Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-15/Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Early life and career of Barack Obama
Status	Closed
Request date	15:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Weazie, User:Brothejr, User:Jenab6, User:DJ Clayworth, and User:Barwick
Mediator(s)	Xavexgoem (talk)
Comment	Impossible at this venue until expectations are lowered.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama#Birth_place_inclusion

Who is involved?

What is the dispute?

User:Weazie, User:Brothejr, have been disputing having a discussion on a topic in the Talk section. The original case for inclusion was disputed, and had some users come in and childishly throw out random insults, etc, at User:Weazie, User:Brothejr and others.

The original Talk section for inclusion was recommended for archive because it had essentially become a public mudslinging contest. I had started that section, and archived it myself (although I used the subpage archive method, which I guess was inappropriate for that article since it already had an Archive 1, so it was moved there).

After the original archive was requested, I took an hour and a half of my own time to clean the section up and present the clear, concise facts (see the below links). The first is the actual restoration of the key points from that discussion, the second link is just a revised version with a correction to an external link I had made. [1] [2]

Ever since that point, User:Brothejr, and User:DJ Clayworth have been attempting to archive the discussion, claiming that it has been discussed already.

User:Jenab6 and User:Barwick are claiming that the facts brought forth in User:Barwick's revision linked above have NOT been discussed. They are advocating for a discussion of this topic, and ultimately for inclusion of two words about the Birth Place in the main article, based on facts presented in that discussion.

User:DJ Clayworth has been moderately neutral throughout this, though he has been following the lead and requests of User:Brothejr from User:DJ Clayworth's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about this?

User:Jenab6 and User:Barwick are advocating for a discussion of this topic, and ultimately for inclusion of two words about the Birth Place in the main article, based on facts presented in that discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can help?

Ask that User:Brothejr, and others refrain from archiving this topic, and discuss the facts presented in User:Barwick's revision linked above.

I have tried to play by all the rules set forth by WikiPedia. Originally this topic was discussed outside the guidelines of WikiPedia (neutral, reliable sources, etc), these same users requested that everything follow those guidelines. I have done so, and immediately after I have done so, it seems to me that those same users don't want to discuss it anymore, even though I'm doing exactly as they requested.

I believe the individuals involved have slowly lost their neutrality on this issue. The reason I believe this is because over the three days I have been advocating this discussion, while my main facts have never been addressed, the administrator's demands went from "Let's discuss this on the talk page", to "Provide reliable sources", to "This isn't relevant to the topic", to "Everybody else believes this has been settled", to "Only conspiracy theorists believe this", to "This has already been discussed", all while still failing to address the main facts presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Just to say there is nothing to mediate here. Barwick is disruptively trying to get Obama 'birther' theories included in the article, in defiance of consensus. A number of admins are watching the article and have it under control. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with DJ Clayworth. There were no new reliable sources that would cause us to review the information for inclusion. The editor who started this case was trying to go against consensus for inclusion and when it was decided to close and archive the section, Barwick continued to try and argue the case by re-opening the section against consensus. This case is just a further attempt to work in the information against consensus. Brothejr (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? An oligarchy? Some people have the title of admin so they can claim "consensus" and shut down discussion? First we're told to not insert edits (supported by references) on the article until we talk about it on the talk page. Then when we do that and our points are all shown to be valid, we're told "I'm archiving this, it's been discussed already". THEN, when we point out that it has not been discussed, and that our points are all valid by Wikipedia standards, we're called names like "disruptive editor" and others. THEN when we ask a third party to come in and mediate, we're told by the same people that "there is nothing to mediate here". "Move along folks, nothing to see here!!" --Barwick (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever wondered why Wikipedia is written almost exclusively by two groups of people (brand new folks who edit maybe twice a year, and "veteran" Wikipedia experts), this is it. People like me try to contribute and play by the rules, but some admin who doesn't like what's being said comes in and uses the volumes of Wikipedia standards and rules to utterly crush whatever attempt they can make at adding additional information. And so, people like me end up leaving, or, rarely, they will do what I am doing and read as many rules as they can to make sure the information they know is distributed. --Barwick (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you aren't playing by the rules. Putting your fingers in your ears and repeatedly chanting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not constructive. WP:FRINGE theories are not allowed. Find reliable sources which support the claims you're making (and don't just regurgitate the theories by birthers), and it might be a different story. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STOP THIS. There is no point in coming to this page and continuing the argument. Everyone get ONE statement to allow the mediation cabal to decide if they will take the case or not. No arguments, no replies, no rebuffs. Breathe, everybody, breathe! DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator notes

opened.

Administrative notes

User:Barwick is under sock puppet investigation. This won't be considered in the conversation until check-user has made a conclusion.

Discussion

Wikipedia does not discuss The Truth(tm), only what's verifiable in reliable secondary sources. If this discussion extends past wp:truth, please say so here - if this is to opened, I'm going to use this casepage here. If this matter is ignoring reliable and secondary sources in favor of the truth, then it is a violation of our policies on verifiability and neutral point of view. If that's clear, we can continue; if it's not, we can still continue but I won't be making compromises on that front. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to find out if there's any update on this, or any planned info?. --Barwick (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be forward: the burden of proof lies with you. That requires reliable secondary sources. I will take your comment and expand on it, and we can work from there. Until these statements are sourced, they cannot be added; when they can, they may deserve their due weight within the article... NPOV is a separate discussion for another time (since - and particularly in contentious areas - you need to have good sources before you can keep something in the article).

References are included below. For ease of reference and clarity, I will strikeout any sections that are likely irrelevant to the ultimate case (such as an Amended Birth Certificate). The info will still be there for reference, but for ease of reading will be removed. --Barwick (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the facts that have been brought forth, are they true?

It is in fact possible to obtain a Hawaiian Birth Certificate while being born outside the United States. (this is the main conclusion, reference below for sources)
A Hawaiian Long Form Birth Certificate (LFBC) can be of different types,[3] including:
- Original Birth Certificate - ~~Only given at a hospital when a baby is born at that hospital.~~ (Removed because no reference directly cites that this is given only when born at a hospital, but it is irrelevant to the discussion because if it can be given after birth outside the hospital, it doesn't support the case of birth outside the US)

**Amended Birth Certificate - Can be amended to show changes such as name, parent's name, sex (in event of a Gender Change), etc. [4]

- Late Registration Birth Certificate - Given up to one year after birth, in event birth took place outside a hospital. Can be given based on testimony of the parents, who supply the required information. [5] (Pay specific attention to the words: "Any person born in Hawaii who is one year old or older and whose birth has not been previously registered in Hawaii, or that person’s parent, guardian, next of kin, or older person acting for that person and having knowledge of the facts of birth may request the registration of a late certificate of birth, except that an application will not be accepted for a deceased person")
- A Short Form Birth Certificate (SFBC) displays most of the information shown on the LFBC. Birth_certificate#Types_of_certified_copies_issued
- A SFBC does not reveal what type of Long Form Birth Certificate a person has. Birth_certificate#Types_of_certified_copies_issued
- Therefore, it is impossible to verify what type of Long Form Birth Certificate (LFBC) Barack Obama II has, without seeing the actual LFBC. (Reference two above statements)

The last one statement is what really needs to be sourced, here; you risk synthesis if source A is about, for instance, all the different birth certificates offered, and source B is about the controversy, and to reach conclusion C by A+B

We're just laying the foundation here, showing that a SFBC is a Subset of the info a LFBC. I am not synthesizing this information, I am pointing out that these are the facts that all the "not born in Hawaii" claimants are basing their claims on.

As near as I can tell, none of the above facts are in dispute, and they don't prove anything either way.

Here is where the dispute comes in, based on the above facts:

A SFBC is insufficient to remove "beyond a reasonable doubt" any charges that Barack Obama II was born outside the United States. (this is the next statement that the "not born in Hawaii" claimants are claiming, and is supported by the facts below, specifically the next bullet). Basically, all the "not born in Hawaii" claimants are saying the same thing, but no mainstream "reliable source" has put all of these facts together in one place.

This needs a source that says a SFBC is insufficient vis-a-vis the election of a president.

An original LFBC (from the hospital Barack Obama II claims to have been born at) would be more than sufficient to prove Birth in the State of Hawaii. Question solved, other than unlikely theories about how space aliens possessed the doctor and made him sign a false Birth Certificate when Barack Obama II was really born on Mars. We can go ahead and leave the place of Birth listed only as Hawaii. (This is inherent in the nature of an original LFBC based on the facts stated above. An original LFBC shows all the required information to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" (minus the space aliens thing) that an individual was in fact born where the LFBC states. This information not included on the SFBC includes: Name of Hospital or Institution (or street address of birth location), and a signature of an attendant, whom is either an MD, DO, Midwife, or "Other", whom by signing states "I hereby certify that this child was born alive on the date and hour stated above"). Again, the "source" is inherent in the document itself.

This needs a source that says an LFBC is sufficient.

Obtaining and releasing the LFBC, ~~under Barack Obama's "Open Government" policy,~~ would be a simple matter, and would dispel any of these questions immediately. [6]

This needs a source that says the Open Government policy extends to birth certificates. The open government policy isn't central to this case, so I have removed it to simply read "obtaining and releasing the LFBC would be a simple matter..."

The fact that Barack Obama has not done this raises questions in some people's minds as to "why not just release it if there's nothing to hide?" [7] (references words said on Lou Dobbs' radio show, which obviously can't be "directly" referenced since it was radio, and I don't have an audio recording of the show)

This is an easy-to-source statement, given the controversy.

An amended or late registration Birth Certificate, even if it displayed Hawaii as the place of birth, could leave the question up for debate, due to the following reasons:
- Amended or Late Registration Birth Certificates can be obtained based on the testimony of the parents. (same reference as the 2nd bullet at the top - [8], and pay special attention to the same words "or that person's parent, guardian...having knowledge of the facts of birth may request the registration of a late certificate of birth")

The implication being that there's a chance that the testimony is false. There would need to be a source that gives that credence. (Again, this source is what all the "Born outside Hawaii" claimants (and Lou Dobbs) are saying)

- There is in fact motive for Barack Obama II's parents to falsify the place of birth. [9] (US Department of State states: "Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth...For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child". Barack Obama's Mother was 18 at the time of birth, Barack Obama II would not automatically become a US Citizen if he was born outside the US.

This needs a source that lends credence to Obama's parents potentially falsifying the place of birth, motive notwithstanding (insofar as we'd never know what the motive truly be, so don't worry about that).

- - Barack Obama II's mother had lived in the United States as a citizen, but was a few months short of the required time that would have make Barack Obama II automatically a US Citizen regardless of his place of birth. (see above)

This statement needs a source.

[and that] If Barack Obama II was born in the United States, he would automatically be a citizen. [10] (Reference states: Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:": Anyone born inside the United States (and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which exempts children of diplomats)...

The implication being that he is not/was not automatically a citizen. This needs a source.

- An amended or late registration Birth Certificate could have been obtained by Barack Obama's parents within one year of his birth, and applying for a Late Registration Birth Certificate. What hospital this would show (if any) is unknown.

The implication being that it may have been obtained after his birth (well, to such an extent as to cast doubt, since obviously you get a birth certificate after you were born ;-) ). This needs a source. I think he has a 1959 birth Certificate, but was born in 1961 ;) Basically, this is simply re-stating a fact from above.

As evidence that this is a notable event, roughly 400,000 people have requested to see the complete (implying Long Form) Birth Certificate (see the petition hosted at, yes, the supposedly unreliable World Net Daily)[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550] - Wikipedia:Reliable Sources says "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Whether you think WND is unreliable or not, it is highly unlikely that they generated 400,000 signatures on their own (and detractors would be the ones speculating in this case, and bear the burden of proof).

You can take World Net Daily to the reliable sources noticeboard. It's worth noting that Facebook gets a lot of signatures, too, but we can't use that as a source :-p Per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, a reliable source simply needs to have authors trustworthy "in relation to the subject at hand". The subject at hand being organizing signatures for a petition, anyone can be trustworthy in relation to this subject, any group, from ACORN, the Nazi Party, or "Marxists for Marxism" could gather signatures and be a trustworthy source "in relation to the subject of gathering signatures", so long as they were not falsifying those signatures.

I want you to be aware that you are being given the benefit of the doubt by others, given Wikipedia's history with WP:FRINGE. There is consequence for not reliably sourcing your statements and continuing to insist on their inclusion. This all sounds harsh, but I am certainly in this to have a civilized discussion. Please do not hesitate to ask about my reasoning, WP policy, or how consensus is likely to form around this issue given the nature of a wiki. --Xavexgoem (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on, I just saw it now, and am working to link up the sources as we speak. Sorry I haven't earlier, baby #4 was just born 11 days ago, and it's still hectic. --Barwick (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations :-)

Alright, I want to start with WND. If WND says they have 400,000 signatures, that's a primary assertion. Are there secondaries? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 4 kids is one heck of a time, they're fun as heck.

I can see if there's secondaries on the WND petitions. Though anyone reporting on it is likely to be an independent source. This is the first I found[11]