Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maxframe (talk | contribs) at 08:30, 16 July 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click to manually purge the article's cache

Template:Community article probation

Featured articleBarack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 18, 2004Today's featured articleMain Page
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
December 2, 2008Featured article reviewKept
March 10, 2009Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
Current status: Featured article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Controversies Section

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moving into birther nonsense. Sceptre (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not only that, if you are born in Hawaii, you are a US citizen. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hawaii Statute 338 allows for foreign born children to obtain a birth certificate. Thus he could be Kenyan born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you verifiy that to be true (ie reliable sources saying this is the case)? Unless you do an unsubstantiated claim will not hold much weight.--76.65.142.235 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) He's talking about this, which is part of the conspiracy theory.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is moving into birther conspiracy nonsense again. Close? --GoodDamon 23:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. What that is, by the way, is the statute that allows Hawaii parents who adopt, say, from China, to get a birth certificate here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, it's no different from any other naturalization law which allows Madonna to adopt Malawian children? You know, I liked it when I was a kid and the bigger conspiracy theories were Apollo and Diana, because those theories were somewhat plausible. Closing. Sceptre (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Given the way the US is headed, that information is probably classified for National Security. Ikilled007 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not relevant unless he were extraordinarily tall, short, fat, or anorexic. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Guy needs a hobby. And Daniel Snyder's done weirder things...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
According to whom? Without a source, this claim is but original research. DKqwerty (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here´s a [[6]]source. I´ll allow you to evaluate it ;)--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Heh, Obama's elitist cuz he's skinny. I love it. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's not even skinny. He just bucks the "Americans are fat" trend. Sceptre (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace

Birther trolling. Sceptre (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Not really. That officer could face a dishonourable discharge for insubordination. Closing discussion as trolling. Sceptre (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No insubordination, because the order hadn't taken effect before it was retracted. SMP0328. (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're not too far off. SMP0328. (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=302380199"