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)

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)

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 fans flamed by the likes of worldnetdaily, pretty much the last beacon of the birther conspiracy. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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 hight 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)