::::::::::I agree with Sceptre and Scjessey about this.  BLP applies not just to the subject of the article (President Obama), but to all others involved as well.  Currently, there is an eligibility requirement in the Constitution, and Obama offered some proof of eligibility.  Those who seek more and better proof are not necessarily conspiracists.  Those who believe that eligibility ought to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not just by a preponderence of the evidence, are not necessarily conpiracists either.  I opposed creation of this article, but now that the damn thing exists let's at least strive for the appearance of partiality.  Sceptre was merely asking that the title reflect the lead sentence.  What's so horrible about that?  As Scjessey said, if even one person covered in this article is not alleging any sort of conspiracy, then labeling everyone involved as a conspiracy theorist is wrong.  I don't believe for a minute that it happened, but if Ann Dunham gave birth outside Hawaii, and requested a birth certificate upon her return, then that would not be a conspiracy.  Likewise, if she gave birth in Hawaii, but Barack Obama's father's foreign citizenship makes the son something other than a "Natural born citizen" then that would not be a conspiracy theory either.