Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:35, 14 July 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hawaii Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Template:Community article probation

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Please see Talk:Barack Obama for more frequently asked questions Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's birth location discussed? A1: This article is about Barack Obama's early life and career. The conspiracy theories surrounding the location of his birth have very little relevance to that topic. The article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories contains a very good synopsis of the various theories as to his birthplace and citizenship. Any relevant information should be discussed there.

Archives

1, 2, 3

Birth location

The article states that Obama was born in Hawaii. However, the cites for this claim are BarackObama.com and a press release from Obama. Are these considered reliable sources? I thought Misplaced Pages was supposed to avoid first party cites and use independent third party cites. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The copy of Obama's birth certificate IS provided by a third party source--the third party being the Hawaii Department of Health. That it is displayed on Obama's website does not change that.

If you're going to quibble with that transitive argument, then you must understand that the only way to obtain a copy of someone's BC in Hawaii is through direct authorization by the person whose name is on it--barring that person's death, in which case(I believe, but am not 100% sure) the authority falls to his next-of-kin or parent. So the only way you're going to get a true copy of Obama's BC is if Obama presents it to you.

So if you don't agree that the Hawaii DoH, via transitive authority, is providing the BC, then there IS NO WAY of accessing it via an "independent" third party. So we rely on the first party source in the absence of any third party sources. The only alternative is to delegitimize the existence of the BC altogether, which is nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.162.125 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama's own grandmother, brother, and sister all say he was born in Kenya. According to the airlines, his mother was unable to fly out of Kenya because she was so far along and was ofrced to have Obama in Kenya. She then returned to Hawaii after his birth and had a certificate of birth issued. It has been reported that Hawaii did provide certificates of birth in such a manner at that time. It should also be discussed/mentioned that there are numerous legal challenges to his legitimacy as President, petitions with hundreds of thousands of requests for validation of his citizenship, and - after promising to run the most transparent administration ever - Obama refuses to produce any further evidence than the certificate of birth that has been assessed to have been 'phot-shopped'. Instead, Obama has a large legal team that continues to attempt to keep documents requested under the Freedom of Information act sealed and all records regarding his citizenship hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easyt65 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That is all fringe theory nonsense, I'm afraid. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fringe theory nonsense" that President Obama (if he is indeed Constitutionally eligible) could end in all of 5 minutes if he would simply authorize the release of the long form birth certificate. When it is so simple to clear this up, yet he refuses, the theory begins to lend itself less to conspiracy and more towards credibility.

If by "Grandmother", you mean Sarah Obama, his stepgrandmother, you do know that the audio tape on which that is based on has her stating repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii, right? PatGund (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Certificate of Live Birth and Birth Certificate vs. Certification of Live Birth

There are significant differences between a certificate of live birth and a standard birth certificate both in form and function. The former is a short document that only lists parents, birthdate and time, birthplace, and a few other minor details. A birth certificate goes into much more detail. For this reason, certificates of live birth are generally unacceptable when it comes to registering a child for school or sports, for getting a driver's license or passport. The additional detail provides many more facts that can be verified to prove authenticity. That's why a standard birth certificate is being sought and that's why I specifically identified the document in question as I did. Please don't change it unless there's a good reason to do so. A COLB is not a standard birth certificate and is generally not accepted as such. Furthermore, Hawaii would accept registrations of babies not born in Hawaii. That is one possible explanation as to how a certificate of live birth can be issued by Hawaii that seems to suggest birth in Hawaii when it really is not the case. Frotz (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the argument that is often used by the fringe theorists who like to claim Obama was not born in Hawaii. A birth certificate can take many forms - it varies from state to state and from country to country. In this case, the "certificate of live birth" can be regarded as synonymous with a "birth certificate". This is especially true because the term "birth certificate" is used by the vast majority of the reliable sources that have referred to this particular document. Continued attempts to change this established terminology will be viewed as disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Scjessey (or anybody else who knows this), does Hawaii issue both certificates, ie live birth cert. vs plain vanilla birth certificate? TIA --Tom 15:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask them. Incidentally, even the Hawaii Department of Health referred to the document as a birth certificate: source. This really is getting silly, people. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You have their number? Just kidding :). If there is no difference between these two documents, then the image caption as is is correct. If there are two different certificates, then they should be "labelled" as such. --Tom 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a picture of the long-form. Like the short-form one issued to Obama and publicly released months ago, it is titled "Certificate of Live Birth". It really is exactly the same thing as it would be if it was titled "Birth Certificate". There is no difference between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate, these are just different names for the same thing. And as wikipedia's article on birth certificates notes, where a State includes the names of the parents on the short-form, it is as acceptable as the long-form in all the situations noted above (registering for school, getting a driver's license or a passport, etc). I hoped this and all the other conspiracy theories would end once the election was over. Guess not. --The Bruce (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• This issue is now notable for inclusion, multiple reliable sources http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/anti-obama-frin.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/12/obama-birth-cer.html and Patcat88 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No. It is only notable for inclusion if the bullshit allegations turn out to be true. The story is about fringe theorists and their stupid activities, not Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The image in this article is neither a "Certificate of Live Birth" nor a "Birth Certificate," so the above is irrelevant. What is represented in the picture is a "Certification of Live Birth" and it is significantly different than a "Certificate of Live Birth." From the website of the State of Hawaii: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are: * A certified copy of Certificate of Birth; * A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or * A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth. ... In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

Therefore the label under the photo is absolutely incorrect and misleading. Simply by looking at the image of the document you can see the heading on the document itself reads 'Certification of Live Birth.' This cannot be disputed, so I'm correcting the label to accurately reflect what is represented in the image. --Kactas (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All of your original research aside, your point is moot. Different states have different names for what is commonly called a birth certificate (just as a driver's license often actually says "License to operate a motor vehicle") . The fact that Hawaii's birth certificates are called "certification of live birth" across the top is irrelevant. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, in reading the quote, it seems to say that this "Certification" versus "Certificate" point only means that the certification was generated to represent a valid certificate, so yes it is the same as a "certificate of live birth" and therefore a birth certificate. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would read more closely the Hawaiian government website, it becomes clear that it's not a matter of different names for a birth certificate. A "Certificiation of Live Birth" and a "Certficiate of Live Birth" are two distinct documents. A certificate is more legally binding than a certification. From http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl : "This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." To extend your driver's license analogy (though somewhat imperfectly), it like the difference between a learners permit and a driver's licence -- they are related, but of different legal weight.

This is all besides the point of what is clearly visible in bold type when looking at the image -- it is labeled 'CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH' not "certificate." For what it's worth, it also happens to be in the image name. This to me makes the matter rather cut and dry. It cannot be argued that in the image, the document itself is labeled 'CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH.' Why then should not the image label accurately reflect this fact when there is according the a State of Hawaii a substantial, legal distinction? --Kactas (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Both long form (what Hawaii calls "certificate of live birth") and short form (what Hawaii calls "certification of live birth") documents are "birth certificates", see birth certificate. Per above, precisely what these documents are called varies by state. Are they different documents? Yes. Is it wrong or incorrect or misleading to identify this image as a "birth certificate"? No. Anyone who looks at the image who knows the difference can readily see it is a short form document. On the other hand, is identifying this image as anything other than a "birth certificate" (including what it is technically called by the state of Hawaii) misleading? You betcha. It creates the distinct impression that this document is NOT what would generally be called a birth certificate. Since this document is exactly what is generally called a birth certificate we wouldn't want people thinking otherwise, would we? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning the difference is trivial. It would be equivalent to providing an image of Obama's Driver's License and then noting "This is distinct from his 'license to operate a motor vehicle'." If the distinction serves no useful purpose, mentioning it serves no useful purpose, and thus omission is warranted.

The only way to argue otherwise is to prove that there are MAJOR differences between the two forms, and that both serve very different purposes. I see no proof of that. There are allegations that a 'Certification of Live Birth' is not acceptable to parties requesting a "birth certificate" in a great number of cases here--but no proof. If you can find proof, then the distinction should be given some thought. Otherwise mentioning serves no useful purpose, except perhaps to subtly subvert the legitimacy of the provided document through baseless innuendo in order to let fringe theorists get their foot in the article's door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.162.125 (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

From HRS 338-17.8 http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm -- There's a clear distinction here for children covered by this law, and whether a long-form birth certificate (including birth location and delivering doctor) would be available, or merely the 'certification' that has been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.146.199 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Klein March 8, 2009 WorldNetDaily article

Zookeeper29 has repeatedly:

1. 04:27, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Career 1992–1996)

2. 05:06, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Career 1992–1996)

3. 05:18, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (Undid revision 275972218 by Newross (talk))

added an inaccurate, misleading, contentious, unsourced quote:

"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge."

from an extremist and fringe source:

Aaron Klein (March 8, 2008). Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility. Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned. WorldNetDaily.com

Neither Aaron Klein nor WorldNetDaily are WP:Reliable sources, especially for a WP:BLP, as exemplified by the inaccuracies in the quote from the above article:

• Obama did not serve alongside Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago -- their service on its board of directors overlapped for three years from December 1999 to December 2002.
• Obama served on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002; Ayers never served on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation.
• Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002 and served as its founding chairman and president from 1995 to 1999 (not 1991); Ayers was one of three co-authors of Chicago's winning Annenberg Challenge grant proposal; Ayers was not "the founder" of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, was never on its board of directors, and was never the director of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (Ken Rolling was its only executive director).

Zookeeper29 then:

4. 05:23, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Career 1992–1996: Added documentation reference)

deceptively added:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html (Michael Dobbs - February 19, 2008 - Obama's 'Weatherman' connection - Washingtonpost.com)

as the "source" for the inaccurate, misleading and contentious Aaron Klein WorldNetDaily quote they repeatedly added to this article.

Zookeeper29 also:

5. 05:13, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Childhood through high school)

changed the photo caption of Obama's official State of Hawaii certificate of birth from: "Obama's birth certificate" to: "Certificate of Live Birth, which is not a Vault Copy Birth Certificate."

Zookeeper29 also twice:

6. 05:35, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (→Certificate of Live Birth and Birth Certificate vs. Certification of Live Birth: Corrected Scurrilous comment about those who do not believe in Obama's birth country)

7. 06:09, 9 March 2009 Zookeeper29 (Undid revision 275975659 by 68.190.159.119 (talk) Reapplied correction to fight the PC police)

improperly edited talk page comments of another editor with whom they disagreed. Newross (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor has been warned of Obama article probation. Following the warning they have not as of now made any contentious edits other than some soapboxing, and also creating a user page that casts some concern as to their intentions here. Anyway, the article talk page is probably not the best place to discuss user behavior. I would just treat it as any difficult editor on an article probation page - make them aware of article probation, ask and advise them about our policies, and hope they show some willingness to edit constructively and collegially. If not, there are forums for dealing with user behavior. Wikidemon (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in the wake of the Aaron Klein March 8, 2009 WorldNetDaily article have not been confined to Zookeeper29's edits.

The Aaron Klein March 8, 2009 WorldNetDaily quote is a 18:27, 24 February 2009 edit by Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs).

• The Jerusalem21 Misplaced Pages account was created three years ago.
• 59 minutes after creating their Jerusalem21 Misplaced Pages account, Jerusalem21 created the Aaron Klein article.
• For the next 3 years, Jerusalem21’s only edits were to the Aaron Klein article.
• Until February 24, 2009, when Jerusalem21 made three disruptive edits within 28 minutes to Barack Obama.
• 4 minutes after their third disruptive edit to Barack Obama, Jerusalem21 was blocked for 72 hours by an administrator.
• The administrator said Jerusalem21 should be happy they were not blocked indefinitely based on previous complaints about their editing.

1. 15:38, 16 March 2006 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (New user (Talk | contribs | block))
2. 16:37, 16 March 2006 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (New page) Aaron Klein
3. 39 edits by Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) to Aaron Klein
4. 18:16, 24 February 2009 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (added birth certificate)
5. 18:27, 24 February 2009 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (added ayers)
6. 18:44, 24 February 2009 Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (readded eligibility. this is NOT a POV issue)
7. 18:48, 24 February 2009 Wizardman blocked Jerusalem21 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing)
8. 18:49, 24 February 2009 Wizardman (→Blocked: new section)

Newross (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to citizenship conspiracy theories article

I've added a "see also" link to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. That article links to this one; it was also created specifically to keep birther nonsense out of this and other articles. I suggest that, given the disruption that we're seeing on a virtually daily basis (and now from the WorldNetDaily nuts), it would be useful to channel the birthers away from this article. And contra Scjessey's view, it's hardly "unrelated" material. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly object to ChrisO's contentious addition of this article's first section template:
  • a prominent See also: template link at the beginning of the Childhood through high school section to the WP:FRINGE article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories they created on December 9, 2008 as an outgrowth of the Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Obama born in Kenya discussion.
• The contentious addition of a prominent See also: section template link to a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory article is undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV policy, which is especially egregious in a WP:BLP.
• It may be appropriate for a WP:FRINGE conspiracy article like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories to have a Main article section template link to this WP:BLP article at the beginning of its Early life of Barack Obama section.
  That does not make it appropriate to add a prominent See also: section template link to a WP:FRINGE conspiracy article like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories at the beginning of this WP:BLP article's Childhood through high school section.
  It is not appropriate.
• The burden of gaining consensus for any contentious addition to a WP:BLP rests on the editor adding the contentious material.
  If there is no consensus, the contentious material must stay out of a WP:BLP.
• ChrisO says the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article they created was "created specifically to keep birther nonsense out of this and other articles."
  How does adding to this article a prominent See also: section template link to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories "keep birther nonsense out of this article"?

Newross (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not censor the truth by attempting to marginalize those who are exposing it. Terms like "birther nonsense" and "conspiracy theory" are used only by those who do not have evidence to back up what they wish were true. Even the State of Hawaii does not accept the Certification of Live Birth that is displayed in the article with the erroneous label of "Birth Certificate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.20.170 (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's a fringe theory, and -- while not complete "nonsense" -- it's hardly credible, and barely notable. I think that even a link on this page overweights the issue, given its lack of credible coverage in legitimate sources. Unitanode 02:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"by those who do not have evidence to back up what they wish were true. Even the State of Hawaii does not accept the Certification of Live Birth that is displayed in the article with the erroneous label of "'Birth Certificate.'" Oh, the irony. Hawaii doesn't accept its own COLB? Please. Weazie (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection proposed

Editors may wish to be aware that the Arbitration Committee is proposing that all Obama-related articles be indefinitely semi-protected (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Proposed decision#Articles semi-protected). In view of the repeated POV-pushing that is occuring on this article from new users and IPs, I propose that it should be semi-protected for a period of at least one month - i.e. until the current Obama arbitration case has been closed - and then, if the proposal passes, it can be lengthened to an indefinite semi-protection. It will at least prevent the kind of disruption that we've seen today. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Did he write a thesis paper?

If so is it public record?

I read a rant by a nut who claimed he didn't go to college and his "proof" was that Obama didn't have a thesis paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.0.253 (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Birth certificate" caption

The caption that says "Birth certificate" should be changed to "Obama's short form birth certificate was printed in 2007." Grundle2600 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WND attack article.

It seems that WND's article over the additions of WP:OR over the birth certificate controversy has caused a variety of accounts to come out of the wood work to add the material to the article. Should we do something to protect this article until this blows over? I ask this after the last time WND did a specific article on the Barack Obama article and various editors rushed in to try and add a controversy/criticism section.Brothejr (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea. WND has a history of creating "news" by changing Misplaced Pages entries and then writing about them. The fact that WND jumped on it this quickly seems to suggest their involvement. PatGund (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WND had nothing to do with this. I started the edit because I enjoy spreading the truth about Obama and then sent WND an email informing them about the article. Keep up the suppression of truth you left-wing ObamaManiac Wiki-geeks, I'm sure Obama will eventually thank you for your efforts by inviting you to the white house or something cool like that. There will be no confirmation of his eligibility until the birth certificate has been seen by the public. There is no way getting around it. A computer generated certification of live birth with no specific and verifiable details such as the doctor's name and hospital's name will NEVER be sufficient. BenSpecter (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This garbage of yours was debunked at least 6 months ago. You guys are so far behind the curve, you can't even see the curve. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Baseball Bugs. You see Bugs, I can repeat what you just said verbatim and it would have exactly the same effect on you as it had on me - which is nothing. You gotta at least state something that means something. Watch this Bugs... This garbage of yours was debunked at least six months ago. You guys are so far behind the curve, you can't even see the curve. See that? Completely meaningless. Empty statements like that mean nothing. Now to make a meaningful response to your meaningless statement, Bugs, I'll say this: You cannot debunk the fact that he has never released his original birth certificate which is the ONLY document that can confirm his eligibility. You cannot debunk that because it is what it is, as El Rushbo says. A computer generated print-out (COLB) is a confirmation that a birth certificate exists, and so far that's all we've seen, but it is not the original birth certificate and without that we will never know if he is constitutionally eligible. BenSpecter (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/01/obamas-birth-certificate-final-chapter-time-we-mea/

Yawn. Weazie (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth place inclusion

Let's review the facts, and talk about this in a civilized manner. I am bringing forth nothing but facts, and raising the question for discussion as to the pertinence of this information.

Note: If you love or hate Barack Obama, I don't care, that's not the point of this, do not come on here and say stuff about "lefties", "conspiracy theorists", "Obama lovers", or "wackos", because we will delete your ranting. Take stuff like that to | Yahoo Answers or something.

• Misplaced Pages needs to rely on information that can be verified to be factual.
• Misplaced Pages cannot write an article on every single event in all of humanity, and only can discuss ] topics or people.
• Just because 400 people belong to the flat earth society does not mean that every reference to the earth needs to mention it may be flat.

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

It is in fact possible to obtain a Hawaiian Birth Certificate while being born outside the United States.

A Hawaiian Long Form Birth Certificate (LFBC) can be of different types, including:

Original Birth Certificate - Only given at a hospital when a baby is born at that hospital.

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

Late Registration Birth Certificate - Given up to one year after birth, in event birth took place outside a hospital. Can be given based on testimony of the parents, who supply the required information.

A Short Form Birth Certificate (SFBC) displays most of the information shown on the LFBC.

A SFBC does not reveal what type of Long Form Birth Certificate a person has.

Therefore, it is impossible to verify what type of Long Form Birth Certificate (LFBC) Barack Obama II has, without seeing the actual LFBC.

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

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

A SFBC is insufficient to remove "beyond a reasonable doubt" any charges that Barack Obama II was born outside the United States.

An original LFBC (from the hospital Barack Obama II claims to have been born at) would be more than sufficient to prove Birth in the State of Hawaii. Question solved, other than unlikely theories about how space aliens possessed the doctor and made him sign a false Birth Certificate when Barack Obama II was really born on Mars. We can go ahead and leave the place of Birth listed only as Hawaii.

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

The fact that Barack Obama has not done this raises questions in some people's minds as to "why not just release it if there's nothing to hide?"

An amended or late registration Birth Certificate, even if it displayed Hawaii as the place of birth, could leave the question up for debate, due to the following reasons:

Amended or Late Registration Birth Certificates can be obtained based on the testimony of the parents.

There is in fact motive for Barack Obama II's parents to falsify the place of birth.

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

If Barack Obama II was born in the United States, he would automatically be a citizen.

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

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

Done, now let's discuss this in a civilized manner. --Barwick (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is nothing to discuss. This has been hashed, rehashed, and rerehashed. Consensus has long been established against the birther conspiracies being included here. Unitanode 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so Misplaced Pages is all about telling the truth by researching facts. I spend an hour and a half concisely writing them so we can discuss them, and you come back with "this has been hashed, rehashed, blah, blah..." and go on about Consensus. I just showed via FACTS how this truly is a Notable event to mention, how it is wholly a legitimate concern via FACTS, and how it could be simply resolved via FACTS. Why don't we discuss these FACTS instead of saying "eeeeeverybody knows that ______" because the Consensus that you say is there obviously has a large amount of people who disagree with that supposed Consensus. Maybe that Consensus isn't there? --Barwick (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

articles to watch

Could volunteers please watchlist The Queen's Medical Center and Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children, as some of this conspiracy theory crap is spilling in. Additionally, the main articles clearly list one hospital as the birthplace, where editors have been trying to place doubt regarding which hospital in these smaller, less watched articles. Your help is appreciated. -Andrew c  19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yuck, going to be one of those days. Thank you, Andrew, for highlighting the additional problems. I'll help out. Otumba (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will watchlist those too. I recommend checking the contributions of the editors responsible to see if they're hitting any other articles. Sadly it's good evidence that WND's readership are just as nutty as their writers (no surprise though, I suppose). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• Politics and government work group articles needing infoboxes
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class Hawaii articles
• Mid-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• C-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• C-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Illinois articles