Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/Archive 15

HRS §338-13
In this edit, User:DD2K removed a sentence I had inadvertently duplicated in the article (thanks for that). The edit also removed a couple of direct quotes from Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-13, supported by a citation of a primary source for the text quoted from the statute. The edit mentioned OR. I see no OR. WP:PRIMARY says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The primary source was used here is precisely that manner. I've reverted the removal of this source-supported content. Please discuss here before removing it again. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated the first time you tried to add this, it is WP:OR because it is synthesis. In fact, it almost exactly mirrors the example of complex synthesis given on that page, just substitute the subject matter.  "The second part of the paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, [given the applicable Hawaii statues, Wisch is incorrect.] To make the second part of the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on [Wisch's statement and whether or not it is correct under the law.] In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." Please discuss it here first and achieve some consensus before repeatedly adding it again.  Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, without a reliable source citing this specific portion of Hawaii law and explaining its meaning and relevance to the subject, we have only the editors' and readers' analysis, which will quite likely reach an incorrect conclusion absent further research and statutory interpretation experience. Looking into this a little more, citing and mis-citing this section is a new birther argument rattling around the blogosphere, to accuse the Hawaiian health officials of being part of a coverup.   Section 13 incorporates section 18, which limits release of vital records to a small class of people related to the "registrant" barring a court order (which is unlikely to be granted - birhters have failed already).  I searched briefly and can find neither reliable sources nor any primary documents that give a convincing answer to whether Obama qualifies as the "registrant" and is therefore entitled to see a certificate that exists but is as yet unreleased.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Looneymonkey - Frankly, I've not had any occasion to consider the guidelines of WP:PRIMARY and this is novel to me. On the face of it, the following appears relevant to both this citation and your objection (emphasis mine)...
 * All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims  about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
 * As I read the suggested edit, there are no synthetic claims " per se but rather an insertion of legitimate "descriptive text", "As of 2011[update], Section (a) of Hawaii Revised Statute §338-13 provides,...", followed by a verbatim quote subsequent to the prior content. That appears to satisfy the prescribed usage limitations of WP:PRIMARY.
 * That being said, I believe this is an issue that could (and, IMHO, should be) tabled pending consensus resolution on the WP:RS legitimacy of my earlier suggested (and sourced) edit which is still ongoing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In this situation, the relevant regulations aren't to be found in WP:PRIMARY, but in WP:SYNTH. Again, it's classic synthesis.  The editor is presenting a quote by an official and then doing original research (using primary documents) to apparently contradict that quote and make it appear as if the state official is incorrect (or even lying).  This is completely prohibited.  No original research is one of the most core principals of Wikipedia.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading further into WP:OR, this would appear to be WP:SYNTH...
 * Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
 * Wtmitchell? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree HRS § 338-13 should not be included, for the reasons stated above. (I also think it does not contradict what the state attorney said.)  --Weazie (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What I added was ", Section (a) of Hawaii Revised Statute §338-13 provides, "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.", Section (c) provides, "Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.""

The supporting source I cited was
 * loonymonkey I fail to perceive either OR or SYNTH in the above. If you perceive it, please point it out.
 * Wikidemon, that source is a reliable source citing this specific portion of Hawaii law. The language quoted is not complicated -- I think its meaning is obvious. I further think that the relevance to the rest of the paragraph where I placed it is obvious.
 * Wikidemon, this source defines the common meaning of the word registrant as "a person who is formally entered (along with others) in a register (and who obtains certain rights thereby)". Other sources contain similar definitions. I think that it is pretty clear that Barack Obama, the person whose birth is being registered, is "the registrant". §338-18, which is referred to in §338-13, lists persons who "shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record". "The registrant" is one of the persons listed there.
 * Weazie, venturing an opinion of what the primary source quoted means by the words which it contains is, of course, (in the words of WP:PRIMARY), "making an interpretation of primary source material". I will just observe that Mr. Wisch said of the long-form certificate that it "can't be released to anybody", and said "state law does not authorize photocopying such records". The state law which I quoted from the primary source says, "... 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.", and "Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health." I think I've seen secondary sources opining that there was a bit of a disagreement there but, as I recall, those were generally opinion sources of a conservative bent and, expecting horrified objections here that any such sources are unreliable prima facie, I haven't wanted to open that can of worms by trying to cite them here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of a dry, neutral quote of the relevant Hawaii statutes, free of analysis or interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY. Such a quote would help intelligent readers understand the misunderstandings of those statutes seen in some of the sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this should be included in the article. There should be a clear presentation of relevant Hawaiian laws.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is original research and synthesis. Which may be overlooked when weighing against WP:PRIMARY, except in this case the birthers are trying to cause a deliberate misinterpretation of the Hawaiian law, which has nothing to do with what the AG stated. This is an attempt to confuse the issue and there is absolutely no reliable source that is making the connection between the law Bill is trying to enter in the article, and what the AG stated. Dave Dial (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "There should be a clear presentation of relevant Hawaiian laws." Unfortunately for this position, deciding which laws are relevant, absent a reliable source addressing the subject, requires original research. Even if, say, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Chris Matthews all agreed the (only) relevant law is §338, reproducing the entire section without comment is still original research in that it would imply a lay reading of the law without knowing any relevant court rulings would be accurate and meaningful. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Fat&amp;Happy, It appears to me that your ideas about what does and does not constitute OR should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:No original research, the lead paragraph of which says:

""The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists.""


 * Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. Speaking of cherry-picking. "The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." (emphasis added). Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone thinking of quoting pieces of law should do that on another website. Only a reliable secondary source is suitable on Wikipedia because including cherry-picked extracts from anything is the defining characteristic of WP:SYNTH. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a non-lawyer, but you're probably right. A good lawyer could convincingly argue either side of any issue. I could probably dig up better stuff than this (e.g. statements by candidates for elective federal positions, reported by non-liberal sources), but I don't want to get into the edit wars which which I think that attempts to introduce such sources would produce. I'm somewhat taken by the assertion, "Common sense dictates that the actual birth certificate filed with the state cannot be released. A certified copy with details will suffice. This will resonate with most people who, like myself, were required to produce a certified copy of my original birth certificate for activities like Little League Baseball." at " Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for my previous post, I appear to have misunderstood the situation. Upon closer observation, I agree that a secondary source should be included to show any contradiction.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As this suggested edit appears to be consensus resolved, I would appreciate further input from any interested editors on my originally submitted World Net Daily sourced edit. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. The policy is that we can't add contentious information without a reliable source.  We have no reliable source. WND's smears and advocacy about Obama are part of the subject of the article and are presented as such.  Any information about what WND says should be in the context of explaining WND's involvement in the matter.  To present them as a third party commentator would be misleading.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response and intend to reply. However, for the sake of discussion continuity, please consider refactoring your comment to the section I linked above. There are already 2 active threads now dealing with this WND WP:RS subject and all should be consolidated to a single topic. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The thread you linked to has no comment for three days now. WND is not going to happen as a source.  WND's accusation that Hawaii's health department is lying, based on their citing Hawaii's legal code, is not a reliable source that would justify Wikipedia's citing Hawaii's legal code.  Taking anything WND says as a serious content proposal is a waste of time unless a third party source covers WND's antics as a noteworthy part of the birther movement.  Do you want me to flog that horse here or there? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That thread also appears to be resolved (not to your liking, probably, but resolved). The absolute unreliability of WND for any sort of factual claim is well-established.  What is left to discuss on that matter?  --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) For those who don't appreciate the problem with citing laws and other primary documents next to fact patterns, absent a reliable secondary source that ties them together, this would be a good time to learn because it's an issue that potentially affects any article across the encyclopedia, not just matters of political debate. To start, we'll assume that both the law and the facts are fully sourced.  Person X did Y, and document A says B.  But why put "A says B" into this particular article, in apparent contradiction or support of person X doing Y, instead of, say, the middle of an article about Brussels sprouts or cat agility?  Because, of course, a Wikipedia editor has decided that document A saying B has some relevance to person X doing Y.  But does it?  Consider a few fictitious examples, chosen to illustrate the problem:
 * "John Candy, in his sleep, snuggled up to Steve Martin and addressed him as his wife.[cite film] According to the Bible, any man who sleeps with another man as a woman is an abomination and must be stoned to death.[cite Bible]"
 * "Late for their meeting with the governor, the diplomatic delegation from China sped by with police escort at 85 miles per hour.[cite newspaper] According to the laws of the state, anyone who causes a private vehicle to be driven on a public street in excess of 20 miles per hour over the speed limit is presumptively guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor, punishable by confinement to county jail for a period not exceeding 6 months.[cite state highway code]"
 * "The corner liquor store was selling Barefoot Cellars Chardonnay for $15.95 per bottle.[cite news] According to the National Beverage Commission, any wine that sells for $15 per more is 'super-premium', representing 'a superior, exceptional, or emblematic example of its class'.[cite beverage commission bylaws]"
 * I hope that's illustrative. Even if information is verifiably true, it is a matter of consensus whether to include it in a given article.  If the reason for including it is that Wikipedia editors claim that it relates to a given topic, and there is no secondary source that ties it to that topic, it can reasonably be rejected as unsourced.  To say that the rule applies to the fact is WP:SYNTH, a form of WP:OR.  To say nothing, while encouraging the readers to make that connection, is also SYNTH.  This kind of legal argument by juxtaposition is common in all kinds of partisan political contexts, and particularly so in the birther world.  The accusation that Hawaii is lying about its laws as part of the conspiracy is just the latest birther claim.  It's not clear at all, reviewing the code, that it applies to this case.  If we just splash the code next to the statement, it's unlikely that the lay reader would have the motivation, much less the legal sophistication, to dig to the bottom of the situation, something that even journalists haven't done yet.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This stuff is Wikipedia 101. You are entirely correct, and I am surprised that some editors are having such a problem with it. Rumiton (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon, re a tie between specific assertions about what the law provides and the text of applicable statutes, I think that the connection is clear and that an argument that it is unclear is ludicrous (even with entertaining off-point examples). The article quotes Mr. Wisch making a couple of specific assertions about what Hawaii state law provides. I think that it is a useful clarification to quote applicable portions of the statutes and to provide a link to the full text of the statutes -- especially as the language is plain and the quoted snippets are brief. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Avoiding SYNTH is fundamental Wikipedia content policy. The illustrative examples are not intended to argue a point about this article, just trying to help people who don't get the policy.  It may seem ludicrous to you, but it's obvious to me that (1) the code section is not applicable to third parties, there being a later section that explicitly says so, and (2) it is not possible to know whether it's applicable to Obama himself, or to know whether the question is decided, without a review of any rules and regulations, court decisions, and additional facts of the matter.  Further, juxtiposing an official statement against a law that seems to contradict the statement but that probably doesn't apply in the way a casual reader would think, needing specialized interpretation skills and off-Wikipedia facts not immediately available, is misleading.  Perhaps you disagree, in which case the very fact that we're debating the facts about the case is exactly the reason why we shouldn't add isolated facts without sources tying them to the subject at hand.  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. Cherry picking a seemingly "clear" law doesn't explain the law in context of other laws, and the juxtaposition of the law next to the state attorney's quote leaves the impression that the state attorney is wrong (or lying).  If there's a WP:RS with an expert saying the state attorney is wrong/lying, that would be acceptable.  But we don't, so it isn't.  --Weazie (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise concur. The null hypothesis, that it is OK to insert sections of legislation into articles to illustrate or bolster a point, opens the way to something like madness. Rumiton (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Binksternet and Saturn's reasoning about allowing the information, thereby allowing our Readers to judge and follow up for themselves if they wish. There is no compelling reason given so far for keeping it out and the non-compelling reasons are too esoteric for me to even get a clear understanding of them. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the removal of this source-supported content. Please reach a consensus here for removal before removing it again. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear synthesis. The cite provided makes no mention of the subject of this article, and its relevance to the article subject is only as suggested by the editor adding it.  This addition has been challenged many times before, so it should only be added if consensus is reached to add it, not the other way around. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me try a different tack. This is synthesis because it infers that the statute sections cited are the ones relied on by the state officials involved, (or that they should have relied on), even though the cited source does not say so. Absent a citable source attributing that position to the state officials, or a suitably expert secondary source analyzing those sections of Hawaii law, then it's not usable in the article (in this fashion). It doesn't matter whether the proposed text would support or undermine the state officials' position. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (@ the group) Honestly, if this is really relevant, there's going to be some analysis and commentary in multiple secondary sources. Find those.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe there are other reasons for excluding it, but I don't see it being synthesis at all. There is no 1+1=2 and I do not see a "therefore", instead I see 2 conflicting data points. The Readers can follow up on it if they wish to form their own opinions as to which is correct or if somehow both are. It is only an assumption that some Editor is trying to show a conclusion, I see just the opposite; that there is no definite conclusion from looking at those 2 bits of content. I think it's a good example of the contradictory information which abounds in both Primary and Secondary sources and is certainly better than just leaving Wisch's comment unchallenged. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Others do; no consensus. --Weazie (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but I thought sourced content was allowed unless there is consensus to exclude, am I wrong about that? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are wrong about that. In any debate over contentious material, it is up to the person wishing to add the material (not those removing it) to get consensus for inclusion.  Anyway, it's a moot point.  No original research is a non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the first of what will probably become a tsunami of third party RS on the misinformation disseminated by the Hawaiian Attorney General's Office. From CNN earlier this evening (emphasis mine)...
 * Obama could file a Freedom of Information Act request to view his original birth certificate and make copies. CNN

That should satisfy RS criteria for article content, no? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now this is just getting tedious. You know full well, that the issue in this discussion has never been WP:RS, but WP:SYNTH. And it's not at all clear where you're actually proposing to add this single sentence that you cherry-picked without context (ironically, from an article which completely disproves these fringe theories, but you choose to ignore those parts of the article). If you're proposing to add it in the same place after the Wisch quote, well, it's the exact same issue.  Just go back and read through this thread for an explanation of why you can't do that. Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you really, really aren't getting the concept of WP:SYNTH. Either way, I really don't see what's left to discuss on that point. "No original research" is non-negotiable policy.   --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, instead of hurling insults based upon your assumptions of just how I might propose incorporation of this content, you might try being responsive to the question I posed.
 * Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you really, really aren't getting the concept of WP:SYNTH.
 * On the contrary, I acknowledged the validity of a WP:SYNTH objection earlier. Apparently you've overlooked it.
 * If you're proposing to add it in the same place after the Wisch quote, well, it's the exact same issue.
 * That's premature. I'll pose the question again. Does that information satisfy WP:RS criteria for content inclusion in this article.? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's under this section, discussing the relation between Hawaiian law and the AG statement. Where, in the source you provided, do they mention the Hawaiian Attorney General's Office? If not, it's still synthesis. Dave Dial (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your objection, it's now in its own section, Original Birth Certificate - FOIA Availability. Interested editors are invited to comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this in a new discussion section at Wikipedia talk:No original research. I've tried to do this in neutral manner. My intent here is not Canvassing, but rather (1) possibly to get some more policy-focused eyes on this, and (2) possibly to get OR policy to explicitly address synthesis by juxtaposition. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Original Birth Certificate - FOIA availability
The current article contains the following text...


 * Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" or "long form" birth certificate, but rather a redacted "short form" version. It has also been claimed that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to a "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations,[7]...

The currently cited reference, purportedly debunking "argument #1", has absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the text of "argument #1" as written which is, I'd submit, not an "argument" anyway but a statement of fact that might be easily stipulated (even without sourcing) by anyone familiar with this issue.

I believe this thus far uncited text (and section) presents an opportunity, via copyedit, for an incorporation of the FOIA information recently referenced by CNN...assuming, of course, there is no objection raised as to the WP:RS validity of the CNN content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Claim has indeed been debunked by numerous sources, if you want to add some here you can. Object to FOIA mention anywhere for now as speculative and irrelevant, per source, which poses it as an irrelevancy.    The point the source makes is that Obama has released his birth certtificate   To use it to suggest otherwise misstates the source   Here it would be SYNTH and/or a POV argument to use the hypothetical of a FOIA suit as supposed proof that there is a different form that hasn't been released.    If availability of FOIA recourse becomes yet another birthed rallying point and we can source that to be of due weight then it can be mentioned as such, togrther with any contrary discussion, but it does not seem that way (yet).  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will, of course, respond...but I'd be interested in the view of other editors before doing so. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is notable and should be included. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think a word like "debunk" should not be used except in a quote (for npov purposes). At the very least, "debunk", outside of a quote, seems to me to be a type of SYNTHESIS by Editors. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The possible availability (via a FOIA request) does not alter that President Obama was born in Hawaii, and thus eligible. Not notable.  --Weazie (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cherry-picking a single sentence out of context to imply the opposite of what the article is stating is just tendentious. I have to hand it to you two, though.  You're completely undeterred even after reading article after article debunking the theories (and yes, the word is debunked).  --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Debunking may be the intent of these articles but that doesn't mean we should use that term. Its a more appropriate term for exposing a hoax and is too judgmental especially on top of the article title. It's the same as saying that WNT 's articles "prove" the theory. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Are you kidding or does your mind really equate WND/Birthers with CNN, CBS, Factcheck.org, numerous high ranking Hawaiian officials, a certified birth certificate, etc., ect.? It is a hoax, it has been debunked by many, many, many sources. If you can honestly read through these sources and still try to push these false equivalences, you might want to take a prolonged break from any conspiracy theory article. Dave Dial (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right. I think I will take that break; maybe these theories don't deserve any sort of npov. Congratulations,DaveDial, you and the others were 100% right all along. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Related
For the record, CBS News is now making note of the CNN assertion...
 * The article points out that the president could request to see and make copies of his original birth certificate under the Freedom of Information Act,...[CBS News] JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article points out that CNN wrote about it. It does not endorse that it's an issue.  CNN reported it as a hypothetical  response that Obama's team chose not to pursue because it would not deter the birthers.  When you look at it, it's far afield.  The President could hypothetically file a request to a state that he expects the state will deny, enforceable only by bringing a lawsuit against the state as a private citizen.  All to prove that the state isn't lying when it confirms where he was born.  Strange days indeed.  Anyway, nether the CNN nor the CBS articles support adding this to the article at this point, because it has not been reliably sourced as part of the fringe theory or its aftermath.  - Wikidemon (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, what actually happened makes a little more sense - Obama (or most likely, his people) asked informally, and the state informally agreed, saying they were making an exception for his case. The FOIA thing is now moot - as many speculative hypotheticals turn out to be, once actual events play out.  - Wikidemon (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, and beyond doubt, the FOIA question has been made actively moot inre this controversy, but our concern is the documentation and accurate presentation of the controversy itself. Today's release of the original BC will, in all liklihood, be cause for both a thorough review of existing content and, perhaps, significant recomposition. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article focuses on the fringe theories, so we'll have to wait and see how their proponents respond. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed we will. However, I'd suggest that it is not (IMHO) Obama's birthplace (that has all but already been conceded), but his eligibility to hold office under the "natural born citizen" clause...which is, as I understand it, the substance of the argument to be presented in the next litigation scheduled for early May in California's 9th District. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That case is based on an equally fringe theory (an interpretation of the constitution that no court has ever supported). It is highly unlikely that any significant outcome will come from it, so I doubt it will affect this article much. But to your earlier point, I don't think significantly rewriting the article will be necessary.  It is important to the subject to note that so-and-so said such-and-such, (even if he was later proven incorrect.)  I think many of the verb tenses will need to be changed as certain politicians try to walk back their earlier birther comments, but we definitely shouldn't scrub the article just because certain statements are now moot (really, they were moot two years ago). --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue in the case pending in the 9th Circuit is standing (specificly, injury-in-fact and redressability). Although the plaintiffs may try to address the definition of natural born citizen, it wasn't in their briefs.  But, yes, this article (and the related natual born citizen clause one) will likely become the focus of those who will want to explain around President Obama's Hawaiian birth.  --Weazie (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead images
I believe a double image is preferable to the current to avoid trafficking the article if a table of contents is not used. Therefore, we need to develop a consensus caption for the double image. My proposal: A billboard (left) for WorldNetDaily articulates citizenship conspiracy theorists' requested release of the long-form birth certificate of Barack Obama (right), which the White House released on April 27, 2011, in response to conspiracy theories. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The double image looks like Amateur Hour at work, honestly. Too large and clunky, dwarfing the text of the lead. Tarc (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The size can be fixed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure we should have the second image there. But juxtaposing the two images in the manner you had it made it seem as if you were equating the 'demands' of birthers/WND with the release of the original birth certificate. WND and Taitz continue to question the current certificate. Sources indicate that the release was a response to the press giving attention to a certain 'circus barker', instead of concentrating on real issues. The sign and WND/Taitz have been pushing their conspiracy theories for years. The release had nothing to do with the fringe demands. Dave Dial (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources and the president himself say otherwise:, . --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should use a collage of newspaper headlines from the past month instead? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would illustrate the topic better than to show the question of the conspirators ("Campaigners and proponents") and an answer ("Official response"). The article is not really about media coverage.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Chester Arthur
The section on Chester Arthur has been removed on the grounds that it's OR. Well, here are some sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please revert and add cites. --Weazie (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please fix statement in third paragraph: there were TWO newspaper notices
From the article's third graf: "The conspiracy theories persist despite the fact that Obama has released his official birth certificate from the state of Hawaii,[1] with additional confirmation by the Hawaii department of health based on the original documents,[3] as well as other evidence such as a 1961 birth announcement published in a Hawaii newspaper."

The last phrase should indicate "two 1961 birth announcements published in two papers." It seems footnote 8 is the relevant one.

Also, the sentence should be re-written: as it stands, it implies that Obama "has released" (subject/verb in the first clause) the "other evidence" (object in the third clause). That evidence came to light via other avenues, not an official "release" as such.63.17.61.86 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

change to "False claims"
Sorry, I didn't notice earlier discussion on this, but I utterly disagree with the conclusion drawn and agree with Avanu that our responsibility is to be sure that we clearly state that these claims are false, not leave it to readers to connect the dots. Adding "False" to the header "Claims" is a very small addition, but as a snapshot it properly sets up the section and identifies it for the reader who doesn't slog through the whole piece. I see no harm in this, and instead the benefit that we are being clear - these claims are false, and we should say so in no uncertain terms. This is not the place to worry about redundancy - this is a place for clarity. As for respecting the intelligence of the reader, this may not be the place. Tvoz / talk 17:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In no way is that our "responsibility". We have a "responsibility" to present the facts, not insert redundant qualifiers. That's just poor writing..--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not phrase that well - what I meant was "our responsibility is to be sure that we clearly state [the facts]". Of course it's the same thing, because "the facts" are "that these claims are false", but I could have worded my comment better. Tvoz / talk 19:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the change is really necessary; it's difficult to look anywhere in the article without being battered with the fact the claims are false. But I could live with changing the main heading to "False claims". Adding "false" to the section name for each of the claims, though, is complete overkill. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Fat&amp;Happy, no need for a barrage of "false" qualifiers for each section. Although the main one seems ok. Dave Dial (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's all I was suggesting - change the section head to "False claims" and leave the subheads as they are now. I was not suggesting adding "False" to each one. Tvoz / talk 19:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just stick with "Claims", and let the text cover true or false. "False claims" implies that there are, or might be, "True claims".  We're just covering what various people have claimed - keep the title nuetral and let the text say true or false.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Tvoz: I'm afraid that this is one of those articles about a fringe theory where we're so worried that the reader might actually believe the fringe theory, we batter them over the head about how wrong/crazy/stupid the theory is. Let's not make it any worse than it already is.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The heading should be an accurate description of the contents, so "False claims" is perfectly good. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless, and perhaps "False claims" may be the most accurate description, but why exactly is it even necessary to repeat the word "claims" in the sub-headers when the word is already in the main-header?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As I explained last time, when it comes to these sort of issues, I prefer to stand on the shoulders of others. Intelligent design is a featured article and it has a similar sections titled Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity, Intelligent designer.  It doesn't prefix each section with "Claims of".  Although not a featured article, 9/11 conspiracy theories has been named as an example of an article about a fringe topic that is reasonably well-maintained by the quarterly newsletter of the Association for Skeptical Inquiry, and again, it doesn't prefix each section with "Claims of". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Much as I agree that looking at other articles for guidance on how to proceed can be helpful, I think this situation is somewhat different from Intelligent Design or 9/11 conspiracy theories. A subhead "Obama was not born in Hawaii" is a declarative statement that is false, where a subhead of "Intelligent designer" is a concept, and a theoretical one at that. (Despite my personal belief that it is also false, it's not disprovable by a piece of paper.) So there is not really an equivalence. My point is that despite the redundancy of the word "claims", and certainly the thrust throughout the article that these claims are false, a snapshot look at this article via its TOC should not have declarative statements that are patently false, without at least putting them in quotes or otherwise characterizing them as claims. We can easily be misrepresented, and I think we have a responsibility to be clear to the facts. The article was viewed over 230,000 times this month - before today's news, which I would assume will provoke a spike in readership - so we have to be mindful of that and not appear to be promoting false statements. We cannot assume readers will read the whole article where we make it clear, so I am concerned about the impression our headers might give. As I said elsewhere, my preference would be a header of "False claims" and subheads of "Claim that Obama was born in Kenya", etc., but I am more than willing to talk about whether we need "False" up there, although several others have agreed it is not a bad idea. I am not willing to have false declarative statements as subheads, with or without the word "False" in the main head because of the potential for misinterpretation (and conceivably even BLP concerns). The articles you point to are dealing with different circumstances, but by the way, I similarly think that the 9/11 article's header "Planned by Israel" is also problematic for the same reasons, although not as bad as if the header were "The attack was planned by Israel" which is the equivalent of "Obama was born in Kenya". Sorry for the long-wind, but I wanted to explain my position more fully, as I undertand why you've brought in the 9/11 and ID articles as examples. Tvoz / talk 20:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We should be more concerned with structural accuracy than attempting to appease the structurally ignorant with unnecessary qualifiers (see below).--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Tvoz: I can understand your point about the conceptual nature of Intelligent design's subsections, but I think my comparison with our 9/11 conspiracy theories article is valid. I work on a lot of articles related to fringe theories and haven't come across any the prefix every subsection with "Claims of" in a section called "Claims".   I took a look at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and it doesn't do this either.  As compromise, how about instead of "Obama was not born in Hawaii" to "Not born in Hawaii"?  This way, it's just a phrase and no longer a complete sentence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this, until I saw the edit that reverted based on "consensus" - I don't think we have consensus for what is there now which is merely a return to the original without any consideration of the concerns I raised. In order to move this along, I'm willing to try your compromise  suggestion, but would want the header then to be "False claims" which three other editors in this section have also said would be ok with them.  Would you agree with that? So would be "False claims" with subheads "Not born in Hawaii", etc.   Tvoz / talk 21:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One other thing: I'd also like to see the subhead phrases in quotes - that to me would take care of the implication that these might be true. Tvoz / talk 21:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Contrary to William S. Saturn's edit summary conclusion, unsupported by this ongoing discussion, a main head of "False claims" can certainly co-exist with the subheads as they now are, e.g., "Claim that Obama was born in Kenya", etc. The heading summarizes the entire section, and would characterize the claims as false, which I believe is the right thing to do, as above. We're still talking about it, but several editors have agreed that one "False" heading (all I was suggesting) is ok. But I do not go along with leaving subheads as what could be misquoted as declarative statements, e.g., "Obama was not born in Hawaii". This has nothing to do with good writing - it has to do with being clear for casual readers, and not opening us up to misinterpretation. So to be clear, I favor a head of "False claims" and subheads of "Claim that Obama was born in Kenya", etc., but am gald to continue the discussion. Tvoz / talk 19:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are "claims" or "false claims" is determined by the main heading. If you place "false claims" in the main heading but leave "claims" in the sub-heading, it can be interpreted (in the headings alone) as presenting that the fact that they are "claims" is in fact "false". That is why the entire repetition of "claims that..." in the sub-headings should be removed in any instance but especially under a main heading of "False claims".--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that the word "false" appears eight times in the article, which is quite enough for readers to get the point. The "False claims" headers are awkward, repetitious, and a little didactic.  A single higher level header with the word "false" would be okay, but unnecessary.  But wait, there's more.  In my recent cleanup I see that I inadvertently left the word false entirely out of the lede, so you can read quite a ways into the article before it definitively states that these are false claims.  How about I trade you a false in the lede for fewer falses in the body?  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wikidemon. It's awkward, repetitious and didactic (I had to look up that word, LOL).  I'm fine with Wikidemon's suggestion combined with my suggestion above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What is? No one was suggesting that each header be "False claims".  One single higher level "false" is what I am asking for.  Surely you don't think one "false"  in the headers - that is, one "false" in the Table of Contents - is awkward, repetitious and didactic?  I've agreed above to trying the shortened subheads changing them from declarative sentences to phrases, with the header of "false claims" - and without the repeated "claims that".  So, ok? Tvoz / talk 00:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm feeling a little awkward, repetitious and didactic myself. Anyone up for a beer summit?  Okay, okay... I don't think any of this is too serious.  The article has been steadily improving so that's good.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well at least we're not debating whether the certificate was signed by ONE PEN and that pen was a ROLLERBALL THAT WASN'T INVENTED YET. Tvoz / talk 01:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring
This article suffers from a number of problems that are the result of gradually building an article on a topic that is in the news frequently. The biggest is that the structure of the article is very haphazard. Would people be OK with restructuring the article? NW ( Talk ) 17:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple of people have mentioned that it's sadly in need of a restructure. But given the article's history and contentious subject, I'd be wary of doing it the easy way in one or two giant steps; some sort of proposed plan (or outline) needs to be laid out and agreed upon here first or all hell "nuclear warfare" is likely to break loose. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This should be done only after the current media firestorm concludes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (ECX2)We have just recently had the article go through a pretty big restructuring, withsome discussion. As well as trimming numerous sections and putting them into child articles(Here and here). Still, perhaps it could be made into an even better article with more restructuring. Suggestions here and an overview of the changes proposed would be a good idea. Dave Dial (talk)


 * Concur. Restructuring is needed, but please discuss the proposed changed before doing so.  (And waiting until the firestorm concludes is also a good idea.)  --Weazie (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A logical structural element would be to divide the "before" (the release of the long form) from the "after". Keep them separate, but keep the lede updated with mentions of the "after" aspects. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking something like this:

1. History, divided into: - Origination of rumors and short-form - Major growth of the birther movement. Included in here would be the various claims made. - Litigation and legislative impact. Military case could be folded in here too? - Long-form and impact 2. Political impact - elections - political figures' comments in a non-laundry list format 3. Commentary

This is just a rough sketch obviously, but what do you all think? NW ( Talk ) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A good start. I agree the military case ought to be folded into the other litigation.  My complaint has always been the attempt to separate the political impact -- it is part and parcel of the movement.  Perhaps a more chronological order would do the trick?  --Weazie (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I copied the Lakin information over the eligibility litigation article. Does anyone oppose deleting it from this article? --Weazie (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've been wondering for a while why it was left in the main article. (Obviously not enough to actually do anything, of course.) Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on specific restructuring edits, I do think that we should wait at least a few days to let the dust settle. There's no hurry to restructure the article today. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

fathers race information
In the Birth Certificate it lists Obama's fathers race as African. Last I remember of the timeframe, African was not a race, it was either Negroid (Negro) or Black. The term African American as listed by this site was invented sometime in the 1980's. What races did Hawaii use at the time and is there a listing specifying race? 98.30.252.66 (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)chefantwon
 * If you have a reliable source for that, I'd like to read over it. Dayewalker (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that was Donald Trump's recent argument. I was guessing that since Obama's father was from Kenya (as a British colony), whoever filled out the form figured "African" would be most descriptive. Of course, a reliable source to that effect is needed instead of my inexpert speculation. In any case I'm unsure if this question even merits discussion in this already very lengthy article. 24.220.188.43 (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are some sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

State of Hawaii Official Response
I think what the birthers really want to see is what Dr. Fukino refuses to show the public: the original record of birth from the time that Obama was born. I understand that the State of Hawaii says that as a policy they will not show the original to the media or others unrelated to Obama. But could Obama request that the State of Hawaii show the original record to the media? And if he could, why has he not already done so? I think this is the only really valid argument that the birthers have, and it could be so easily refuted if Obama would request the State of Hawaii to show the media the original record. Or is Hawaii refusing to show the original record, even if Obama requests that they do so? I wish the Wikipedia article would answer these questions. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. This talk page is only for discussing specific improvements to the article.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment more carefully. I clearly say "I wish the Wikipedia article would answer these questions."  This is clearly a comment focused on improving the article.  Please refrain from labeling as general discussion comments which are clearly focused on article improvement.  --Westwind273 (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We only report what's in reliable sources. So if that question isn't answered by a reliable source, it won't be here.  There is a comment in the article already pointing out that even showing the original certificate won't shut the birther's up.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely. That is what I am discussing.  I think the article would benefit from some reliable source material that would answer the questions I posed above.  I see it as a big gap in the logic of the article.  As for what will please the birthers, that is not what a Wikipedia article is about.  It is about presenting the best article possible, based on reliable source material.  --Westwind273 (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny how the latest birther argument always seems like the last unanswered question. If there seems to be a hole in the article it's because there's a hole in the facts, or else it's not much of a hole but the birthers are making it into one.  I looked yesterday and there was no discussion among reliable sources on the question, which could mean that they don't consider it very important (even if the birthers do).  Or it could just mean they don't know.  One can imagine a number of possibilities: Fukino is right that Obama himself is not entitled to an original version of the document (perhaps absent a freedom of information request, as CNN seems to say); Fukino misspoke or was misinformed (birther claims of a state conspiracy to lie about it seem farfetched); or  Obama has requested his birth certificate and that the official version is the only version they give out (i.e. you can request the document, but you cannot tell them how to prepare it).  If Obama were entitled to request something other than he already has (a big if), why hasn't he?  Perhaps only he knows, but speculation includes the conspiracy explanations, that Obama doesn't know better, that he is brushing it off as silly or unimportant, that it is undignified or shows he gives into political games for a US President to file a freedom of information request against a state government, or even that it's to his advantage to keep the birthers speculating because they embarrass and divide his Republican detractors.  One popular explanation, which the CNN article suggests but is entirely speculative, is that no logical explanation will satisfy the birthers so there's no point trying to satisfy them.  We are pretty far afield if this is the final issue that will settle things once and for all.  Hasn't that been said half a dozen times already, and each time the question is answered the line just shifts. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct that CNN is,ironically, pushing a theory within a theory; CNN's theory being that the release of the long form,more detailed birth certificate would accomplish nothing becuse all of the people with questions would just find something else to question. CNN's theory is even more speculative and outrageous, I think, than the "conspiracy"theory in question. Yet I heard a White House spokesman today put forth that exact same theory. Its strange when people use theories to address theories while ridiculing the existence of the theory they address. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense to equate the birthers themselves with press punditry about what the birthers' next moves will be. Anyway, there has been some reaction at this point and a dedicated core of birthers have indeed moved on to other farfetched claims, so CNN's prediction came true at least in part.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I did some searching and found this MSNBC article that appears to mostly answer the points I raised: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics  It seems that individuals (including Obama) are not allowed to request any kind of viewing, showing, or photocopying of their original Hawaii birth record. I think the article would benefit greatly from including this information from the most recent interview with Dr. Fukino. Theoretically, I guess Obama could file a FOIA request with the State of Hawaii to see his birth record, but I think most would agree it is rather ludicrous for a sitting President to do this to a state government. So the issue really lies more with the State of Hawaii than it does with Barack Obama. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems the president was reading my comments. --Westwind273 (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As is documented in the White House release of correspondence with the State of Hawaii, Department of Health, the title of the document solicited, utilized both in the President's personal request letter (pdf p.3) and referred to 3 times in the State of Hawaii response (pdf p.4), is "original Certificate of Live Birth". Within the Health Dep't response, the Secretary of Health also cites her "...legal authority to approve the process by which copies of such records are made"...under which she issued "photocopies" of the relevant document to a designated representative of an eligible petitioner.
 * This presents 2 considerations on article content...
 * 1. The WP propriety of a clear delineation, article wide, on nomenclature.
 * 2. Article ramifications related to current content on the recent statements by the spokesperson for the Hawaiian Attorney General's Office, Joshua Wisch.
 * Frankly, I don't particularly care just how these content issues are resolved as long as they are, at least, addressed and some consensus agreement is reached. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Re item 2, my own subjective understanding of the statement, "As the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, I have the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of such records are made. Through that authority [...] I am making an exception to current departmental policy which is to issue a computer-generated certified copy." quoted in this compendium of primary sources speaks to that by implication. However, I'm not sure that it would pass the "argument by juxtaposition" objection raised in the section above. The inference can be drawn that when the Mr. Wisch said,  "... a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody", he was speaking of barriers to the release put in place by the Director-approved process by which copies of records are made which were waived by Ms. Fuddy, but is that sufficient without a secondary source tying them together? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first part of his statement is nebulous enough to allow for wiggle room. Not so the second which appears to be contradicted both by statute and recent events.
 * "Wisch added that state law does not authorize photocopying such records." (added to facilitate discussion) JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reflecting on this again, perhaps Mr. Wisch's observations aren't even pertinent to the section in which they're contained, "Rejection by Conspiracy Theorists". Wouldn't they be more appropriate to "Hawaii Department of Health Response" anyway? If so, content contained in the recent White House correspondence would be, rather undeniably I should think, apropos to this section as well. If the reader draws their own conclusion as to the veracity of Mr. Wisch's comment, so be it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * §338-18 says "except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health". They give an explicit exemption to the department of health to make up additional rules.  Obviously, in light of special circumstance, Loretta Fuddy made a special rule. Joshua Wisch was quoting policy in a general sense obviously.  And since the health department had certain policies in place, he was correct at that point in time to generalize in that fashion.  Hope this explanation helps. -- Avanu (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, interpretation like this about what the statutes mean must, if they are to appear in the article, be supported by secondary sources &mdash; but we can talk about it here. IMHO, 338-13 is more directly relevant in that it speaks specifically about the authority of the director of health to approve the process of copying, saying, "... (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. ...". My reading of this is that the director (a previous director) had apparently previously approved making copies only by the process of computer printout, and the director now approves a single exception to that approved process. While looking at that, and remembering that the information on the computer-generated "Certification of Live Birth" document only partially reflected the information on the "Certificate of Live Birth" document, it occurred to me that, in specifying the details of the approved process of providing copies by computer printout, the director approving the copying process apparently interpreted the bit from 338-13(a) which says, "... 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." as empowering the DoH (vs. the requestor) to decide what parts of the contents of requested certificates are to be included in the certified copy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ... Oh, before I started rambling above I meant to say in this comment that it looked to me as if the bit about Mr. Wisch's statement would fit immediately after the "Long form, 2011" header. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wherever it might best be hosted, "Rejection by Conspiracy Theorists" seems, in hindsight, an inappropriate candidate and, IMHO, it should be moved elsewhere. Assuming consensus on that point and relocation of the content, introduction of content from the Health Director's memo referencing the "exception made" (as well as RS third-party sourcing on that exception which is, I believe, readily available) should be considered for inclusion.
 * As to any lingering question of "WP:SYNTH by juxtaposition", should co-location of content still be deemed problematical in that regard, just because Wisch's comments predated current developments that are surely noteworthy, any seeming contradiction with Wisch's prior comments can and should be left to the consideration of the reader. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Location of Lakin court martial material
Vis-a-vis this edit and some before, I had intended the "litigation" article to cover civil challenges over whether Obama is eligible, on factual and constitutional grounds. I hadn't contemplated a court martial in which birtherism is the claimed reason or defense for insubordination. That does indeed raise eligibility in the courts, but the event also raises issues akin to civil disobedience / conscientious objectors, which seems to be a different subject. No strong opinion here, just noting it. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The section as it was ("Military") didn't address the "civil disobedience/conscientious objectors" angle at all. And it was rather clunky, to boot.  Regardless of the parties' motives, his case was litigated, and the key issue was eligibility; eligibility litigation seems an apt parking spot.  A cross-reference in main article, however, wouldn't hurt.  --Weazie (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder; I patched the existing internal link for Lakin to point to the right article. But what kind of cross-reference do you have in mind, and why is this case special in its need for one? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to include Lakin in the main article, but if someone else did, I certainly wouldn't oppose a brief mention with a cross-reference to material in the elibigility-legislation article. --Weazie (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo caption addition
A change is proposed to the main photo caption from:
 * A billboard questioning the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate and by extension his eligibility to serve as President of the U.S.

-to-
 * Although Obama's birth certificate was indeed released and confirmed by the state of Hawaii, conspiracy theories about its validity—and, by extension, his eligibility to serve as President of the U.S.—persist, as exemplified by this billboard

It's been reverted back into the article rather than discussed, and to avoid edit warring I won't remove it just yet. I do object fairly strongly and feel this slightly degrades an already weakly written article, for the following reasons:
 * Unsourced, and POV: "Although..." - "indeed"... unsourced POV commentary. Connector words like "however", "despite", "although", "nevertheless", etc., work in an assertion that two facts contradict each other, and that one is denigrated by the other.  It does so in the voice of the article narration, not the sourced facts.  In this particular case it asserts that "Conspiracy theories" persist despite the release of the birth certificate.
 * Tone. "Although" and "indeed" are somewhat pedantic and expository in nature, and the voice of articles should be for presentation of facts, not discussion.
 * Raises matters not related to photo - the photo is exactly what the current version says, a photo of a billboard questioning the validity of Obama's birth certificate. It is not a photo of the persistence of rumors, as the proposed caption asserts.
 * Undated statement about present. If rumors persist, at what time do they persist?  When the statement was written?  When the reader reads it?  To avoid obsolescence, we have to be careful about use of the present tense.
 * Muddled and incorrect assertions of facts. The photo is not of the persistence of rumors in the present time - it was taken during the campaign, not now.  It is not made clear whether the birth certificate had been released at the time the billboard was erected, something that isn't even all that germane.
 * Overkill. This article already says perhaps a dozen times that the rumors are false, that they are smears, that there is no evidence for them, that they are contradicted by all available evidence, etc.  With this and another recent edit we add two more.  This strikes me and a number of other readers who have commented here as sounding defensive.  If it's true it only needs to be said once... or perhaps once to establish the fact, once for analysis, and once to summarize, or about 3 times.  Repeating it again and again makes it sound like we're not sure it's true, or that we have to convince a disbelieving reader.
 * - Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the WP guidance recommended by the "Controversial" tag above, it is rather remarkable that editors would even consider major substantive changes to this highly controversial treatment without preliminary discussion. I have reverted the edit and commend your circumspection on this point. I assume some editorial justification for the suggested edit will be forthcoming. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure... well, to be fair, I wouldn't say it's all that controversial, major, or substantive - it's just a photo caption! I just thought it was an awkward place, and way, to present information that is basically true.  Thanks though, let's just remember we're all here to accomplish the same thing, a good article.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit jousting on accompanying text has been renewed with a purportedly "minor" revision by User:Avanu with a counter-edit by User:KeptSouth. Frankly, User:KeptSouth beat me to the punch as I was contemplating my own "minor" edit (supported nearly verbatim by the already supplied cite) to read as follows...
 * A billboard advertising WorldNetDaily's correct assertion that the Obama campaign didn't post his original birth certificate on the Internet.
 * I imagine that "minor" edit would have had the same shelf-life as Avanu's. Let's desist with the drive-by edits and get this resolved in talk. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the edit you are talking about, I more or less reverted to the long-standing version, with the "advertising campaign" portion removed as uncited, and unsupported and with new info about the book title. Subsequently, F & H reverted to the "long-standing" version which is inaccurate as to the "advertising campaign" notation. In the face of objections, I am not adamant on the issue of whether any new info. on the book should be included - though it would be informative since the title and the cover will match the billboard exactly. However, I strongly believe the caption should not say "advertising campaign" unless a reliable source is provided to support that statement. That is why I have added a tag to the caption-- KeptSouth (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup
OK, how should we handle all those places where wikipedia previsouly said Obama has "released his official birth certificate from the state of Hawaii"??? Since there is now a new "official birth certificate", what is the preferred retraction/correction?? --Sensical (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no retraction or correction needed; the statement that he "released his official birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" in 2008 is completely accurate. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh, that's not true. What was released in 2008 was the Certification of Live Birth, or "short form" -- they are disctinctly different documents.  I think this perspective is well supported by the FACT that he called a press conference to release something yesterday that was clearly different than what he had previously released.  Are you suggesting that they are the same thing?  If so, help me understand what the purpose of the news conference was???  --Sensical (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The official birth certificate was released in 2008 per all the sources. The original, obsolete document on file was released this year.  You probably know the answer to your rhetorical question.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's explained clearly in the reliable sources provided on the article. The birth certificate released in 2008 was the official Hawaiian birth certificate provided by the State, and Prima facie evidence of the existence of the file on record in Hawaii. Meaning, as far as courts and government officials are concerned, they are the same document. Dave Dial (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ...as far as courts and government officials are concerned, they are the same document.
 * Nonsense. As far as courts and government officials are concerned, they don't even have the same legal standing, to say nothing of being, in actuality, the "same document".
 * The question raised is a legitimate one...and I posed it as well in a different section. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nonsense? If you do not believe that birth certificate given to, by the State of Hawaii, and released by the Obama campaign in 2008 is "Prima facie evidence of the" birth certificate released in April of 2011, you're inability to grasp the basics facts here seems to be the problem. The law is clear and the birth certificate released in 2008 is considered to be the same as the birth certificate on file with the Hawaiian Health Department. Dave Dial (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact (assuming CNN reportage on the subject to be correct), the computer-generated certificate (AKA "short form") is the ONLY document recognized as having legal standing. A photocopy (again, according to CNN) is no longer recognized as having that same legal standing. But the question is not about the comparative legal standing of either document, but rather what is considered to be the officially recognized NAME of the respective documents. I'll repeat here what I posted above...
 * As is documented in the White House release of correspondence with the State of Hawaii, Department of Health, the title of the document solicited, utilized both in the President's personal request letter (pdf p.3) and referred to 3 times in the State of Hawaii response (pdf p.4), is "original Certificate of Live Birth".
 * In cleaning up this article, where editor-contributed text is utilized as opposed to direct quotes from sources, "original Certificate of Live Birth" should be utilized in referencing the recently released document. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Belief in the conspiracy theories has persisted despite Obama's pre-election release of his official birth certificate from the state of Hawaii in 2008,[1] additional confirmation by the Hawaii department of health based on the original documents,[5] and the April 2011 release of Obama's so-called long form birth certificate..."

How can something have persisted based on a document which just became available?True Observer (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * He released a document in 2008 that was a 'birth certificate' (certification) validated by Hawaii. Conspiracy theories persisted. Since people are nuts, he just released the 'birth certificate' (certificate) again validated by Hawaii. Conspiracy theories still persist, again because people are nuts. -- Avanu (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I reworded that bit to hopefully be better in line with the perceived logical inconsistency you pointed out. -- Avanu (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Belief in the conspiracy theories has persisted despite Obama's pre-election release of his official "certification of live birth" (commonly used as a birth certificate) from the state of Hawaii in 2008,[1] additional confirmation by the Hawaii department of health based on the original documents,[5] and the April 2011 release of Obama's "certificate of live birth" (so-called long form birth certificate). " —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Observer (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If "has persisted" refers to the present and the past, then obviously the certificate of live birth played no part. As to the future no one can say.

Rewording still needed.True Observer (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Why was footnote 4 changed to 5?

Suggested changes: 1. Eliminate "the original" from reference to footnote 4. This footnote is bssed on Fukino's statement. In her statement she never says that she looked at the ceritificate of live birth. She says that she has seen that it was on record. She could do that by looking at an index which might be updated on a periodic basis. 2. Since lack of the certificate of live birth fueled the conspiracy theorists and was, in fact, the catalyst for it, the words "the lack until" should be inserted between and and the before April.True Observer (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

long form birth certificate location
Can we move the image of the long form birth certificate up to the top of the article please? This is the most conclusive evidence to date, and I think that should be displayed clearly and at the top. Replacing or above the "where is the birth certificate" image that is curently there.71.237.228.208 (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, the fact that the birth certificate actually exists could have a significant part in this article.--Sardinian Obamafan (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * co-signed --208.38.59.163 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The counter-argument could be that the billboard photo better represents the conspiracy theories themselves (which the article is primarily concerned and titled) as opposed to the president's original birth certificate which is his response to said theories. —   Fourthords  | =/\= | 16:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The image of the billboard tells the article topic much better. I like having the billboard at top, and directly underneath it the long form. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Binksternet. That's the way it was positioned yesterday when I read this article. Pity that it's been changed since. Moncrief (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur. --Weazie (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Me, too, FWIW. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. The topic is the allegation or claim of alien birth, of which the birth certificate is just one element. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur Differ . It seems to me that the birth certificate images belong in the Release of the birth certificate section, where they are currently located . Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC) -- re-edited 13:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not concurring with me. To be clearer, I agree with the billboard being up top but mostly I agree with and directly underneath it the long form in Binksternet's comment. Moncrief (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right about me differing. I apparently read Binksternet's comment too quickly. I've stricken and inserted above to correct this, and thanks for pointing this out. I'd say the birth certificate controversies are only one aspect of this article's topic and, given that and since there is an article section devoted to that aspect of the topic, the birth certificate images ought to be in the section devoted to that aspect.
 * The billboard image seems to me to nicely capsulize the whole topic, and to "fit" as a lead image, but if there's another image better suited to the whole topic it'd fit leading off the article section on the birth certificate aspect as well.
 * I have strenuously disagreed with the caption of the billboard image in the past, and still do disagree, but several others here felt that reading much more into the billboard than the billboard actually says (and, as I recall, in contradiction with what the billboard authors said about its meaning) was perfectly OK and I grew weary of beating that horse. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur (with User:Binksternet) Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus is clear. Moved to top, right below the billboard image.--Chaser (away) - talk 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add a note regarding the long form certificate and Fat & Happy removed it. I think just because its at the top and people pass it, it doesn't hurt to remind people that its there. There's a lack of balance in that section since we have the certificate images in different places. diff The alternative would be adding it twice, which seems unnecessary. -- Avanu (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When someone is able to read an encyclopedia, I see no need to grab onto their hand and lead them through, pointing to things we think are important for them to see.


 * On the other hand, if we want to minimize the chances of readers failing to notice the image at the top of the article, can we think/talk about using one of the better images out there with much of the excess white space (green space) cropped out so the relevant parts are more obvious at the small image size used? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be ok with that if other editors are. I didn't want to add the image in at that location (since its at the top) and get someone deleting it as redundant.  I think as time goes by, the long form cert will move down there on its own.  My 2 cents. -- Avanu (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, speaking of balance and duplication, now that we have an image of Obama's own "original long form", is there still a need for the redacted Nordyke twin "sample", or can it be removed? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Nordyke certificates are clearly microfilm (or microfiche) printouts, so they show that the certificates are kept on microfilm. In the case of Obama's certificate, they presumably took the microfilm printout and photocopied it on to security paper. It is the same security paper that is used for his short form, even though that would have been produced by a laser printer. Kauffner (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And... so what? Even if your speculations are correct – and Fukino's earlier statements indicate they're mostly not – what is the relevance? This is not an article on Hawaiian document management procedures. The reason for adding the Nordyke image was to illustrate the differences in information content of the two different document types. Those differences are adequately demonstrated by the two Obama documents without reference to the messy, heavily redacted, third image. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike the Nordyke certificates, Obama's BC is certified by Hawaii's state registrar. This means it comes under the "full faith and credit" clause, and other states are required to accept the document at face value. So it seems that someone has put some thought into the issue of how to avoid a forensic examination. Kauffner (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nordyke birth certificates are also certified - they say: "This certifies that the above is a true and correct copy of the original record on file in the Research, Planning and Statistics Office Hawaii Department of Health". The states routinely issue certified copies for school enrollment, drivers' licenses, passports, etc. The "short form" was certified, and he obtained it in 2007, before there was any controversy about authenticity. Why would he ask for an uncertified copy now when he was trying to put doubts to rest? Why would the Hawaii official, who expressly have said they don't want to answer further inquiries, give him an uncertified copy that would generate even more inquires to their offices?KeptSouth (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether the Nordyke and the Obama bcs are certified, I think that having the Nordyke example in the article is instructive and actually a valuable addition. It still shows the historic controversy regarding the supposedly missing information on the hospital name and birth attendant, and it provides an easily accessed basis for comparing the form of the recently recently released document. I agree it is sloppily redacted - but perhaps someone could re-do the redactions as black on black or as neater lines, and we will have a best of all worlds compromise. KeptSouth (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. That seems like a reasonable point. If we use it for that reason, I think the caption should be changed a bit; something along the lines of "An image of a sample birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii in 1961; the image was widely circulated to illustrate the differences of content between the 1961 and 2007 birth certificate versions."


 * The "redacted" comment was mostly rhetorical, emphasizing the point that it was no more valuable in its content than the Obama long form, But reading your response, I wonder if the heavy redaction is even needed. A year ago, there was prolonged discussion here on that point; I don't recall all of it, but I'm pretty sure I was a proponent of heavy redaction. Now – with the (voluntarily supplied) twin images having been spread all over the Internet for at least a year, still available on their original sites (Hawaiian Advertiser and WND) as well as probably thousands of other places, and undoubtedly archived on-line forever – I wonder if there's really a privacy issue that requires the blanking of so many fields. While I think a positive image is more visually appealing, some believe the negative image demonstrates something worthwhile. While I disagree, I don't see that part as a big deal either way. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

3 day time lag between birth and mother's signature
I don't know about you, but when does it take 3 days to START a birth certificate when you're born in a hospital!? Oh that's right, when you come back from kenya 3 days later and walk in to get one!! This only fuels the controversy, at least if you think about it logically.. But yet nobody has seemed to pick up on that little fact that falls into place with a lot of the controversy.. Anyway, now that we have the long form and the filing number, can someone please check the birth certificates filed before and after his, that will change a few peoples opinions!!! Devlin85 (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its doubtful that you've given birth, Devlin, but it does take time to recover after a birth. There's nothing super weird or creepy about letting a new mother have a day or two to rest before shoving a form in her face to sign reminding her that she just gave birth. -- Avanu (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I haven't given birth (Being male) and of course there is nothing "creepy" about letting a mother recover after giving birth, but the paperwork is started almost immediately after birth, getting foot prints, getting the name on paper, etc. Mainly for security reasons more than anything else (Wouldn't want somebody else leaving with your baby would you) And majoritally is all done by the staff, all she has to do is make sure it's correct, sign and date. But to have done that three days later, come on.. You're lucky if they even let you stay more than two days, it's not a hotel. I'm telling you that's a walk in, I highly doubt he was born in that hospital, or even this country. I was on a plane when I was 3 days old, so he definitely could have too. And that adds up.. Devlin85 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Devlin - please see the discussion below the "not a forum tag". I would like to discuss this time lag further. I believe you raise an interesting point. KeptSouth (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is the same with Edith Coats and Nordyke certificates. Being local registrar isn't all about signing silly pieces of paper, you know. Unlike certain Wikipedians, U K L Lee had a life and important things to do. Kauffner (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the tag "not a forum tag". This is a discussion about article improvement, and this discussion can indeed turn to looking at sources. For example, the Honolulu Advertiser article that reproduces the birth certificates of the Nordyke twins that were born 1 day after Obama at the same hospital has a signature dated 2 days after their birth. KeptSouth (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion has nothing to do with article improvement. It's a discussion of the underlying topic, whether the birth certificate is authentic or not. That can be discussed on 4,373,215,643 sites on the internet, but not Wikipedia. If there is a reliable source claiming it should not have been dated when it was, we can discuss whether the claim merits inclusion; that would be a discussion about the article.
 * But since everybody seems hot to continue this asinine and inappropriate discussion here, you might consider the fact that the Obama certificate and the two Nordyke certificates were all signed on August 7, 1961 – a MONDAY – when, just maybe, clerical staff returned to work after the weekend to handle administrative details. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A very excellent point, Fat&Happy (btw, isn't the topic of this article a bit 'asinine' also?) -- Avanu (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this thread should be collapsed or removed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the article and is simply a rant (by someone not too well versed in facts, apparently).  Further, it is defamatory against a living person.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally described as racist?
This is a complete slander, no matter how many references you place behind it! Describing a movement as racist is an insult to the credibility of WikiPedia. I call for the immediate removal of this sentence (found at the end of the introductory text). Regardless of how many sites the author has referenced (which all happen to be notoriously liberal and have a tendency to accuse anyone opposing Obama as racist) this is complete opinion and not fact. The Birther Movement, regardless of controversy, is a political belief that Barrack Obama was not born in the United States of America. That's it. While the people behind it may be complete idiots, I would never go as far to call them racist. This is an uncalled for, liberal opinion placed in what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. Even as a Democrat, I believe it is absolutely unfair and disgusting to describe a right-wing theory as racist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.105.95 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article does not say the conspiracy theories are racist, it says they are generally described as racist; there is a difference. (And I've never met a non-white Birther yet). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * How is "generally" being defined here? Also please note Alan Keyes and Pastor Manning.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Even though "generally" is not used, I think the inclusion in the lead makes the statement look important enough to seem like it means generally. I support the removal from the lead. The discussion in article text looks (generally) OK. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems reasonable to consign this to the critique section for now. As to whether the movement and its proponents have been called racist, they certainly have.  There is enough secondary sourcing on this so that we are not simply reprinting disputed opinions about living people sourced to the people who voiced those opinions, but rather we are reprinting third party sources that say that some people have made a racial critique.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Except that the references that are in the critique section are about early suggestions that birtherism is racist, and that sourcing is very weak - one dead (Gaudiano), one not a verifiable, real reference (poorly identified Ron Reagan radio show with wikilink to his bio), one ok but not third-party (Walker). The multiple third-party 2011 sources that were removed when the sentence was summarily removed from the lead before discussion are now missing, leaving the racism charge as a vague, old assertion, which is not an accurate reflection of how some view birthers in 2011. Shouldn't at least text be added to the critique section about the new round of criticism viewing birtherism as racist with some of the third-party sourcing that had been in the lead reinstated?  Tvoz / talk 23:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. So why not bring that section current with some stronger, more recent sources?  There has been more mainstream commentary on the racial aspect in the last few weeks than before.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll look forward to WP:RS sources that purport to see inside anyone's heart and/or soul. Absolutely pathetic. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Opinion noted. There is a considerable body of serious commentary about the racial aspects of the birther phenomenon.  There are some serious critiques that the whole issue is racially tinged, and by these critiques the racial issue is not measured by what is in people's hearts but what they say and do.  Some of the anti-Obama rhetoric is indisputably racist, e.g. this.  Whatever is in the heart of those who promoted the cartoon, it is a racist cartoon.  Nevertheless, Wikipedia does not call anything racist absent universal agreement among the sources, and even then it is one of those things to avoid.  It's not Wikipedia's function to decide whether something is racist or not, that would be using the encyclopedia to voice an opinion.   Rather, we note that the issue of race comes up here, something supported by a lot of sources.  This article is abut the phenomenon of birtherism, not about whether Obama is eligible for the presidency, and not about whether skepticism on the issue is racist.  A significant part of the cultural impact of the issue is that the accusation has been made.  Perhaps (if we can source it) another significant part is that others say there is no racism involved and that the people crying racism are being divisive.  In my editorial judgment and others, it is significant enough to mention but not significant enough to be part of the introductory paragraphs.   - Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A very notable person who describes and analyzes the racist aspects of the birther movement is GW Bush's former speechwriter, David Frum: The Birther Disgrace -- Brangifer (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is an interesting source that summarizes some of the recent commentary, and also mentions a study and some commentary on the study . I think that's usable here. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, regardless of how we look at the Birther movement, it is completely uncalled for to label a group of persons as "racist". To do so is to accuse beyond even the most scandalous allegations. We all know that the Birther movement almost entirely to the right, and the left's continued approach to criticism of Obama is calling opponents racist. Whoopi Goldberg, Richard Trumka, and other radicals will play the race card time and time again. We must make sure that such a derogatory accusation does not find its way into this article. Wikipedia deserves no place representing the views of one particular party. If liberals continue to slander the Birther article, I fear this will have to be put under total protection. For now, we're running out of spaces for colons, so let's cease to discuss this matter given that it has been temporarily, at least, resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbarile18 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Labels are a two-way street. Can you delete your references to specific living persons as "radicals"? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the Christian Science Monitor article which Wikidemon recently added (appropriately), this article from USA Today goes into a bit more detail about the study indicating a connection between racial attitudes and the opinion that Obama is "un-American"; the study itself, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, is here. I think it would be appropriate to add both citations, though the study itself is behind a paywall. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Obama says that Barack Obama born in Kenya
Michelle Obama says that Barack Obama born in Kenya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0lMbKX7iyY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.74.201.135 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Home country' is not the same as 'country of birth'. doom gaze   (talk)  19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Long Form Birth Certificate released
See and. Someone should add the image to this article ASAP. Op finish them (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to Wikidemon,Looneymonkey,Ravensfire,DaveDial etc. You were right all along, both in fact and (in retrospect) in approach. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that, while this will certainly convince some of the mainstream voices to jump back off the craziness bandwagon (members of congress, state legislatures, etc.), there will be a strong faction on the right and in the blogosphere that will believe absolute anything other than that Obama is legitimately the president. No amount of evidence will ever be enough for this group of people because it's not a rational process to them, it's emotional. (Ironically, while they'll never accept the mountains of evidence and proof that he was born in Hawaii, they are undeterred by the fact that not one single piece of evidence has ever been produced to support their theory that he wasn't).

It may seem to a rational person that this should settle the matter and that the majority of this article will now be frozen as a sort of historical record of this one peculiarly crazy example of how dangerously unhinged and polarized our political stage is becoming. Unfortunately, based on the last time he released his birth certificate, it is unlikely to produce anything other than a firestorm of new conspiracy theories within the next few weeks (it's photoshopped! the state of Hawaii is in on the conspiracy!). Sadly, editors who waste a lot of time removing and discussing all the unreliable sources and original research that birthers continually try to push into the article probably won't see a big change. The names may change, but the crackpot theories won't. Or, as a recent Onion headline said, "Obama birth deniers demand to see original placenta."

Forgive me for the slightly WP:FORUM-y post, but I wanted to address a couple meta issues in the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, Loony, and we need to be mindful of not allowing this article or talk page to continue as some kind of rallying place for the irrational as it has on the past threatened to become. Good work all around in keeping this to a minimum. Tvoz / talk 15:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact of the mater is this is what was asked for. Everyone knew it had to exist somewhere (if the COLB was real, which it is clearly).  This clearly shows the doctors name, which we know now to be a well-respected doctor in the area which is now deceased (which is why he didn’t come forward earlier), and with his signature (which is simple to compare), I can’t think of any reason this should continue to be an issue to anyone.  As to trump "losing", well that is still a matter of opinion (he did get what he wanted after all, and what I think he would say the American people deserved proof).71.237.228.208 (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard about this driving into work today, along with some of the comments from Obama. I need to find a good source for those, because they show him really getting irritated by this and should make a good addition to the article.  Trump's comment's were, umm, less than gracious.  Not that I'm surprised - he does not take failure (or being made to look like a fool) well.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Trump said "I want to see the birth certificate". This was a success on his part, not a failure as you say.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And...we're off. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292165 Here's] the reaction of WND.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Really William? Trump claimed Obama was not born in Hawaii and had a 'team' of investigators that "can't believe" what they're discovering. The official birth certificate was already released in 2008, the original was released to stop the distractions, or 'circus barkers' from using this issue as a distraction. Success? Perhaps to some who bought his line of paranoia. Dave Dial (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Should the newly released image be placed at or near the top of the article, rather than at the bottom?--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The question on the billboard has been answered. I think that most members of this movement (including Trump) got what they wanted, which was definitive proof. The reaction of WND which I linked above should be included in the article. Also, the long-form birth certificate should be placed under the billboard in the lead to show that the question was answered.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to me the last thing Trump wanted was "definitive proof" and I doubt he will find even this persuasive. Anyway, let's headline the cert and see what the crazies come up with next. Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Loony you're right: Now Orly Taitz is saying she has problems with the release because it says African instead of Negro! Brothejr (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * People like that don't understand that in 1961, African-born people were exotic and seen as very different from ordinary "negroes" ("black" was an insult, and never used in government documents); and African countries regaining their independence were very much in the news. Thus, the use of "African" is not at all surprising to historians, or those of us who work or worked in vital statistics. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see how the reaction of WND is notable. That they finally realized what every major news agency has discovered is something to be ashamed of, not proud.  Basically, they've been saying that Hawaiian officials have been lying for years, that the form Hawaii provides as proof of birth (the same format other states also use) is not acceptable.  That's giving too much weight to the views to a source WP considers unreliable.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you don't believe the reaction of conspiracy theorists to the release of the long-form birth certificate should be included in an article about those conspiracy theorists?--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the reaction to the release of the long-form birth certificate is notable. Indeed, this entire article is based primarily on the reaction to the release of the COLB.  --Weazie (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is not about WND, it is about the conspiracy theories. If there is nothing new to add from the WND article (and it appears there isn't), it doesn't have any relevance here.  By all means, add it at the WND article, though.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone please update the paragraph the starts "Paglia's argument that Obama should release a copy of the full, original 1961 certificate is perhaps the most common argument of people questioning Obama's eligibility; even if Obama were to oblige, the issue might not go away..." I'm not going to make the edit myself, this article is too hot for me.98.217.134.243 (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. There are probably a number of sections to update.  It's too early to declare that certain things are over, or stale.  Nevertheless, using past tense is  a good idea for avoiding future article maintenance, because anytime you say that something "is" as opposed to "was", sooner or later the statement is outdated and has to be changed.  - Wikidemon (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a Birth Certificate, it's a Certification of Live Birth, this entire page is so inaccurate. Berg is not exactly a fringe player, btw. 99.232.154.46 (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved per consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories → Barack Obama eligibility conspiracy theories – All the claims revolve around his eligibility to be president, but not all revolve around his citizenship, specifically Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. This would be a more accurate title. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think an even more accurate title would be "Barack Obama birthplace controversy" since the introduction of the long form certificate would seem to relegate the "theory" part of this issue to the history bin. It was certainly a controversial theory and so it would be appropriate to refer to this matter as a historical controversy. LS66.97.213.202 (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Birthplace" is a perfect word to be included in the title of this article. I like Barack Obama birthplace conspiracy theories. Birthplace neatly sets up the term birther. I am against any title that tries to say this disgraceful collection of theories could be legitimized by calling it a controversy. It never was. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The only question raised about Obama's eligibility was that of his birthplace. There are other eligibility concerns that could have been raised about a presidential candidate or a sitting president but they were not. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two principle questions about Obama's Presidential eligibility: (a) place of birth and (b) is he is in fact a citizen of Indonesia. [redacted] 24.11.186.64 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose. I am against any title that tries to say this disgraceful collection of theories could be legitimized by calling it a controversy. It never was. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Reformatting my responses. See above. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the proposed move is to Barack Obama eligibility conspiracy theories, which still incorporates the sourced 'conspiracy theories' wording. I will support this move, as it seems to cover the other conspiracy theories that go along with the birth place ones(dual citizenship, etc..). Dave Dial (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. Although I like "birthplace conspiracy theories," the proposed move is more accurate.  --Weazie (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose First of all, eligibility for what? The proposed title is remarkably vague.  Also, the nominator's cited example of why this should move is still a citizenship question, thus I believe the current title remains the most accurate. Resolute 21:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose To be honest I dislike the term conspiracy theories, I don't see where the conspiracy is here. If the speculation about him not being a US citizen etc were to be true it wouldn't be so much a conspiracy as a deception. Pi        (Talk to me!  )


 * Oppose since when is there a conspiracy about Obama being an eligible bachelor? 65.93.12.8 (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * NEW OPINION As the OP for the above alternate suggestion "Barack Obama birthplace controversy" I feel the need to clarify one important issue: the phrase "conspiracy theories" suggests more than one person involved in some kind of coverup. There are many who feel ( yes I am looking for citations but this is a talk page so cut me some slack ) that there are several unanswered questions about Obama's past but they do not think this is a conspiracy, simply one man hiding some facts from everyone. No conspiracy. That is another reason why I suggested "controversy". This does however raise the question should this article be only about the birth certificate? What about the other "personal history" items/questions like college records and selective service registration? Orly Taitz, the infamous "queen of the birthers" was asked onto a talk show after the birth certificate was released and instead of talking about the birth certificate (ie: answering the question "Was she wrong?") she launched into these other questions with incredible enthusiasm. These matters are definitely inter-related, should this article cover them all? Maybe we should refocus the article to be "Barack Obama personal history questions" ? LS66.97.213.202 (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, all of the theories involve more than one person working together as officials in Hawaii had stated they had seen the original. Unless you are suggesting that the one person (Obama?) trying to cover up his citizenship also planted a fake original in Hawaii, there would have to have been at the very least one other person. Realistically, the number of people involved would have to have been substantially higher. They are all theories postulating conspiracies regarding Barack Obama's citizenship. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue, and what convinces me, is that "conspiracy theory" is a specific term that does not necessarily mean exactly what the two component words mean. Just as "home run" does not mean that someone is running to their house and "textbook case" does not mean that a book full of text is sitting in a piece of display furniture, "conspiracy theory" does not necessarily mean there is a conspiracy or that it is a theory, not exactly.  Very many sources describe these claims collectively as conspiracy theories, and what they mean seems to relate to "the truth is out there" in an X files sense... that what the mainstream would have you believe is actually a hoax, hiding a deeper nefarious secret.  Something like that.  Anyway, many sources call them conspiracy theories, and as we have discussed many times "controversy" (though also widely sourced) gives them a false legitimacy as a viable issue.  The article is about a bunch of different untrue beliefs about Obama centered on the notion that he is ineligible for the presidency because his claimed credentials or the logic behind why they establish his eligibility are wrong.  We can only choose a single name for this and no name is perfect, but C.T seems the closest to covering the article subject.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Optical Character Recognition
It should be mentioned that the layers in Photoshop that many have taken as "proof" that the long form is a forgery were, or can be, created using OCR. Even Fox News says it's a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.129.43  (talk)  07:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please update Michele Bachmann subsection.
The subsection on Michele Bachmann needs to be updated to include her comments of April 20, 2011 on an interview with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC talk show Good Morning America. This was an "about face" and a significant comment made in support of the legitimacy of the short form CoLB, prior to the release of the long form on April 27. Here is a partial transcript from the [Official ABC video on YouTube]:
 * Stephanopoulos: Well I have the president’s certificate right here. It’s certified, it’s got a certification number. It’s got the registrar of the state signed. It’s got a seal on it. And it says ‘this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.’


 * Bachmann: Well, then that should settle it.


 * Stephanopoulos: So it’s over?


 * Bachmann: That’s what should settle it. I take the President at his word and I think ... again I would have no problem and apparently the president wouldn’t either. Introduce that, we’re done. Move on.


 * Stephanopoulos: Well this has been introduced. So this story is over?


 * Bachmann: Well as long as someone introduces it I guess it’s over.


 * Stephanopoulos: It’s right there.


 * Bachmann: Yeah, there you go. Because that is not the main issue facing the United States right now.

Start watching the video at about 04:00 minutes in. LS66.97.213.202 (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree, but we do need a secondary source.  Alas, as volunteer non-expert encyclopedia editors we're not supposed to look at people's actual statements and write about them, but instead we have to find what third parties report about what they said.  Anybody have a newspaper article or the like reporting on her newer statements declaring the matter settled?  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/stephanopoulos-bachmann-obama-birth-certificate_n_851529.html
 * http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/02/rep-michele-bachmann-tiptoes-around-the-birthers.html
 * http://www.mediaite.com/tv/michele-bachmann-on-the-obama-birth-certificate-story-i-guess-its-over/
 * http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/20/bachmann-obamas-certification-of-live-birth-should-settle-birther-issue/
 * Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic actually begins at 2:28 in the video. A person's statements can certainly be used to demonstrate that they said something. In Michele's case, however, it would be nice to see a secondary source because the two quotes in the article and this new quote all seem to indicate more that she is an example of a republican who doesn't want to talk about the birth certificate for fear both of offending believers and of making herself sound she's one of them. But that's just my opinion.  I would suggest that her entire section be deleted without such a reference indicating what side, if any, of the fence she was trying to stand on. JethroElfman (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What about this video here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY this shows that the certificate put on whitehouse site is totally fake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.59.186.251 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally. Except that it isn't. Those Obama lovers at Fox News have explained that one. We should probably add the claim and the debunking to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More at Nathan Goulding, PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate, National Review Online, April 27, 2011. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

About long form forgery claims
Two my edits were reverted(12). Can you explain me what's wrong with with them? I'm not newbie in Wikipedia, I know what is NPoV. What I want to change: And, once again, I do not advocate any position, I think that "birthright clause" in US Constitution is discriminating and should be removed and I do care about image editing more than about Obama's birthplace. I ever don't have any point of view on this problem, really. I can live without strict beliefs on topics insignificant for me. :-) But what I do know is that document forgery is real thing, in contrast to tin foil hat mind protection. :-) Best wishes, IvanKesson (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Phrase "It took conspiracy theorists only hours to come up with claims" is not neutral towards them. What I see now is that some Internet user noticed something strange in PDF file and placed his suspicions on Youtube . Maybe, he was not interested in this topic before (just like me), I think it's not fair to brand him "conspiracy theorist".
 * 2) I don't think that we should say "Photoshop" every time we speak about image editing. In this particular video, Adobe Illustrator was mentioned. Photoshop is becoming a genericized trademark today, but I think we should avoid genericized trademarks in encyclopedia.
 * 3) I added the "it's legit" answer to forgery claim from source already present in paragraph, why it was said I need additional sources?

Soon after publication by the White House, some Internet users claimed that PDF file of the long form birth certificate is actually a forgery made with image editing software. However, experts reported that such features can appear during scan post-processing (optical character recognition and image enhancement).

Maybe the wording above? -- Avanu (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All of that gives it too much weight, and I've shortened accordingly. The media gives this no credence and little coverage, and we would take the wrong approach to get into the technical ins and outs of a claim that few take seriously.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Escape Orbit and Wikidemon, now it's the way I like it. To Avanu - you mean it's a problem with my English? Well, it's not native, just advanced (I hope :-) ) and mostly technical. Can you tell me exactly what's wrong and how to write it correctly? Best wishes, IvanKesson (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it was just a very minor point. My feeling is that some of the editors were just overly zealous, reverting the whole thing where they could have just fixed the minor issues.  But sometimes that is the easier path. Also, thanks to Wikidemon and Escape for working on that. -- Avanu (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Expert reviews of the new pdf certificate
Hello,

I was wondering if there are any good sources for a review of the new certificate, after two of my comments have been removed, I would like to ask here instead of anyone knowing of any reliable sources on this. The only review I have seen so far is from Fox. My question is how the green background matches up with the form and why there is a page crease in the middle of a window. I think this is a valid question here. Mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether it is a valid question or not is not the point. The point is answers are not to be found, or constructed, or investigated here on Wikipedia.  They have to be sourced from reliable sources, where the research and the discussion occurs and the questions are asked.  Should you find any good sources that do this please bring them to the article.  But if you cannot find any, then that is an indication that Wikipedia shouldn't concern itself with it.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My previous comment was removed by User talk:Escape Orbit. Why? This is a talk page discussing an image used in the article. This is a relevant conversation, please do not delete. USchick (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it because you were inviting other editors to examine a primary source, conduct their own analysis on it, then present their opinions on the results compared to yours. That's all Original Research and discussion that doesn't belong here. The talk page is about improving the article. Asking others to speculate about what they think about an image compared to another will not do this.  No one cares what Wikipedia editors make of the images.  If you have cited material that covers this, and would improve the article, then please do contribute.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, to improve the article, this image File:1961HawaiiCertificateOfLiveBirth.jpg needs to be added because it had a different address for the hospital. USchick (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If that were true, the suggested addition would be synthesis. However, since the statement is patently false (no address for the hospital being shown), the suggested addition is merely absurd. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the small text of box 7a and tell us what it says. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "street address." The line for Mother's mailing address is blank. USchick (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, including synthesis. I'm not going to analyse what's on the certificate, but I believe that Tarc has pointed out your, perhaps understandable, mistake if you read carefully what he says. The certificate layout isn't the clearest, which is why analysis of them is best left to the experts. (That means, no offence intended, no-one here.) -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. USchick, pay attention.  I said 7a, which says "Usual Residence of Mother: City, Town, or Rural Location".  Now, I don't know how many forms you have filled out in your lifetime, but in every one I have filled out, when there's a section such as 7a, 7b. 7c. 7d, 7e, 7f, and 7g, all of that section 7 is related.  So if in 7a it says "...of Mother", then when 7d says "Street Address", we're still taking about information about the mother.  It didn't suddenly jump to hospital data. Tarc (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. USchick, pay attention.  I said 7a...
 * Um...so you did...but that's not what she referenced or why. While the suggested content has problems not the least of which may be WP:OR, it is YOU who appears to be confused on the point she raised. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're incorrect too. The poster is referring to the address of the mother, and believing it is the address for the hospital, and trying to compare it to the address of another mother who gave birth in the same hospital. It's pretty simple, and the whole line of OR and accusations is unhelpful to the article. Dave Dial (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jake, I'm not confused in the slightest, but I am more than willing to bring you upto speed. This person tried add this text ("The hospital address on the long form is listed as 6085 Kalanianaole Highway. A sample birth certificate from the same time period lists the hospital address as 2013 Kakela Drive") to the article.  This is field 7d.  USchick assumed that that field was for the street address of the hospital, and thus created the "Discrepancy" section with the text I quoted above.  So not only was it original research, but was also wrong original research, as I have clearly demonstrated by pointing out that any common sense reading of the form would inform one that 'all of section 7 has to do with information on the mother, and not the hospital.  Are you satisfied now, or do we need to continue? Tarc (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. My bad...and apologies for MY confusion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Unflattened long form
I am disappointed that a copy of the "unflattened" long form is not presented here. It's on the Whitehouse web site. You can't get more bold and offical than that. [ftt] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.43.33 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I'll regret asking this, but what on earth is this about? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the latest birther flat Earth thing. In Adobe Illustrator and other Adobe products, image files are manipulated and saved in a number of different layers that can be edited independently.  Flattening is the act of merging all the layers (or selected layers) into a single layer.  Most likely, the request reflects the new twist to the conspiracy theory by which people claim they have found a way to peel the layers apart from the recently released long form certificate in a way that reveals a hidden image of UFOs or Elvis or something, but that the few experts who actually respond to the birthers anymore say is an artifact of routine image correction processes (as nearly all photocopies, scans, photographs, etc., have some degree of electronic image correction).  Perhaps in the spirit of jumping every time the birthers ask for something, the White House has now posted the raw image files and service records of the scanning machine?  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of which is highly unlikely, of course, and might be simple obfuscation. I haven't seen a claim that anyone has found a way to peel the layers apart from the recently released long form certificate in a way that reveals a hidden image of UFOs or Elvis or something. Of course, this includes the routine labeling of anyone with a smidgen of a concern as a whacko flat-earther who is part of a Vast Birther Conspiracy. (the Vast Birther Conspiracy has offices right down the hallway from the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, thanks, but I think most of us got the hyperbole in the part about Elvis. On the other hand, I don't think anybody claimed the pdf file itself is an official document produced by the State of Hawaii either. So at best, it's a pot/kettle tied score here. (Where are the offices of the Vast Fraudulent-Document-Production Conspiracy?) Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of silly theories, until and unless we properly source that the latest photo-editing forgery speculation is discredited I've removed some discussion so as not to turn it into a he said / she said or "one expert disagreed" kind of thing. That's misleading because it gives false credibility to ever more farfetched claims that most aren't even bothering to follow or refute anymore.  The theory isn't in dispute because one expert says otherwise, it simply has no support.  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Policy on not releasing photocopies
Can we delete the Joshua Wisch statement? Both Fuddy and Corley have made it clear that it is a matter of policy that they don't give out photocopies, not a matter of law. JethroElfman (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Opposed and reverted your delete. Correct or not, Wisch's statements were made and widely reported (and are the subject of considerable discussion in this forum). RS media reportage (from what I can see) has simply chosen not to focus on the seeming contradiction between Mr. Wisch's prior assertions and the release of a "photocopy" several days later. Since WP:SYNTH objections raised preclude simply citing Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18 and 338-13 in juxtaposition without RS sourcing, it must be, at least for now, left to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. .JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reconsidering this further (and as I think I suggested earlier...which got lost somewhere in the warranted release hoopla), CNN's reportage that copies of the original document could always have been obtained via FOIA can and should be incorporated somewhere in this treatment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only, I think, with inclusion of clarifying reportage from other sources to the effect that Freedom of Information Act (United States) applies to organs of the federal government but does not apply to State governments (apparently, CNN got that wrong). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only, I think, with inclusion of clarifying reportage from other sources to the effect that...CNN got that wrong.
 * Certainly germane and, assuming your assertion to be true, most notable as well...but I haven't seen any RS reportage on that point. Have you? All I noted was a veritable avalanche of reportage on CNN's purported debunking of the "birther" story which, AFAICS, revealed nothing new save for the FOIA assertion itself. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We still don't have any sources that the Hawaii official's statement was incorrect. The FOIA speculation was a blind alley, and would not be particularly germane even if it were a possibility.  There was no FOIA, and no indication that Obama ever considered a FOIA, only a few days worth of birthers propounding and scattered mainstream media speculating (incorrectly, the above comments suggest) over the hypothetical possibility that he could have filed a FOIA request but did not.  There's no reliable sourcing that either the (im)possibility of a FOI or speculation over the same was a notable part of the birther phenomenon or course of events.  It seems unlikely that mainstream media will return to these particular issues now that the release of the document renders them doubly moot. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no reliable sourcing that either the (im)possibility of a FOI or speculation over the same was a notable part of the birther phenomenon or course of events.
 * Perhaps so, perhaps not (some research on that might prove otherwise)...but the birther assertion that Obama was intentionally witholding release of his original BC has a long and easily documented RS record...and this assertion of "statuatory prohibition" is not unique to Mr. Wisch's most recent one. I have seen it cited at least once before (and that's just in recent memory, well before Michael Isikoff's most recent reportage).
 * Be that as it may (and returning to the topic of this section), I concur with User:Wtmitchell's recent edit placing Mr. Wisch's comments in a much more appropriate section of the article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re There's no reliable sourcing ..." above, how about http://www.foia.gov/about.html?
 * "What is FOIA?
 * Enacted in 1966, and taking effect on July 5, 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions of them) are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. A FOIA request can be made for any agency record. Before sending a request to a federal agency, you should determine which agency is likely to have the records you are seeking. Each agency’s website will contain information about the type of records that agency maintains. (emphasis added)"


 * So says the FOIA website from the U.S. Department of Justice, anyhow.
 * While looking for the foregoing, I came across this. Apparently Orly Taiz is still on the case as an advocate for Terry Lakin and (though the above-linked item does mention "FOIA"), has issued a request for disclosure under the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) (see http://www.state.hi.us/oip/uipa.html). She argues, "... As such the Public Interest greatly outweighs any privacy concerns Mr. Obama may have." My guess is that she won't get far with that due to restrictions in §338-18, but it should be entertaining. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re There's no reliable sourcing ..." above, how about http://www.foia.gov/about.html?
 * Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your thinking but you appear to be going down the WP:OR road again. WP:SYNTH would be just as prohibitive in challenging CNN's FOIA reportage (assuming it was ever incorporated in this article as I believe it should be) as it is applicable to challenging Mr. Wisch's assertions. Without WP:RS, both still lack the requisite third-party sourcing for notability.
 * My guess is that she won't get far with that due to restrictions in §338-18...
 * My degree from the Google School of Law suggests that a state statute would present little resistance to a Federal appeals court-ordered (and probably court-supervised) litigant acesss to the original BC for forensic examination...but we digress. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re No reliable sourcing ..., I was responding to the assertion above saying, "There's no reliable sourcing that either the (im)possibility of a FOI ...". It appears to me that the source I quoted addresses that more than adequately for discussion here on the talk page and, should an assertion re federal vs. state applicability of FOIA need support in the article, I would argue that it is a reliable secondary source for that.


 * Re My guess is ..., I'm not a lawyer and your degree from the google school is probably worth about as much as the paper it is printed on. I mentioned the Taliz filing which I stumbled across (about which, incidentally, see ) as it appears to be directed towards more or less the same goal as the postulated FOI request being discussed here. I haven't mentioned it in the article, but I think a heads-up here is probably useful as it may be mentioned at some point by more reliable sources than the one where I happened to see it.


 * Re SYNTH, I've attempted without success to get an explicit clarification on SbyJ on the policy page. See Wikipedia Talk:OR. As I said in the discussion at the time, I do see the point. I don't see it touched upon in the WP policy, however, except  perhaps by implication.


 * Actually, I don't think we've digressed very far from the "Policy on not releasing photocopies" topic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)