Birther interpretations of this case need to be debunked in a level headed fashion With respect I m going to revert this recent edit s rewriting of the last paragraph describing the Ankeny case I believe the source being offered a piece from The Economist is too overtly biased to be usable as the one and only secondary source for this material I m not even sure I m comfortable with using it along with a description labelling it as one opinion on the subject The original text of the paragraph does not in my view give undue weight to the birther misinterpretation of Ankeny vs Governor of Indiana rather it succinctly describes the case and shows how the Indiana appeals court used Minor v Happersett to give the birther interpretation short shrift This article needs to explain what the relevant piece of Minor really means in an even handed and dispassionate manner because many people will come to this article precisely because Minor is claimed by some birthers as supporting their position and these readers need to see a fact based explanation of what the case actually says and means It will come as no surprise to anyone reading the rest of this talk page that I believe the birther view of Minor v Happersett is not credible but that doesn t mean we can adopt the editorializing of an unabashedly anti birther source as the voice of Wikipedia