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 --Die4Dixie (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)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)

I stand by each one of may assertions, no matter how you want to parse it. He has no religious affiliation. If you find a source that states him to be anything other than "Christian" and identifies his denomination, then please provide sources. It appears that is not what you wanted to do. Talk pages are not WP:SOAPboxes. I am sorry if the paucity of my previous post allowed you to infer something that was not in the statement. I certainly did not imply what you have imputed to my remark. Maybe Obama did have a Pauline road to Damascus experience. If you have a source, please share it. And mark that "Formally"--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you stand by your assertions. Let me see if I've got those assertions right. First you assert that A.) Attending a church and membership in a church should not be confused; in your next post you assert that B.) The point of that difference is that someone who is not a member of a church would not get "pastoral care". Then you assert that C.) His denomination in the infobox should not change, and you mock my positive assessment of the article to which you linked. (I won't give that a letter.)

Wikipedia's article Pastoral care begins:

"Pastoral care is the ministry of care and counseling provided by pastors, chaplains and other religious leaders to members of their church, congregation or persons within a faith-based institution. This can range anywhere from home visitation to formal counseling provided by pastors who are licensed to offer counseling services. This is also frequently referred to as spiritual care.

'Pastoral care' is also a term applied where people offer help and caring to others in their church or wider community. Pastoral care in this sense can be applied to listening, supporting, encouraging and befriending.

Pastoral care can also be a term generally applied to the practice of looking after the personal and social wellbeing of children under the care of a teacher. It can encompass a wide variety of issues including health, social and moral education, behaviour management and emotional support."

If you were to be taken at your word, that Obama is "unlikely (to) receive any type of pastoral care from (the minister at the Camp David church)", then someone like the initial questioner or any other reader of this thread who does not actually click on the link and read the whole Time article would likely conclude that you have represented a reliable source accurately and that none of these things are or are likely to be part of Barack Obama's experience. Yet that Time article you, yourself referenced for your claim devotes a good deal of its focus to noting that Obama is indeed currently receiving a good deal of pastoral care, and it gives the names of several of the pastors from whom he receives such care. That is not some aside in the article that might be missed, it seems to be the point of the article. So while you're not incorrect about the fact that Bush didn't receive any pastoral care from the Camp David ministers and that that minister presumed such an arrangement (or lack thereof) would continue with Obama, you are seriously editorially irresponsible by presenting only that aspect of the article at this page. This has nothing to do with what your religious ideal is or mine, it has to do with, apparently, your distinction between the original questioner's answer (Obama has indeed settled upon a church, the Camp David church) to your distinction between being a churchgoer and being someone who receives pastoral care. As such, if I am to assume good faith, I have to assume that you did not read the whole article, and that you refuse to consider the possibility that what I have specifically and carefully written is indeed a far more accurate representation of the situation as presented in the article. That is a further indication of serious editorial irresponsibility on your part. While of course I don't ascribe the following motivations to you, it is not uncommon for these pages to attract people somewhere on the spectrum towards the prejudiced, the bigoted, the conspiracy theorist and the slanderer, not to mention those easily swayed by such or looking to prove or disprove such things they've heard elsewhere. It would be editorially irresponsible of me to allow your assessment to remain unchallenged to fuel those fires, again, given the purpose of this bio as a source of accurate, encyclopedic biographical information and the purpose of this talk page to determine what that might be, as well as its connection to the BLP and the degree to which it operates under BLP guidelines.

So, for them, your A seems to be irrelevant because you are completely and utterly wrong about your B. C does not apply, as it simply reads "Religion" and not "Church membership" or "Denominational subset". As I stated, I will be adding the Time article as a reference to give informed clarity to the assertion of "Christianity" in the infobox. While some may read it and take away nothing more than what you claim to have understood from it, there is always the possibility that someone will indeed become informed about the facts of Obama's current pastoral care and better understand his relationship to Christianity without our having to belabor the article text with our own paraphrasings or someone else's interpretation thereof. It is you, not I, who are confusing Obama's church attendance with his pastoral care. Abrazame (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments were specifically about denomination and to if he would receive pastoral at the chuch which he will attend. What you infer from my comments is your own prerogative. One may attend church anywhere;however, attendence does not equal membership. While you want to inform careless readers, a laudable undertaking, I would welcome your diligence in making sure that Obama´s rather public repudiation of the Church of Christ get an equally informative stab. I do not want to give short shrift to either. There has been a long history of people who are ignorant of even the most basic knowledge of organized Christianity who have had all kinds of errant ideas about membership and attendance. You clearly understand the difference. Lagre additions about this will likely run into weight issues in the scale of importance. Please consider how important this is compared to the public seperation from the church in which one baptised and received patoral care for several years. Perhaps we need a daughter article to fully develope Obama´s religious experience. I look forward to your suggestions. Abrazos,--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:02, 14 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

No mention until more reliable sources pick it up
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (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) Dunno. Have you ever seen him in real life? The cameras add about 15 pounds. He is emaciated.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC) According to whom? Without a source, this claim is but original research. DKqwerty (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Now, that's funny DK. Who says liberals don't have a sense of humor (well, other than me)? QueenofBattle (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Here´s a [[6]]source. I´ll allow you to evaluate it ;)--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Your point? It certainly doesn't say he's emaciated. And it doesn't refer to his weight as an outlier either. DKqwerty (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Heh, Obama's elitist cuz he's skinny. I love it. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) He's not even skinny. He just bucks the "Americans are fat" trend. Sceptre (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The article 'Die4Dixie' references doesn't really say much factually about Obama's physical stats, other than 'he's not fat, works out regularly, and may or may not enjoy ice cream. Just about everything else is 'man on the street' chatter or an attempt at implying stuff via speculative synthetic not-really-a-comparisons to other presidents. It's WSJ's pre-election hyperbole. So what? ThuranX (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Hold on. Obama even uses "skinny" to describe himself in the article, as quoted by the reporter. This sister project makes a link between "emaciated" and "skinny" [7]. We could use a thesaurus to find an equivalent, or just use his own word : "skinny". That was the source which I wanted to be evaluated: The man himself. We use his assertations from his nonfiction writing as authority for every other detail about him, why not let the article say he is skinny?--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Regardless of what he or anyone says, it is of zero notability and its inclusion would give it undue weight. DKqwerty (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC) funny thing about notability is that when one actually reads the policy, it says it is for establishing an article. Now had I proposed an article on his "skinniness", I would understand the wikilinking for my edification. Notability is, however, established by its reporting by reliable third party sources, the WSJ being particularly held out to be one by this project. Obama identifies himself as "skinny" in much the same way he self-identifies as African American. We know that he does both these by the reliable third party sources that report it. It seems that you keep making different standards about this as we go. First you wanted a source. I provided it. I addressed your reliable source questions. I addressed your WP:V concerns. You then asked for my point, and I gave it, than you want to lead me down the WP:NOTE garden path policy that doesn´t really apply in anyway ( although this all has demonstrated your amazing ability to wikilink ad nauseam ) to this situation. As far as WP:WEIGHT, that is the only point that you have made that might approach a reason for no-inclusion, and is certainly debatable. I don´t feel strongly about it one way or another. I was merely trying to help the original poster, who, BTW, seems to have lost interest at this point, so I am happy to allow your disallowal af the addition if no furter debate is forthcoming.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Project articles query

I have not received a response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Barack_Obama#Articles_potentially_in_the_project and thought someone here might be able to come by and make a determination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama's Extensive Use of Teleprompter

No doubt you've read this before
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article describes Obama as an "exceptional orator", yet when I posted about his extensive use of the teleprompter and Biden's joke about it, it was removed as "irrelevant". How can this possibly be irrelevant when the subject is about his communication to the public? Seems like a blatant case of whitewashing. Shame on you! WhiteOak2006 (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment rate

Read: Employment Situation Summary

Under Obama's administration the unemployment rate has risen from 8.1 percentage to 9.5 percentage (from 2009 January to 2009 June). Just to note that this is the worst rate in the past 25 years in USA, see: unemployment

I've checked the Obama's main article for the "unemployment" word: 0 occurrence. On the presidency's page: 1 occurence. This is too bad. Párhuzamos univerzum (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you expect? We're in the middle of a recession. Even if the recession stopped in February 2009, the unemployment rate would take a few months to bottom out and start to recover. Public debt reached its highest value in years under Bush, but it doesn't appear in his article either (though that's a moot point because it's almost guaranteed to increase under Obama's stimulus). Sceptre ^(talk) 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm expecting to inculde it on the article, probably in "Economic managment" part. When you describe a country's economy then the unemployment rate is in the first three main factor, you can talk about economy but without this rate it is nearly pointless. Párhuzamos univerzum (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You do have a point that employment rates are relevant to the economy. However, we should treat the rise as somewhat inherited from the Bush administration rather than wholely blaming Obama. How about:

On February 17, 2009, Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a $787 billion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the economy recover from the deepening worldwide recession, which had caused the worst recession in XX years and worst employment rate in YY years.

New material in bold. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The recession caused the recession? Needs more copyediting. Plus, that sentence scans badly: it's tough to tell at first read whether the stimulus package was supposed to have caused the recession, or the worldwide recession. --Ashenai (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. "...aimed at helping the ecnomy recover from the deepening worldwide recession, which is the worst recession in XX years and increased the unemployment rate to its highest in YY years"? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Much better, I'd be OK with that. It still sounds a bit forced to my ear (the transition from talking about what Obama did to talking about the recession and unemployment is a bit sudden,) but I don't have any better ideas, so... :) --Ashenai (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The only way this information could be relevant to the article right now is by pointing out that the Obama Admin's original estimates were way off as described by Biden. But I think it's premature to start discussing Obama's influence on the economy. Better to wait a couple of years. Ikilled007 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You aren't a fast guy... Why aren't we wait for the death of Obama and then write about Obama's effect for the economy. Párhuzamos univerzum (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There are all kinds of factors that affect the economy, and no reliable sources currently indicate Obama's policies and unemployment are related. In fact, most reputable economists point to the housing bubble bursting and over-leveraged mortgage assets as the major root causes. Funds for loans dry up, businesses can't get loans to make payroll... boom, skyrocketing unemployment. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. We wait until reliable sources say something before saying it ourselves. And just a teensy reminder: The economy fell to pieces last year. I'll give you three guesses who was President at the time, and his last name begins with a 'B.' Now that his term in office is over, doesn't it make more sense to write about the economic impact of an eight year presidency than a six month one? --GoodDamon 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To inject Párhuzamos univerzum's version of events, we'd need a lot of citations demonstrating that the unemployment rise can be directly demonstrated to be a result of Obama's policies and actions, and not, as posited and seemingly obvious, an inherited problem. Párhuzamos univerzum, can you provide citation demonstrating that Obama is personally responsible for the recession? if not, it shouldn't go in. ThuranX (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts for the record. If and when we mention unemployment figures, I think it's better if we write that this is "the highest unemployment rate since (year XXXX)" instead of "the highest in XX years" as it pinpoints the year, which is more specific and informative in allowing the reader to compare and contrast the current situation with the previous historical event. How much time has passed since that event seems more emphatic than informative.

A few facts about unemployment. Job cuts don't happen overnight; that is to say that you don't become aware of a fiscal problem on a Tuesday and your employees are out on the street the following afternoon. It can take months before job cuts actually go into effect. In other words, some of the job cuts happening in June/July were decided upon and/or announced during the March market nadir.

This PDF from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows in its first page that, while the unemployment rate has indeed been increasing as a zero-sum total (Chart 1), you can see (in the adjacent Chart 2) that the monthly losses were worsening particularly since August '08 and saw their worst month in January '09—this was Bush's last month in office, as we are looking at it from the standpoint of biography/presidency—and has actually been improving every single month since then. (I say every single month when, in fact, June so far seems to have been worse than May, but May was strikingly better than April, and June is better than April, so the moving average continues to rise.) In other words, while the overall unemployment rate is worsening, the monthly job loss number is improving. Bear in mind that even though it has already happened, they revise the numbers for three months afterward. I point this out to our friend Párhuzamos univerzum in response to his "fast guy" comment. Even after these figures are published, they are not encyclopedically accurate until three months of late-arriving info and deeper examination of data adjusts the figure.

Having said all that, the economy actually needs to add a certain number of jobs per month in order to meet the demand of those entering the workforce (those graduating or dropping out from high school, college, etc., as well as legal immigrants, not to mention those for whom taking a second or third job becomes necessary). So earlier figures during the Bush years, while often "in the black," so to speak, by creating jobs month-over-month, were actually losing jobs when measured against the population increase.

Continuing on the second point of my first paragraph, unemployment is a lagging indicator going forward as well as looking back, meaning that the world's economy has to improve solidly for several months before corporations are going to be ready to take on new employees and drive down the unemployment numbers. I say "the world's economy" because it's a global recession and we have a global economy and U.S. companies have a huge percentage of their income from overseas. (For example, Atlanta, Georgia-based Coca-Cola gets a full 75% of their profits from outside the U.S.)

Finally, and I have said this about an economic suggestion or two on this and/or the presidency page before, it would be intellectually honest and encyclopedically responsible for someone who suggests and/or crafts/adds a mention about the economy under Obama to note in the Obama article the throughline from the Bush administration and, in turn, add what they know and/or have learned (as it appears in reliable sources, of course) as it is relevant and appropriate given weight concerns et al in the Bush articles. Abrazame (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the George_W._Bush article, just for a comparison on it there are 4 numbers for unemployment rate! On Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration the economic indicators part begins with unemployment rate finishing by this sentence: "And, in January 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than 15 years." I don't like the double standards and seeing these there is really no point why we shouldn't note the high unemployment rate. Párhuzamos univerzum (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Economic Management section right now is narrowly focused on Obama's actions, as opposed to the state of the economy that his actions were intended to affect. It would be reasonable to start the section with a very brief overview [two sentences max] of the economy as it was at his inauguration, possibly with a tiny comment on the effect of the crisis on the presidential campaign, to give context to his subsequent acts. Such a change in the section would be radical and would require building consensus among the editors. But for now, it's impossible to evaluate the success of his actions-- we don't know whether the current unemployment represents a failure of the stimulus, or a resounding success in averting what otherwise would have been 15% unemployment. Until the unemployment numbers cause Obama direct political trouble, or persist long enough to be a significant factor in his presidency overall, they aren't relevant to an article summarizing his life, career and presidency in a few thousand words.

I should add that I don't advocate trying to add the economic context language now. Too much opportunity for edit warring for too little improvement. 71.179.10.162 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (CouldOughta, not signed in)

Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace

Birther trolling. Sceptre (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
News: Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez There is also an online petition for public release of Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate http://www.wnd.com/obama_petition already signed by about 400,000 peoples. Nationwide billboard campaign questioning: "Where's The Birth Certificate?". Gammasugárzás (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC) What reason was given for the retraction of the deployment order? Unless it was explicitly for the birth certificate issue, it doesn't belong in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Not really. That officer could face a dishonourable discharge for insubordination. Closing discussion as trolling. Sceptre (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC) No insubordination, because the order hadn't taken effect before it was retracted. SMP0328. (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Point taken. However, the officer won't get away with it and it's hardly a victory for him. At a stretch, they could pin conduct unbecoming on him. Sceptre (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC) You're not too far off. SMP0328. (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC) He's already lost his civilian job. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and is already in the article. It's a "bombshell" only through WND eyes. PhGustaf (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC) THERE ARE NUMEROUS TOTALLY FALSE STATEMENTS IN THIS ARTICLE AND COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE COLORATION OF COMMENTS ALL OVER THE PLACE IN THE ARTICLE WHERE NO ATTENTION IS PAID TO THE EVIDENCE AND GETTING TO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER AS TO WHERE OBAMA WAS ACTUALLY BORN. COMMENTS ATTEMPTING TO CORRECT THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY REMOVED WITHOUT ANY REGARD AS TO THEIR TRUTH WHICH DESTROYS THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS ENTIRE SECTION AND ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxframe (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama O's

Just so you know in case you want to use it as an internal link or something, an article is now available for Obama O's, the specialty cereal created by General Mills • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama propaganda bias

More trolling, including the use of 'wikilawyering in the senate'. ThuranX (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see there is a presidential campaign section as well as the presidency section. This is reasonable. I see there is no state senate campaign section. This may be because Obama had a well known embarrassment where he used wikilawyering to get all his opponents off the ballot. This should be included in the article, not to say he is bad, but to be encyclopedic. I also see that people (supporters?) have wiped if off before. I support him. However, this needs to be added. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Please don't try to hide this or collapse this into a box or give an excuse. A brief mention is all that is needed for fairness. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC) My goodness, he used wikilawyering to get his opponents removed? I had no idea Wikipedia was so powerful. Maybe I should run for office... DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC) But seriously, there's a detailed description of the State Senate election here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I don't care much about Obama but I see this as a genuine comment. The poster said he or she was afraid of Obama supporters "hid(ing) this or collapse into a box or give an excuse". Yet someone did exactly this. The comment isn't trolling. I remember reading a biography of Obama when he was running. It was in a newspaper and had a neutral bent. It mentioned that Obama somehow got his opponents off the ballot. Therefore, this is relevant info and should be considered. Whether it is or isn't is not too important to me but when I see a coverup of discussion, it irritates me because it is very sneaky. Calmano (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

July becomes deadliest month for foreign troops in Afghanistan

Read the news: July becomes deadliest month for foreign troops in Afghanistan

And this is the data only for the first half of July. Nagy reccs (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, and.... Brothejr (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

...what does this have to do with the article? --Ashenai (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already an Iraq and Afghanistan war section in Obama's article. After the quote from Obama "stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan" write that What seems to be an unsuccessful attempt seeing the raising number of troop deaths in Afghanistan. Nagy reccs (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not pundits, our job is not to draw our own conclusions. Please read WP:NOR. If you can find a trustworthy source talking about Obama's performance in the Afghanistan war, we can talk about that. The article you quoted doesn't even mention Obama, therefore it doesn't belong here. --Ashenai (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, man. Wait! Who is the president of the USA? Who sent these troops to Afghanistan to die? The first letter is O. Nagy reccs (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The article does not talk specifically about Obama and including it here in this article would be considered WP:OR. Brothejr (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If your IQ is zero, then yes this is a research. I'm using my brain, if you just copy-paste the news then you are doing nothing. Nagy reccs (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oeorge O. Oush? Sceptre ^(talk) 10:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:NOR. Here, I'll quote some of the more relevant parts:

"[Wikipedia does not allow] any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

"You must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article"

"A simple example: The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. Although no conclusion is drawn and both facts are true, the sentence implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it constitutes original research."

Note especially the last example, as it is very similar to what you are trying to add. If you do not like WP:NOR, you are welcome to discuss it on its talk page, but it is currently Wikipedia policy, and we will abide by it. --Ashenai (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Barack Obama" playing basketball

This picture is clearly vandalism...I'm surprised it's been on this article for so long. Can someone remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterNES (talk • contribs) 14:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)