Talk:Birth certificate

message: Does anyone know how to go about changing a legal parent on a birth certificate who is not the biological father?
Dawn
:You would be better off asking Wikipedia:Reference_desk than in this article's talk page. Be sure to specify the country to which your question applies. --CIreland 12:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to change a birth certificate

message: Removed "Getting official copies of such records is a cumbersome and  time-consuming process, although it doesn't usually take a person to physically travel to the birthplace." This is not only opinion but entirely false, because a birth certificate can be ordered in minutes on vitalchek.com.
Removed segment on statutory rape/California laws. These have little to do with birth certificates and should be on the Statutory rape page or perhaps a new page such as Statutory rape laws in California.
Removed segment on Condolezza Rice. This is very irrelevant to the article and should be in the Condolezza Rice article, not here.
Removed many links; we do not need six examples of what a birth certificate should look like, particularly considering that there are already three images in the article itself. In addition, we don't need to post links on how to order birth certificates; this is explained in the article.
72.185.216.247 12:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of revisions 12:03, 13 October 2007 

message: It says 'Births must be registered within 42 days". Okay, what happens if it's not? Can someone actually live without an official birth certificate if they were sucessfully hidden? Kind of a bit lacking on the answer to this, really... Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the penalty, then? 

message: It says that if the parents are not married then both must go to the register office or the father provide some statement, what about the circumstance where the father dies before the child is born, is the name of the father allowed to go on the certificate or must it still be put down as "Father Unknown" I believe such a case happened during the Falklands conflict in 1982
Stickings90 23 January 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickings90 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The case where the father is deceased in the UK 

message: for the following reasons:
It hasn't been determined if the document in the image actually is what the file name claims it to be, i.e., its provenance or accuracy has not been verified.  The matter of making the determination is in process.  Until it's verified it shouldn't be in the article.  Supposedly Lucas is sending in new photos of his documents through OTRS , but they have not yet been received. Even then, the article deals only with American and British birth certificates so far.  Additional text regarding other countries' birth certificates, citing reliable sources, would be needed to warrant inclusion of this image.
Luck you. --72.76.99.139 (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to agree that the Soviet image should not be in the article.  But this has sparked controversy, so I will not remove it myself. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image should '''not''' be in article 

message: The image of the Soviet birth certificate has been moved into a small section regarding Russian birth certificates. This was done for the sake of ending this ridiculous edit war. I personally have no knowledge of Russian birth registration or certificates thereof, and encourage someone who knows something about it to add information to that section. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you know nothing about a subject is no reason to move one of the few free images of a birth certificate to a less prominent part of the article. I have moved it back. Black Kite 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image was moved to that section because it simply did not belong at the top. It does not clearly illustrate a birth certificate as it is written in a language that most readers of the English language Wikipedia will not understand. I moved it to a section on Russian birth certificates with the hopes that someone with knowledge in that area will expand on it. Since you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, I encourage you to contribute. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved image 

message: Black Kite seems to be under the impression that most birth certificates include some or all of the following information:
*Birth name
*Date and time of birth
*Sex of the child
*Place and/or location of birth
*Names of the parents of the child
*Occupations of parents of the child
*Birth weight and length
*Name of informant registering the birth
*Date of registration of birth
*A birth registration number or file number
While some certificates do, this is not by any means the "usual" or "typical" content of the birth certificate, particularly those issued in the present time. As the article explains, the "long form" birth certificate usually includes the above information, but "short forms", which are far more common these days, do not. This is a superfluous amount of information for the opening paragraph of the article. Other sections of the article go into further detail on the actual particulars included on the birth certificate, but these can vary from state-to-state and country-to-country. Also, like mentioned above, most birth certificates issued today are "short forms" and do not include all of this information. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree with BK, "some or all" indicates the information that could be there.  R. Baley (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of birth certificate 

message: As is usual on Wikipedia, the details given about "UK" birth certification actually apply only to England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate arrangements. NRPanikker (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the system used in Scotland and Northern Island almost identical to the system used in England and Wales? The certificates certainly look the same, and are maintained in "registers", which is indeed a British system. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "UK" certificates 

message: I've removed this:
:The birth certificate itself is not proof of a person's identity, but only a record stating that a birth occurred at the time, date, and place stated on the certificate. To prove one's identity, a person may need a photo ID, generally issued to an adult.
:: You should put it back, perhaps with the qualifier "In the United States". A Birth Certificate is a proof of the facts of birth, not an assertion that the person holding the birth certificate is who they say they are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdavids (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: jnestorius(talk) 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity document and other uses 

message: how do you expect to get a id when you need a birth certificate and you need a id to get a birth certificate. it's hard for me they would'nt except my school records saying that they don't take copy transscripts that's not fair.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.68.126 (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 74.254.68.126 appears to be in the USA. Parents are normally allowed to obtain children's birth certificates. This is probably the most common scenario; when the child is old enough to drive, the parents obtain a birth certificate, the child brings it to the department of motor vehicles, and obtains a driver's license. Also, the rules for obtaining the birth certificate may be somewhat different depending on if you are going in person or getting it by mail. Finally, certifcates may be on file in more than one place: the state, the county, and/or the town. Those locations might have different access requirements. Knowing the state of birth might allow a more precise answer. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  why 

message: Anybody else think the issue regarding Obama's short form/long form birth certificate could use some addressing here?  I certainly don't want to plant an WIKIPEDIA::UNDUE seed, and have an article about birth certificates decay into vitriolic rants and edit wars about how BHO is or is not a citizen/president/human being.  I just wonder if it would be reasonable and appropriate to have a well-cited sentence on whether the "virtually all circumstances" for which an SFBC is acceptable includes proving citizenship for a presidential candidate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.227.130 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of any instance where the Congress or any court has ruled on whether an individual was or was not eligible to hold the office of president on the basis of citizenship, nationality, or place of birth. How could we write an article on something that has never been decided? --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning the Obama situation would be inappropriate for this article. Please keep politics out of an informational article on birth certificates. If you'd like to make a separate article for the "Obama birth certificate issue", please go ahead. 72.187.16.5 (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama? 

message: In certain circumstances a birth certificate will be issued at the federal level via the US Department of State.  The certificate is known as a Consular Report of Birth (FS-240). http://travel.state.gov/law/info/overseas/overseas_703.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.217.9 (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  CRBA is NOT a federal birth certificate. It is a CRBA. Totally different.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.130.147 (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Birth Certificates Issued by Federal Government 

message: im trying to get some info on what is legal i suspect someone in family has entered a childs stepfather on her birth cert as her father he was involved as they both signed it i know hes not her father is this illegal and they split up can he claim the child  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.42.241 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not offer legal advice. Please consult an appropriate legal professional. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  birth certificates  

message: It is incorrect to say that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides jus soli citizenship.  The 14th Amendment requires more than birth in the United States.  It requires that the person be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  There are many circumstances under which a person may be born in the United States but not be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  If not, the amendment would be the same without the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  The words are there for a purpose.
The 1866 Congressional debates confirm that the two citizenship clauses -- the one in the 14th Amendment, and the one in the 1866 Civil Rights Act -- were intended to have the same meaning and effect. During those debates, the primary framers of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that "jurisdiction", as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole and complete U.S. jurisdiction, i.e., not subject to any foreign power: 
Sen. Lyman Trumbull: The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Jacob Howard: [I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.254.147.8 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interpretation of U.S. constitutional law by Wikipedia editors is of no value. Interpretation must come from reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And when reliable sources conflict in the matter, the controversy should be referred to in the article instead of stating one side that you share your opinion with.  The statement should be removed and replaced with a reference to the current controversy.  Obviously I do not share you opinion Jc3c5h but I'm not replacing it with mine, I'm simply removing it so the controversy can be referenced.  Interpretation of U.S. Constitutional law by lawyers has no value either.  From a historical perspective, the original intent of the authors of such clauses and amendments should be found to represent the original meaning.  Not politicians.   Dukemeiser (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: The trouble with writing "Interpretation of U.S. Constitutional law by lawyers has no value either." is that while the final interpreter of U.S. constitutional law is the SCOTUS, their writing has to be "interpreted" by appellate judges, district judges, state judges, professors of constitutional law, lawyers and their clients. Indeed, sometimes there is no single majority SCOTUS interpretation but a plurality of concurring judgments yielding a result in the case. There are in fact constitutional principles that are accepted by almost all respected jurists. But we are seeing as I write this in October 2020 actual and potential SCOTUS jurists may vocally disagree, yielding uncertainty for the future and encouraging maverick federal judges to ignore or bypass what most jurists would consider (for now) to be settled law. The cases of Hoda Muthana, Tomoya Kawakita and Yaser Esam Hamdi (The Muthana and Hamdi cases have not reached the Supreme Court; Kawakita and Hamdi had their citizenships revoked by consent (there was no $2,350 fee then). For the rest: there are uncountable cases of doubtful citizenship, mostly where the infant was or might have been born abroad and either documentation of birth (perhaps by a border-area midwife) is doubted or where birth is abroad (and therefore there is a rebuttable presumption of alieage) facts relating to biological parentage or prior parental presence in the USA are unproven or unprovable. (In the 2017 judgment Sessions v. Morales-Santana RBG changed the law as to nonmarital children, but not retroactively (most SCOTUS constitutional changes of citizenship law have been retroactive, causing tax issues for some.) Andygx (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jus Soli and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution 

message: The lead says that a birth certificate is a vital record and then that it is prima facie evidence.   In fact record evidence is conclusive, not prima facie.  An announcement in a newspaper is prima facie.  I will remove this last sentence.  TFD (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree that a birth certificate is more than just prima facie evidence. So I would agree with a change to the lead. But to better understand what the lead ought to say, could you explain what you mean by "in fact record evidence is conclusive"? It would seem to me that a birth certificate could be false, and strong enough testimony by witnesses could prove that a particular birth certificate is false. And of course, a certified copy of a birth certificate could be a forgery. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The term used is "conclusive proof", although even it may be impeached.  If a birth certificate is false, or any record, such as a court judgment or a deed, is a fraud or was obtained by fraud, it is challenged in law by nul tiel record (no record exists).  In Mills v. Duryee (USSC 1813), for example, the Court explained the difference between "conclusive proof" and "prima facie evidence", in this case deciding that records of any state were conclusive proof in any other state, rather than merely prima facie evidence.  If a person's birth had never been registered, they could provide to the Registrar prima facie evidence of birth, such as newspaper announcements and affidavits, and the Registrar would then issue a birth certificate.  TFD (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent revision of the CDC's Model Vital Statistics Act (PDF), meant to be a template for vital-records laws in all US jurisdictions, says on page 12: "A certified copy of a vital record or any part thereof, issued in accordance with subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, provided that the evidentiary value of a certificate or record filed more than one year after the event, or a record which has been amended, or a certificate of foreign birth, shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence." I think the issue with the lead is resolved, but I'm just documenting this here in case of future debates about the evidentiary status of birth certificates. Shane Landrum (cliotropic) 03:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead

message: The first edit to include a citation in this article does not follow any satisfactory format. So what format should the article follow? Jc3s5h (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has expressed any preference, I have edited the article to follow the citation format  of the Chicago Manual of Style. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Noticed and appreciated. Mystylplx (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation format

message: "The documentation of births is a practice widely held throughout human civilization, especially in China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and Persia. The original purpose of vital statistics was for tax purposes and for the determination of available military manpower. Births were initially registered with churches, who maintained registers of births."
The word initially implies that when the practice of birth documentation started, births were registered with churches. Obviously, that's not possible if the practice really does go back to Ancient Egypt, some centuries before Christ. 2.25.140.81 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense 

message: I think that something should be included in respect of the Birth Certificate conspiracy theories (especially the Redemption Movement) that are going around the internet at the moment. I think Wikipedia contributors could do a good job at debunking that. --Marianian(talk) 10:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article aims to cover birth certificates throughout the world. So how big is this Redemption Movement, and how many people view birth certificates in this strange way, compared to the number of people who view birth certificates in a more conventional way? The content guideline "Fringe theories" states "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea". My first inclination is to say this topic is too minor to receive attention outside its own article. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth certificate and conspiracy theories 

message: This section uses poor English, state things that are not facts, and even contradicts itself. Furthermore, it has no source cited. How is this possible? When I had an account, hours upon hours of my work was automatically deleted for having no webpage link for a source(thought there is no link to my degree anywhere online so...). A revamp should be in order. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.84.89 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth certificates in cases of adoptions-Revamp 

message: After doing my own due diligence by calling the Vital Records of three States of the United States, the Bank Note Specialist in each of these respective offices told me that Birth Certificates are Bank Notes.  They told me that each birth certificate has a red or black number and/or a bar code in the lower corner on the front or back that makes every Birth Certificate a bank note and that by removing this number it would no longer be a bank note.
One man told me that a part of the Birth Certificate specification is that it is printed on bank note paper and has this Bank Note ID in the corner.
Please add the type of paper and the Bank Note ID as part of the specification for a Birth Certificate.  To verify this, call up any Vital office and ask to speak to the Bank Note Specialist.   This is "common" knowledge within these offices.
It appears that the true purpose of a Birth Certificate is that governments use our physical bodies as financial securities.  This places our being-ness into commerce which would also explain why legal systems world-wide apply Commercial Code upon humans even when no commerce is taking place.
68.79.88.155 (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the bravest of reliable sources do not appear to prove that governments use our physical bodies as financial securities. It is only valid that banknotes and birth certificates may come from the same printing firm, but the only relationship in this case, as with most identity documents, is to reduce forgery and identity theft: the latter is a serious problem at the moment. --Marianian(talk) 16:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but a birth certificate is not a "bank note," and birth certificates are not printed on "bank note paper." No, governments do not use people's bodies as financial securities. That's gibberish that's been passed around the internet for years. Famspear (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is partly the place for rationalizations: we have a NPOV policy. --Marianian(talk) 19:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Certificate as Bank Note 

message: My grandfather was born here, how can a have a cooy of his birth certificate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldealba6511 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to guess from the way you write that "here" means the US. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a web page explaining how to obtain US birth certificates. The procedures, and who is allowed to obtain a certificate, vary from state to state. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting information on obtaining birth certificate

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Birth certificate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080801134846/http://www.gro.gov.uk:80/gro/content/aboutus/index.asp to http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/aboutus/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Birth certificate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611182141/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Birth certificate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411110141/http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Planning_eval/Vital_Statistics/VR_HBK_2006_Rev.pdf to http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Planning_eval/Vital_Statistics/VR_HBK_2006_Rev.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801134846/http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/aboutus/index.asp to http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/aboutus/index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706095209/http://www.unicef.at/fileadmin/medien/pdf/birth_registration_and_armed_conflict.pdf to http://www.unicef.at/fileadmin/medien/pdf/birth_registration_and_armed_conflict.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100912145953/http://www.refintl.org/policy/in-depth-report/futures-denied-statelessness-among-infants-children-and-youth to http://www.refintl.org/policy/in-depth-report/futures-denied-statelessness-among-infants-children-and-youth
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is Birth certificate same as Manifest (transportation)
2.91.213.78 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth certificate as a manifest 

message: No need for a separate article; most of this content can usefully be included in the general article, while the full list of fields is unnecessary detail. PamD 08:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that's OK for now. If editors keep adding individual countries, eventually we would need to split this article up. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[New Zealand Birth Certificate]] 

message: "Both versions of a certificate can be used in the verification of identity by acting as a support to other information or documentation provided. Where proof of parentage is required only a full certificate will be accepted.[36]" is no longer true.Now only the full form can be used: [36] links to "Original birth certificate (UK birth certificate issued within 12 months of the date of birth in full form including those issued by UK authorities overseas such as Embassies High Commissions and HM Forces)" 194.207.86.26 (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short form no longer accepted. 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Birth certificate. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Application of "Biographies of living persons" policy to this article

message: 1) In modern politics, the issue of changing gender on birth certificates as a means to transition legally has been coming up more frequently. There is uneven legal support for this across the world.
2) The article does not appear to discuss changing a birth certificate for any reason, spread across the lead, the history section, and the individual country sections. I think this may be an interesting topic. I assume there would be multiple perspective on what it means to change such a document.
2001:56A:711D:4500:FD63:B08C:FEEB:4835 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen a birth certificate, or gov ID, that includes gender, only sex (male or female).  I know some places allow changing the sex on your paperwork, but that seems only to confuse the issue of sex vs gender. 166.94.14.168 (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be a section discussing alterations to birth certificates?