Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Linking two birth certificates

The Sarah Palin section says, in part:

The linking between the question whether Trig is her son to Barack Obama's birth certificate issues has been heavily criticized.[1] Andrew Sullivan, in specific, wrote "Palin has never produced Trig's birth certificate or a single piece of objective medical evidence that proves he is indeed her biological son".[2]

I've converted the refs into inline links there. That presents the Sullivan comment as an example of criticism of the linking. Reading that comment in context, I don't see it as a criticism of the linking. Sullivan characterizes Palin as having "joined or at least mainstreamed the Birther movement", but if he speaks to the linkage between the questions about Obama's and Trig's birth certificates, I missed it. He leads with comments about Palin's birther-ness, but most of the linked article is about Trig's birth circumstances. As I read it, Sullivan's key point in that source relevant to this article is, "The news here is that, to her credit, Palin says that all inquiries into a candidate's veracity, record, associations, and medical history are legitimate forms of inquiry." As I read that, he's saying that questions about Obama's birth certificate go to his natural-born-ness , imply that he may be a liar/perjurer, and are legitimate; questions about Trig's birth certificate imply that Palin may be a liar, and are legitimate. I suggest removing the final sentence and the link to the Sullivan comment, or rewriting the assertions in this section to highlight Sullivan's birther characterizations of Palin and/or the legitimacy of questions about a candidate's veracity, record, associations, and medical history. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you want to remove it. Sullivan is directly criticizing the linkage between Trig's maternaty controversy and Obama's natural born-ness controversy. He is using irony (the fact that Palin did not produce a birth certificate for Trig) to make his point. Including this in the article in a Neutral Point of View, in my opinion, is perfectly legitimate. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You and I see the Sullivan piece differently. I see the piece, titled Palin Puts The Trig Question Back On The Table and with about 2/3 of its content by a rough paragraph count being about the Trig question, as focusing on the Trig question rather than as criticizing the linkage between the Trig and Obama questions. Sullivan says flat out in the piece that it does not strike him as the news in Palin having made the linkage that Palin has joined or mainstreamed the Birther movement. Perhaps I'm irony-impaired. I think the article misrepresents the Sullivan piece but, as I would rather spend time on other things, I've only stated that as one editor's opinion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A question of Trig-onometry? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

COB vs. COLB, one document vs. two documents, POV edits

I've redone this edit. That edit changed characterization referring to two separate documents to characterization referring to "different terms for the same document".

There are at least two separate types of documents at issue. One document type is documents similar to the computer-generated certificate which the Obama campaign released, which is imaged here, with the caption of the image being what I have edited. Another document type (what "birthers" would like to see released, at least in photocopy form) is the "vault copy" of the actual piece of paper which was completed and signed by various persons at the birth event. For a comparison of Obama's released certificate (number 151-61-10641) vs. photocopies of vault copies of pieces of paper completed at other birth events at the Kapiolani Medical Center (numbers 151-61-10637 and 151-61-10638) which were near-conterminous in time with Obama's, see www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2303249/replies?c=25 (you'll need to manually browse over there -- WP spam-filters that URL). Also see this past discussion of this point (probably one of several such past discussions). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained over and over, there is no other document. The birth certificate provided is the birth certificate that the State of Hawaii issues everyone. I don't think linking to some fringe website like Free Republic is going to fly here. That's not a reliable source and this issue has been decided beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever. This has been verified by every Government official in Hawaii(including the Republican Governor), media investigation and judge. Just because some people refuse to believe the truth, even with obvious facts right in front of their faces, doesn't mean it's credible to put in this article. The certificate released by Obama and inspected by Factcheck.org is Brack Obama's official birth certificate. DD2K (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image caption disputed

I dispute this edit, which changed the caption of an image of a document entitled by the issuing authority as Certification of Live Birth to read

Image of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate released during the Obama presidential campaign.

with an edit summary of "This is the correct spelling and definition of the document." I contend that the image should be captioned,

Image of the Certification of Live Birth document released during the Obama presidential campaign.

The disputed edit is essentially a revert of a previous edit by me (which edit did admittedly mistakenly omit the word "Image"), and I bring this up here rather than edit-war. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(added) Some googling turned up [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408 this article], which I mention here for info only (I don't want to get drawn into a discussion about whether WND meets WP:RS criteria). Also please note that I make no assertion re the location of Barack Obama's birth event. I assert only that the image is mis-captioned. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Did you go to the links that WND(which btw, is most definitely NOT a WP:RS) link to? I really think that these conspiracy nuts know that the people who read them will not check what the links they give actually claim. If you go to the links, it doesn't say anything like what WND claims they do. DD2K (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't care either way personally. However, a CLB and birth certificate are the same thing. Falcon8765 (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well actually, you made this edit, making a change to the wording on the image with the edit summary stating "(See the "COB vs. COLB, one document vs. two documents, POV edits" section on the talk page.)". Which is the above section in which you cite the Free Republic, which is most definitely not a reliable source. That is when I responded to your comment above stating that this has been discussed here over and over and decided. Then I made this compromise edit instead of reverting to the old, agreed upon language that you changed. Wfaxon corrected the spelling of "certificate" from a spelling mistake of "cetificate", and you reverted him to the incorrect spelling. Then you made another edit that incorrectly identified the document, while also making the description poorly worded. Without addressing my response to your changes above. I adamantly oppose any changes to any of the facts in this article using the Free Republic as a source. They can be cited as part of the fringe conspiracy, but not as a source for facts. DD2K (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not having seen and responded to your response in the earlier section—I'm guessing that your response was watchlist-masked by a subsequent edit and I missed seeing it. As I understand it, and as is explained further in [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408 this] WND story which I mentioned above (and [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347 here], and probably elsewhere), there are (or were in the 1960s, and probably still are) at least two types of documents relating to officially documenting a birth event in Hawaii.

• A document titled Certificate of Live Birth, which is completed within a time prescribed by the department of health and filed with the local agent of the department. This document contains details such as the name of the hospital or institution where the birth event occurred, the name and signature of the physician or midwife attending the delivery, a certification (usually by a parent) that the information on the document is true and correct, and a certification by a birth attendant that the child was born alive on the date and hour indicated. Examples of this sort of document are available in those two WND articles linked earlier in this response ([http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408] and [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347]), and other examples are probably available elsewhere.
• A document titled Certification of Live Birth, such as the document imaged in this article. This sort of document contains some of the information contained in the more complete Certificate of Live Birth, but not all, of the information contained in that other, more complete, document.

You also say above, "this issue has been decided beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever." I think that you are speaking there of a different issue than the issue of which I speak. The issue of which I speak is the issue that a document titled by its issuing authority Certification of Live Birth should be captioned Certification of Live Birth, and not Birth Certificate—particularly in view of the fact that different document exists which is titled by its issuing authority Certificate of Live Birth. If the potentially misleading caption Birth Certificate is used, the fact of the existence of another type of birth record (the more complete Certificateion of Live Birth document, which might confusingly also be described as a Birth Certificate) should be pointed out.

Again, please note that I make no assertion re the location of Barack Obama's birth event. I assert only that the image is mis-captioned. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am speaking of the document, which is a Birth Certificate. As described by very definition and the State of Hawaii:

As has been explained over and over, there is no other document. The birth certificate provided is the birth certificate that the State of Hawaii issues everyone. I don't think

Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

In other words, it's a distinction without a difference to everyone but the 'birthers'. With all due respect, World Net Daily is not a reliable source, especially when concerning the 'birther' conspiracy(or really anything having to do with Barack Obama. DD2K (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a distinction, and there is a difference. It may be a difference of no import to you, but that is not the same as there being no difference. It does not follow from the difference being of no moment to you that the difference is of no moment to others.

A Certificate of Live Birth is a form completed in compliance with §338-5 of the State of Hawaii State Public Health Statistics Act by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. A Certification of Live Birth is information (in this case, partial information) about the contents of that certificate which is furnished and certified to be true by the Department of Public Health in compliance with §338-13 of said act. In this case, the certification (confirmation of certain characteristics of an object, person, or organization) is furnished in the form of a certificate (an official document affirming some fact). Both the Certificate of Live Birth residing in stroage in the Hawaii Dept of Public Health and the certificate embodying the certification re information about Obama's birth are certificate documents.

Since both certificates relate to Obama's birth, one may obfuscate the fact that an unreleased document exists which contains more complete information about the circumstances of Obama's birth than is contained in the released document by confusingly using the term "Birth certificate" to describe the certificate which embodies the certification that some particular pieces of information are present on Obama's Certificate of Live Birth. I assert that it is unencyclopedic to do this. I see no valid reason why a document titled Certification of Live Birth by its issuing organization should not be identified as a "Certification of Live Birth" but, rather, should be referred to by the arguably confusing term of "Birth Certificate". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And once again, both the "Certificate of Live Birth" and "Certification of Live Birth" are both classified as "Birth Certificates". It's not 'confusing' to anyone. Other than perhaps "birthers". There is no need to distinguish the document, and this has been established here for a long time, before you changed the wording. There is no "unreleased document", as been proven over and over and over. It's what Hawaii, and almost all other States, give people when they ask for their birth certificate. DD2K (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't understand why you feel a need to denigrate the people to which you refer as "birthers". Leaving that aside, regarding the document to which you refer in quotes as an "unreleased document", such a document certainly does exist—a vault copy of the Certificate of Live Birth document for BHO. I don't understand your denial of the existence of this document. My understanding is that such a document does exist and has not been released. Its existence has been acknowledged by the Hawaii Department of Public Health. I make no assertions regarding the content of this document, but your disputation of its existence appears to me to be unwarranted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim of the birther brigades is that the so-called "unreleased document" is somehow materially different from and contains additional information than the document that we have all come to know over the last year. Those claims are, top get to the point, bullshit. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am not so much denigrating anyone than just stating the facts. It's well known that the people who are called 'birthers', although a substantial sub-section of America, refuse to look at the facts right in front of their faces to willfully believe in a conspiracy that has been proven false beyond all doubt. They are, and rightly so, compared to 9-11 'truthers', who are a similar subsection of America that lay on the other side of the political spectrum. When I write that you are making a distinction without a difference, it's a fact. There is some kind of microfiche copy of the original that has been verified by the State of Hawaii(including the (R) head of the State), but the document provided by the Obama campaign has not only been verified by the State of Hawaii as Barack Obama's official birth certificate, but by every judicial outlet and media investigation. It's a solid fact backed up by reliable source after reliable source. There is no reason to call the document anything other than Obama's birth certificate. Other than when one is describing the differences when explaining what reliable sources are saying about the document in the body of the article. DD2K (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't want the hassle of fighting what I regard as the exclusionary overapplication of source reliability standards as applied to this article but, for purposes of discussion here on this talk page, I'll refer you (again) to the examples of the Certificate of Live Birth document exampled at the WND articles at [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408] and [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347], which is required to be completed by §338-5 and §338-6 of of the State of Hawaii Public Health Statistics Act. The director of Hawaii's Department of Health has issued a statement confirming that the state holds Obama's "original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures" (see [3] and [4]), and this is the document to which I refer as BHO's "Certificate of Live Birth" (as opposed to the "Certification of Live Birth" document imaged in this article and apparently furnished pursuant to §338-13 of said act). I think that it is clear that a "Certificate of Live birth" form does exist, that this form was completed to certify BHO's birth, that a vault copy of this form is on record in the State of Hawaii Department of Public Health, that this form has data fields which are not present on the "Certification of Live Birth" document imaged in this article, and that information re the content of these fields has not been released. I make no assertion regarding the content of these fields. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, a "certificate of live birth" is a birth certificate. Overspecificity here plays into the POV of the birthers, and could confuse readers and create the wrong tone for the article by giving undue credence to their claim that this document is somehow deficient as a birth certificate. The counterargument is that one key part of this conspiracy theory relates to the distinction between a certificate of live birth and other documents, and what a certificate of live birth is. By being more specific we're presenting better information to the reader. Calling it a birth certificate does seem a little POV-ish, although it's hard to say there's anything wrong with discounting a fringe POV. I guess it seems to be making the point indirectly by implication rather than by direct statement. A direct statement would be something like Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", which functions as one form of birth certificate in Hawaii. Overall it's a toss-up for me. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I added the suggestion below without noticing that you had responded. The suggestion stands, but I'll respond to you here. I think applying the description "Birth Certificate" to the document imaged in the article unnecessarily obfuscates the distinction between the two types of documents which we are discussing here. The unreleased "Certificate of Live Birth" certifies that the information which it contains has been certified true by the persons who signed that form and are named therein. The released "Certification of Live Birth" document certifies that the information which it contains is a true representation of that portion of the information which is contained on the "Certificate of Live Birth" form. I think that it unencyclopedic to obfuscate this distinction. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(added) Getting back to the topic of this section, I'll suggest a couple of alternatives.

1. Caption the imaged document "Image of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate released during the Obama presidential campaign." but add a clarifying footnote something like

   This document is a certification by the State of Hawaii Department of Public Health that the information it contains is a true representation of information contained in some fields of the Certificate of Live Birth document held by the State of Hawaii Department of Public Health.

2. Caption the image, "Image of Barack Obama's Certification of Live Birth released during the Obama presidential campaign.", using the title given to the document by the State of Hawaii Department of Public Health.

What say? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, when you changed the caption from the old consensus version it read:

Barack Obama's Birth Certificate. The use of the term "Certification of Live Birth" in place of "Birth Certificate" has fuelled conspiracy theories, although they are different terms for the same document

I thought just removing all comment from the picture and making the caption simple was a compromise:

Image of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate released during the Obama presidential campaign.

Because it was straight forward and did not describe the controversy. When one goes to the state and ask for your birth certificate, that is what they give you. Your birth certificate. The conspiracy is explained in the body of the article. Saying that, I don't object to putting your footnote in, as it is an explanation. Whether anyone else does, I don't know. Personally, I probably like the simple version that is there now, with the footnote added. DD2K (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

However, that caption unnecessarily obfuscated the fact that an unreleased document titled "Certificate of Live Birth" exists (that document contains information not contained in the released "Certification of Live Birth" document, but I am not urging here that this fact be pointed up). Describing the imaged document by the title given to it by the State of Hawaii Department of Public Health would avoid this obfuscation, would be straightforward, and would not describe the controversy. You say, "When one goes to the state and ask for your birth certificate, that is what they give you." That oversimplifies. §338-13 says, in part, "Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof." It is possible to request a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth form on file with the DPH (examples of such copies are contained in [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408] and [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347]). This was apparently not done here. I draw no conclusions from that, but I feel that it is unencyclopedic to obfuscate it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, there is no "unreleased document". This is an obfuscation of "what is in the vault" vs. "here's a copy of what is in the vault", and you are doing us all an unnecessary disservice by parroting a boilerplate birther argument. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You have to stop using WND and Free Republic as references. They are not credible sources, especially on issues concerning Obama and/or his birth certificate. The passage you cite from the State of Hawaii states this, in full:

§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other processapproved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

And the Obama campaign most certainly did have the best possible copy released. A certified(with a raised seal) certification of the original birth certificate. The only other possible release they could have done, and I'm not even sure it's possible, is a copy of any microfiche version of the original. WND totally misrepresents the facts here(as usual). The women they cite as proof, has stated herself that she was there when Obama was born and her children went to school with him. Here are some other exerts from the article WND cites(and totally misrepresents):

Hawai'i's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.

The Health Department's director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama's birth records.

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen," Fukino said in a statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago."

And yes, I know that if there is a microfiche version that can be copied, and is legal, it provides more information than the birth certificate that Hawaii gives out to citizens. I know this because of research and because I get the same kind of certificate where I live. I used to have a copy of my original birth certificate a long time ago, but have had certified copies for a very long time and would not even know how, if possible, to see my original. All of this being argued is really off the mark. The facts are the facts, and it's beyond any reasonable dispute that Obama was born in Hawaii and provided concrete proof backed up by many, many officials.

So the description of 'Barack Obama's birth certificate does not 'obfuscated' anything. Only where birthers are concerned could it possibly confuse the facts. And the facts prove the birthers absolutely, 100% wrong. Wikipedia isn't supposed to 'be fair' to a side that doesn't have a leg to stand on. That's why this article is listed as a fringe conspiracy. DD2K (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your assertion that there is no "unreleased document". A Certificate of Live Birth document does exist.(see [5] and [6]) Are you asserting that a certified copy of this document has been released? (that's a rhetorical question—I don't actually think that you might be making such an assertion)

I've only mentioned WND articles here as a convenience for purposes of this discussion because those articles contain handy pictures of Certificate of Live Birth documents which are near-contemporaneous with Obama's, showing what such documents look like and what information they contain. I understand that were I to cite WND articles in the article, I could expect protests that WND is not a reliable source. However, I think that the protest serves no useful purpose in this discussion unless you are asserting that those articles misrepresent the Certificate of Live Birth forms which they show. I note that this source (and I thank you for providing a pointer to that) confirms that 1961 birth certificates contained "much more information" (quoted) than modern-day birth certificates issued to persons seeking their Hawai'i birth records, such as the document imaged in this article.

I don't understand your assertion that "... the Obama campaign most certainly did have the best possible copy released." Are you asserting that the Obama campaign requested the release of a certified true copy of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth document and that the Hawaii DPH instead released a Certification of Live Birth containing only a portion of the information which is present on the Certificate of Live Birth document? I suspect that you are just guessing that the Obama campaign diligently sought to have the best possible copy released. If I'm wrong about that, though, and you do have information on just what it is that the Obama campaign sought to have released, please let me know where I can find a source with information about that.

I am aware of Dr. Fukino's statement which you requoted above. Please note that I have made no assertion to the effect that the vault copy of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth (which, of course, I have not seen) states that he was born anyplace other than Hawaii. I agree that, as you say, "All of this being argued is really off the mark. "—the mark is that I assert that it is unencyclopedic to refuse to refer to a document titled by its issuing agency as a "Certification of Live Birth" not as a "Certification of Live Birth" but, instead, as a "Birth Certificate"—and especially so when there is another document containing additional information which is also referred to as a "Birth Certificate". As I've said earlier, I think that it would be acceptible to do this if a clarifying footnote were provided, but I think that it's simpler and clearer to just refer to the document by the name which its issuing authority gave it.

You say, "So the description of 'Barack Obama's birth certificate does not 'obfuscated' anything." and "Only where birthers are concerned could it possibly confuse the facts.", yet it apparently confused you here, where you argued "As has been explained over and over, there is no other document." At least we've gotten past that and you now acknowledge that there are at least two different documents to which the description "Barack Obama's Birth Certificate" could refer. That's progress, I guess.

It's not relevant to this talk page section so I won't open a discussion on it here, but it seems to me that you and I have different impressions of who the people you describe as "the birthers" are, of how united they are in what they claim and, in fact, about what those claims are. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I will quote Factcheck.Org:

FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

While also quoting from the same source that you provided and have read:

(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

Which is one of the reasons why Factcheck refers to the document as Obama's 'original birth certificate'. Because that is how the document is treated by everyone BUT the 'birthers'. It's cited by law, sources and it would be unencyclopedic to refer to the document, in an official manner, as anything other than Obama's birth certificate.DD2K (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tons of OR in this section. Lets use the specific language that the RS's (factcheck.org?) which have reviewed and discussed this document. If they refer to it plainly as birth certificate, then that is the wording that we should use per WP:V ... if they use COLB, then lets use that wording. Lets make it simple? --guyzero | talk 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Ravensfire (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute abandoned

Real life events are going to cause me to reduce my WP participation somewhat over the next few weeks or so. This dispute isn't going anywhere anyway, so I'm abandoning it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you have an enjoyable vacation. DD2K (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I abandoned this article several months ago. Every so often I get the urge to dive back in, but the uphill swim against the muck and mire is too much, and have come to the realization it's just not worth the effort. After a while a person just throws up his hands, walks away and leaves it to the natives. The end result is that articles such as this one become little more than a cheap reflection of the most passionate, determined and energetic of those natives. Such are the flaws of Wikipedia. JBarta (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Certification" of Live Birth NOT "Birth Certificate"

(1) A "certification" is merely an affidavit by state officials that they have SEEN certain vital records. They are "certifying" that they exist.

(2) A "certificate" is the CONTEMPORANEOUS document executed by physicians and other actual witnesses to the BIRTH.

(3) The documents are clearly quite different. The difference is the same as an "certification" stating that "I have seen the Magna Carta" and the Magna Carta itself.

(4) This article is deliberately misleading in conflating the two documents.

(5) This article is deliberately misleading (and self-contradictory and biased) insofar as Hawaii state officials have given conflicting accounts as to (1) whether the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth" exists (2) what "vital records" they are relying on, if not the Certificate (3) whether they have the authority under the law to reveal what documents exist and what they have examined.

(6) Although this article presents (in a very disorganized an haphazard manner) the various conflicting assertions of state officials, it appears to RESOLVE (without any factual basis) the dispute by concluding (1) Hawaii officials are free to disclose what documents exist, (2) what those documents established and (3) in this particular case, Obama's 1961 Certificate of Live Birth exists and was examined by the officials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the section directly above your comment? This was just discussed, and has been discussed too many times to count. You don't get to change what a source states because you happen to not like it. And you don't get to blank entire sections and decide what is a WP:RS or what is not. You are using the same ip address that claimed Word Net Daily was a reliable source, as well as Hotair, but now claim that Salon is not a reliable source? The explanations above give enough reliable sourced material and the page should stay in it's current form until/unless a reliable source states otherwise. And no, WND or the Free Republic are not reliable sources, especially concerning the birther issue or anything to do with Barack Obama. DD2K (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does it keep referring to a certificate of live birth as a birth certificate when of course they're not the same thing? Since when did Wikipedia become so intellectually dishonest? --98.220.204.204 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Because that is what we call "a distinction without a difference". The conspiracy types have spent over a year now trying to make hay of the difference between the two, when for all intents and purposes there really isn't one. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WTF?

This page is bigger than most articles on whole countries...trim it down? 174.114.231.69 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If the situation bothers you, a better solution would be to go to one of the country articles that's too skimpy, do some research, and add useful information to it. Trimming this article down won't make it any easier for readers to find out about Andorra. JamesMLane t c 05:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarify the Donofrio Position

The section about Donofrio v. Wells is an inaccurate representation of Leo Donofrio's position with regard Roger Calero, John McCain, and Barack Obama. With regard Roger Calero, Leo's objection to his qualification is not that he currently may be a citizen of Nicaragua, but that he was a Nicaraguan citizen at birth. With regard John McCain, Leo's objection to his qualification is not that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. To the contrary. Leo asserts that John McCain was not born in the Panama Canal Zone (where his father worked) but rather in Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama, (as his birth certificate states) and consequently he was Panamanian citizen at birth. With regard Barack Obama, Leo's objection to his qualification is that he was a British subject at birth, without regard to the place of birth or his simultaneous US citizenship at birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atozxrod (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Visit to Pakistan and natural-born-ness

Re this revert of my addition of a {{cn}} tag, The unsupported assertion is

It has also been claimed that Obama could not be a natural-born citizen because he traveled to Pakistan at a time when there was a ban on United States passport holders entering that country,

I see that page 3 of the Kornhaber article cited to support a direct quote which follows this assertion says, "And in 1981, Obama traveled to Pakistan; at the time, though, there was a ban on American passport holders entering that country." and that page 4 says that there was no travel ban. I don't see any support, however, for the assertion that it has been claimed that this travel refutes his status as a natural-born citizen

I see that this factcheck.org article says that a claim that his trip to Pakistan in 1981 proves he must not have been a U.S. citizen was advanced in 2008, but it doesn't say who made the claim. Such a claim would be nonsensical, of course, but it would be nice to have a cite of a source showing who made the nonsensical claim and what association the claimant had.

I see that this snopes.com article seems to attribute the claim to someone named Paul Hollrah. This answers.com article speaks of someone named Paul R Hollrah as being a fairly prolific writer of on-line political commetary with a seemingly extreme right-wing view who lives in Missouri and is listed as a former Presidential Elector from Kansas (sounds like this might be the same person), and describes him as a person who goes about spewing fake information that no one cares about in an effort to stir up false controversy and get more famous (their words, not mine). One wonders whether this is the source of the claim alleged and, if not, what the source is. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Many of the exact sources of these conspiracy theories can't be directed to one original source. Though a lot are tied to people like Orly Taitz and Phil Berg. There are videos and an audio of Taitz making these specific claims, but many are passed through mass emails and posted on the Freeper or WND websites. On Wikipedia, it's better to use the reliable sources that analyze the conspiracy theories than to seek out birther sites and link to them. Although there should be ample links to those sites throughout the article when it's possible to have a direct link to a specific claim.{edited to add} --> also, the "citation" tag has been removed from that particular section at least twice. I don't believe the use for that tag is being properly added in that section, because the claims are definitely cited to a reliable source. DD2K (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC) and then edited --> DD2K (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If we do not have a reliable source for who first made a claim then we do not mention it. What is important is that a claim has been made, and has received attention in the media, then we should mention it. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that my brothers birth certificates from around the same time are not typed so clearly, the entry font is different than the form font, and the old tape style type writers routinely smeared or bled. None of that is present in this supposed "record". The other item that begs to be cleared up is the missing foot prints. The large area to the right of the text is intended for a foot print, or two, of the infant. This has been a long standing practice and would have been completed by the attending nurses. These few discrepancies are enough to call into doubt the authenticity of this document. The issue should not be considered resolved. Further investigation is required! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.15.184 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Gahh. First of all, this has nothing to do with the Pakistan theory. Second, read the article. The document in question was issued by the state of Hawaii in 2007, printed at that time on a laser printer, and certified by the state to be proof of Obama's birth having taken place on the given date (1961) and location (Honolulu), and, as with any such document, to be regarded for any purpose as his "original birth certificate" (thanks, DD2K!).

This is not a special case for Obama; it is how all modern proofs of birth are handled. The fact that this document is not an actual piece of paper from 1961 is not disputed nor is it relevant.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Terry Lakin's court martial, relevant?

In the news today, 'Birther' Lt. Col. Terry Lakin to be court-martialed for refusing order to deploy to Afghanistan. While it isn't a lawsuit as Cook v. Obama was regarding a refusal to serve, the court martial is a direct result of birther advocacy. Thoughts? Tarc (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please put it in. Here is a source from NBC, which is a better known source. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone's gotten to it already. Looks good. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

News or opinion?

Re this edit, is this cited and quoted source ("Barack Obama was, without question, born in the U.S., and he is eligible to be president, but experts on conspiracy theories say that won't ever matter to those who believe otherwise. " — I think the quote, though, quotes an anonymous Solon headline-writter, not the bylined article author), a piece by Solon staff writer Alex Koppelman, whose bio page at Solon acknowledges that he has been described "... by Canadian political blogger Kathy Shaidle as 'a delusional liberal pantywaist...' " considered to be News or Opinion for purposes of this article? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that calls into question the truth of those cited facts? You don't have to be a liberal to know that every reliable source, media outlet, government officials and judicial forum has stated that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and so-called 'birthers' refuse to see the facts and seem to be delusional beyond all reason. You just have to be aware and cognizant of the issue and what has been reported over the last couple years. DD2K (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS says, "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., 'Jane Smith has suggested...')." I'm questioning whether this article is considered to be a straight news article backed by Solon's reputation as a reliable source, or a political opinion piece by Solon staff writer Alex Koppelman, who also edits Salon's political blog. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please provide some indication that there is a controversy: does any reliable source support the birthers? No BLP information relies on the reference, so WP:BLPSPS does not apply (the reference is to support the statement that the birthers' arguments have been debunked numerous times). Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the quotation from the headline blurb of the cited article saying, "Barack Obama was, without question, born in the U.S., and he is eligible to be president, ..." to be a biographical assertion adding information about a living person to this article, and supporting the addition of that information by citing that article as a supporting source. I make no assertion re the truth or falsity of that information. I do question whether the cited article is a straight news piece or an opinion piece. If the article is an opinion piece, and a quote from it is used to add information about a living person to a WP article, it is my understanding that BLP requires that the information added must be clearly represented as the opinion of the writer. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote does not add information about a living person to this article. If there was even a tiny possibility that Obama were not eligible to be President, then the very well funded and motivated mainstream opponents of Obama would have been engaged in legal action for the last year. There is no such possibility, so the quote is about the conspiracy theory, not the addition of BLP information. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly a featured news piece and not filed under 'opinion'. It also has numerous links to other media outlets to cite various assertions. Is there some kind of point you are trying to make? WP:BLPSPS is for protection against publishing controversial material used against a living person. The citation you are referring to is common knowledge among all reliable sources, so I don't see what point you are trying to make. Even if it were an opinion piece and you wanted to cite the writer as the opinion of that portion of the article, there could be a dozens of other outlets cited as stating the same thing. DD2K (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

John McCain was definetly born outside the US.

Barack Obama's parents, and the State of Hawaii could not foresee that he would become President, and thus saw no reason to ensure that all requisite documentation would be kept (and copied to relevant other places).

The birthers complain about this opacity, not about McCain's not abiding by the spirit of the constitution.

Therefore they 'are complaining about something completely different.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama has ordered a document to be kept locked up and not disclosed. Therefore, the document exists, but Obama won't let it be examined so he can prove he's eligible to serve as president. Why hide it if you're legitimate? Why not hide if if you're illegitimate? GBC (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, except he has not given any such order.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, but at least some of the birthers have opined that McCain is also ineligible. JamesMLane t c 15:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides, McCain isn't President, and never will be. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone direct me to where Wikipedia discusses the distinction between opinion citation vs legitimate fact-checked reporting-type citations? I am concerned that the Wiki article section:

"The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his short form birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a "Certification of Live Birth") that states Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" birth certificate, and that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations, every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate.[8]"

In particular, the Salon.com citation [8] is a pure opinion article, containing no evidence or first-hand information verifying anything in the article. The author makes numerous claims as fact without supporting them using agreed upon facts or logic. Moreover, the author uses several illogical arguments to support his position, including the "so and so believes in this theory and he is a nutcase, therefore the argument for this conspiracy theory is definitely untrue." argument. How was this citation ever included in wiki? It seems blatantly opinion and contains no factual information one way or the other.

Surely, there is a distinction between a blogger's opinion statement (or a newspaper's oped piece) and an exerpt from a journal article written by a professional providing firsthand information of observation and fact. Agreed, there are many grey areas in between. So what is wiki's guidance on this? I read the Wiki article for Verifiable and it has made me even more confused. Specifically:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Is this a statement about whether or not the link in question is a real link? a comment that the statement was made by a particular author? Is the link meant to confirm that the author stated by the wiki citation maker is in fact the true author of the comment/statement. Surely the standard cannot be that trivial. If so, then any blogger comment is sufficient for citation. Can someone offer a link which has some examples of what is accepted as a 'sufficient citation' and what is not? thanks. So many of the other conspiracy theory wiki articles are done so much better than this one, which is clearly biased in 2 or 3 sentences. Detah (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re your request for a pointer to where Wikipedia discusses the distinction between opinion citation vs legitimate fact-checked reporting-type citations, it's WP:BLPSPS, and is discussed a bit in the #Source for Hawaii birth certificate stuff in lede and #News or opinion? sections above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Kenyan Hansard

We're not here to discuss the lateast Birther-rumor-of-the-day. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Minister of Lands in Kenya, in debate in the Kenyan parliament on Thursday 25 March 2010, made explicit reference to the fact that America has elected a president who was born in Kenya. It is on the official record - this minister is proud of the fact that a KENYAN has become the American president. Check pages 29 to 31 - the statement is on page 31. [7] Only those who are afraid of the truth or don't want to admit to a possibility (that should be examined) are going to delete this information. Which is censorship. Do you have the courage to examine the information for yourself, or are you so afraid that you'll delete it and keep others from examining it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC) There are fools and deluded people in government in many countries, including the US; why should Kenya be any different? --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC) You need to provide reliable sources that the birther movement has picked up on this. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC) This passage refers to no governmental records. It shows only that a Kenyan official has heard all the talk about Obama's birth and has formed a vague impression, one that's clearly wrong. Here's what he says (as an aside during a debate about an unrelated subject): Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. In other words, he says that (1) Obama was born in Kenya, and (2) he could nevertheless become President because the United States eliminated the exclusion of foreign-born persons from high office. You'll note that his second point is indisputably, undeniably false. The whole issue arises only because the United States has not done away with this exclusion. So, having examined this "information" for myself, I conclude that it proves nothing. JamesMLane t c 21:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Hansard is the official record of what was said in the legislative body of most or all Commonwealth countries. Even Kenyans know that Obama was probably born there. That the US has not changed its law is known to me - the point here is, the truth is out there and hidden because the long form of the birth certificate, which shows the actual location of birth, has not been disclosed, only a short form issued for some sort of convenience. The person who is signing law into effect in a nation has a responsibility to prove that he complies with the law on eligibility. (The Democrats checked out McCain's eligiblity, which was less doubtful, but they won't pursue their own candidate's eligibility.) Obama hasn't done that, but thank goodness some states are putting new laws in place which will keep Obama off the ballot in those states in 2012 if he doesn't cough up the form he's deliberately keeping unseen. It is not a loss of face or an act of shame to show it now, since he's so confident that he's natural born, yet he's spending private and public money on legal fees to not disclose it. We can wonder why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.235 (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with Tarc's hatnote. This article is about the conspiracy theories, so talk-page discussion of the latest Birther rumor-of-the-day is appropriate for considering whether that particular rumor merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 11:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly if new legal cases by Taitz or others become notable, sure, I'm not opposing the discussion of those sorts of things. But a topic begun by one who proclaims himself to be fighting censorship and quoting WND missives as some sort of proof against the premise of the article? No, there is no need to indulge in bad-faith discussions. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you both are correct and incorrect. When reliable sources pick up certain "birther" paranoias, then it's relevant to discuss on the talk page. But, the talk page is definitely not a place to use as some kind of original research platform to discuss the "latest Birther rumor-of-the-day". This should be closed as irrelevant unless presented with a reliable source. Which, of course, would be dismissing this silliness. It honestly doesn't take much common sense to see this has no real information at all. DD2K (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wiki Title Violates Neutrality

Naming the wiki "conspiracy theories" carries a negative connotation. "conspiracy theories" should be changed to "Controversy" - as it is more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by66.68.37.107 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. You should read the FAQ associated with this page, and also quoted at the top of this very talk page, which I will quote for you.

Q1: Isn't the use of the terms "conspiracy theories" and "fringe" in the article title and body a violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutrality?

A1: No. Reliable sources have treated and referred to the topic as a fringe conspiracy theory, rather than a legitimate controversy. The article reflects these sources as per Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. Consensus on the article title has been established through a RFC and has been repeatedly reaffirmed since.?

Thanks. DD2K (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This is very interesting. I only suggest that the title change from conspiracy theory to controversy, and you reject it. I find it odd that this should cause Wikipedia's/Barrack's gate keepers such angst. The title is - in fact - not neutral. The only way that it would be ruled neutral is if the person(s) that makes such decisions is/are biased themselves. It makes me wonder if my past and current donations to Wikipedia have been going to an organization that isn't what it claims to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.37.107 (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's/Barrack's gate keepers"? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is in league with Obama in a shadowy effort to hide the truth about Obama's birth? That seems like the definition of a co... um, a collusion.192.104.39.2 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not "rejected": the topic has been discussed exhaustively in the past, and DD2K gave a very reasonable outline of the situation: reliable sources (read the article) regard the issue as a conspiracy theory because there is absolutely zero evidence to support any legitimate controversy in the opinion of multiple reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW (and it is probably not worth much on this particular talk page), I more-or-less agree with the anon who initiated this talk page section. The Conspiracy theory article describes the term as "largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning". I don't believe that the challenges discussed in this article are properly described as "the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning", and my guess is that the proponents of this article naming don't believe that either. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy theory and is sourced as such. I wouldn't say that is pejorative, it is a simple description. Perhaps there is a negative connotation to subscribing to farfetched implausible minority beliefs that defy the available evidence - if so that comes from the thing itself, not from a neutral description of it. Occasionally conspiracy theories turn out to be true, e.g. in the 1960s the FBI was spying on citizens for political reasonss, made false accusations against those who opposed its policies, and assassinated various foreign leaders, all of which contradicted the evidence available to most Americans at the time. More often, the theories are as silly as they sound. There is no other way to describe this one, given the preponderance of mainstream sourcing available today. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally would favor the complete elimination of the phrase "conspiracy theory" from article titles. Unless and until that's done fairly -- i.e., comprehensively, not selectively -- then Wikidemon's comment is a correct statement of current Wikipedia policy, namely that any negative implication is not a POV violation. JamesMLane t c 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The financial backers of Obama's campaign would not have wanted to waste their money on someone who was automatically disqualified. Those arguing that Barack Obama is disqualified from being President have, over the course of two years, seemingly not come up with anything more than 'arguing over linguistic details' (or so it seems). Have the birthers mae any attempt to amend the constitutional/legal requirements on the requirements for the President's place of birth to remove the seeming ambiguity? If all they do is to describe the situation (as they see it) rather than act to change or clarify the points under discussion, then there is a tendency to call the whole thing a conspiracy theory (and sometimes things persist in being misnamed). Jackiespeel (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Haven't really followed much of this lately, but there was a push in some parts of the country to require a birth certificate in order to qualify for a spot on a ballot, in time for the 2012 elections. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Which of course, has no bearing on Obama, since he has already done so. Woogee (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep the title. See WP:DUCK. Bearian (talk)

That sort-of depends on which particular duck you choose to look at. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy (not guidelines, but policy) explicitly permits article titles with non-neutral negative connotations, e.g. "Teapot Dome scandal", "Murder of George Tiller", "when they are used by a consensus of the sources". On the other hand, "..., encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." (neutrality in the WP sense, not an absence of opinion, but an unbiased representation of the range of opinion, appropriately weighted to consensus, editorially neutral). And "If a genuine titling controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources." My casual impression is that the article title accurately reflects the consensus of reliable sources, but I haven't done the work to back up that impression. Someone who can set their opinions aside for a critical review should do that work. Studerby (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Spurred by discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Proposed wording about descriptive titles and neutrality which resulted in my mentioning this article title there as being possibly non-neutral, I belatedly took a(nother) look at WP:NPOV#Article_title, which is wikilinked above. I see that the policy exception mentioned is explicitly applied to proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms. This article title is a descriptive title, not a proper name. I suggest a re-reading of that policy page section — particularly the second paragraph. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am the OP - my only point here is that there is widespread disagreement on this topic and your are prejudicing readers towards one position over the other. Moreover, the entire article reads like it is written with an agenda. Polls show that there are a large number of people that think there is a reason why Obama signed an executive order sealing his personal records the first day he was in office. By stating in the title that it is a conspiracy theory, you prejudice the reader. That does not mean that it isn't a conspiracy, as people are conspiring everyday in all aspects and walks fo life. Rather, it means that you are gaming WikiPedia's neutrality rule for personal/polticial reasons - but I imagine that it goes unchecked because you are on the "right" side of the argument. There is a reason why wikipedia exists, and this is not it. I will be very hesitant to donate any more money to this organization until it does something about the poltiical hacks and self-anointed "social engineers" that seem to plague WikiPedia. You should strive to err on the side of caution, and this title and article should be re-written so that it doesn't read like a political talking points memo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.37.107 (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The executive order you mentioned (13489) deals with presidential records, and how they are treated when executive privilege is invoked. It has absolutely no impact on any records associated with private citizen Obama prior to his becoming president, so it's hard to see how it has any bearing on this article whatsoever. Bringing it up as proof of a conspiracy of some sort seems to undermine your case for changing the name of the article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you have a citation showing that "a large number of people" think this executive order has some connection to a coverup of his citizenship, perhaps that should be added to the article, too.--NapoliRoma (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite my finding these citizenship rumors thoroughly irrelevant and absurd, I have to agree that there's a problem with the word, "conspiracy". The problem, IMO, is not neutrality, but rather definition. A conspiracy (con-: together; spire: to breathe) is a covert and illicit effort by a group of individuals. The article does not emphasize the belief that multiple people were involved. "Controversy" is an overstatement: The United States presidential election, 2000 was a controversy, because it elicited a prominent, nationwide polarization of opinions. The Obama rumors, however, are doing no such thing. When people are critical of Obama, they generally invoke what they perceive as Obama's stance on longstanding political issues; they generally do not say, "My biggest concern about Obama is that he might be from Kenya." I would suggest renaming the page, "Barack Obama citizenship rumors", or, otherwise, explaining in the article that people have accused a group of some wrongdoing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is a specific term that does not exactly mean a theory that there is a conspiracy. "Rumors" is farther off the mark. They aren't rumors. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's (rather broad) definition of Conspiracy Theory adequately covers this. (And given the numerous actors it would take to hide "the truth" about Obama's citizenship (i.e., Hawaiian officials, his family, the judiciary, etc.), it would require a group of people.) --Weazie (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I laughed out loud when this edit to the Wikipedia policy on Article Titles popped up on my watchlist. "Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject.". Ha! Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI... that very section of WP:AT has been the subject of discussion on the talk page for at least a month and a half now... I would not base any discussion or decision on what it currently says. We are trying to iron out the language as I write (but I expect that it will take a while). Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just putting in my two cents: I strongly agree that this article title is a black eye for Wikipedia. Personally, I think that the theories about Barack Obama's citizenship are absolutely conspiracy theories - but I recognize that that is a personal opinion of mine. Wikipedia's stance, apparently, is that if a source like the New York Times fails to make that same recognition, then the bias becomes "sourced," and sourced bias can be repeated. I'd like to think we're better than that. Mindlessly repeating the bias of some journalist who happens to work for the New York Times is no better than mindlessly inserting our own editorial bias into the article. If that's Wikipedia "policy," the policy needs to be revisited. 66.224.70.106 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, except for the fact that the overwhelming, vast majority of all reliable sources all refer to these birthers as fringe conspiracy theorists. Not just the NYT. I highly doubt that Wikipedia would twist it's standards to placate birthers, who conservative and liberal rational pundits scoff at and refer to as fringe. Wikipedia might as well change it's name to Conservapedia(who have no standards) if they changed their standards to fit the beliefs of those who sympathize with the birthers. DD2K (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how any source, no matter how "reliable," can be said to give us reliable information on what pejorative term to use when describing something. Numerous "reliable sources" (which, on Wikipedia, means "media outlets" 90% of the time) have described the birthers' beliefs as "asinine." Yet this article isn't called Asinine Barack Obama citizenship theories. What we have, frankly, is barely less pejorative and barely less embarassing than that. This title is boldly asserting that Wikipedia endorses a side in an ongoing controversy, and it is doing so in an insulting and demeaning way. Wikipedia should never do that. And, again, for the record, I personally do think they're conspiracy theories and I personally do think they're asinine - but I'm not inclined to write down my own personal beliefs and call them enyclopedic truth. 66.224.70.106 (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are acting as if both "sides" are equal and must be given some sort of equal footing in an article; this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. This is not a subject with two roughly valid but opposing points of view, as one would see with abortion or gun rights or war. This is more analogous to the JFK assassination or the Moon landing; there is the established, credible point of view, and then there is the fringe. Birtherism is a fringe movement even within conservatism, and thus it does not get equal consideration for its "theories" in an article. This article is more about the fringe opinions themselves, and their easy debunking, than on actual birtherism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 00:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You fail to see, it seems, because you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Here are some links to help you. WP:UNDUE - WP:RS - WP:VERIFY - WP:5P DD2K (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read them all before, DD2K. Nowhere in them does it say that Wikipedia should engage in namecalling. That's the problem here: "conspiracy theories" is a pejorative term. We'd do just as well to call the article The tinfoil-hat-wearing idiots who deny Barack Obama's citizenship. Wikipedia doesn't have a duty to act as though equal evidence exists in support and in opposition to the theory, but it does have a duty not sink into declaring a side in a controversy in the title of an article - in a way that denigrates the other side. If we do that, that's when we're no better than Conservapedia. 66.224.70.106 (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See Fringe:

*Moon landing conspiracy theories — Conspiracy theories which aim to show that the moon landings were fake, while probably not held as true by very many people, have generated enough discussion in books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA, etc., that they deserve an article on Wikipedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe#Sufficiently_notable_for_dedicated_articles

It is alright to use it in the title. See also Q1 at the top of the page. A conspiracy theory differs from normal speculation because it cannot be true and does not follow normal logic. TFD (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you think people should arrive at Wikipedia to be told that they belong to a political fringe, that their beliefs cannot be true, and that are thinking illogically. If that's the case, this may as well be some guy's blog. Conservapedia would like people to think that they're simply the FOX News to our MSNBC - two partisan outlets that snipe at each other, with neither holding the moral high ground. These kinds of titles only serve to suggest they're right. I don't have any problem with the editorial content of this article (other than that it repeats a quote at one point). It clearly lays out the claims and the evidence, and I think any reasonable person reading it will probably walk away with the impression that there is no evidence that Barack Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. But the title practically screams "FUCK YOU, BIRTHERS" - and that makes us look like juvenile partisans. 66.224.70.106 (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If something IS fringe, then yes, it is in Wikipedia's interest to note it as such. This is fringe. Ravensfire (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Only an unreasonable person would believe the moon is made of cheese, the earth was flat, or that Obama was born in Kenya. It's not the duty of Wikipedia to make those people feel better because of their beliefs, it's Wikipedia's duty to have verifiable articles. And only an extreme partisan would look at Conservapedia as an answer to some kind of "liberal" bias of Wikipedia. Which no amount of catering to would solve. Or at least not until Wikipedia became Conservapedia. I can see this is a circular argument with no end and that no amount of rationality or logic would solve, so I will withdraw. DD2K (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, Wikipedia and Conservapedia offset each other because one (WP) has a liberal bias ant the other a conservative bias? That's part of the argument, right?

So Wikipedia has:

• This article, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
• 9/11 conspiracy theories
• John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

For the same issues, Conservapedia has:

• Obama birth certificate controversy
• 9/11 conspiracy theories
• No separate article (that I found), but a sentence in the Kennedy Assassination lead stating "The accused assassin - Lee Harvey Oswald - would himself be gunned down just days later, ushering in a wave of conspiracy theories involving the Mafia, Fidel Castro, or the Soviet Union as prime suspects despite evidence pointing to Oswald acting alone," and a section at the end detailing Oswald's ties to communism and socialism.

Consistency of approach is additional evidence of a neutral POV. Score: Wikipedia – 1, Conservapedia – 0. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We absolutely do not have consistency of approach. Paul is dead is not called Paul McCartney death conspiracy theories. CIA drug trafficking is not called CIA drug trafficking conspiracy theories. Reptilians is not called Reptilian conspiracy theories. Titanic alternative theories discusses the theory that the Titanic never sank and the whole thing was an insurance scam, but is not called Titanic conspiracy theories. Death of Kurt Cobain#Theories is not called Death of Kurt Cobain#Conspiracy theories. Shakespeare authorship question is not called Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theories. Vietnam War POW/MIA issue is not called Vietnam War POW/MIA conspiracy theories. The term is used haphazardly, and generally only when there are a vocal group of proponents who we can see being ridiculed on the talk page. In other words, it's very obvious that its function is derisive - an editorial "fuck you if you believe this" slipped in by editors who want to use Wikipedia to editorialize and are emboldened by feeling that they are on the side of the majority. 66.214.210.183 (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your argument fails because to label the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories as a "controversy" would be to paint a completely false picture that would violate neutrality. There is no controversy, there is just the same conspiracy nonsense that surrounds other topics like bigfoot, the moon landing, and 9/11. If you have more to say, please start by providing a reliable source supporting your position. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to argue this any further. I'm an IP for a reason - it's very clear to me that Wikipedia consistently fails at maintaining its pretense of objectivity. Article titles that insist that, for any given article, the majority is right and the minority are tinfoil hat-wearing crazies reduce this project to nothing better than a collectively-edited blog. It's why I left the project in the first place. It'd just be nice if people were a little more honest about it. 66.214.210.183 (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps as a compromise we could call the article "The Absurd Notion that Barak Obama Was Not Born in the US, Believed Only By the Crazy and Truly Sad."

Source for Hawaii birth certificate stuff in lede

The lede says that the Hawaii birth certificate objections "have been debunked numerous times by media investigations, every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate" — and an article from Salon.com is offered as the source for this statement. While I think this article is a reasonably good support for the claim that conspiracy theories exist on this subject, it seems to be a weak source for the claim that the birth certificate objections have been definitively debunked. Part of my problem, I think, is that the tone of the article is more like an opinion piece rather than a dispassionate report.

I'm inclined to want to either remove this "source" entirely, or else move it to some more appropriate part of the article. I think the statement in the lede can probably stay, but one or more of the sources cited later on in the article could be copied or moved up in place of the Salon.com story. I don't want to do anything major along these lines, though, without first seeing what others think. Comments? Richwales (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about that source, and I said so in the #News or opinion? section above. The author of the piece, Alex Koppelman, is a Salon staff writer who writes and edits Salon's political blog. Salon's major focus is American liberal politics, and Koppleman's bio page there acknowledges that he has been described "... by Canadian political blogger Kathy Shaidle as 'a delusional liberal pantywaist...' ". In that other talk page section, User:DD2K opined that the Koppelman article at issue is "... clearly a featured news piece" I do not agree with that opinion, but I wasn't motivated to argue the point. I think that the wording from this article which you requoted in italics above is WP:POV, unnecessarily argumentative, and inflammatory, but I've seen reliable sources saying more or less the same thing in more neutral language. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The featured news article at Salon is one of the better pieces about the conspiracy theorists. It offers expert opinions, links to other outlets that have debunked the "birther" claims, and even a psychological profiles of people who believe in conspiracies. It's a reliable source with a detailed article on the subject. There is absolutely no reason that I can think of to have it removed or taken out of the lede. If it wasn't a featured news article, it would not be in the featured news articles section of the Salon website. Unfortunately there has been a prolonged effort by a couple editors who are clearly sympathetic to the "birther' cause to not only have the article removed, but all mention of the fact that reliable sources, every judicial forum and the State of Hawaii have absolutely proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he has produced his original birth certificate.DD2K (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

More than one RS has stated that there exists an original BC, and it has not been released. Like this one, from the horse's mouth. This leftist fantasy that Obama has released his original BC would be funny if it wasn't so scary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.66.200 (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

DD2K may have been imprecise in the terminology, but it is a distinction without a difference. What Obama has produced is exactly what you or I could produce if asked for similar proof: the official documentation, as verified many times over by the state of Hawaii, indicating the date and place of his birth.

Requests for an "original birth certificate" are fishing expeditions, and there is not only no requirement for the state to honor such requests, they are actually forbidden by law to do so.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My comment was referring to the numerous times previously stated in these discussions that "there is no other document". Well, yes, there certainly is, and Hawaiian officials have confirmed this. Also the notion that the laser printed copy is the "original" is absurd when we know that is not true. Both documents may be official, but there is only one original, and it has not been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.66.200 (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got that, and I agreed with you that DD2K's statement, and by implication other similar statements, was imprecise. I was also pointing out that it does not, in fact, matter in the slightest.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is incorrect. Technical or otherwise. When one goes to get your birth certificate, that is what they give you. It's regarded as your original birth certificate(with the raised seal), and that is what is recognized by every official outlet. As described by Hawaiian law:

§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original...

And since all certified(raised seals) copies are to be considered the original birth certificates, while the State never issues the old versions:

Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth

The document released is Obama's original birth certificate. I don't know about you, but I lost my original a long time ago and my BC looks almost exactly as Oabma's does. DD2K (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Let me also add that this is for official purposes and references. Of course we discuss the conspiracy(some hidden conspiracy that the records the State has do not reflect the certificate Obama released) in the article, but for reference and official purposes, just like the media outlets that are sourced, we refer to the document as Obama's original birth certificate. DD2K (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting; didn't know that! I stand corrected about you being imprecise (but still stand by "it doesn't matter"). And yes, my BC, and the BC I obtained a couple of years ago as certified proof of my son's birth in the early '90s, look almost exactly like Obama's.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We must have posted almost at the same time(with my addition). I didn't even get an edit conflict. heh-heh-- And yea, many people don't know that fact, I posted it before but it is in Archive 10, and am glad for the opportunity to post it again. Of course you are right that "it doesn't matter", both to the fact that there is ample proof Obama was born in Hawaii and the refusal of those inclined to believe otherwise to accept that. DD2K (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two different documents. Just because one is legally equivalent to another does not make them identical, just as a one dollar bill is not identical to another. One document has the name of the hospital and attending physician and is 50 years old. The other does not have this info and was printed by a computer. Yes, the birthers understand that the laser copy is legal tender, bona fide, prima facia etc. for eligibility under Hawaiian law, but that doesn't stop them from wanting to see the original. The insistence that there is only one birth certificate is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.145.97 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Their wanting to see it equates in no way that I can think to a justification for anyone to accede to their desire. Not in law, or in any other way is Obama or the state of Hawaii obligated to even consider it. The issue, by your admission, has nothing to do with Obama being president; you are agreeing that Obama has fulfilled his obligation to any conceivable Constitutional requirements. Anything further is, as I said earlier, a fishing expedition.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the birthers don't agree that the posted birth certificate is valid and legal, or you wouldn't get guys like Terry Lakin claiming that Obama's presidency is somehow invalid. It even comes through here when we get people who say that the article title shouldn't explicitly oppose the birther viewpoint, and that the article should be more balanced by presenting the idea as anything other than partisan noise. Yes, there is a second document listing the doctor's names. Maybe that certificate has some typo on it, or has his middle name as Mohammad, or whatever. Most likely, his mother lost the original, and he's used his passport as ID over the years instead of getting a fresh one, and can't be bothered bugging the registrar to fish out the microfiche of the long form. One thing it does not say is that he was born in Kenya, or anywhere other than Hawaii, or anything else affecting his citizenship. That makes it as relevant as whether Ronald Reagan dyed his hair (When I was young, there was a conspiracy theory concerning that). It's not related to his right to be president, but reflects on chatter concerning whether Obama is a closet Muslim and other chirping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JethroElfman (talk • contribs) 08:07, April 16, 2010(signed by DD2K (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC) )

"Yes, there is a second document ... Most likely, his mother lost the original ... and [Obama] can't be bothered bugging the registrar to fish out the microfiche of the long form."

This is missing the point. The "original" or the "microfiche of the long form" are not valid as proof of birth, because they are not certified.

When my son was born in the early '90s, the hospital gave me a piece of paper with his vital statistics. A couple of years ago, we needed to get him a passport. As far as the State Department was concerned, that piece of paper was useless; they wanted, from the county, a certified document attesting to his birth. What the county sent me to give them was something nigh on to identical to what Obama got and shared: a newly laser-printed document with a raised seal, with the relevant information.

Any talk of the "original document" in the context of Obama's qualification for office is, as you say, noise. It is not the appropriate document to prove or disprove anything in that context. What he already provided is. Responding to the noise in any way would only give credence to it and encourage further blather and speculation, while satisfying no one who isn't already satisfied.--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii birth certificate issue description

The article does not make clear that what the birthers call the "original" birth certificate on file with the county in Hawaii is the "Certificate of Live Birth." [my emphasis]. This is the long form birth certificate issued by the county, as opposed to the "Certification of Live Birth," [my emphasis], or "short form birth certificate" (also issued by the county). What the birthers want to see is the Certificate of Live Birth. The article leaves out an important piece of information, the actual title of that birth certificate.

Currently the article reads this way: The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his short form birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a "Certification of Live Birth") that states Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" birth certificate, and that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate".

I believe that this should be rewritten. Gosseyn1 (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The county does not issue two different certificates. Unless you can provide a reliable source which says so, this request won't fly. Woogee (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The article states:

"Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state 'has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.'[10][11]"

Please note that it refers to the "original birth certificate." This is what the conspiracy theorists want to see. The fact that the article mentions it, with two citations, proves that it does exist.

The caption under the image states:

"Scanned image of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate released during the Obama presidential campaign."

But the article is not about the birth certificate per se. Instead, the article is about the conspiracy theory.

Therefore, that caption should mention the distinction between the 2007 computer printout, and the "original birth certificate."

Specifically, the caption should be changed to say:

"Although the Obama campaign released this 'certificate of live birth' that was printed by a computer in 2007, conspiracy theorists insist on seeing the 'original birth certificate' that was created in the year 1961."

Magnum! This is all your fault! (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The "original birth certificate" no longer exists. The version produced by the Obama campaign is the only certificate/certification/piece of paper that the state produces. Unless Mr. Obama has retained that piece of paper which may, or may not, have been issued upon his birth and given to his parents, there is no possibility of his producing anything else. Woogee (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather disingenuous response. If Dr. Fukino personally examined an "original birth certificate", or as she phrased it in one release "the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health", then no matter what official name you want to call it, some additional documentation was alleged to exist in the hands of state officials as late as 2008. This would seem to be what the birthers are asking to see. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

But the birthers are demanding Obama release it. The state does not release those any more. What Obama released is what was provided by the state. Woogee (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Not at all. The "original birth certificate" no longer exists."

This is not true. Obama's parents received an original birth certificate when he was born, and this is what the state officials have seen. This article is written in a misleading fashion. The article states that Hawaii currently gives out only birth certifications, but neglects to mention that they used to-in the past- give out certificates like they did in Obama's case way back when he was born. Obama has a birth certificate which he is not releasing to the public even though it could easily dispel these conspiracy theories, the best reason I have heard for not releasing it is because he want the Birthers to hang around in order to discredit the Tea Party movement and "the Right" in general. Btw the same article which says the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate." also says "a "certification of live birth" is, in fact, a short-form official birth certificate" which is what the Birthers argument is anyway. Ink Falls 20:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So the state at one time photocopied the original and at some point moved towards providing a reproduction of the original instead. There is no difference between the two, despite the birthers desperately trying to find one. You are trying to build distinction where there is none; the article is not misleading. Tarc (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the state did not "photocopy" the original. The original has data on the hospital he was born at, time of birth, and a variety of other things. The state, when moving to an electronic system, took only the essential data(what you see on the picture on the wiki) from the hospital record and loaded it onto their servers. Obama then requested a certification of birth by the state which then printed this "certification of living birth" which is proof that the state has an electronic record of him, but it does not actually look anything like the original. Barack Obama could release a photocopy of the original and that would fulfill everybody's needs, but he is electing not to(when the original does exist) so that he can fuel this conspiracy theory and make his opponents look bad by having this fringe group. The fact that you think the image is a photocopied version of the original further implies that this article is misleading (although I think the new caption under the picture now does a good job of explaining it). Ink Falls 22:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You are either lying or misrepresenting that facts found in the article, and distorting what I said. I did not say that what is in the article is a "photocopy of the original"; what is in the article is a scan done, presumably by the Obama campaign staff at the time, of what they obtained from the Hawaiian Dep't of Health. We are not putting in some lengthy, idiotic birther exposition into the image caption. Tarc (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I originally didn't input that you believed it was a photocopy of the original and that you thought it was a reproduction based off a photocopy(which is still false I may add), but changed it after your supporting the current image caption which says it is a "scanned image" of the original. Clearly, my logic was that if you support the current wording, that it is a "scanned image" then you must believe that it is a photocopy, so I changed what I wrote believing that you thought it was a photocopy. Please do not hasten to calling people liars and distorters and try to understand where they are coming from before making such remarks here. This isn't birther exposition, the president's behavior needs to be addressed, he has intentionally not revealed his birth certificate and that is important to be mentioned in the caption. Ink Falls 23:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we will not be mentioning that in the caption, as that is your own birther-ish original research spin on the matter. The article is about the controversy and the conspiracy surrounding this topic; it is not a vehicle for advocacy on the topic itself, as you seem quite eager to make it. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a birther, I believe the president was born in this country. If you remember I expressed in my first post that I thought the birthers discredited the Right and the Tea Party, and have consistently made them out to be an extremist fringe. This caption only explains why this image is up there and not an actual photocopy of the original (which I'm sure people coming to this page will be looking for). Exactly what part of this new wording is "spin"? The presidents actions not to release his birth certificate may be strange, but they are factually correct. Ink Falls 23:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Per edit summary, the shorter original description is an accurate representation of the image being captioned. There's an entire article to summarize the theorists' arguments, they don't need to be rehashed in a caption.

BTW,doesn't the change you propose require a consensus? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not accurate, it's completely false. When you say the change I proposed, are you referring to the new caption, which I didn't write?, or the slight edit to the caption I made? All I did was change "seeing the "original birth certificate"" to "seeing a scanned image of the "original birth certificate"". Let's move this argument to the new section. Ink Falls 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think when they say original they mean as in the "origins" of the image. I'll come back with someone else referring to the original and actually meaning the original(probably not for awhile though). Ink Falls 03:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments are wholly without merit. The caption should read what the image is, not verbage regarding what image some would like to see posted on another website. Content you suggest is already covered in the main body of the article. Additionally, subsequent documents issued by the certifying authority stating recorded certified birth information is a birth certificate. If you ordered 10 college transcripts each at various times, would any of them be less of a college transcipt than previous one, or the one held by the school? JackOL31 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul E. Vallely's comment on Terry Lakin

Please take a look at this section. It appears to have been vandalized. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the "Evil Conservative Radio" ? That's for real -- Google it.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think either ECR or RawStory are reliable sources. Eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DD2K (talk • contribs) 23:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, give 'em a break. It's hard to write a comprehensive article on what the wing-nuts are saying based only on reliable sources, ya know? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't be vandalism, then, it'd be an unreliable source. But, I think if they had a recording of an interview with a notable figure on the topic at hand, saying something notable, they'd be plenty RS enough for that.

...the problem is, now that it's been brought up, is that it doesn't look like the person quoted is particularly notable, certainly not enough so that his opinion that Lakin has "a valid point" is worth reporting. So, not vandalism either, just not encyclopedic.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not notable??? Huh?? The guy is a major general who endorsed disobeying an order. That's very notable by itself. If you don't think he's notable, nominate his article for an AfD. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

He is notable in the sense of deserving a WP page, but he's not notable in the sense of his opinion adding to the subject at hand. The class of "people who are living major generals" is large enough that you're bound to get at least one of them who might hold an opinion outside the norm. And, it turns out, this particular one is a Fox News commentator who at one time was paid by the Bush Administration to astroturf the Iraq war, so the fact that he might take a stance that is against Obama or his administration makes his opinion less than surprising.

So quoting him does not contribute to the discussion of Lakin, other than giving undue weight to one side of the issue. If this had been a major general on active duty, especially in Lakin's chain of command, it would absolutely have been worthy of inclusion, but it wasn't.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem there is, without a voice-print match, a radio interview, unlike TV, depends on the non-reliable source to identify the interview subject.Fat&Happy (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it's been over a week and he hasn't come out denying that it's his voice, you can take it to be his voice. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The standard for including someone's opinion on a topic isn't that the speaker is notable or that we think it's interesting. By that logic, everything any notable person ever said would be fair game for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It has to be relevant and of due WP:WEIGHT to the subject at hand, in this case the court martial. That has to be supported by reliable secondary sources, not a direct cite to the person making the statement. In this case we have someone making a fringe statement in defense of someone else's fringe activity. The mere fact that one person who believes this conspiracy theory makes a statement that another person who acts on the conspiracy theory may have a point, is not at all pertinent. There's no indication from the sources why it matters to Terry Lakin or his court martial that someone on the fringe says he may have a point. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Rawstory.com is a secondary source that covered it. Although it's a blog, not all blogs fail WP:RS. For example, Huffington Post meets WP:RS. Based on the content at The Raw Story, and the fact that the story that has a by line and is not self published, it would seem that Rawstory meets WP:RS. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this? It seems to be from a local newspaper in the town where Lakin grew up.96.32.11.201 (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

When events are notable the get noted by the relevant news media or academic press. Clearly the general's comments have not received this type of coverage and the Greeley Gazette's publishing news about a local high school graduate does not count. TFD (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a local newspaper does not establish notability. But it does establish reliability, right?96.32.11.201 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the piece? Anyone that read that would see that whoever wrote it does not have both feet in bounds. In other words, there is more than one factual errors and it reads more like Jo-Jo Farah's brother wrote it. DD2K (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I read some of it. Why not quote what you think is the most egregious factual error?96.32.11.201 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. Any rational person can see the errors plain as day. DD2K (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I pretty much have my hands full with the previous section in this thread. I'm glad everyone appreciated my small suggestion. And I would recommend that people read WP:NPA.96.32.11.201 (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Image Caption

Section 1

Take a look at the former caption.
"Scanned image of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate released during the Obama presidential campaign."
This is not true, this is not a scanned image of his original birth certificate. His original was produced in 1961, this was printed out in 2007 and isn't a birth certificate but a "certification of living birth" which doesn't feature such info as the doctor who performed the delivery or the hospital(like an actual birth certificate) or even look like the original birth certificate. The point is that it's not a scanned image of his original
Current wording(emphasis mine)
"Although the Obama campaign released this "certificate of live birth" that was printed by a computer in 2007, conspiracy theorists insist on seeing a scanned image of the "original birth certificate" that was created in the year 1961, and whose existence has been verified by Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo."
How is this "birther-ish spin" when this caption clearly states that the original does exist.
The new caption clearly explains to people coming here that they are not looking at a scanned image of his original birth certificate but rather something else, and that the reason isn't because the original no longer exists. Ink Falls 23:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. "Scanned image of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate released during the Obama presidential campaign." Going through that caption word by word, and even using my browser's search function, I can't find the word "original" anywhere. If you were born in Hawaii, and contact them saying you need a new birth certificate, you will receive a piece of paper, with an official seal embossed, like the one scanned. It's the birth certificate they issue. Mine, issued by different state in 2005, is titled "Certified Transcript of Birth". The receipt for payment which accompanied it reads "Certificate Type: BIRTH". Other states use other phrasing in the actual title of the document; they're all "birth certificates". If I apply for a passport, or register to vote, or go to any other government office requiring a birth certificate, they will accept the document I have. The same applies to the Hawaiian document imaged in the article. The image is a "Scanned image of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate, released during the Obama presidential campaign."

And for the record, after this foolishness has been going on for two years or so, anybody who comes to Wikipedia, seriously expecting to suddenly find a scanned copy of some "original" birth certificate buried deep in the bowels of Hawaiian government offices is even dumber than the average birther.Fat&Happy (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I came here because someone told me that his original birth certificate is even posted on Wikipedia. Everyone that looks at that image is going to believe that is his original, at least say "copy of birth certificate". Happy, are you actually implying that the president doesn't have access to his original birth certificate? It has been verified, by the very sources you use in this article:

"Perhaps the most common argument of those questioning Obama's eligibility is that he should just release his full, original birth certificate, rather than the shorter certification, which is a copy. ... Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health, released a statement saying she has verified that the state has the original birth certificate on record"
This is why it's so misleading, you even believe that the original is lost somewhere, destined to never surface when various government officials have seen it and verified its existence. Ink Falls 00:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not being changed and you can't just keep edit warring against consensus. The that have studies the document all have it listed as Obama's birth certificate. Factcheck.org --

FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.

Obama campaign's FightTheSmears.com website---

Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate

Perhaps you should have read the earlier posts here discussing the issue before edit warring. Particulary this portion---

When one goes to get your birth certificate, that is what they give you. It's regarded as your original birth certificate(with the raised seal), and that is what is recognized by every official outlet. As described by Hawaiian law:

§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.(b) 'Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original...

And since all certified(raised seals) copies are to be considered the original birth certificates, while the State never issues the old versions The document released is Obama's original birth certificate.

Which should be----The End ------- DD2K (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"And since all certified(raised seals) copies are to be considered the original birth certificates, while the State never issues the old versions The document released is Obama's original birth certificate."

That is not his original. He has an original copy which has been verified, I just want it specified that the image is a copy, but that his original has been verified. You can say, "This is a copy, but it is considered as the original" but any other way will misinform people that this is the one printed at his birth, which it isn't. Ink Falls 00:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can read all that and still make that post, then further debate on this seems unlikely to convince you of the facts. I will simply state that you are incorrect, Obama has no "other birth certificate" and has produced the birth certificate issued to him by the State of Hawaii, with a raised seal, and that is it. DD2K (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That is what you said: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."
This is what the article says "his "original" birth certificate" whose existence has been verified by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health."
Why are you denying that his original birth certificate exists? Everybody acknowledges that it exists. That picture is of a copy. Ink Falls 00:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Any local, state or federal government office that, for some purpose, says they need "the original, not a copy, of the required documents" (e.g. birth certificate) will accept the pictured document as satisfying the requirement (the original of the pictured document, of course, not the scanned copy we have...). By governmental definition, it is an original of a government document. Other opinions don't matter. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No you don't seem to understand. Barack Obama has the original, that picture however is a picture of a copy of the original. Do at least understand what I am saying (sorry I really don't mean to sound belittling but I am really confused by what you are getting from what I am saying)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall anything clearly establishing that Obama has any document other than the one pictured here. The article I read from FactCheck was clearly verifying they had seen the released document, complete with raised seal. Because an organization, or the Obama campaign, says they have, or have seen, the original birth certificate is no reason to infer the existence "in the wild" of a second document, since as pointed out, for all government purposes the raised seal document pictured is referred to as an "original birth certificate".

I will stipulate that some form of document, listing, or notation – either typed or handwritten – must have been produced in 1961, and the original or a copy (paper or microfilm/fiche) of that item may still exist in an archive in Hawaii. I doubt Obama walked out of the hospital with a copy (and it would have had to be a copy) in his hand; his mother may have, or something may have been mailed to her later. If so, it may or may not still exist 49 years later, after the family moved to Indonesia and back and Obama lived in several cities. And it's all irrelevant. A document recognized throughout the country as an original birth certificate is available. Has Orly Taitz seen George Bush's birth certificate? W.or H.W.? Bill or Hillary Clinton's? Sarah Palin's? But here we have a scanned image of Obama's official birth certificate. Enough. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No we have not stipulated that the articles refer to the copy as the original! Does that even make any sense to you? It was a wikipedia poster who said they refer to the the copy as the original.
"And since all certified(raised seals) copies are to be considered the original birth certificates, while the State never issues the old versions The document released is Obama's original birth certificate."
That was a wikipedia poster talking. When the articles say they have examined and verified the existence of the original, they literally mean the original, not the copy. Ink Falls 02:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

DD2K posted:

No, this is not being changed and you can't just keep edit warring against consensus. The that have studies the document all have it listed as Obama's birth certificate. Factcheck.org --

FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.

If you actually bother to look at the referenced FactCheck.org article, you will see pictures of their writer holding the document they examined, which is quite obviously the same computer produced document as shown in the WP image. This is the "original birth certificate" they examined. That's the only document outside the Hawaiian DOH archives of which there is any evidence. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You are exactly right. Factcheck.org is referring to Obama's birth certificate as "original birth certificate" for several reasons. A couple are: 1.)That is what raised seal Birth Certificates are officially known as, and any media outlet would refer to the document as such when investigating this issue. 2.) Hawaiian law states that the birth certificate it issues(such as the one pictured on this page and released by the Obama campaign) are to be considered the "original birth certificate". When an employer or government agency ask you for your birth certificate, that is what most people will give. To suggest that Wikipedia identify the document as something else is not up to any reasonable standards. It's not too difficult for most people to understand all this. The opinions of peole who sympathize with the birthers don't matter. Just like anyone else's personal opinions don't matter. What matters is what reliable sources state. And there is no doubt that the vast majority of reliable sources, and all them that have investigated this particular document, state the document in question is Obama's birth certificate and "it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship". That should be that. DD2K (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that referring to it as the "original birth certificate" in that example was an isolated instance. Here is a quote from this newspaper article. "Hawai'i's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage..." "We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records." Ink Falls 04:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The caption reads, "Scanned image of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate released during the Obama presidential campaign." There is no mention of the word "original", so I don't understand any discussion along that line. A birth certificate issued in 1961, shortly after his birth is no more nor no less a birth certificate issued in 2007. An official certificate (commonly referred to as a "birth certificate"), indicates that it accurately reflects the information on file by the State of Hawai'i, unless you're asserting that some error was made during the tranfer of information from hardcopy media to electronic media.

Sometimes the term "original" is used in place of the more accurate term "official". In this case, an original (official) birth certificate is one printed on official certificate paper with a raised seal. A copy would be one made by putting the "original" on a copy machine and having it scanned in or photocopied and then printed out.

The bottom line is that a birth certificate is a birth certificate is a birth certificate whether it's the first printing or the 100th printing of the document. The first issuance of a birth certificate contains more information than necessary for anyone requiring verification of birth and I would avoid providing that version to outside entities for privacy concerns and for the simple fact that it is none of their gosh darn business. Those are two of the reasons states now print reduced information on officially issued birth certificates.

FYI - in my state the first birth certificate is now titled "CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH" and subsequently issued birth certificates are titled "CERTIFICATION OF BIRTH". They are both birth certificates and "... a true certification of the name and birth facts as recorded in the Office of Vital Statistics." JackOL31 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But why can't we just call it a copy of his birth certificate-which it is- so people looking at it don't believe it's the original (which they do). Ink Falls 16:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Because for all intents and purposes it is the same thing. Anyone who requests a birth certificate copy from the Hawaiian Dep't of Health today gets exactly what we see on the main page. Tarc (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But there is a difference, the original contains info not present in the short form version, and the fact that Obama has not released the original is what is fueling these conspiracy theorists. Also, it's up to the people coming here to decide if there is a difference between the two or not, and we should inform them that what they are looking at is not his original. If we say in the article that he has not released the original, then they will look at the top and say "wtf?" and be confused as to why we have a photo of the original and yet are saying he hasn't released the original. Ink Falls 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, do you not understand the phrase, "for all intents and purposes"? Yes, there is a difference. The subsequently printed certificates list only the necessary information to PROVE natural born citizenship. The rest of the information is personal and private and no one's gosh darn business. He has no requirement to ever release his "original" birth certificate. The information contained in the "original" birth certificate is not relevant to his requirement to hold the office of the Presidency.

Again I say, a birth certificate is a birth certificate is a birth certificate whether it's the first printing or the 100th printing of the document. Why would anyone feel the need to release the one with more personal information on it to the general public? The birth certificate printed in 2007 completely satisfies the Constitutional requirement.

Again I say this, where in the heck do you keep getting the word "original" from? The caption accurately describes the image and does not mention the word "original". JackOL31 (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Why would anyone feel the need to release the one with more personal information on it to the general public?" John Mccain released his original birth certificate when the birthers questioned whether his birth in the Panama Canal was legal. As for the "personal information" he is the only president who we do not know where he was born, and info like the attending doctor doesn't seem too personal.

No where in this whole article does it mention that what he has released is a copy and not the original, which is completely misleading. The people here arguing didn't even know that he has his original birth certificate, you all thought it was lost somewhere, meanwhile a person that I talked to in real life told me that his original birth certificate is posted on Wikipedia-which is certainly what it seems like by the image caption and info presented in the article-and that it's "common knowledge that his original birth certificate has been released" when that's completely false. Why are you arguing so much for this current, falsly misleading, convoluted article's current writing? Ink Falls 18:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

--"As for the "personal information" he is the only president who we do not know where he was born"-- Wow. I don't think anything else really needs to be said here. You are obviously either not understanding the facts, or purposely misstating them to fit your own views. Either way. This is done. You've been given ample information and links to reliable sources. The fact that you come away from those facts with convoluted, incorrect notions, are not the fault of anyone else but you. DD2K (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, any further discussion would be worthless, circular. I don't believe I've ever had a wt_ moment as huge as that one caused. JackOL31 (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't know specifically which hospital he was born in which we do of all the other presidents. The only one who has gotten any information wrong is you in assuming there is no original birth certificate which there is. Try attacking my argument instead of making your pointless ad hominems. Ink Falls 18:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

After the lede section, second sentence, "Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii...".

Show me where I said there was no original birth certificate.

You appear to have a serious reading comprehension problem, that is not an attack, that just seems to be the case. Where was he born? Honolulu, Oahu. County of Honolulu, state of Hawaii. A birth certificate is a birth certificate is a birth certificate. Again I say, you appear to have a serious reading comprehension problem or what DD2K stated previously. Done. JackOL31 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"We don't know specifically which hospital he was born in which we do of all the other presidents."

Really? So...

• What hospital was Bill Clinton born in?
• Richard Nixon?
• John F. Kennedy?
• Warren G. Harding?
• Chester A. Arthur?
• Abraham Lincoln?

All of the above with irrefutable proof, of course, if you please.

The difference between Obama and all former presidents is not that we know so much more about them, it's that nobody considered it necessary to demand such proof of them. Now I wonder why that might be? Maybe it's that nobody born in the USA could have a liberal political philosophy? Or might it be that he doesn't look like all those other guys on the dollar bills, so he can't be a real American? Fat&Happy (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, Fat&Happy, lead birthers such as Joseph Farah have explicitly denied racist motives. Moreover, I don't think any modern president has had to rely on location of birth in order to establish eligibility, because federal statutory law deemed them eligible regardless of birth location, due to the citizenship of the parents (see Volokh's analysis of this issue, mentioned in this Wikipedia article). And then there's another interesting factoid: President Obama is the only known President of the United States to have made a transoceanic flight before he was a month old (he and his Mom are known to have visited Seattle in August 1961). Et cetera. My point is not that Obama is ineligible (I don't believe that), but rather that people can suspect he's ineligible for reasons other than racism. Surely some of the birthers are racist, but there's no reason to believe that the majority of birthers are that way.96.32.4.80 (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And if course, any real racist would call a press conference to say "I just want to go on record that the reason I'm asking this man for documentation I have never demanded of any president before is because I'm a racist." Sure. Please note, though, that I never said anybody was motivated by either racism or anti-liberalism. I just haven't heard any particularly convincing arguments as to what makes him subject to this unprecedented scrutiny.

As to the contention that he is the first person who's birthplace mattered, that's completely specious. Birth certificates establish more than birthplace. Why is it obviously true that Bill Clinton was an American citizen if we haven't examined his long-form, medically attested birth certificate? And for that matter, tested DNA to ensure his parents were the people claimed? For all we know, he was a German orphan, smuggled into the country after World War II and adopted by Mrs. Clinton to soothe the pain caused by the death of a son shortly after childbirth. Stupid idea? Sure, just like the birther theories. Nothing was ever proven "beyond the shadow of a doubt" about the "natural born" status of any president, so you can come up with all the rationalizations you want, the question still remains "Why only Obama?" Fat&Happy (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Because his father was not American. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Sort of like Chester Arthur? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It's impossible to not be a citizen of the United States upon birth if both parents are American, however, if one parent is not a citizen, then questions will arise. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as it's impossible to show both parents were citizens without a birth certificate. And now, since it's scientifically possible, a DNA test.

How many hundreds of people were running around with pickets saying "show us the birth certificate" a year and a half into Arthur's presidency? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A year and a half into Arthur's presidency, there were not millions of people watching the president decline to ask for release of a document that everyone knows still exists (at least on microfilm). Also, it seems pertinent that Arthur's parents were not in the midst of a breakup when he was born, and everyone knows that weird things happen during breakups. Anyway, I know that WP:AGF does not cover everyone on Earth, but I hope it may at least limit the racism charges, and also limit the accusations that Obama is a usurper.96.32.4.80 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Which begs the question of why millions (or, allowing for population differences, even hundreds of thousands) of people didn't seem overly concerned with whether Arthur produced any documentation or not, but for Obama it's suddenly a critical issue. Nor is Obama the first president to come from a less-than-perfect family situation. What is the significant difference between Obama and the 42 men who preceded him in the office, that only he needs to publicly prove his claim to citizenship?Fat&Happy (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that any such document existed for Chester Arthur. Here are some question for you:

(1) When's the last time a president refused to allow availability of an eligibility document that everyone knows exists, as Obama is doing?

(2) When's the last time a president was spotted during his month of birth on a different continent from his birthplace, as Obama surely was?

(3) When's the last time a president had a parent who everyone knows was not a US citizen, as is true of Obama?

(4) When's the last time that a president's parents were breaking up at or near the time he was born, as happened with Obama's family?

(5) And most important of all, when's the last time that all of these factors converged, as they are now doing?

All I'm saying is that this is a very unusual situation quite apart from race. Obama is almost surely qualified, but the people who are asking for further proof could be just as easily characterized as devout defenders of the Constitution as racists. The refusal to release further proof may well be motivated by the belief that it's a racist request. And that's a condescending attitude (just like the comment about people clinging to their guns and religion).96.32.4.80 (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. A different continent? You mean North America? Obama wasn't born on any continent, it was in the American State of Hawaii, an island. How on earth is Obama's mother taking him to see his father in Massachusetts a suspicious event? Also, his parents divorced in 1964, when President Obama was three years old, and Obama is not refusing "to allow availability of an eligibility document that everyone knows exists", he is the only President in history to allow EVERYONE to view his birth certificate(by posting it online) and the only President in history to have government officials, media outlets, judicial forums and independent investigations all state that the document is his birth certificate, and that he was born in Hawaii. Wow. Dave Dial (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey - folks, please, WP:NOTAFORUM. If it's not directly related to improving the article, post it on a place that cares, not here. Ravensfire (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Section 2

My above comment states we do not know which hospital he was born(like every other president), which is true, so no, we do not know where he was born(apart from obviously Oahu, Honolulu). You should read the above arguments where all the other posters continually argue that Obama's original birth certificate is lost somewhere in the filing cabinets of the Health Department and can't be found before you comment on others not being able to read.

Happy, I'll get back to you on that info, as you are asking for a lot. Also quit diverting from the argument by saying I don't think he's an American because he's black and liberal, all I'm arguing is that he hasn't released his original birth certificate(which is available) and that which should distinguish in the image caption between the two so that people are not accidentally led to believe that that is the original, but instead a copy.
I'm reading your comment " he doesn't look like all those other guys on the dollar bills, so he can't be a real American? " and am wondering where you are getting this from? Are you implying that I am racist for wanting to distinguish in the image caption that we are not looking at his original but rather a copy? Ink Falls 19:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"My above comment states we do not know which hospital he was born(like every other president), which is true, ...". Again I say, reading comprehension issues.

"You should read the above arguments where all the other posters continually argue that Obama's original birth certificate is lost somewhere in the filing cabinets of the Health Department and can't be found before you comment on others not being able to read."

"Here is a quote from this newspaper article. "Hawai'i's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage..." "We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records." Ink Falls 04:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)"  Logical argument issues. JackOL31 (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are quotes by all the editors who believed the original no longer exists. Proof that this article is misleading.

"Most likely, his mother lost the original, and he's used his passport as ID over the years instead of getting a fresh one, and can't be bothered bugging the registrar to fish out the microfiche of the long form."-DD2K

"Not at all. The "original birth certificate" no longer exists."-Woogee

"anybody who comes to Wikipedia, seriously expecting to suddenly find a scanned copy of some "original" birth certificate buried deep in the bowels of Hawaiian government offices is even dumber than the average birther."-Fat&Happy

Before I came here with evidence to the contrary, all these people believed that the original was lost, even though it's common knowledge that the original is available and has been verified to exist, this is a big hole in the article, that it doesn't even mention the existence of the original. If you want to argue that Obama doesn't want to release it for privacy reasons then go ahead and argue that, but at least mention that the original does exist. Ink Falls 19:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, you are misreading what I am writing. Here is a highlighted version:

"You should read the above arguments where all the other posters continually argue that Obama's original birth certificate is lost somewhere in the filing cabinets of the Health Department and can't be found before you comment on others not being able to read." You see how I said all the others, I did not say I think there's no original. Then I said, contradicting all the other posters who argued that the original birth certificate is lost "Here is a quote from this newspaper article. "Hawai'i's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage..." "We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records." These sentences should make perfect sense to anybody reading them. Ink Falls 19:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You're still all over the board on this. The article clearly states the hospital Pres. Obama was born in, contrary to your statement that we do not know which hospital he was born in. Although I've said it more than once - a birth certificate is a birth certificate is a birth certificate. The subset of information on the subsequently issued birth certificates matches EXACTLY the corresponding information on the "original" birth certificate. Unless your suggesting fraud, everything anyone needs to know is on the non-original birth certificate. This satisifes all requirements for any external interests.

As you've stated, the article clearly states that Hawaii's Health Dept. holds the "original" birth certificate. However, these other birth certificates are not copies, the are a reissuance of original birth certificates. Please don't make me repeat the original/official/photocopy discussion again. There is really nothing more I have to add. JackOL31 (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, I am the one who had to originally explain (before you entered) that the short form birth certificate is not a photocopy but a different version printed off with most of the same info. Secondly, they do not match "EXACTLY" as the shortform does not include the attending physician, nor the hospital, and while the article mentions all the evidence points to one hospital the hospital itself cannot confirm nor deny its where the birth took place. Could we compromise and just call it what it is in the caption, Obama's shortform birth certificate, that doesn't sound long-winded at all. Ink Falls 04:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Read and then read again, and then read once more before you post. If you truly read my post, you'll notice I said corresponding information is exactly the same.

Hawai'i does not call it a shortform birth certificate. It is a birth certificate titled CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH. That is obvious from the image and the caption. I see no reason to change anything. I am done with this topic. I agree with the others that the caption should not change. JackOL31 (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't have to "explain" anything. You just still don't understand the fact that the document you are referring to is a birth certificate. Also, you put a false quote in your post. You are quoting someone else(another Wiki editor) and attributed it to me. Everyone knows that in 1961 there used to be different kinds of documents given as birth certificates, and perhaps there is a microfiche copy of that document in the Hawaii DOH records. That does not mean we should treat the current document as anything other than what it is, a scanned image of Barack Obama's birth certificate. DD2K (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But people come here, see that picture and caption, and think that it is his original birth certificate. I know it doesn't say original, but people have not other reason to believe otherwise, unless we just call it in the caption his shortform birth certificate or his certification of live birth. It's not, after all, his birth certificate but a certification of live birth which- while it functions in exactly the same manner- isn't the same thing. And DD2K, I did not misquote you, do a search of it on this page and you'll see it was said by you. Ink Falls 17:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So you don't want people to mistake the birth certificate for a birth certificate. And I don't have to do a search, I know what was and what was not written by me. Your confusion over birth certificates has spilled over into confusing you over what people write or not. DD2K (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh! Let me give it one last try. Until 2001, Hawaii issued a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH. That was the "birth certificate". Starting in 2001, they went paperless and now hospitals transmit the birth data to the state and they now issue the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH, i.e. the new format for the "birth certificate". If you were born in Hawai'i during or after 2001, you'll only see a CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH, the other form was discontinued and they don't create/issue ANY printed document that looks like the old form. There is no original, non-original, long-form or short-form. There is only the old printed format (CERTIFICATE) which is no longer issued and the current format (CERTIFICATION) for ALL new births or replacement birth certificates. The caption calls it a birth certificate (it is) and the picture shows the current title and format.

Do you understand that Hawai'i has not produced a "long-form" for nearly a decade? There is no longer an "original" birth certificate as you know it. There is only an electronic file of data and the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH document that they will issue. They transferred all birth certificates from 1905 on into electronic format. Yes, they have the old CERTIFICATEs OF LIVE BIRTH from 2001 and prior stored away, but they don't use them. Any Hawai'ian born from 1905 on is in a computer file and they will spit out your replacement CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH (birth certificate) for a fee.

One last time, there hasn't been a long-form issued since 2001. The only birth certificates issued by Hawai'i today is the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH. The CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH is valid for all Hawai'ians born from 1905 on. If you happen to have been born prior to 2001 and still have a copy of the old format, whoopee! You don't need to use it because the newer format protects your privacy better. 

JackOL31 (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

DD2K, your name is signed after the comment that I quoted along with Jethro's, I didn't originally see Jethro's name because it was so small, it's an easy mistake to make. Jack, they do not have just an electronic copy they have the original paper document, as I have stated before and as I have already presented with this quote: "Hawai'i's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage..." As you stated "In 2001, Hawai'i's paper documents were reproduced in electronic format" but "any paper data prior to that still exists," What that image is of is his Certificate of Live Birth, it is not his Birth Certificate, "Birth Certificate" specifically refers to the original. It's so ridiculous that I still have to explain that his original exists, it's not jus an electronic record, they have the actual paper document and that is his birth certificate. Ink Falls 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ink Falls - please read over my previous post until you understand it and then please correct the misstatements in your reply to me. Thanks much. JackOL31 (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama has the original. Is there any evidence of this? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know who you are asking, but see my post regarding Deams for My Father in a later post. JackOL31 (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions for InkFalls. What makes you think Obama still has the 1961 version or a copy of it? I haven't heard that he's ever said if he does or not. Also, if you agree that he was born in the U.S., why do you now allege that we don't know where Obama was born? JethroElfman (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Jethro, it is common knowledge outside of this wikipedia article that the presidents birth certificate still exists. Here is a quote from this newspaper article: "Hawai'i's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage..." "We don't destroy vital records," Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. "That's our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records.",

The only people I've met who don't think his birth certificate exists are people editing this article, which is probably why it leads people to believe it doesn't exist.
As for your second question, normally we have lots of info for a presidents birth, such as with Lincolns where, as the wikipedia article states: "Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809, to Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks, two farmers, in a one-room log cabin on the 348-acre (1.4 km2) Sinking Spring Farm, in southeast Hardin County, Kentucky[3] ", whereas with Obama we only know what district of Honolulu he was born without direct assurance of his hospital(which we can pretty much guess anyways).
Jack, if all you are going to do is tell someone to fix the "mistakes" in their post without pointing out any, then don't even bother posting, it's a waste of our time and it's extremely rude.
Just to restate my original argument, for newcomers here who don't want to read the whole argument leading up to this. The image caption calls his certification of live birth, his "birth certificate", but, as I have argued, when you tell someone something is someone's birth certificate, they think it's the thing you get when you were born, not something printed off much later by the state. So I think the caption should be changed to read thus: "Scanned image of Barack Obama's Certification of Live Birth released during the Obama presidential campaign." Ink Falls 19:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And what you have been told, several times, is that that really doesn't matter. If someone requests a copy of their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, they get what the Obama administration released to the press. If the state of Hawaii considers it as a birth certificate, then we reflect that here. Do you finally understand? Tarc (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I hope you understand that the State of Hawaii and the Obama administration does not govern this page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The State of Hawaii and the Obama administration have far more to say about the birth certificate displayed on the top of this page than Ink Falls or William S. Saturn. The former being reliable sources, while the latter are Wikipedia editors with certain mistaken beliefs. Dave Dial (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, are you seriously suggesting that there is more proof of where Lincoln was born than Obama? As if some secret document exists that people are hiding? Unbelievable. On Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources and an encyclopedic description of documents. We don't describe documents so fringe conspiracy theorists feel better about their, proven beyond all doubt, false beliefs about their conspiracies. Dave Dial (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for original research. We reflect what reliable sources have to say, and if this document is what they call a birth certificate, then we call it a birth certificate. Period. Not dive into muddled birther arguments of "OMG show us the real document!" This is somewhat similar to the "professor" debate that has plagued Talk:Barack Obama at times; U. Chicago called Obama a professor, but other institutions would not have in the same circumstances, yet the article still calls him a professor. Why? WP:V. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Because pro-Obama editors run that page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the internet post is identified as a "Certification of Live Birth", the original is titled "Certificate of Live Birth". --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When people request a copy of their birth certificate they receive this instead yes, but not because it is their birth certificate, but because it is the closest thing to it. The difference is thus: a person hearing "birth certificate" thinks "Hey, that's the document the hospital gives your parents when your born", not "That's the thing the government prints off and sends to you when you request an official certificate proving your birth". Wikipedia uses vernacular that people will understand correctly, right now, as it is, it is misleading them, albeit unintentionally, but it is misleading them into believing the certification of living birth is his original birth certificate, the one he got at birth, of which it is not. Ink Falls 20:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for original research. We reflect what reliable sources have to say, and if this document is what they call a birth certificate, then we call it a birth certificate. Period" Reliable sources do not call it that, they refer to it as his certification of live birth. For instance "Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations," Okubo said. "The standard "Certification of Live Birth" that Hawai'i health officials now issue — and was posted on Obama's campaign Web site" The article I has bee quoting doesn't once refer to certificates of living birth as birth certificates, now point my out one article that does. Ink Falls 20:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Why is the picture of a Certification of Live Birth called a birth certificate in its caption, and the picture of an actual Birth Certificate is called a Certification of Live Birth in its caption. Seems contradictory, I suggest we just switch those around. Ink Falls 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

From: nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/born-identity-star-bulletin-interviews-janice-okubo/

Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

“The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”

“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.

In plainspeak, at one time Hawai'i's birth certificate displayed more information and was called a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH. Now Hawai'i's birth certificate displays less information and is called a CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH.

Both are birth certificates, but with different titles and formats. It is NOT the case that one is a "birth certificate" and the other a "certification of live birth".

Continuing...

Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”

She goes on to say...

Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”

In plainspeak, it is a birth certificate. It is just not the 1961 birth certificate titled CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH. It is the post-2001 birth certificate titled CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH. (Notice the subtle shift from what the piece of paper is to what it represents.) However, they both are birth certificates (different eras).

I would support the change to "CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH (birth certificate)" if we reached a consensus. Without talk page discussion and consensus, it should not change.

Ink Falls - you still do not comprehend. JackOL31 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the misunderstanding by some is so deep and so profound, I repeat, the only Hawai'ian birth certificate document you will ever get since the conversion to the new format in 2001 is the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH. No person born in Hawai'i after 2001 will EVER, EVER, EVER see a "CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH" format. It has been discontinued (for nearly a freakin' decade). Now, all there is, is the data that Hawai'i stores in their computer files and the new printed form of the birth certificate for ALL new births and ALL replacement requests. All the copies of the old format on file from previous to 2001 are not used (stored away) and they haven't produced the old format for anyone for nearly a decade. JackOL31 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused as to what you are arguing. Do you at least understand that there is an actual 1961 birth certificate out there, that it's not just a file on an electronic database because that seems to be what you are arguing. Ink Falls 01:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have a rather substantial and accurate understanding of this topic. With all due respect, I believe you have several misconceptions in this area. JackOL31 (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a politician answer. I'll ask again, because you seem to be implying there is no original, please, just to clear things up, do you or do you not believe there is an original. I can't start remaking my argument until I'm sure of what your thinking. Ink Falls 02:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)