:C500:51EE:DFB6:9428:207 ( talk) 04:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Response to the claims made in this press conference need to be monitored for secondary sources. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk3KRxTfkLM Wikipedians - it was a month ago. what about your response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.101.202 ( talk) 11:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No such reliable sources exist that the authentication experts that dispute the certificate are false. Polls consistently show that questions over the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate are not fringe. Reed Hayes who is on the board of the Scientific Association of Forensic Examiners and who's expert opinion on forged documents has been admitted in federal court is also not fringe. Total re-write needed. Obviously this is wikipedia though so I'm not holding my breath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.5.117 ( talk) 22:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The section under "Joe Arpaio" includes the statement, "Rejecting this claim, an assistant to Hawaii's attorney general stated in July 2012 that "President Obama was born in Honolulu, and his birth certificate is valid"". When that assistant said that, do we know for sure if he was referring to the actual document released by the White House? There is a challenge to the validity of that latter document suggesting that the State of Hawaii has never actually confirmed that the White-House-released document itself is genuine; merely that the information (names, dates, locations, etc) is accurate. http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/investigator-hawaii-never-verified-obama-birth-certificate-image/#5yCbuMDwPOuskUQY.99 ("INVESTIGATOR: HAWAII NEVER VERIFIED OBAMA BIRTH-CERTIFICATE IMAGE Confirmed 'information' but not the White House-released computer file ") 71.222.50.217 ( talk) 03:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In this edit, someone removed the following from the introduction:
The earliest known example of anyone claiming that Barack Obama was born in Kenya happened in 1991, when his own book publisher made the claim. On October 9, 2008, an online article at npr.org, the official website of NPR, referred to "Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama." [why 1]
The person commented: "Not lede worthy; certainly not opening sentence worthy."
I think this should be included in the introduction, because it shows that there were reliable sources that made the claim before it ever became a conspiracy theory.
What do other editors think about including or not including this content in the introduction?
Rzw3454gtbg76 ( talk) 21:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The website 'Is this Obama's birth certificate?' displays an officially-sourced Kenyan birth certificate that includes his footprint, clearly stamped in black ink. President Obama could have simply proven that it was not his footprint.
If it is not President Obama's footprint then is it the footprint of another Barrack Hussein Obama, perhaps wandering the streets of Mombasa, that the media has ignored?
Speculation: Perhaps Pres. Obama's sponsors needed an African-American to become President but that would has been embarrassing if genealogists discovered a former slave-owner whose present descendants are prominent people today. To avoid this scenario they sponsored an African. 1.129.97.122 ( talk) 21:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the section, Not born in Hawaii, states: "In an editorial published on July 29, 2009, the Star-Bulletin pointed out that both newspapers' vital-statistics columns are available on microfilm in the main state library. "Were the state Department of Health and Obama's parents really in cahoots to give false information to the newspapers, perhaps intending to clear the way for the baby to someday be elected president of the United States?" the newspaper asked.[90]". However, the use of that quotation is misleading. It falsely suggests that Obama's -parents were necessarily "in cahoots" with the state Department of Health, and moreover for the highly-improbable (one in 100 million chance?) situation that one day, Obama was going to be burdened by the inability to run for U.S. President, due to being born outside of America. But in fact there is a far-more-highly-likely chance (one-in-one, or 100%) that if born outside the U.S., Obama wouldn't be a U.S. citizen at all, because his mother hadn't been resident in America for at least five (5) years after achieving her age of 14 years. See the "Born in Kenya" section, above, which states in part: "A contrary view is promoted by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, who has said that in the hypothetical scenario that Obama was born outside the U.S., he would not be a natural-born citizen, since the then-applicable law would have required Obama's mother to have been in the U.S. at least "five years after the age of 14", but Ann Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born.[72]". It is quite misleading to suggest that Obama's parents would have only been concerned with the extremely minor potential disability of his not being able to be elected President 47 years hence, rather than the certain, immediate, and very serious disability of not being considered an American citizen at all. Further, it is very plausible to imagine the situation where a baby is born outside of a hospital, either by plan or by accident. Hawaiian law no doubt would have required that such a birth be registered, probably within a few days or weeks. But assuming that the parent or parents are willing to lie, what is to stop them from simply falsely claiming where (or when) that birth actually occurred? Nothing I can see. No "cahoots" with the state Department of Health would be required: That Department wouldn't have to be aware of the fraud at all. No doubt that newspaper is legally entitled to write what it did in its editorial, obviously. But that doesn't mean that we should quote it in WP, as if it somehow reflects logical reasoning. 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 06:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
In an effort to wrap this conversation up, I removed the clause "perhaps intending to clear the way for the baby to someday be elected president of the United States" from the article. That Hawaii's vital statistics exist and are accurate is not disputed. The rhetorical "were the state Department of Health and Obama's parents really in cahoots to give false information to the newspapers" adequately conveys the sting of the Star-Bulletin's questioning of the reasoning of the proponents of the conspiracy theory about Obama's citizenship; removing the "perhaps..." clause avoids any speculation about any imaginary fraud, as, of course, there is no reliably sourced evidence that Obama's parents actually committed birth-certificate fraud. Which was the Star-Bulletin's point, and why it merits inclusion in this article. Weazie ( talk) 18:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTFORUM this page is not available to discuss theories; see WP:RSN to ask whether a source is reliable. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is a statement in the article "An incorrect but popularly reported claim is that his father's stepmother, Sarah Obama, told Anabaptist Bishop Ron McRae in a recorded transatlantic telephone conversation that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya." However, this claim is in itself incorrect. First, there is no source cited for this conclusion. Second, even if relevant sources are investigated, say http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-president-obamas-grandmother-cau/ and http://www.politifact.com/letter-from-bishop-ron-mcrae/ those sources indicate that Sarah Obama did indeed claim, twice during a phone call, that she had been present (in Kenya) when Barack Obama was born. The second source goes on to claim that Sarah Obama was corrected by one of her other grandsons, who was one of the translators during the trans-atlantic phone call. If this exchange occurred during a lawyer's questions to his own witness at a trial, it would have been objected to as "leading the witness", which is highly frowned upon. An unbiased person, aware of both these references, would be very hard-pressed to come to the conclusion that the claim that Sarah Obama told McRae that Barack Obama was born in Kenya was "incorrect". At most, it could be said that Sarah Obama eventually accepted the correction of her other grandson and repeated his assertion that Barack Obama was born in America. Very suspicious. Sarah Obama, being a Swahili-speaking Kenyan, would likely not have been aware that her claim, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, might have been a problem. But her English-speaking other grandson may have heard that, and it might have motivated him to correct her as strenuously as he did. I will remove the unsourced assertion that this claim is "incorrect". 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 07:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC) This Talk page does not reflect any sort of protection or semi-protection of the article, yet that seems to be the case. 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 07:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes, headlines and articles contradict. Weazie claimed:
Notice that Weazie said, "the reliable sources cited ALL say..." Other than the Salon cite, which contains its own internal contradictions, he fails and refuses to identify which other cites actually say that Sarah Obama clarified her original statement. Some may say, as does Salon, that her family clarified, but again, I see no cite which actually shows how Sarah Obama herself did that "clarification". Weazie, since you clearly show that you WP:OWN this article, it is your responsibility to make sure it is accurate. Don't just vaguely say there are other sources; name them specifically. Or give up. 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 19:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Weazie also said:
Yes, it says the opposite. It clearly says: "MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya? OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born." And I suppose that you will claim that Mark Antony was criticizing Julius Caesar when he gave that famous speech which began: "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." https://www.presentationmagazine.com/famous-speeches-friends-romans-countrymen-11673.htm 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 19:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
|
Note: I've semiprotected this page for a couple of weeks because of the persistent WP:BLP and WP:SOAP violations. I apologize to the non-disruptive IPs who might have wanted to post here. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC).
Non-actionable proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
From: http://www.salon.com/2009/07/24/liddy/ "In that interview, Sarah Obama does in fact say at one point that she was there for her grandson’s birth. But that was a mistake, a confusion in translation. As soon as a jubilant McRae began to press her for further details about her grandson being born in Kenya, the family realized the mistake and corrected him. And corrected him. And corrected him." However, the claim that this was "a mistake, a confusion in translation", is unsupported, so I will also quote McRae, whose statement was included and published by Politifact, and is thus from a seemingly reliable source. The Salon quote itself makes clear that "the family realized the mistake", not Sarah Obama, "and corrected him". Sarah Obama didn't "correct" McRae. Her family did. And cited by Politifact, http://www.politifact.com/letter-from-bishop-ron-mcrae/ "The question that I asked Sarah, was repeated to her twice, and both times she adamantly answered very proudly that yes she was present in Mombassa, Kenya when Barack Obama was born. Upon Sarah’s two admissions to having been present when Barach Obama was born in Kenya, her step grandson realizes the seriousness of his grandmother’s response and immediately begins to respond to the contrary, while moving his hand towards his grandmother’s mouth to silence her from saying anything further, while he tries to answer my pointed questions himself and correct what his grandmother has revealed. [...] All of my subsequent questions concerning Obama’s birth were not translated to Sarah, but the step grandson insisted on replying immediately to me himself in English, while continuing to move his hand towards Sarah’s mouth motioning her to be quite [sic]." Importantly, and while misleadingly, Politifact in 2011 was clearly and repeatedly referring to the truncated version of the audio, the audio which is cut off immediately after Sarah Obama twice claimed Barack was born in Kenya, and was commonly cited for the principle that Sarah Obama said Barack was born in Kenya. Politifact goes on to say that it was _TRUMP'S_ claim which was false, in 2011, not the original assertion by McRae, in 2008. While I assert that Politifact's assertion was in itself false, because it contradicted what Sarah Obama had actually said, Politifact was clearly referring to the truncated audio promoted in 2011, claimed it to be misleading, and not the underlying issue, the full and complete audio from McRae's Oct 16, 2008 interview. While I agree that the version with the truncated audio should have been augmented with the material that came afterwards, that does not in itself mean that the claim Trump made was "false". It was, at most, a portion of the truth that would arguably have benefited from the extra audio material to understand the context. The Wikipedia article now doesn't mention the connection to Trump when it states, " An incorrect but popularly reported claim is that his father's stepmother, Sarah Obama, told Anabaptist Bishop Ron McRae in a recorded transatlantic telephone conversation that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya." Therefore, it is highly improper to use Politifact's reference to Trump's statement in 2011, "false", to explicitly or implicitly apply broadly to anyone who employs or refers to McRae's full interview and 2008 thesis. But nevertheless, that is what this WP article misleadingly does. As stated at the end of Politifact's 2011 article, "Anyone who listens to the tape of the phone conversation with Sarah Obama can hear how tightly you need to edit this interview to present it as evidence of a presidential cover-up." This implicitly indicates that Politifact was complaining about THAT editing, not McRae's unedited position. Some people, in 2011, were apparently editing it tightly. But not McRae, and not in 2008. 97.120.54.196 ( talk) 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The editor johnuniq is trying to conceal my attempt to discuss an edit to the article, by means of reverting a large amount of discussion, above. This amounts to highly improper manipulation of the WP article-editing process. Some people apparently want to prevent the main article from being edited, and their line of defense includes protection of the article itself from valid edits. That left the Talk page, which I have attempted to use to discuss the issue. Then, they move the goalposts once again, claiming that there must be a proposal for an edit. However, such proposals don't necessary appear out of thin air; their contents can and should be discussed. So, I discuss those issues. At that point, the goalposts shift again, saying that there has to be a "specific proposal". Oh, really? This wild abuse of the WP system is outrageous and thoroughly disgusting. I will initiate a complaint to WP:ANI, since it is clearly warranted now. 97.120.54.196 ( talk) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Aren't these(probably) tabloid website? 208.114.45.44 ( talk) 22:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant to “birther” is the question of what citizenship credentials a candidate for president must supply to the Federal Election Commission when registering, if any. As far as I can tell from the basic form one submits, none are required. Form 2 doesn’t ask about citizenship, but about the candidate’s campaign committees, each of which fills out Form 1. Most material on FEC’s web site relates to campaign finance.
Of course, the candidate must file for ballot access in each state as well. In the states I’ve looked at, the query covers party certification or, absent this, petition signatures but not proof of identity or citizenship. In Utah, for instance, candidates (or their agents) declare in person at the Lieutenant Governor’s office on specified dates. It does not seem a special form is filled out for this; rather a written statement from the candidate of intent to run is submitted along with the letter from the party or completed petition. Presumably the Lieutenant Governor could ask verbally about citizenship at this time, or the candidate affirms eligible status on the written statement, although I don’t know if this is the case. See
Hence it’s not obvious to me that candidates need be who they say they are, the candidate screening process instead reliant upon outsiders challenging a candidate’s constitutional eligibility if it is in doubt. A rational basis for a controversy such as “birther,” even if one does not credit Obama’s detractors, therefore arises. A section on these requirements would improve the article. Jessegalebaker ( talk) 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
In the first sentence the word falsely should be removed. It's too biased a word to be included and tries to influence the reader rather than allowing the reader their own conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCDE:C180:F1BF:AF90:3169:721E ( talk) 18:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
TL;DR: Klayman should be included, but not in his own section. Klayman's support for these conspiracy theories is well documented by reliable sources; he should be included in the "notable" list. My only concern is exactly where, as the list of proponents worthy of a separate third-level section was intended to be limited to only elected politicians. There appears to be some "creep," as Tracey Mann was only a candidate (never elected), and Andy Martin is a perennial candidate (also never elected). This article's conspiracy theories, however, were part of their campaigns, whereas Klayman's only candidacy pre-dated these conspiracy theories. -- Weazie ( talk) 17:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see #Using the subject as a self-published source).A person's own YouTube video is not a reliable secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 02:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Regardless,there are secondary sources. Phmoreno ( talk) 11:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
No, we're not using an unreliable source about someone, we are using the person's own words, obviously spoken by himself. This is the highest and most verifiable form of reference. Phmoreno ( talk) 12:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)...we shouldn't be sourcing wild, absurd, false claims about living people...
This talk page is for discussing specific improvements to this article, not for general discussion of the topic Jytdog ( talk) 16:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As long as the original (not a copy) certificate in Hawaii has been forensically analyzed - paper, signatures, ink, etc then what is the problem? 2601:181:8301:4510:59A6:8182:936A:3F6C ( talk) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Neither the original nor a copy can be analyzed because they have not been produced because they do not exist. If they did, none of this discussion would be necessary. What has been produced is not a copy of the original as is obvious when compared with birth certificates generated on the same day which are posted on the internet. True Observer ( talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
Jzg, according to what WP guideline should secondary sources not be used? The Politico ref seems particularly important to keep, otherwise we have an unreferenced blurb about a billboard, which itself should be removed if it can't be sourced. UpdateNerd ( talk) 01:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
user:UpdateNerd, what exactly does the phrase "racially conservative" mean? ( diff) Jytdog ( talk) 02:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Would it not be appropriate to place this page in Category:Anti-black racism in the United States? Is there really any doubt in anyone's minds that the Birther movement wasn't rooted in the long-standing racism towards Black people that has existed in the United States for centuries? Peadar Ó Croidheáin ( talk) 17:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Since this just got asked again (in an edit comment), and it is indeed a frequently asked question, I added a question to the FAQ about whether the use of "false" is appropriate.-- NapoliRoma ( talk) 19:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
We seem to be missing the customary links to the archives on this page, though there is a search-box. Can someone who knows how fix this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a theory out there concerning the death of Loretta Fuddy. I am not expert on the theory, but shouldn't such be included based on the title of this article. I ask because I came here looking for reliable details, and I found nothing. Link about her death:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/12/hawaii-obama-birth-certificate-fuddy/3996657/
Trump even got in on the fun with this tweet: "How amazing, the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama’s “birth certificate” died in plane crash today. All others lived"
Shouldn't this article be a place to debunk such things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhester ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
If the group that paid for the bulletin boards claims that Where's the beef? served as the inspiration to the bulletin board, would that not be relevant? Victor Victoria ( talk) 05:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
But some people want to know why I chose this simple slogan to raise this issue. Why not include Obama's name on the billboard?
There are several reasons I chose the message: "Where's the birth certificate?" There is only one birth certificate controversy in the country today - despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests.
It's funny how people selectively quote in order to make a point. The above quote is taken from the same reference as the one where Farah clearly says that the "Where's the Beef?" campaign was factored into the decision (in fact, it's two sentences above the sentence about the "Where's the Beef?"). Meaning, while the "Where's the Beef?" slogan was not the sole motivator, it was certainly a motivator. Victor Victoria ( talk) 21:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Given that
I hereby concede that it does not add value to add a link to the Where's the Beef? article from the caption of the billboard photo (and just for the purpose of full disclosure, it should have no bearing on the outcome of the discussion, I'm the one who took the photo and uploaded it to Wikipedia). Victor Victoria ( talk) 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
source 25&26 do not exist. Thusly the first paragraph under "Origins of the claims" "During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign. These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion and birth certificate.[25][26]"
Should be removed. Please amend 99.127.245.193 ( talk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the word "falsely" from the first paragraph. It is of obvious concern. It is not for Wikipedia to judge whether those conspiracy theories are true or false. There are multiple reliable sources that claim Obama to be not a natural US citizen. 43.224.156.66 ( talk) 16:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No court has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen. They have ruled that they don't have the authority to make that ruling because of standing or other reasons. That was nice cop out with "The courts have decided these claims are without merit". True Observer ( talk) 23:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Whether someone is qualified to be President is not exactly a frivolous issue. Courts allow litigants to prove a negative all the time. Courts allow men to prove that they are not the father of a child. Courts allow businesses to prove that they are not discriminating. Courts allow defendants to prove that they did not commit a crime. True Observer ( talk) 00:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Find it odd that 1. bio's were purportedly self-written (unable to verify yet), and 2. Obama's bio was edited multiple times over the years, with Kenya-born never being removed. Possible he wanted to make himself sound more exotic by claiming foreign born.
http://therightscoop.com/uh-oh-obamas-literary-agent-required-clients-to-write-their-own-bios/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.247.133 ( talk) 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This assertion is provided without any evidence of the source of the e-mail in question: "During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced..." If the origin was anonymous how can it be known they came from Clinton supporters? Anyone capable of such dirty politics could reasonably be expected to provide false attribution to tarnish both Obama and Clinton in one stroke while at the same time hiding their true origin. Please remove "from supporters of Hillary Clinton" or provide citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neworion ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the old link, which has gone dead. It is currently note 35, and the article is called 'Born in Kenya': Obama's Literary Agent Misidentified His Birthplace in 1991, abcnews.go.com, May 16, 2012
The new link should be:
Thanks.
74.98.37.40 ( talk) 01:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The article has serious bias issues. Both sides should be reflected fairly. It also misses out on many "birther" arguments, which in turn loses then out on the counterarguments. -- 41.151.220.254 ( talk) 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I will have to agree with the user above that the article seems biased. The author has taken a stand in this case and therefore we hear his conclusion. Claims that the birth certificate are faked are "false". This is the opinion of the author. I believed that wikipedia worked along the lines of ethics in journalism where you distinguish between reporting in a case where you refer the facts and opinions where the journalist makes clear that this is his opinion. Ask yourself if this article would pass the editor's desk in a newspaper. This article is a mixture between opinion and reporting. If this is in line with wikipedia policy, I am sorry to hear that. Better rewrite this piece and show the evidence that Obama is indeed born in Hawaii, but let the readers decide for themselves. If you want to make judgements, post a link to your blog or something. To Orangemike I would say that you can achieve what you are talking about better by simply stating that theories that are unsupported by the fact are "unsupported by the facts" and why it is so. Your use of the word "bizarre" or "conspiracy theory" doesn't help you bring your point across. Thank you. ( Esperion ( talk) 00:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC))
Why is there no mention of the law firm Obama hired to fight lawsuits that sought to force him to allow his original birth certificate to be released? He supposedly spent over $2 million in legal fees to prevent the release of the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.128.35 ( talk) 08:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious you're an Obama supporter in the way you've responded here. You speak about reliable sources then use a Snopes article as proof about some "April Fools Hoax".
It's equally obvious you haven't been keeping up on the news because Presidential candidate Donald Trump spent quite a bit of time referring to the Columbia University claim in his recent speech. According to Wikipedia's Notability Clause, (which is probably what you meant in any event), if there are enough reliable sources that mention something, it becomes notable ( http://www.westernjournalism.com/mainstream-media-silent-obamas-possible-ineligibility-president/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/23/trump-ebola-twitter-obama/17815841/, http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16855539-judge-jury-and-executioner-legal-experts-fear-implications-of-white-house-drone-memo just a few...).
So you see, Weazie, not only is this Notable under Wikipedia's rules, it is discussed pretty extensively by reliable sources.
Your argument is 100% inapplicable here. Suppression of this and some of the other allegations circulating around about Obama, in an article that is supposed to cover "conspiracies" about him can only be deemed bias... Ormr2014 | Talk 02:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikidemon For the record, I do not "subscribe to the conspiracy theory". In fact, I don't believe it at all. I've read the articles that prove it false and I've seen the real ID the photocopy was taken from and it most certainly was NOT Obama (AKA Barry) in that original. My issue is with the complete lack of objectivity and neutrality being expressed here by Obama supporters who don't know how to separate personal feelings from their editing. It does not matter if you love or hate Obama, this is an article about conspiracy theories regarding his citizenship. When you allow your personal feelings about the man to conflict with the neutrality of the article, suppressing things you simply don't like, you destroy the credibility of the article as being "encyclopedic". Oh and by the way, I actually voted for Obama.
Ormr2014 |
Talk
15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest that Donald Trump's Birther claims paragraph be moved from the "Public Figures" section to the "Politician" section. This better reflects the current state of events in the US political realm.
NO1JGFN ( talk) 14:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The "Origins of the claims" section of this page looks very odd to me, in a way that I believe introduces political bias into this article (given recent claims that Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign organization was the origin of the theory, which most fact-checkers seem to label as false). Specifically, literally nothing in the section as currently written discusses the actual origins of the theory. Instead, it begins by talking about a Clinton strategy memo that made no claims about Obama's citizenship or birthplace, and then talks about a Clinton staffer "circulating" a conspiracy theory that already existed (she forwarded an email about the theory). That second item might be relevant for inclusion in the section if there's evidence that the staffer's "circulating" had broad impact (outside of the Iowa county where that staffer was a volunteer coordinator, for example, and despite the campaign immediately firing her and offering an apology). But regardless, by starting the section with these comments about the Clinton campaign and not discussing any other source, the article currently could give the impression that the campaign itself originated the theory.
The actual origin of the idea, according to this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers.html, was "a splinter group of hard-core Hillary Clinton supporters", but evidently not affiliated with her campaign in any way. That would seem to be the proper initial content for this section.-- Steuard ( talk) 12:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
In addition to Breitbart's images of the literary agent's 1991 brochure stating that Obama is born in Kenya, the agent's website apparently repeated this statement in a bio of Obama until 2007:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2607:FCC8:FFC0:65:580:C8A5:1B16:2C90 (
talk)
19:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
As seen in the discussion on this page with many references
http://barackryphal.blogspot.de/2011/06/secret-origin-of-birthers.html
archived here
With the given references, this data from the source post should be included to really put the question to rest. Note that FreeRepublic, etc is a conservative website, as is The Volokh Conspiracy.
Ema Zee ( talk) 19:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Harvard requires a birth certificate. This could have been settled immediately by Harvard. Maybe legacies are handled differently. 2601:181:8301:4510:7022:9701:E115:958D ( talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
But curiously, that information seems completely missing from this article. Or did I read it too fast? [2] -- OpenFuture ( talk) 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Birther is called "pejorative" at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/birther . This should be included in the section on Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.37.147 ( talk) 22:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is a prejudice against any challenge of Obama's birth certificate, by calling people "birthers" a made up derogatory term. Why is there not mention of Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., WND senior staff writer and author of “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”. Nor is there mention of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigation with Mike Zullo, and their investigation.
Wikipedia should publish balanced articles, 2001:56A:72E2:C500:51EE:DFB6:9428:207 ( talk) 04:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Response to the claims made in this press conference need to be monitored for secondary sources. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk3KRxTfkLM Wikipedians - it was a month ago. what about your response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.101.202 ( talk) 11:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No such reliable sources exist that the authentication experts that dispute the certificate are false. Polls consistently show that questions over the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate are not fringe. Reed Hayes who is on the board of the Scientific Association of Forensic Examiners and who's expert opinion on forged documents has been admitted in federal court is also not fringe. Total re-write needed. Obviously this is wikipedia though so I'm not holding my breath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.5.117 ( talk) 22:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The section under "Joe Arpaio" includes the statement, "Rejecting this claim, an assistant to Hawaii's attorney general stated in July 2012 that "President Obama was born in Honolulu, and his birth certificate is valid"". When that assistant said that, do we know for sure if he was referring to the actual document released by the White House? There is a challenge to the validity of that latter document suggesting that the State of Hawaii has never actually confirmed that the White-House-released document itself is genuine; merely that the information (names, dates, locations, etc) is accurate. http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/investigator-hawaii-never-verified-obama-birth-certificate-image/#5yCbuMDwPOuskUQY.99 ("INVESTIGATOR: HAWAII NEVER VERIFIED OBAMA BIRTH-CERTIFICATE IMAGE Confirmed 'information' but not the White House-released computer file ") 71.222.50.217 ( talk) 03:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In this edit, someone removed the following from the introduction:
The earliest known example of anyone claiming that Barack Obama was born in Kenya happened in 1991, when his own book publisher made the claim. On October 9, 2008, an online article at npr.org, the official website of NPR, referred to "Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama." [why 1]
The person commented: "Not lede worthy; certainly not opening sentence worthy."
I think this should be included in the introduction, because it shows that there were reliable sources that made the claim before it ever became a conspiracy theory.
What do other editors think about including or not including this content in the introduction?
Rzw3454gtbg76 ( talk) 21:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The website 'Is this Obama's birth certificate?' displays an officially-sourced Kenyan birth certificate that includes his footprint, clearly stamped in black ink. President Obama could have simply proven that it was not his footprint.
If it is not President Obama's footprint then is it the footprint of another Barrack Hussein Obama, perhaps wandering the streets of Mombasa, that the media has ignored?
Speculation: Perhaps Pres. Obama's sponsors needed an African-American to become President but that would has been embarrassing if genealogists discovered a former slave-owner whose present descendants are prominent people today. To avoid this scenario they sponsored an African. 1.129.97.122 ( talk) 21:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the section, Not born in Hawaii, states: "In an editorial published on July 29, 2009, the Star-Bulletin pointed out that both newspapers' vital-statistics columns are available on microfilm in the main state library. "Were the state Department of Health and Obama's parents really in cahoots to give false information to the newspapers, perhaps intending to clear the way for the baby to someday be elected president of the United States?" the newspaper asked.[90]". However, the use of that quotation is misleading. It falsely suggests that Obama's -parents were necessarily "in cahoots" with the state Department of Health, and moreover for the highly-improbable (one in 100 million chance?) situation that one day, Obama was going to be burdened by the inability to run for U.S. President, due to being born outside of America. But in fact there is a far-more-highly-likely chance (one-in-one, or 100%) that if born outside the U.S., Obama wouldn't be a U.S. citizen at all, because his mother hadn't been resident in America for at least five (5) years after achieving her age of 14 years. See the "Born in Kenya" section, above, which states in part: "A contrary view is promoted by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, who has said that in the hypothetical scenario that Obama was born outside the U.S., he would not be a natural-born citizen, since the then-applicable law would have required Obama's mother to have been in the U.S. at least "five years after the age of 14", but Ann Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born.[72]". It is quite misleading to suggest that Obama's parents would have only been concerned with the extremely minor potential disability of his not being able to be elected President 47 years hence, rather than the certain, immediate, and very serious disability of not being considered an American citizen at all. Further, it is very plausible to imagine the situation where a baby is born outside of a hospital, either by plan or by accident. Hawaiian law no doubt would have required that such a birth be registered, probably within a few days or weeks. But assuming that the parent or parents are willing to lie, what is to stop them from simply falsely claiming where (or when) that birth actually occurred? Nothing I can see. No "cahoots" with the state Department of Health would be required: That Department wouldn't have to be aware of the fraud at all. No doubt that newspaper is legally entitled to write what it did in its editorial, obviously. But that doesn't mean that we should quote it in WP, as if it somehow reflects logical reasoning. 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 06:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
In an effort to wrap this conversation up, I removed the clause "perhaps intending to clear the way for the baby to someday be elected president of the United States" from the article. That Hawaii's vital statistics exist and are accurate is not disputed. The rhetorical "were the state Department of Health and Obama's parents really in cahoots to give false information to the newspapers" adequately conveys the sting of the Star-Bulletin's questioning of the reasoning of the proponents of the conspiracy theory about Obama's citizenship; removing the "perhaps..." clause avoids any speculation about any imaginary fraud, as, of course, there is no reliably sourced evidence that Obama's parents actually committed birth-certificate fraud. Which was the Star-Bulletin's point, and why it merits inclusion in this article. Weazie ( talk) 18:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTFORUM this page is not available to discuss theories; see WP:RSN to ask whether a source is reliable. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is a statement in the article "An incorrect but popularly reported claim is that his father's stepmother, Sarah Obama, told Anabaptist Bishop Ron McRae in a recorded transatlantic telephone conversation that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya." However, this claim is in itself incorrect. First, there is no source cited for this conclusion. Second, even if relevant sources are investigated, say http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-president-obamas-grandmother-cau/ and http://www.politifact.com/letter-from-bishop-ron-mcrae/ those sources indicate that Sarah Obama did indeed claim, twice during a phone call, that she had been present (in Kenya) when Barack Obama was born. The second source goes on to claim that Sarah Obama was corrected by one of her other grandsons, who was one of the translators during the trans-atlantic phone call. If this exchange occurred during a lawyer's questions to his own witness at a trial, it would have been objected to as "leading the witness", which is highly frowned upon. An unbiased person, aware of both these references, would be very hard-pressed to come to the conclusion that the claim that Sarah Obama told McRae that Barack Obama was born in Kenya was "incorrect". At most, it could be said that Sarah Obama eventually accepted the correction of her other grandson and repeated his assertion that Barack Obama was born in America. Very suspicious. Sarah Obama, being a Swahili-speaking Kenyan, would likely not have been aware that her claim, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, might have been a problem. But her English-speaking other grandson may have heard that, and it might have motivated him to correct her as strenuously as he did. I will remove the unsourced assertion that this claim is "incorrect". 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 07:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC) This Talk page does not reflect any sort of protection or semi-protection of the article, yet that seems to be the case. 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 07:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes, headlines and articles contradict. Weazie claimed:
Notice that Weazie said, "the reliable sources cited ALL say..." Other than the Salon cite, which contains its own internal contradictions, he fails and refuses to identify which other cites actually say that Sarah Obama clarified her original statement. Some may say, as does Salon, that her family clarified, but again, I see no cite which actually shows how Sarah Obama herself did that "clarification". Weazie, since you clearly show that you WP:OWN this article, it is your responsibility to make sure it is accurate. Don't just vaguely say there are other sources; name them specifically. Or give up. 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 19:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Weazie also said:
Yes, it says the opposite. It clearly says: "MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya? OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born." And I suppose that you will claim that Mark Antony was criticizing Julius Caesar when he gave that famous speech which began: "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." https://www.presentationmagazine.com/famous-speeches-friends-romans-countrymen-11673.htm 97.120.31.14 ( talk) 19:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
|
Note: I've semiprotected this page for a couple of weeks because of the persistent WP:BLP and WP:SOAP violations. I apologize to the non-disruptive IPs who might have wanted to post here. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC).
Non-actionable proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
From: http://www.salon.com/2009/07/24/liddy/ "In that interview, Sarah Obama does in fact say at one point that she was there for her grandson’s birth. But that was a mistake, a confusion in translation. As soon as a jubilant McRae began to press her for further details about her grandson being born in Kenya, the family realized the mistake and corrected him. And corrected him. And corrected him." However, the claim that this was "a mistake, a confusion in translation", is unsupported, so I will also quote McRae, whose statement was included and published by Politifact, and is thus from a seemingly reliable source. The Salon quote itself makes clear that "the family realized the mistake", not Sarah Obama, "and corrected him". Sarah Obama didn't "correct" McRae. Her family did. And cited by Politifact, http://www.politifact.com/letter-from-bishop-ron-mcrae/ "The question that I asked Sarah, was repeated to her twice, and both times she adamantly answered very proudly that yes she was present in Mombassa, Kenya when Barack Obama was born. Upon Sarah’s two admissions to having been present when Barach Obama was born in Kenya, her step grandson realizes the seriousness of his grandmother’s response and immediately begins to respond to the contrary, while moving his hand towards his grandmother’s mouth to silence her from saying anything further, while he tries to answer my pointed questions himself and correct what his grandmother has revealed. [...] All of my subsequent questions concerning Obama’s birth were not translated to Sarah, but the step grandson insisted on replying immediately to me himself in English, while continuing to move his hand towards Sarah’s mouth motioning her to be quite [sic]." Importantly, and while misleadingly, Politifact in 2011 was clearly and repeatedly referring to the truncated version of the audio, the audio which is cut off immediately after Sarah Obama twice claimed Barack was born in Kenya, and was commonly cited for the principle that Sarah Obama said Barack was born in Kenya. Politifact goes on to say that it was _TRUMP'S_ claim which was false, in 2011, not the original assertion by McRae, in 2008. While I assert that Politifact's assertion was in itself false, because it contradicted what Sarah Obama had actually said, Politifact was clearly referring to the truncated audio promoted in 2011, claimed it to be misleading, and not the underlying issue, the full and complete audio from McRae's Oct 16, 2008 interview. While I agree that the version with the truncated audio should have been augmented with the material that came afterwards, that does not in itself mean that the claim Trump made was "false". It was, at most, a portion of the truth that would arguably have benefited from the extra audio material to understand the context. The Wikipedia article now doesn't mention the connection to Trump when it states, " An incorrect but popularly reported claim is that his father's stepmother, Sarah Obama, told Anabaptist Bishop Ron McRae in a recorded transatlantic telephone conversation that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya." Therefore, it is highly improper to use Politifact's reference to Trump's statement in 2011, "false", to explicitly or implicitly apply broadly to anyone who employs or refers to McRae's full interview and 2008 thesis. But nevertheless, that is what this WP article misleadingly does. As stated at the end of Politifact's 2011 article, "Anyone who listens to the tape of the phone conversation with Sarah Obama can hear how tightly you need to edit this interview to present it as evidence of a presidential cover-up." This implicitly indicates that Politifact was complaining about THAT editing, not McRae's unedited position. Some people, in 2011, were apparently editing it tightly. But not McRae, and not in 2008. 97.120.54.196 ( talk) 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The editor johnuniq is trying to conceal my attempt to discuss an edit to the article, by means of reverting a large amount of discussion, above. This amounts to highly improper manipulation of the WP article-editing process. Some people apparently want to prevent the main article from being edited, and their line of defense includes protection of the article itself from valid edits. That left the Talk page, which I have attempted to use to discuss the issue. Then, they move the goalposts once again, claiming that there must be a proposal for an edit. However, such proposals don't necessary appear out of thin air; their contents can and should be discussed. So, I discuss those issues. At that point, the goalposts shift again, saying that there has to be a "specific proposal". Oh, really? This wild abuse of the WP system is outrageous and thoroughly disgusting. I will initiate a complaint to WP:ANI, since it is clearly warranted now. 97.120.54.196 ( talk) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Aren't these(probably) tabloid website? 208.114.45.44 ( talk) 22:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant to “birther” is the question of what citizenship credentials a candidate for president must supply to the Federal Election Commission when registering, if any. As far as I can tell from the basic form one submits, none are required. Form 2 doesn’t ask about citizenship, but about the candidate’s campaign committees, each of which fills out Form 1. Most material on FEC’s web site relates to campaign finance.
Of course, the candidate must file for ballot access in each state as well. In the states I’ve looked at, the query covers party certification or, absent this, petition signatures but not proof of identity or citizenship. In Utah, for instance, candidates (or their agents) declare in person at the Lieutenant Governor’s office on specified dates. It does not seem a special form is filled out for this; rather a written statement from the candidate of intent to run is submitted along with the letter from the party or completed petition. Presumably the Lieutenant Governor could ask verbally about citizenship at this time, or the candidate affirms eligible status on the written statement, although I don’t know if this is the case. See
Hence it’s not obvious to me that candidates need be who they say they are, the candidate screening process instead reliant upon outsiders challenging a candidate’s constitutional eligibility if it is in doubt. A rational basis for a controversy such as “birther,” even if one does not credit Obama’s detractors, therefore arises. A section on these requirements would improve the article. Jessegalebaker ( talk) 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
In the first sentence the word falsely should be removed. It's too biased a word to be included and tries to influence the reader rather than allowing the reader their own conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCDE:C180:F1BF:AF90:3169:721E ( talk) 18:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
TL;DR: Klayman should be included, but not in his own section. Klayman's support for these conspiracy theories is well documented by reliable sources; he should be included in the "notable" list. My only concern is exactly where, as the list of proponents worthy of a separate third-level section was intended to be limited to only elected politicians. There appears to be some "creep," as Tracey Mann was only a candidate (never elected), and Andy Martin is a perennial candidate (also never elected). This article's conspiracy theories, however, were part of their campaigns, whereas Klayman's only candidacy pre-dated these conspiracy theories. -- Weazie ( talk) 17:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see #Using the subject as a self-published source).A person's own YouTube video is not a reliable secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 02:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Regardless,there are secondary sources. Phmoreno ( talk) 11:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
No, we're not using an unreliable source about someone, we are using the person's own words, obviously spoken by himself. This is the highest and most verifiable form of reference. Phmoreno ( talk) 12:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)...we shouldn't be sourcing wild, absurd, false claims about living people...
This talk page is for discussing specific improvements to this article, not for general discussion of the topic Jytdog ( talk) 16:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As long as the original (not a copy) certificate in Hawaii has been forensically analyzed - paper, signatures, ink, etc then what is the problem? 2601:181:8301:4510:59A6:8182:936A:3F6C ( talk) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Neither the original nor a copy can be analyzed because they have not been produced because they do not exist. If they did, none of this discussion would be necessary. What has been produced is not a copy of the original as is obvious when compared with birth certificates generated on the same day which are posted on the internet. True Observer ( talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
Jzg, according to what WP guideline should secondary sources not be used? The Politico ref seems particularly important to keep, otherwise we have an unreferenced blurb about a billboard, which itself should be removed if it can't be sourced. UpdateNerd ( talk) 01:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
user:UpdateNerd, what exactly does the phrase "racially conservative" mean? ( diff) Jytdog ( talk) 02:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Would it not be appropriate to place this page in Category:Anti-black racism in the United States? Is there really any doubt in anyone's minds that the Birther movement wasn't rooted in the long-standing racism towards Black people that has existed in the United States for centuries? Peadar Ó Croidheáin ( talk) 17:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Since this just got asked again (in an edit comment), and it is indeed a frequently asked question, I added a question to the FAQ about whether the use of "false" is appropriate.-- NapoliRoma ( talk) 19:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
We seem to be missing the customary links to the archives on this page, though there is a search-box. Can someone who knows how fix this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a theory out there concerning the death of Loretta Fuddy. I am not expert on the theory, but shouldn't such be included based on the title of this article. I ask because I came here looking for reliable details, and I found nothing. Link about her death:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/12/hawaii-obama-birth-certificate-fuddy/3996657/
Trump even got in on the fun with this tweet: "How amazing, the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama’s “birth certificate” died in plane crash today. All others lived"
Shouldn't this article be a place to debunk such things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhester ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)