Talk:Barack Obama

Random question about church

If Obama left the United Church of Christ, which does he attend now in Washington DC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.27 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved this here from above, where it seemed to be randomly inserted into another discussion. In answer, why does it matter? Are you looking to carpool with him? Dayewalker (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you both are assuming good faith. As one can imagine, finding a church after moving across the country can be a challenging thing even for people who aren't the leader of the free world and whose handlers have to case the joint and bring an entourage of Secret Service everywhere they go. Presidential motorcades often tie up traffic, which could inhibit the movement of other D.C. residents on their way to church. These are among the reasons that most presidents don't attend church regularly while in office. You might know that throughout history, world leaders and wealthy people often had chapels inside their private homes; presidents have often had religious leaders counsel them from time to time at the White House.

It was important to the Obamas to attend a church this past Easter Sunday, and the church they chose was St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square (Washington, D.C.), just across from the White House. From that church's web site, "St. John's first service was held in October 1816. From that time to the present, every person who has held the office of President of the United States has attended a regular or occasional service at St. John's. Pew 54 is the President's Pew, and is reserved for the chief executive's use when in attendance... The bell in St. John's steeple weighs nearly 1,000 pounds. It was cast by Paul Revere's son, Joseph, at his Boston foundry in August 1822 and installed at St. John's on November 30, 1822. President James Monroe authorized a $100 contribution of public funds toward the purchase of this church bell." Can you imagine the trouble a modern president would get into if he authorized a contribution of public (tax) funds for his church?!

The Obama and Biden families also attended St. John's for a worship service on Inauguration Day. Abrazame (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

He will now be attending a service at Camp David [[4]]. Attending a chuch and membership in a church should not be confused. Any addition to the article that reflect a membership should be added only with impeccable sources and reporting.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC

That's a wonderful link ([5]), from Time magazine, for anybody who wants to read a much more thorough explanation, and it enumerates the spectrum and continuum of Obama's religious counsel and/or churchgoing since arriving in D.C. Ultimately, it seems that Obama's church is the same as George W. Bush's church! (Though it sounds like Bush only went there at Christmas.) So, while the president takes counsel from several denominations, Obama's current pastor is Southern Baptist. Abrazame (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article to which I linked says that it is unlikely that he will receive any type of pastoral care from the man. Until Obama formerly joins a church, he is nothing but what the article says already. Any changes must be well source if you want to change his denomiantional status, "wonderful links" not withstanding.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The article to which you linked spells out several men and one woman who are among those from whom Obama has been receiving pastoral care since he has arrived in D.C. What one is likely to take away from your suggestion is that he has no such relationship(s), which is patently false.

The fifth reference in the Wiki bio (one of two addressing his former affiliation with the UCC) points out that George W. Bush (once held up as a paragon of piety in part due to his liaisons between his father and the born-again community during the 1988 and 1992 campaigns) "has only infrequently attended services in Washington". Indeed, the sentence in your own link that you cite as proof that Obama will not receive "pastoral care" is one which points out that the pastor at the church Bush "infrequently" attended had "very little" contact with Bush outside those sporadic worship serices. His statement about Bush does not preclude the possibility that a different president might have more meaningful contact.

Most relevantly, the Time article spells out the names of several other religious leaders from whom Obama IS receiving personal pastoral care, including Otis Moss Jr. (African American Baptist and affiliate of MLK), Joel Hunter (white Evangelical) and Vashti McKenzie (African Methodist Episcopal), as well as two who did have interaction with Bush, T.D. Jakes and Kirbyjon Caldwell.

It also points out that any public church Obama would attend would be at great expense to the taxpayer. It would also be a distraction for the regular congregation and likely prevent some of them from getting in, given the additional tourists and other sightseers who would be stopping by. The article noted that while this has been a problem for a century at least, Obama and the other parishioners have had the additional nuisance of having attendees snapping cellphone pictures as they filed past him to receive communion—hardly the atmosphere one expects during such a holy rite.

The bio ref says of Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history who wrote God in the White House: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush, "there is no obvious choice for Obama as he searches for a congregation. And while he said Americans generally like to know that their president goes to church on Sunday, they tend not to be concerned about the particular denomination. He hopes that same deference will be extended to the Obamas' choice."

I am elucidating these referenced facts neither to be chatty, to be pious, nor to push for a change to his denominational status in the article. My point is to applaud your ref as a notable and reliable source which provides an answer for the questioner not only for their own sake but for all who would arrive here with an interest in insinuating that Obama has no religious affiliation in the aftermath of his departure from his former church, and/or that he has not sought and does not have what you term as "pastoral care". Again, that is the impression you leave with your most recent comment. Arrogant atheists might find this discussion ridiculous; bigoted zealots of various stripes might dismiss any religious affiliation or degree of pastoral/congregational interaction but their own. But the point of Wikipedia talk pages is not to surreptitiously or inadvertently plant or mischaracterize references that wouldn't or don't make it into the article yet still have the effect of misleading the talk page reader or erroneously mitigating issues (or their absence) from the formal article; it is to discuss the presentation of relevant facts in appropriate context with appropriate weight. Many editors occasionally make the additional effort of answering presumably innocent questions even when it doesn't rise to the level of article content, if for no other reason than to prevent the discussion from turning toward a "they must not want to tell the truth about X" direction. Whether or not editors make this effort, there is the potential for talk pages to become a series of allegations and suspicions, with or without links, and any number of approaches to addressing/dismissing/perpetuating the aspersions. This pattern is particularly in evidence at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama.

I'm sure it was merely a Freudian slip that you write "until Obama formerly joins a church, he is nothing but what the article says already," but even given that, I ponder your expression "nothing but (a Christian and former member of the UCC)". Quite apart from my philosophical and spiritual reaction, the degree to which any president's religious counsel is of interest to those reading his biography, his spiritual and religious self is more than "nothing but" eight words in an infobox—seven of which are in service of mentioning what he has denounced (clearly a weight imbalance)—whether we were ever to see fit to textually address his "pastoral care" in the bio or not. As such, I propose adding the Time link to the "Christian" ref in the infobox. If what he was deserves links to two full articles and a video, then what he is deserves more than one link to a single word. I will refrain from adding the ref for a couple of days to allow for responses here. Abrazame (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversies Section

This issue is dealt with in the FAQ section as follows:

Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?

A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article,

I have noted however, that a separate "Controversies" section can be found in the articles on Fidel Castro, and Nicolas Sarkozy, to name just two.

Why isn't a uniform policy followed for all articles?Balavent (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the editors there have not come to the same conclusions the editors here have come to,and also because they are two different articles.What works at one article doesn't mean it will automatically work at others, there's a big chance it will but it doesn't mean it has to.The editors over at Bush article also had a criticism section included in the article before, but after seeing what we had done over here, and our reasoning behind it( controversies sections becomes coathangar and is bad writing)they decided to do it the same way we did and include the criticism in the article it self in the right location, and if it still merited inclusion.So the solution to your answer is to bring this up on those pages that you want changed and give them the decision we came to as a fix to the problem.Durga Dido (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat inexperienced with edits and whatnot, and I hope this is the right place to mention this, but it looks to me like the guidelines on Controversies sections that the FAQ above refers to really only discourages Controversies pages, which to me makes sense. I feel that it would would be awkward to roll controversies into the main sections of the article and that they're much better addressed in a separate section. Just my two cents. JeanJPoirier (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A uniform policy was followed for all 2008 U.S. presidential candidates, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive1#Status of "controversies" pages. The Obama policy is an outgrowth of that. If McCain had won, the same policy would be in effect. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. However, this is the second time on this page that I've read that a "Criticisms/Controversies" section constitutes "Bad Writing". Why? It is not self-evident, and clearly this is not the consensus of Wiki editors at large. While I might accept the legitimacy of the view that criticisms/controversies should be placed within the body of the article, where are they? If the editing on this article had been objective, they would be there, regardless of the editors' feelings about Obama. One example; the fact that Obama ran in the general election outside the public financing system was mentioned. That doing so involved his breaking a pledge to take part in said system was not.

It might be hyperbole to say that the article reads like a love letter to Obama, but not by much. Regardless of the way one feels about Obama, he has had his share of both criticisms and controversy, and this is not reflected in the article. With respect to all involved, I cannot help but feel that control of this article has been seized by Obama fans who cannot abide the idea of him being criticized. If a separate C/C section existed, SOMETHING would have to be put in it. So, the answer is not to have such a section.

By the way, Wasted Time R, It's nice to run into you again. As I believe I indicated, I found your Sotomayor edit to be a good solution to the Cardozo question. I hope that what you said about McCain is true, but the fact you mentioned it seemed a bit defensive. As if you felt that you had to justify the lack of a C/C section in the Obama article. Balavent (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Balavent, might I suggest that instead of attacking this as a general problem, you make specific suggestions for things you think should be included (such as the public financing issue). Also note though that this article is written in summary style and much of the content is farmed out to sub-articles like Presidency of Barack Obama. Some of those articles may have the material you have in mind, which may or may have not made it into this article for whatever reason. That's something that can obviously be discussed, but be specific in your suggestions, and also maybe search the archives for previous threads about various content issues. Consensus on those kind of issues can change, but it's worth it to review what the previous consensus was as well. This talk page has a long history so a lot of things have been discussed before, though again that does not remotely preclude bringing them up again. If you want to propose the addition of specific content, you might want to start a new section for it below. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please do not criticize the editors of this page, individually or as a group, by accusing them of article ownership, being "fans" of Obama, or of playing games so as to protect Obama (which is essentially. You should always assume good faith about their motivations for editing here. Per WP:TALK it is important to concentrate on the article, not your opinion of its editors. Note that this article, including its talk page, is under article probation (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation), which highlights the importance of that. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Overlooking the suggestion that Obama was born in Mombassa, there does appear to be two possible candidates for Hawaiian hospital. There should be a reference to there being uncertainty as to which he was born in.JohnC (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, there really aren't two possible candidates. A scant few sources had listed it as the Queen's Medical Center, but the majority have it, correctly, as the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children. Reports to the contrary are flames fanned by the likes of worldnetdaily, pretty much the last beacon of the birther conspiracy. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. In 1961 line printers (band printer in the case of the Kapi'olani Med Center) were used to generate forms, and having State Seals imprinted on the forms was excessively costly. If you review the standard short birth certificates issued in between 1960 and 1965 and compare it to the form which was issued by Mr. President, they do not match. The paper, the font, or the layout are completely different. This may have to do something with the small note on the lower left hand corner for the document presented by the President DHBM 1.1 (Rev. 11/05) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.160.209 (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure in the US you can get short-forms printed off by the local government. You can in most countries; for example, I can request Calderdale MBC my birth certificate. And on a tangent not related to the article: I don't get why people demand the long-form, when the short-form is acceptable for pretty much every other job in most, if not all, countries. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. My actual birth certificate my parents got for me long ago decayed, it wasn't on the best paper. When I needed a passport after I finished college, I paid five dollars (I'm sure it is a lot more now) to the Department of Health. It's a standard short form with a printed raised seal. I've rarely needed it. Looks a lot like Obama's. Issued by the government, with whom the registration of birth is filed. No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre that statement is not true. In Hawaii if you wish to run for office you have to actually present the long form birth certificate as they do not accept the certificate of live birth. It use to be very common to issue certificates of live birth to people who were not citizens but were born in Hawaii and had citizenship elsewhere. So the main reason people want to see the long form is to remove the chance that a Kenyan is President of this country. The document apparently has something that is damaging to the president since he refuses to disclose it.Jason 16:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)

Actually, that's a complete falsehood. Nowhere on the State of Hawaii's official elections microsite does say that candidates for any state office need to present their birth certificates long-form or short-form; all you need is a photographic ID. And I don't think for a second that anyone who wants the long-form released is doing it for transparency reasons. Most people are espousing this theory due to deep-seated racism. And Obama isn't disclosing it because he's got something to hide, it's because of doctor-patient confidentiality laws. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii Statute 338 allows for foreign born children to obtain a birth certificate. Thus he could be Kenyan born.

Will US Independence Day stop?

Original comment difficult to parse, therefore nothing of substance to discuss
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Terrorism. 2. People doing business of thought reading. 3. People doing business of viewing public places, publc residences, and ofcourse like chennai even killing. 4. This is all happening for more than years chennai. But still the former President Mr.George W Bush wants to act in a Tamil Movie.Will this mess be stopped. 5. Will Human rights will be powered to shelter the effected people like who are listeners i.e listening to voices without any mobile. When will this head business get over. 6. For a concrete solution he should have a watch on Chennai. 7. Please note I am writing this, only what i am listening. 8. 44th President, It is must for a good change. As per numerology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai venkata krishna (talk • contribs) 12:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, I did not get that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I don't think there's any relevant discussion there. Suggest hiding/archiving without further ado.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Curious. Every single word of that post is in English yet I can't understand it. Ikilled007 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

FAQ2

One question not addressed by FAQ2 is why exactly the information about Obama being the first African American is included in the lead, and in the second sentence at that. What justifies the inclusion of a point of such minor importance in the second sentence? The FAQ should be updated to include some rationale on that -- because the article doesn't. 87.79.171.4 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, including recently. Please feel free to search the archives for further discussion. If you'd like to propose a thoughtful, succinct, and well-worded addition to FAQ2 – or for that matter possibly an additional FAQ – I'm sure it could be discussed for inclusion. And thank you for the suggestion DKqwerty (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama children articles - comments requested

Comments requested regarding whether we should have separate articles for Malia and Sasha Obama (or one for the two) or if the current arrangement of a section of Family of Barack Obama should continue. See Talk: Family of Barack Obama#Malia Obama article and please comment there. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 21:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Obamas height and weight

Whats the numbers? Looks like around 1.90m and 85 kilos to me. Would be interesting to have this in the article. In the personal life section that is 83.108.208.28 (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the way the US is headed, that information is probably classified for National Security. Ikilled007 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not relevant unless he were extraordinarily tall, short, fat, or anorexic. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we add his blood type, visual acuity, resting blood pressure, and astrological symbol while we're at it? Because this type of information (including height and weight) is of no importance to a biography unless notably outside the norm. DKqwerty (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If Obama were the extreme in height or weight, which he is not, it might be worth including. Since he is not, it is not.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. If he were the wideout for the Washington Redskins, we might care about his height and weight. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Guy needs a hobby. And Daniel Snyder's done weirder things...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)