Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61→Archive 65


Hospital of birth cited is hearsay, not fact

This is the same troll, back again. Same minor syntax errors, same paranoia flavor, same insistence that smear campaign material be integrated. ThuranX (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ in the talk page has a bunch of problems

unconstructive discussion of fringe birth theories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


The most glaring one is the obvious linkage to an invalid "birth certificate." TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The birth certificate has been vetted by reliable sources and has been authenticated by the State of Hawaii. What's wrong with linking to a picture of it hosted on one of the President's websites in the FAQ? Or are you just here to argue that it's a fake? --GoodDamon 22:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, not even going into the gross inaccuracies/falsehoods of your statement about the State of Hawaii "authenticating" it, the picture of the "birth certificate" says it is invalid if it has been altered, and since it has been altered then it is invalid - that much is obvious by looking at it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Academics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obama is loosely referred to as a 'professor', when he was teaching; however, as the article points out, he was a 'Lecturer' and a 'Senior Lecturer'. He should be referred to as a 'lecturer'. KenmanLF (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed this before, and it seems like the solution was to keep professor.But as seen in the article, it only mentions Obama as professor at one point and the sentence goes into saying that he was a lecturer and senior lecturer, the reference especially the second one , is titled "Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?" and explains why he is considered as a professor,Now professor also apears in the info box ( i think that is what it is called ) also says he was a professor, even though he never had that title, what is in the info box I could agree might need change, but I will look through archives before that.Durga Dido (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This article in the New York Times offers an additional reliable source that clearly describes Obama as a professor, in case anyone thinks we need it. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw that too. I don't think an en passant mention of his (effective) title is particularly strong evidence. The reporter probably didn't ask his precise title. But we have the letter from the law school, which looks like plenty to me. PhGustaf (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. What matters is what the university says. And what it says is clear.

But let's put that aside for a moment and see what the WP article says. It's that:

For twelve years, Obama served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. He was first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.

Any moderately alert reader is likely to think "Huh?" The period is divided into two; for each of these Obama was something other than "Professor", yet the two add up to the period he is said to have been a "professor". [Here and elsewhere in this message, I am using the Shift key carefully.]

What the "professor" bit means here is that -- to me, most uninterestingly -- Lecturers and Senior Lecturers are loosely termed professors at U Chi. This tells us nothing about what he actually did. Use of the word "classified" is wordy too. So, my suggestion:

For twelve years, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.

This neither can be misread as saying he was a Professor (he wasn't) nor implies that he wasn't a professor (he was). Nit-pickers, axe-grinders and miscellaneous fanatics would be served up with the existing, informative and excellent footnote. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As you say, "professor" was his function and "Lecturer" his job title. When my function was "software engineer" my title was "Member of the Technical Staff". Which of those terms is the more descriptive? Everybody knows what a professor does, which is what Obama did. "Lecturer" is far less clear. PhGustaf (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh? I'd have thought it would be the reverse: a lecturer is somebody who lectures, while a professor is somebody who ... professes? Actually I do happen to have some idea of what a professor is: It's a lecturer who's unusually eminent (Britain), who's merely over 40 or so (Japan) ... I'm not quite sure about the US. But maybe that's just me, guilty from birth of not being American: let's agree for now that professor is indeed more understandable than (Senior) Lecturer. Then I suggest this:
For twelve years (1992–2004), Obama was a professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
Again with the same wonderful footnote appended. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I see no reason to change it at all. We've had this discussion before, and worked out the present wording. I wouldn't complain about your last suggestion, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else did. ;) PhGustaf (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The reason? See the very top of this section. (Hmm, I'm reminded of the line uttered by British shopkeepers, back in the days before Tesco, ASDA and the rest drove them to extinction: "Sorry love, we don't stock it. As I've told three customers just this morning, there's no demand for it these days.") ¶ Here's a new idea:
For twelve years (1992–2004), Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
again with the footnote. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's just wait on it a while. It might be worth noting that this thread was started by KenmanLF's very first edit. PhGustaf (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, right after the section above was started by another SPA, and AFTER a trolling SPA was banned. We have the university calling him a professor. I'd point out that there are NUMEROUS categories of Professors - adjuncts, tenured, emeritus, visiting, and lecturers. Almost all of them teach, or have taught, classes and grade students, get offices, get paid, and so on. Thsi nit=picking is a semantics game, part of the 'discredit Obama' POV this troll pushes. I'd wager a RFCU would reveal it's all the same person. ThuranX (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, I haven't the slightest interest in the motivation of KenmanLF. He could be a paid-up member of the KKK for all I care. I am interested in the particular point that he raises. If RFCU finds that he is the same as the tedious and rightly blocked "MultiplyPerfect", I will still be interested in the point that he raises. If you'd like to make an RFCU on me as well, you'd be most welcome; I'd read the result with amusement. As long as you don't do this, you're just going to have to accept that there are other WP editors -- and, if I may say so, experienced WP editors in good standing -- who want to judge suggestions and requests on their merits, and not on the presumed motivations of the writers. -- Hoary (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, I noticed that it was KenmanLF's first. He's probably not our chum MultiplyPerfect: although he's similarly curt, he does manage two entire sentences free of a single solecism. There's nothing either in his (lack of) edit history or in what he says that's blatantly incompatible with the harrumph of a wingnut. Yet that does not make him one. Moreover, it wouldn't matter even if he were one: we judge an objection or suggestion on its merits, not on our reading of the author's motivation. Indeed, he raises a point with which I agree, and have agreed before. Of course, I too may be a wingnut; I look forward with amusement to a demonstration of this. ¶ Now, there's no rush to fix this. The sky won't fall, and Barack Hussein Obama won't turn the US into a gay socialist caliphate* no damage will be done, if it stays as it is for a little time. But then the question will sink into the oblivion of Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59, and anyone who brings it up thereafter is that bit more likely to get the retort "What, again? That's already been discussed." As it is, you'll find the matter kind-of discussed from here in Archive 57 to the foot of that long file. That was almost a month ago, and it wasn't resolved. How would a further delay be of help? -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC) (* Would you like a smiley with that?)
Well, not entirely. Sockpuppets are best ignored - they don't have any right to be here at all. Entertaining their suggestions, or getting worked up over them, both encourage them. On the other hand, per article probation please note that this page is not the place to have process discussions about editors. So if thoughtful editors want to consider the issue can we please do so & as Hoary suggests and do so without reference to questions of who is who? On the substance, Obama was a professor and that's that but any way of making things more clear consistent with the sources is fine by me. Wikidemon (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I responded to BOTH points, but Hoary chose to focus on the part that meant he could ignore the main argument. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The assertion is that it's confusing to the reader when we call Obama a professor and then point out he was a lecturer as well. I don't think it's confusing. If consensus is it's confusing, the fix is to not point out "lecturer" at all. I think that costs too much information. I'd leave it be. PhGustaf (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[Bouncing leftward] The article asserts stuff, you do, ThuranX does, I do. There's not much discussion going on, however. PhGustav, you say that "the fix" (singular definite) is not to mention "lecturer" at all. Actually that's only one among three or more fixes, and while reasonable people may disagree on this I don't think it's the best fix. However, I've already said that I think it would be an improvement on what's there now. ¶ ThuranX, when you were not writing about the identity and/or motivations of the username who most recently brought up this little matter, you pointed out that the university calls Obama a professor (something I have never disputed) but then continued by talking about "nit-picking" and "a semantics game". I rather agree with you there too. What's important is that Obama was an active and eminent teacher of constitutional law at U Chicago. Whether he was a "(Senior) Lecturer" or "professor" or (correctly but confusingly) both is indeed by the way, and that's why my final suggestion was to delegate the whole matter of nomenclature to the footnote and instead just to say what he did. ¶ This nomenclature is either important or it isn't. You say it isn't. I say it isn't. So let's drop it. ¶ If on the other hand it is important (another option that I'm willing to consider), then it's worth presenting in such a way that it doesn't look self-contradictory. We can hardly write:

For twelve years, Obama served as a professor [note the lowercase "p"] at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. He was first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.

and I suggest something like:

For twelve years, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004; the University continues to consider him as a professor.

It's not pretty, but it's less likely to appear as a typo or contradiction than what we have now, and it does away with the slightly odd "classified". -- Hoary (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The first version (minus the bracketed parenthetical) is better. The second raises more questions than it answers. Frankly, "Obama taught constitutional law at [UoCLS] from 1992 to 1996" or "Obama was a professor of constitutional law at [UoCLS] from 1992 to 1996" is probably the best. Any more than that is deliving into the unimportant tangential matters of nomenclature, what the university thinks, and titles with unexplained significance. If truly necessary we could add a footnote with text that goes something like "Obama's title was Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, non-tenure track part-time positions that the University considers professorships." That would clear it up for anyone who cares, but I don't really see the point - it's in the sources available by link. Wikidemon (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The first (minus the bracketed parenthetical) is what we already have. I think it's confusing, its sense depending as it does on discrimination between the lowercase "p" of "professor" and the upper case of the alternatives. I warmly agree with everything else that you write. You give two alternatives that you like; of the two, I prefer the first; but I'd happily go along with the second. Yes, your subtitle looks good too; like you, I wouldn't want to add it, but it's handy to keep around in case there are repeated questions. (Whether the questions are good faith, bad faith, faith based, or reality based community based.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
For me this may seem like something obvious,with that I mean the whole issue around why we call him a professor in this case,while he never held the title, maybe because I heard all the fuss and also heard the answer as to why.For me the sentence "served as a professor" is saying that he worked as one but that he never was one officially,if he was we would just say ""he was a professor".The thing I am concerned about after reading and reading the section is the classified as in "he was first classified as a lecturer...." this part is not in dispute or can be confused at all because that is what he did and this would be his title if such a title exists.So it should just say from XXX- to -XXX he was a lecturer etc.How about this line. "For twelve years Obama worked at the University of Chicago Law School regarded as a professor,teaching constitutional law.He worked as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004."Even told for the second part I would like the sentence to be"from 1992 to 1996 he worked as a lecturer..." etc but that part is not the dispute here.With my proposed line we say exactly how the situation is without losing the professor part. Durga Dido (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say that we should just refer to him as a small-p professor, since that was the job, and it makes the article much clearer. The footnote can contain a blow-by-blow account of what the exact job title was from year to year. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with SS. PhGustaf (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, the university said, after the "controversy," that they "regarded" him as a professor - that's all fine and dandy, but Frank Abagnale was "regarded" as a teaching assistant when he forged a degree from Columbia University and he was also "regarded" as a lawyer when he forged another degree from Harvard. The point is that what people "regard" is plainly pointless - the real questions are what is a professor and what is a lecturer? In my mind, a professor holds an advanced degree in the field they are teaching, trains people up to masters/Phd level in their field, and produces academic writings on their subject. As far as I know, Barack meets none of those criteria and therefore is plainly not a professor - he is exactly what his title stated - a lecturer. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the university's opinion trumps Thegoodlocust's. See reliable sources for more on this. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice response - anyway, obviously the university would be a biased source, as well as a primary source, when we should be using secondary sources. The university, after all, not only employed him and has a personal relationship with him (as well as being a collection of liberal leaning people), but they also have motive to make Barack, and thus the university, look good. Anyway, this article has so many problems, I'd fixed a few a couple months ago after a bunch of hassle, but its all whitewashed again. TheGoodLocust (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC).
I don't think that an employer is generally considered to be biased when it comes to describing the jobs of its employees. You can always post at the reliable sources noticeboard for a second opinion on that. Anyway, I'm happy to assume that you've learned something from your blocks, and I look forward to seeing some constructive suggestions as to how we might improve the article. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, are you actually going to argue that a person's employer isn't a primary source with regards to their employment? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Methinks you need to re-read WP:PRIMARY. That's exactly the sourt of primary source that's perfectly acceptable. Not all primary sources are created equal. --GoodDamon 22:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


Please quote the relevant segments of the article, everything I've read says otherwise. Show me how this primary source is somehow "different" and "acceptable." TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Certainly. "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Stating that Obama was a "professor" based on what the university and mainstream newspapers say is perfectly acceptable. --GoodDamon 23:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that pretty much closes the case on this. Small "p" professor seems perfectly compatible with the wikipedia guidelines and doesn't appear to bestow some mythical rank or title to Obama which seems to be what some people are worried about. If the school refers to him as a former professor, then in accordance with the above, it seems npov to have the article use the same term. Ikilled007 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."

I rehighlighted that for you. Also, and more importantly the source that is being used and misinterpreted isn't even a university newspaper - it is a blurb on a university website. So, if we are supposed to "use care" with primary sources, then why are we quoting a university website and then calling that a "university newspaper?"TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The factual details and sourcing here are not under any legitimate dispute. Obama had a part time non-tenure track teaching position at the law school for twelve years, while also serving as a law firm lawyer and did some other things as well. Among other subjects, Obama taught constitutional law. The definition of what a "professor" is and how that differs from an "instructor" or some other classification varies from school to school, and isn't really a hard fixed definition in common speech. So the only question is what word to use. Sourcing works best for determining factual questions, not style issues of word choice. But the best we have sourcing-wise is that the school itself considered him to be a professor. Any attempt to reason it through by finding other sources about what a professor is in a different context, and then applying it to Obama's case, would be synthesis. Anyway, for style reasons we should find a short, neutral way to describe it that is as straightforward and close as possible to the unelaborated facts. We definitely need to avoid any hint of controversy or inconsistency - there was an extremely tiny conspiracy theory going around the conservative blogosphere before the election, and some weird re-hashes after the election, that Obama's credentials were faked. That kind of stuff is not fit for inclusion and taking this discussion there gets us seriously off track. Wikidemon (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
lol, the facts and sources are not under dispute? what the hell do you think this is? I've flat out shown you people are wrong about using a press release since it is a primary source and now it doesn't matter? You people never fail to surprise me. You have a primary source press release with motivation to "exaggerate" as a source that he was a professor, but the real professors at UoC didn't consider Obama a real professor - why is it then that we are using an after the fact press release that was meant to help out their friend and former colleague rather than his title at the time and the professional opinions of real professors who worked at the same college? TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're not going to discuss this politely, and you're not going to cite any sources to back up the insinuations you're making about a living person, you probably shouldn't be editing anywhere near an article that's covered by article probation. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this discussion has ceased to be productive -- it's moving away from, not towards, any concrete proposals for improving the article. I'll go ahead and be bold, though, and implement a change that seems to represent some median point in what's being said above. Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What sources do you want me to cite? And I'm being very polite - I was just told by wikidemon that sources and facts don't matter. If I did put up a source then I'm sure it wouldn't meet the high standards of "university press release to quell scandal of former employee." Hell, I'll give it a go anyway! This source says things like, "Obama was a part-time teacher; he was not a professor in terms of having an academic output." I mean, that was only said by Richard Epstein a real professor at UoC, but I'm sure that source is somehow inferior to a scandal-suppressing press-release. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time to close this discussion, but I'll end it with this: Accept the fact that the school and the majority of reliable sources describe Obama's job there as "professor." Case closed, end of discussion. That you can cherry-pick a single quote from a set of interviews -- a set I can similarly cherry-pick from to prove Obama was a professor -- is immaterial. --GoodDamon 15:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I accept that fact that the school and the majority of reliable sources describe Obama's job there as "professor." Case for that closed, as far as I'm concerned; but it shouldn't be the end of discussion about what this article should say, as the article is arguably confusing and as this discussion is (below this) being conducted politely and reasonably among people who accept that he was a "professor". Perhaps you would like to join. -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think most of us are being polite and reasonable. I'm less convinced than you are that the text is confusing as it stands. But my suggestion to clarify it furthrt is to use "professor" in the text, and mention the precise job titles in a footnote. PhGustaf (talk)
Time to cut the baby in two. For twelve years, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. There's no need to say more than that (although the cited sources do say plenty) and it's neutral. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


Given that the matter is covered in the daughter article, and given summary style, this solution sounds fine. PhGustaf (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't adding "non-tenure track" or "non-tenured" in front of professor serve the same purpose? That way it clearly denotes that while he was still a "professor" he was not a "Professor". But on a completely unrelated note. Isn't the entire Early life and Career section too long for a WP:SS section? Early life and career of Barack Obama has about 27k of readable prose, so a proper summary of that article should really only be 5-6 paragraphs long. I've always considered a proper summary of an child article in the parent article to be equivalent of the child article's lead. If this article followed proper summarizing then this wouldn't be an issue because the second sentence wouldn't even exist in this article. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

←This again? See Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 24#Professor, for last year's version of this idiotic argument - I suggested wording then which I think stuck for a while, although I don't remember now - close to Sheffield Steel's suggestion: Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School part-time from 1993 until his election... . I'd go with that, or with SS's or with lower case professor which is what dozens of sources use, and I'd suggest we end this. Tvoz/talk 19:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And SS's edit as amended by Wikidemon to read From 1992 to 2004, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. is fine too. Tvoz/talk 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Update to section

I'm starting a new section in case anyone wants to talk about the actual text. I've made a fairly minor (in my opinion) bold edit[1] (after goofing with a big fat typo that Thuranx caught quickly and reverted - my bad) that attempts to smooth out the description of Obama's teaching career. It avoids any attempt to classify what he did, and simply says he taught constitutional (and others - see the sources) law courses at the school for 12 years, and then gives his official position. If anyone wants to go into the nitty gritty about calling him a "professor" or not, and explaining how Chicago actually classifies such things, I don't think that's really necessary but there's plenty of room in the footnote for that. And folks, a strong request with some teeth in it - please keep it on topic and don't use this occasion to complain about other editors. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. If you want to stick in my source, for future reference, then you are welcome to do that too. I'd do it myself but it'd probably get instantly reverted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, looks like I got reverted too! Nobody's immune. Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Does this person (the reverter) want a vote? I guess I don't understand why we have to call him a professor when it is disputed, takes up room, and when there is contrary and less biased evidence that says he wasn't really a professor. I mean, why the insistence on calling him a professor? Is this wording somehow more accurate? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That would be me -- I have a comment or two above, but drifted away when the discussion got bulky. My feeling is that he was a de facto professor. His precise title is the detail that belongs in the footnote. The example I gave is that I was a "software engineer" rather than a "Member of the Technical Staff". I thought the discussion was headed in that direction, but I could be wrong. Leaving it as is is fine with me. PhGustaf (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not even sure he could be considered a de facto professor for the reasons I previously mentioned (e.g. no academic papers/research/credentials), but while I agree he may have been called a professor by his students that doesn't make him a real professor. Again, please refer to my source, Richard Epstein a true professor of law at UoC on the subject. I'm not trying to insert into the article that, "Barack Obama was a Senior Lecturer and not a real professor" - I'm just trying to simplify it by removing the extemporaneous descriptor that is definitely disputed and likely inaccurate. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty good reference. But what gets more weight: an official statement from a university or a casual comment at an interview? PhGustaf (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you like the source. As for that "official statement," it is not only a primary source (which we shouldn't be using) but it also came out in response to a mini-scandal, and UoC (esp. since they get public funding) would definitely have a motivation to make sure Barack got elected and make him look good, which would, in turn, make the university look good. So again, which gets more weight, a reactionary comment from a university public relations office with a likely bias, or the off-hand comment of a real professor without an apparent agenda? More importantly, if the title is in dispute, and there is no real point to including it, then why are we including it? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

←There are plenty of sources that refer to Obama as a "Professor", so I see no reason why this title should not be used per previous (exhaustively explored) consensus discussions. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there are plenty of sources which have repeated Barack Obama's claim - I completely agree with that. However, that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't have the academic credentials of a professor nor has he actually worked as a professor (research and writings are a big part of that). Again, the term is disputed, entirely inaccurate and completely unneccesary - unless we want to continue resume fluffing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
In my first post in the parent of this section, I pointed to this source (The New York Times) which refers to Obama as a professor. There are plenty of independent sources that do much the same thing, and they are not "repeating Obama's claim" as you put it. The term "professor" is an ill-defined title that can be applied in all manner of situations, including simple honorifics. Since there is a preponderance of reliable sources that use this term, there is no reason at all why it should not be used. This has been discussed many, many times, and each time we have come to the same conclusion - the term "professor" is fine. Nothing has changed since those discussions took place, except that even more reliable sources now exist to verify the title. Please stop accusing good faith editors of "fluffing" the article simply because it doesn't reflect your personal preference of how it should be. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon's edit looks good to me. Nobody seems to have disputed the claim that Obama was a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer. I don't dispute that he was a "professor" (small "p"). There are now claims that he wasn't a "professor" (even with a small "p"); even if these claims have some merit (and I don't think that they do), let's put them aside for a moment. Most people seem to think that it's worth pointing out that Obama was a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer. (Me, I don't particularly care either way, but for now I'll go along with the idea.) So, a question. Granted that the article is going to say that Obama was successively (with or without quotation marks) a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer, and granted that "professor" (small "p") is "an ill-defined title that can be applied in all manner of situations" (Scjessey), how is the article made more informative by being made to say that Obama was a "professor" (small "p") while he was also a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer? And a follow-up question for those who think it is beneficial: Does the benefit outweigh the confusion likely to arise from saying that he concurrently had an Uppercase title and this lowercase quasi-title within the same part of the same university? In replying, please skip the customary mutterings about the nefarious motives and methods, whether obvious or mostly hidden, of your fellow editors. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

off-topic

Ah yes because the New York Times is a "great" newspaper...good grief. And yes, they, like most newspapers are simply repeating the myth of Obama. You say there is no reason to take it out and I say there is no reason to include it. I have a source that has actual expertise in this area and you have a fluff piece from a biased paper. Uhh...hello? McFly? But hey, I like your argument, "this is what we've always said and so this is what we must always say" - I guess that makes it easy to ignore my new and superior source of information (not to mention one that actually lines up with the facts you always seem to ignore (e.g. no advanced degree in law)). TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Quit with the sarcasm, and the original research. If you can't contribute constructively to a collaborative editing environment, you'll be banned from editing Obama articles. Please read the article probation page if you need a reminder of good practice. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 04:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What original research? And I can't be sarcastic and yet you easily let people who've had expletive filled rants about anti-Obama people post here? Interesting double standard. And hey "Steel" I do contribute constructively - you just don't like what I contribute. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
My concern is with conduct rather than content. If you don't know which comments of yours in this thread constitute original research, I suggest you revise the definition of the term. Essentially, all the statements you are making to argue your case are original research, unless you have sources that you're not sharing with everyone else. A few examples from this thread:
  • "he doesn't have the academic credentials of a professor nor has he actually worked as a professor"
  • "obviously the university would be a biased source"
  • "In my mind, a professor holds an advanced degree in the field they are teaching, trains people up to masters/Phd level in their field, and produces academic writings on their subject. As far as I know, Barack meets none of those criteria and therefore is plainly not a professor"
Hope this is clear enough. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is what I'm talking about, you refuse to read my source and then you say the conclusions I derived from those sources are original research. My source clearly says that he didn't have any academic output - that is sourced and not OR as you love to claim. Obama doesn't have an advanced degree in law, he merely has a j.d., that's simply a fact - how is that original research? Honestly, it seems like you are looking for the most spurious of reasons to attack me. And yes, the university would be a biased source for the many reasons I've listed such as being a primary source, releasing a statement from a public relations office (whose job is to improve the image of the university and its faculty), being dependent on public funding and actually have at least a million dollars earmarked for them by Obama [2], and having a personal relationship with the man - but hey, I guess I'm being irrational for thinking they'd be an unreliable source. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Was there some reason for highlighting those words after I responded? It kind of makes my response look different. Anyway, you seem to have a problem with my using qualifiers, and yet,there are other people who have used qualifers too like "I feel" - why the focus on my qualifiers? Anyway, the use of phrases like, "as far as I know" is because "as far as I know" Obama has no academic papers, indeed my source appears to confirm this, am I suppose to assume that he does indeed have academic papers? Is that somehow more logical in your mind? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The "professor" press releases came years after the earmark, and the earmark was for a hospital - unrelated to Obama's position as a professor. Academic papers are not a necessary requirement to be called a professor. That's just your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Okay, so he earmarks over a million dollars for the University of Chicago's hospital (a month before his wife gets a 200% raise there), $8 million for human genome research there, which comes out to $9 million total, and then later on their PR office gives him a good statement and they are completely unbiased? Really? Really? You might want to read up on conflict of interest, and you might want think whether it was a good idea to piss off their current Senator/possibly future president or not. Oh, and no academic papers aren't required to be called a professor, hell I used to be called professor when I was younger, but to actually be a professor requires a bit more than lecturing to undergrads - hell, many TA's are called professor by their students. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think y'all need to partake in WP:DENY with regards to TGL. He's spinning off into conspiracy theory arena and there is no need to continue this discussion. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
And what exactly would that conspiracy theory be? Or this simply another accusation to demonize me? AGF? No? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
(after ec) - I was called a professor when I was a part-time lecturer at a technical college. In many parts of the world (and also in parts of the USA), the term is nothing more than an honorific. Therefore, if reliable sources use the term there is no reason why it could not be used here (although it now seems a logical workaround has been found). All the rest of what you said was original research, possibly libelous, and definitely a case of shocking negative bias. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow, another accusation of OR - apparently I have to source every single statement and word I make or be subject to harassment. I suggest you read about professors and that all of you quit making spurious accusations of OR. We all know about Michelle's raise right after Barack became Senator - pretending otherwise to accuse me of OR and libel is plainly ridiculous. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Federal Spending in Stimulus Package

Shouldn't we add more details about the federal spending inside of Obama's stimulus package. For example, I would recommend changing

"The first 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency included his signing into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package on February 17, 2009. The bill included increased federal spending, aid to states, and tax reductions."

and change it to

"The first 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency included his signing into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package on February 17, 2009. The bill included increased federal spending for unemployment, food stamps, health care, infrastructure, energy spending, education, aid to states, and a number of tax cuts and credits." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker123192 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

wouldn't that sort of detail about *what* the federal spending be covered on the stimulus article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
We should link to the stimulus article. I have no general objection to there being a little bit more description of what is in the stimulus package, but the source[3] you (Joker) are providing does not seem to cover some of the words you are trying to insert. For example, the only occasion I see of "unemployment" at that URL is with regards to budget issues in 11/21/08 ... neither stimulus nor Obama related. cheers, --guyzero | talk 19:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
How about this instead?
"The first 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency included his signing into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package on February 17, 2009. The bill included increased federal spending for health care, infrastructure, energy spending, education, aid to states, and a number of tax cuts and credits."
Is that more accurate?--Joker123192 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Suggest waiting to see the upshot of the discussion on the Presidential talkpage that Abrazame refers to below. regards, --guyzero | talk 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
What method did you use to cull those particular specific expenses as most notable to single out among the dozens and dozens and dozens on the list? "Food stamps" strikes me as a bizarre choice for the second mention when there are several much larger programs in terms of money and others far more notable in terms of representing fundamental shifts. I'd rather see the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 specifically noted and Wikified in that section so that people might perceive it in its totality and full scope rather than one editor's pet projects—or pet peeves. Abrazame (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am simply using the specific expenses used in the "Presidency of Barack Obama" article. I know it sounds odd to have the same sentences in two different articles, but I think that it is fair that the same amount of detail is in the Barack Obama article for people who read this article.--Joker123192 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
What is notable to his presidency, and the degree to which it is examined, is not necessarily notable to his biography, and vice-versa. That is precisely why there are two different articles. But thanks for the heads-up, I'd like to know the editorial reasoning for why that's specified in the Presidency article and will query this on that talk page. Abrazame (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The editorial reasoning it is the Presidency article is because that certain sentence is in the Economy section of the article. Therefore, the things that are in the stimulus are important, and could use more detail. And also, seeing as there is also a Presidency section in Obama's biography, his presidency is notable to his biography. And if his presidency is notable to his biography, then shouldn't there be more details about what happened during his presidency, such as what was in the stimulus, in his biography? If you take a look at the articles about all the other presidents, there is tons of details about each of their presidencies in their own biography. Why should it be any different for Obama? --Joker123192 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
See WP:Summary style. This article links to sub-articles which each go into much more detail about narrower subject areas, and provides a summary of each one. It has to contain less information, on every topic, than the sub-articles - otherwise there'd be no point having sub-articles, it'd be impossible to edit this one due to edit conflicts, the History would spiral to an unmanageable size, the Talk page would be swamped with topics that really weren't important... well anyway, you get the idea. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I would not be adding too much extra information to it. I would just like to change one sentence. Are you sure there is no way this could be added in?--Joker123192 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It can be included if you get consensus support for it, but the other editors seem to be in favour of reducing, not increasing, the coverage of this bill in articles other than its own. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 04:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Accelerated Archiving

Do discussions have to be archived so quickly on this article? Shouldn't they remain up at least a week or so? Some of us would like the chance to participate in them before they're summarily relegated to the dustbin of history. Even if the material is somewhat of a rehashing of issues already discussed, by archiving all such discussions so quickly, many editors are de facto locked out of having any input on them. I'm not suggesting rehashes should remain up for even a month, but at least a week would be nice, huh? Ikilled007 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Typically discussions are archived when they're reached their natural conclusion, but sometimes it is done more quickly as a means of preventing disruption to the Talk page. If you have a new contribution to make but the discussion has been archived, please start a new section. It isn't forbidden to discuss any aspect of the article, and the reception your suggestions get should be based on their merits. I take it you're familiar with the article probation, Biographies of Living Persons policy, and the importance of reliable sources. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I find that on this article specifically, it's not typical to archive discussions at their conclusions. They seem to be archived before many editors who'd like to have input have been able to add any input at all. Some people only check Wikipedia every 4 or 5 days and sometimes 3 discussions are begun and archived in that time. I mean, if a person shows up once a month and misses a bunch of discussions, that's fine... but if a person shows up every 4 days or so and controversial discussions are begun and archived that fast... I dunno, I can't be the only one who has found this to be a unfortunate trend on this article specifically. Ikilled007 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The threads that are archived most quickly are those that are perceived to be unproductive. At the risk of triggering something ironic, then, did you want to discuss any particular issue about the article? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I thought that the discussion of "professor vs lecturer vs taught" above was making some progress until it was suddenly archived. It did not appear to have reached a "natural conclusion" to me. But there have been several discussions which I have noticed have been begun and then archived so quickly that it was frustrating. If it happens again, I'll notify you on your personal talk page if you'd like. Ikilled007 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's obviously a bit of a collective judgment call as to when a discussion has run its course in terms of usefulness, and naturally there are going to be times when individual editors disagree with the decision to close a thread (or to keep it open). In the "professor" thread above there was a lot of not very productive stuff and some stuff that perhaps was moving in a more productive direction, though from my (very quick) perusal I'd say more of the former. In a case like that I'd echo what Sheffield said above that starting a new section is completely fine, perhaps saying "I know the previous discussion devolved into acrimony and non-productive suggestions, but I still think we can/should work out issue x, etc. etc."
Ultimately there's no getting around the fact that there is a lot of disruption to this talk page which inhibits article improvement, and it's in our best interests to archive those type of discussions fairly quickly. If something useful is unfortunately lost in that process, which I suppose is inevitable, we can pretty easily begin again. Hope that's helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with (the alarmingly named) Ikilled007, in both the general point and the particular example. Of course it's very tiresome to have to deal with the hairsplitters, fanatics, and apparent borderline loonies who pop up here; so I do sympathize with the emotion "Oh do shut the &%#& up already!" On the other hand I also see an overeagerness here both to ascribe nefarious motivation to suggestions for change and then to dismiss the suggestion as merely a product of that motivation. In such an atmosphere, it's hardly surprising that the guardians of this article (who I think mostly do a good job) are themselves charged with acting to promote a PoV. ¶ Yes, I've read the "probation" text; which reads in part Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith; this makes no distinction between (a) BF assumptions by newcomers about regulars and (b) BF assumptions by regulars about newcomers. ¶ Back to Ikilled007's example of Lecturer/professor. I too thought that the discussion was going somewhere productive when a curiously combative editor jumped in with a mixture of intriguing comments, OR, and wild allegations. But as he's now out of the way (with no argument from me) I think the discussion might be allowed to resume. Not that there's anything that I now want to add to it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This page probably isn't the best place to get into a detailed discussion of article patrol. If you're interested in the subject you might want to peruse the article probation page and the ongoing ArbCom case on the matter. In brief, you are right (in my opinion) that some of the harsh treatment of newbies is excessive, and we are all best off assuming good faith and being courteous with everyone. However, that does not mean tolerating disruption or allowing combative or unconstructive editors free roam of the articles on probation. Quite the opposite, the more effective we are at keeping this page orderly and constructive, the less frustration there is on all sides, and the less temptation there is for editors to antagonize each other. There was indeed a good discussion to be had on whether Obama was a professorer or lecturer, or whether we could sidestep the issue by simply saying he taught. The discussion devolved to the point of being unsalvageable not because anyone didn't want to hear it, but because some of the editors were insulting each other. The issue won't go away just because the thread was closed. I would give it a few days and wait to make sure that everyone here is in good spirits, and also keep in mind that it is a very minor issue and there is no deadline to perfect the article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is why we don't have a criticism article

unconstructive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Because we'd get this:

Cheeseburger controversy

Obama went to a restaurant in Virginia on 6 May 2009 and ordered a cheeseburger. This sparked controversy for his choice of mustard instead of ketchup and for ordering his burger medium-well.[1]

Sincerely, Sceptre (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We should definitely have an article called Criticism of medium-well hamburgers, because everyone knows that undercooked ground beef can give you the dreaded lurgy. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Good god man. This needs to be in the lead right away.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"millions of pics and vids of obama"

Non-issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

doesnt anyone think its funny how there are millions of pics and vids of obama on his article, whereas there are very few in Bush's article??? JUST A THOUGHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimmerfreak94 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take it up at Talk:George W. Bush, not here. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
But that response seems to take it for granted that so far as the two articles differ, this is the better one. It's imaginable that it's the other way around. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Swimmerfreak94, I counted, but I didn't reach the millions. I realize that you have a distinctive prose style, but if you really have a question, do please ask it in a sober fashion. (And if you're merely venting, please vent on a different website.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


sorry. I didnt mean "millions" obviously, but I just meant that there are alot of them...and I wasn't venting, just wondering why. Are all of them needed? Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe I miscounted, but I count 24 in the Bush article, and 15 here (including the infobox). If images are "needed" is a weird question. A better one would be if they improve the article. Which one do you think does not? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
This is fascinating to me in light of the "facts" so often raised at this talk page. Swimmerfreak94, how many photos do you count at the two articles? Stephan seems to be including visuals which are not photographs, which is understandable and doesn't change the ratio, but by my count there are 22 photos in the George W. Bush article and 13 in the Barack Obama article. That's nearly twice the amount in the Bush article as there are in the Obama article. Yet the perception of Swimmerfreak is that there are "millions" (hyperbole, I understand) in the Obama article and "very few" in Bush's article. In other words, Swimmerfreak is not only incorrect in her perception, she's got it absolutely backwards. I've kept quiet as I've seen ChildofMidnight and others make similarly unfounded contrasts between the two articles, as if they just assume what's there and don't even venture to check their claims before they post them. I say this not to jump all over Swimmerfreak, just to make a broader point about the powers of observation and perception and interpretation and comparison and balance of stridently and sarcastically critical, even accusatory posters on this Bush/Obama (or simply Libertarian anti-Obama) tip. While some of those other issues may be a little too complex for many minds, this one is straightforwardly, irrefutably concrete, finite and provable. We throw around words like million and billion and trillion and perhaps we didn't all major in economics or poli sci, but we can all count into the teens and twenties, yes? We do actually contemplate the postulates of these threads before we respond, and not just kick out with knee-jerk partisan responses, right? Perhaps it's time to actually think about our thoughts. Abrazame (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and in addition to all of that, ask yourself Do you think what you think you think? -- Hoary (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This is getting pretty far afield. Does anyone have any proposals for images to add, delete, or rearrange? If not let's just mark this one resolved, as no proposal resulted. Wikidemon (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any problem to solve. Each photo was argued about at its inclusion, and the result is at least OK. So, pace specific suggestions, there's nothing to do here. PhGustaf (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Raising unemployment rate in US

no viable discussion here about article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

article: Unemployment Rate Climbs to 8.9 Percent

Why there is 0 word about it in the article? Prodtree (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Prodtree", if you want to pass for somebody other than "MultiplyPerfect" you're going to have to brush up your prose somewhat. ("Rising unemployment rate" just for starters.) One possibility is that this results from blindly follows yet another whitewashing Protocol of the Elders of Wikipedia. Another is that it's because this article is primarily about Obama, and only secondarily about the extraordinary economic situation bequeathed by the policies of his sorely missed predecessor. -- Hoary (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

An uncited bit I removed

I removed this uncited bit that also seems like a very POV assertion:

  • Early in his presidency, Obama moved to implement the war strategy he had campaigned on, scaling back combat operations in Iraq and intensifying the effort in Afghanistan.[1]

Feel free to discuss, cite and restore as appropriate. Assertions that he implemented something he campaigned on seems particularly promotional considering that content and sources indicating he has broken various promises are excluded from this and most other Obama related articles. I think a straight statement of his policies would be better. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Very reasonable in terms of a removal—it's a failed ref (i.e., the link is dead) making an extremely vague claim and thus has no place in a featured article.
Can we, pretty please, take this moment to revise and extend the section on Obama's presidency? Based on a couple of previous discussions about expanding the presidency section, I do think it's about that time, and probably a few other editors agree on that.
Of course any discussion about how to grow the section on Obama's presidency needs to proceed with all editors involved extending the utmost courtesy to one another. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a new source for that entry:[2] Saying it was something he campaigned on helps with context-- in general his first term will include doing things that were a big part of his campaign message, like health care reform & tax changes, doing things that came up during the campaign but were not central, like his approach to the economic crisis (important to his victory but not part of the "hope & change"), and things that come from new developments, like swine flu. If we eliminate all the context, the Presidency section well devolve into a list of "on this date he did this, on this date he did this...." Much better is "On this date he did this as he said he would during the campaign, on this date he responded to this crisis with this action, on this date he backed away from this earlier promise..." and so on. Harder to defend against POV attack but more informative, especially since this is the biography page, where we should be showing his intentions, successes and failures rather than list his actions. CouldOughta (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Obama would send 7,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, lessen force in Iraq[dead link‍]
  2. ^ Obama Calls for U.S. Military to Renew Focus on Afghanistan
I think a straight desciption of notable policies would be best. Synthesizing and cherry picking what promises have or haven't been kept gets into a lot of POV issues and would be better dealt with in other Obama articles where it can be handled more fully. It's certainly notable that Obama campaigned on removing troops from Iraq and focusing more on Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's certainly notable that he is adding troops in Afghanistan and removing troops from Iraq. Connecting these encyclopedic bits with statements about which promises he's kept is far less notable and encyclopedic. Are we going to note that he pledged to use public finance for his campaign but then didn't? That he promised not to raise taxes on 95% of the population and then raised cigarette taxes? What if he doesn't withdraw the troops after the planned 16 months? Are we going to report that he broke his promise? It just seems messy to get into that kind of thing. I think we should stick to the straight facts as much as possible, and I agree with Bigtimepeace that what is needed most in this article is the addition of the most notable policies and decisions in the presidency section. And I think it's time that fluff about which world leaders he met before being elected can be trimmed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree in general that we must minimize synthesis, both to keep encyclopedic and to avoid POV edit wars. Your particular questions are intriguing-- I'd say that the cigarette tax would never be notable enough to merit mention, while the public funds question is notable enough to put in now, since it's one of his more notable actions to this point. Probably its importance will dwindle and it would merit removal in a year or two. Not withdrawing the troops after 16 months would be notable less as a campaign promise unfulfilled than a presidential effort that was unsuccessful. It serves as an excellent example of minor but necessary synthesis-- if he's not successful with that important effort, that fact should go into the bio, but there would be no "event" to report; we would have to say that he was unable to withdraw the troops as intended and possibly mention increased Iraqi civil unrest or something as the reason. (Or, more probably, report the dispute over whether the remaining troops were "combat" troops or not.) In either case, just listing successive actions by the president isn't going to be enough even for the summary here on the bio page. (Incidentally, I'm saying "actions," you said "policies"; we really have more of a list of actions going on in the section.) In summary, the deleted section doesn't dwell on Obama as a campaign-promise-keeper, it just gives context to his initial actions on the war. CouldOughta (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you know, the Presidential Campaign section really ought to mention that he reversed himself on the public funding. Though its importance may dwindle over the years, at the moment it's one of his more significant decisions, at least as significant as his being the first candidate to turn down public funds. CouldOughta (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It should not mention the public funding issue, because Obama did not "reverse" himself. I thought we'd seen the last of that little piece of spin-doctoring. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I missed an earlier discussion. The New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC.com, and LA Times use the terms "turnabout", "backtracking", "abandoning an earlier commitment" and "changing an earlier stand" respectively: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25259863/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503193.html http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/20/nation/na-campaign20 http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/20/nation/na-campaign20 . We may debate whether the matter is important enough to include in the biographical article, or whether it was a campaign necessity, but the reliable sources are clear. CouldOughta (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It might help if you searched through the archive to find that discussion. The fact of going off public funding is a significant issue that may well affect the way future campaigns are run. The accusation of going back on his word by contrast was a relatively minor political issue that did not seem to have much coverage or effect, certainly it did not resonate much outside the beltway. As for the substance behind the accusation, it sounds like an argument about how to characterize known facts rather than an argument about what happened. Obama explained it in a way that denies reneging on a promise / deal, and some news analysis backed that up. Others said he did reneg, and some back that up. So in addition to the weight issue we have conflicting interpretations. And then of course we have the political operatives, editorialists, pundits, etc., all of whose opinions are at least one rung down the ladder as far as how significant their opinion is to the life and times of Barack Obama. Without rereading the old discussion myself, my inclination is that being the first candidate to turn down public funds is worth mentioning, but the history behind that is not. If we do mention the history it should be in a neutral way if possible, something roughly like "After initially making an agreement with the McCain campaign that both candidates would accept public funds [etc], on [date] Obama announced that his campaign would exceed the relevant spending limit, stating that McCain's acceptance of [xxxx] support meant [yyyyy]". We can then have wikilinks and citation links to other places where readers can read about the full detail. Sorry to be so abstract, I just don't have the facts at my fingertips to fill in those blanks. Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

"I have a dream" that on some day (maybe in 2080?) there will be a critics section on Obama's page. We are not in North Korea/China/Cuba. Prodtree (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not soap boxing. Do you have anything constructive to say? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This is constructive: open a critics section. Yes, I know this is so hard on politics pages, I've many experiences about it in other languages on wikipedia. But why are you Obama fans fear about critics? That would improve the article. Prodtree (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Please read question 6 in the FAQ section at the top of this page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Compare it by question 9: "This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy." In math it is called contradiction. Prodtree (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Er... you need to read the answers to the questions as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Criticism sections are not considered good form, rather "criticism" should be spread throughout an article. You'll notice we don't have a criticism section in George W. Bush, and that Criticism of George W. Bush redirects to a similar article title as Criticism of Barack Obama does.
And consider this a formal warning about assuming bad faith of other editors (e.g. "we are not in North Korea/China/Cuba" and "why are you Obama fans fear about critics/"). Those kind of comments are not acceptable on this page, and your overall approach here is not going to get you anywhere. Constructive comments about how to improve the article are good, snarky references to an MLK speech are not. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
What Bigtimepeace said. As I said a couple of days ago, an out-an-out Criticism section will invariably end up with criticism of his choice of condiment on a cheeseburger. Sceptre (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> What does criticism from Paul Krugman on Obama's left calling for more intervention in banking, or criticism from conservatives opposed to massive spending and deficits, or opposition from some economists to government taking over business decisions at major corporations have to do with condiments? This seems like an absolutely absurd and frivolous statement. The fact is that this article, and the Obama content on Wikipedia generally, is almost wholly devoid of notable criticism, and where it exists it is carefully segregated so that it isn't properly linked to and conveniently available for readers. There needs to be an article on criticism, a section of notable criticisms, and/or appropriate additions of these issues, and it's perfectly reasonable to point out that Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored per policy and that indeed we are not supposed to operate like the North Korean or Chinese governments in filtering news and content to suit our political biases. Consider this a formal warning that doing so violates the integrity of Wikipedia and is explicitly prohibited in the WP:Vandalism policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The general consensus on "criticism" at this point is that it should be included throughout an article when appropriate, not set aside in separate sections or separate articles. That's how we handle things at George W. Bush too, so this isn't just about Obama. Now you might have an argument that this article is slanted too much in the pro-Obama direction - i.e. that there is an NPOV problem. If that's true, and I'm not saying that it is or isn't, the way to fix it is to see that the article reflects to some degree the criticism in secondary sources and does so throughout the article. Suggestions for a whole article or section of criticism are almost certainly non-starters, but suggestions about notable criticism added to a certain point of the article are of course welcome. If the consensus is to reject such a suggestion that doesn't necessarily mean there's a conspiracy to censor the article.
And, as you've been warned before, you'll need to stop that kind of rhetoric if you want to continue to contribute here or at other Obama articles. You might stop and think about what you are saying before you compare the collective work of the editors of this article to the governmental policies of North Korea (take a look at this article for example). The North Korean government forces young girls into prostitution, here we just have an argument about NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and such among a group of well-meaning folks who seem to have a fair amount of free time to diddle around on an online encyclopedia. This is not an authoritarian hellscape, it's a hotly contested Wikipedia article about a political figure where everyone needs to strictly abide by our civility policies and respect other editors. Like everyone else you'll have to check your assumptions of bad faith at the door or you simply won't be able to edit this article. And please note that you are not the only editor that I've warned about this, nor is it only editors on your "side" of the dispute who have had problems in this regard.
And to tie the two preceding paragraphs together, you'll have a lot more luck advocating for your editorial concerns if you assume good faith of other editors, act in a collegial fashion, and generally avoid comparing folks here to the Dear Leader. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we've established that there is no consensus for a "criticism" section and none is reasonably likely to result from this discussion. Is there any other specific proposal or question here vis-a-vis improving the article? Otherwise there seems more to lose than to gain by continuing this discussion. Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I always try to assume editors are acting in good faith, but if actions contradict this assumption then there is a real problem. Please read the WP:Vandalism page that covers the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's integrity. There are also clear policies about including a variety of notable perspectives and opinions. Those working actively against these guidelines are acting inappropriately.
As far as maintaining an assumption of good faith, this requires that good faith is demonstrated. Working collaboratively to build the best encyclopedia possible requires ceasing personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against those trying to include or link to notable controversies and criticisms. It requires avoiding specious arguments that these editors want to include content about Obama's choice of condiments, for example.
If editors don't want to be compared to censors, they should be careful not to act as censors. We are all required to abide by our guidelines and to demonstrate good faith by collaborating and working out solutions to content disputes. Please make counterproposals and suggestions to address concerns rather than attacking those making critiques or suggestions and just saying NO.
This article and Wikipedia's Obama coverage have serious flaws including the exclusion of notable criticisms and controversies. Many good faith editors have suggested a criticism article (like those we have and had in the past including for the most recent U.S. president). Alternatively we've suggested a criticism section, where the most notable can be included. Alternatively we've suggested including the most notable ones. Alternatively we've suggested wikilinking to notable criticisms and controversies. Alternatively we've suggested a "see also" link to a List of topics related to Barack Obama so Wikipedia's content can be navigated with greater ease than the mass of categories and numerous collapsed templates at the bottom of this page. Probably some combination of these approaches would be best. Or, if there is a better approach or alternative to these, please suggest it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I oppose a criticism section, and it seems very unlikely that one would gain consensus in the near future. I am personally fine linking to the "list of topics" article, which already exists, or creating a master template or portal page that links to everything. I'll go ahead and propose that in a new subsection below. Do you have any other specific suggestion or request for the article? Let's stay on track with this, and concentrate on the article improvements. Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Re CoM regarding the condiment argument: Because criticism sections, more often than not, tend to have a runaway effect and yes, it will end up including a disproportionate amount of coverage about him ordering mustard on his burger last week, which was only picked up by wingnuts such as Hannity on a slow news day because they're upset that he's a "communist". Criticism sections and articles also present a major NPOV problem because all of the negative viewpoints have been moved/shunted into one place. But this has already been said and I'm not going to expand on that.
Regarding the censorship argument, I find it rather spurious. Merriam-Webster defines the verb "censor" as:

To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.

— Merriam-Webster
In a way, if we stick to this definition, we are censoring the article. But it must be emphasised that the pure semantic definition makes no distinction between good and bad. And this is the good type of censorship: we deal with criticism the way we do because to do otherwise (i.e., sections and articles) would present objections to the article's neutrality and featured status.
Maybe the best comparison to another politician is McCain, not Bush. Both articles were featured articles some time before their confirmation as their party's candidates for the presidential election. The McCain articles actually do a pretty decent job of presenting criticism of the man, which is alongside praise of the man, or in context to what he has been criticised for. And I'd probably credit that to proper article evolution. When people get together to make an article look good, you get good articles. For another example, look at Hilary Rodham Clinton, a capital "G" Good Article.
Please, COM, drop the campaigning to get a criticism article, as it has a snowball's chance of happening as long as NPOV exists. If you want an article devoted to criticising Obama, go to Conservapedia. But this is Wikipedia, where we try to aim to be neutral. Sceptre (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Besides, he hasn't really had enough time to mess up enough to warrant it (not an implication he will, just that he has been trying to fix pre-existing problems, so he hasn't had time to make his own policy really) Soxwon (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I oppose any criticism section in any BLP on the grounds that they are crappy ways of putting criticism into articles. In the case of Obama, it would become stuffed with all sorts of weight-busting rubbish, birther nonsense, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to "List of topics" article

It's proposed that we add a "see also" link to the List of topics related to Barack Obama article, as a navigational aid and to allow readers to quickly find material. I think that's a good idea because it puts everything in one place. Any thoughts, approval, disagreement? I'll add that this may go some way to addressing concerns that some negative and peripheral material gets lost when it's more than one click away from this main article, yet it does so in a neutral way. Wikidemon (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Arkon (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else? Wikidemon (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I oppose any link to this coatracky reinvention of categories and templates, clearly conceived as a way of forking around the rejection of a "see also" section stuffed with Bill Ayers, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

o_0, I had no idea that ridiculous article's deletion was overturned via DRV. All it is is a red-headed stepchild of the infinitely easier-to-navigate navboxes we already have. Keep this redhead an orphan, it serves no functional purpose. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one it would alleviate all the accusations of censoring controversies that occured, and acknowledging that they involved Obama. It's not really feasible to deny they aren't semi-significant when they have their own articles, so instead of putting a huge black eye on the main Obama article, why not simply have them with all the other things related to Obama. Soxwon (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What is needed is a proper portal, not a list of topics. Are you aware of the existence of a "list of topics" for any other living person on Wikipedia? I have been unable to find one. I haven't even been able to find on for a non-living person. Highly irregular. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
However, the Obama page has a lot more spin-offs than other biographies. Soxwon (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
So? A portal would still be better, more transparent and more useful. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see much of a difference. What does a portal give that makes it so necessary?Soxwon (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not necessary. It is just better. A portal helps to promote its subject, encourage participation and provide a focal starting point for anyone interested in learning about the subject. It shares universal features with other portals which helps to make its content more navigable and accessible. The "list of topics" approach has none of those benefits. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a brilliant idea. I've started working on one here. Sceptre (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Watchlisted. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, how about a link to the "list of" for now, and once there's a portal up and running with all the articles linked there, we direct it to the portal instead? Wikidemon (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
How about transferring the links from the "list of" to the portal, which would take all of 2 minutes. Then we won't ever need to link to the should-have-stayed-deleted topic list. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Done by a BOLD move. Sceptre (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal

This is a temporary place of discussion so we can build the portal while the iron's hot. Currently, it's half complete with several sections missing. I've set up a page that gives out seven random pages. There are two things we need to do:

  • Set up the random page selector for the random article, biography, and image sections;
  • Add more articles to the random article selector (possibly throwing out ten truly random articles?) Sceptre (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have questions about the portal.

  1. Where will it be linked to from the main Barack Obama article and other Obama related articles? I remember looking into portals a bit when the idea was proposed during the AfD on the "list of" article discussion and I found there was a comedy portal, but I didn't see any sign of it at the comedy article. Will this be linked to prominently for readers rather than just insiders?
  2. The big advantage of the "list of" article was how easy it made navigation of the numerous topics, as opposed to a jumble of categories and templates. The articles are all included and organized into subtopics. I know the portal is under contruction, but it doesn't seem to have an obvious listing of this type, and the topics shown (as far as I can tell) are only a random sampling. Is there a way to include all the topics up front? Is there another solution for those trying to navigate these articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    Once it's completed, the link will just below the presidency infobox. And the random sample is there specifically because the list would over-inundate the portal main page. Sceptre (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    By the way, I don't expect to be completely finished with creating the portal until at least after the week's over. I'm ostensibly busy over the next two weeks. Sceptre (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
As the portal doesn't meet the need for index of list of Obama article topic I will be restoring that article. It's needed and it should be linked to from this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Categories and templates already meet that need. The portal complements these, adding additional accessibility. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal counterproposal

Respectfully, I think a portal for Barack Obama is a bad idea. Most people's suggestions on this page fall into one of two categories: A) problems with organized government or politicians in general and/or "liberals" in particular (far too general yet far too complex to be focused on or funneled through one man), and B) personal issues with the man (far too specific and irrational). For those who lament a perceived deification of Obama, subjecting the man with his own portal is just the sort of overblown, cult-of-personality overexposure they already can't stand and does indeed seem inappropriate. For those who seek a broader and easier-to-game platform for insinuating and projecting ideological negativity disguised as legitimate criticism, it would be a Pandora's box.

The fact is, most criticism discussed here that has any rational and informed bearing in fact whatsoever is really more appropriate for topic articles than a biography or person-oriented venue, and should be related to those topics or genres rather than an individual human being. Any reasonable person familiar with this page can see a pattern of prejudiced attempts to pin any and every bit of bad news they spot on Obama. By "prejudiced" I'm not referring to Obama's race, though of course that is an issue for some, I'm referring to people who come to the table with a bone to pick with liberals, with Democrats, with major parties, with "big government", with lawyers, with politicians, with Americans, et cetera. As such, some of these complainants would be dive-bombing this bio exactly the same way if Obama were white. Which means it's truly not uniquely notable to Obama. As others have said, when actual policy decisions enacted by the man fail, that could rise to the level of inclusion in the man's biography. I say "when" because no president has a 100% success record, and I say "could" because some failures are simply not relevant to or even addressable in a biography of such brevity as is necessitated at Wikipedia.

For example, somebody who takes issue with the budget or the Stimulus package should know there are all sorts of budget-related articles, including Bush's Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. They should know this because a Wiki search for "Stimulus" will lead them there. They should be searching for "Stimulus" instead of "Obama" because what we feel about Obama should play little part in what we think about his response to economic realities that preexisted him. They should be searching for "Stimulus" instead of "Obama" because whatever fits in Obama's article could never really tell the story of his economic policy, and his economic policy fits into a larger picture that includes the worldwide response to this economic crisis as well as a series of stimulative efforts by the Bush administration.

I would think the more responsible portal would be one for current world issues. This would differ from the regular Wikipedia page or the general portal in that history would only be addressed to the degree to which it impacts a specific current event, and current events would only be addressed to the degree they involve a bigger-picture issue. (For example, sports, art, celebrity, natural phenomena, and other topics will be largely absent unless they play a part in a greater and more impactful story.) The U.S. has an outsized role in the world and Obama is the president of the U.S., which means he will surely be directly or indirectly involved in something or other featured at such a portal on a daily basis, yet the perspective will take the healthier and more informative and educational aspect of making people see how that issue sits in relation to other related issues in a global context, as opposed to the tug-of-war between deifying and demonizing a personality instead of dealing with the issue. All of these issues—the economy/banks/stock market, the wars, foreign policy, even issues we would see as national or even local, like outsourcing/downsizing/job creation, manufacturing, tax incentives/breaks/hikes, energy policy/cost/sources/pollution, health care/diseases, etc., have international effects, and in turn are affected by international factors. Perhaps a better focus would be the U.S. in relation to the world, which would allow for non-U.S. perspectives but still be clearly directly or indirectly relatable to U.S. policies and actions within and without its borders. Abrazame (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave to the side the issue of the portal (including your proposal for a "world issues" portal which goes beyond the scope of this page) to the side because I don't have a particular view on that at this point. But I would like to challenge a couple of things you said above. For one thing your "most people's suggestions on this page fall into one of two categories" statement is problematic for a couple of reasons. On the one hand I don't think it's necessarily true, i.e. there are other reasons people are here and have some beef with the article, and also it suggests that most people who object to aspects of this article do so for ideological reasons rather than encyclopedic ones. Certainly there have been users here who have pushed a political agenda, but your comment goes much too far by suggesting that most or all who have a problem with this BLP are doing so. We need to extend a lot more good faith than that.
Second, while obviously this is a summary article and most of the material will be better covered in topic articles, you seem to be suggesting that we should largely restrict "criticism" to those articles. I don't agree with that. If you look at our FDR article, which is featured, you'll note that there's a good amount of "criticism" (I'm loath to use that term) or material that casts a somewhat negative light on the man there. While generally considered the "best" president of the 20th century, there's also (of course) been a lot of criticism of FDR (court packing scheme, his record on issues of race, etc.) and some of that is reflected in our biography of him. I think we should end up with something similar in our Obama article. The most important aspect of his life will undoubtedly be his presidency, and part of what our article here will need to do is evaluate that, and inevitably that will include some negative evaluations as well (unless he ends up with 90% approval ratings and universal acclaim when he's done, but that seems unlikely). We cannot simply leave critical evaluations to sub-articles. Perhaps you agree with that and the difference between our comments is one of emphasis, but I'm wary of arguments that seem to suggest that BLPs of massively important public figures should not speak to the most relevant and notable criticisms of the person in question. Note that this is a long term view I'm taking here—I don't think we need to dump in a bunch of "critical" views right now and indeed that's a terrible way to edit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping for some contemplation of my actual point. It seems that your response to me is guilty of the same sort of stultification you accuse me of. (Worse, as I'm clearly substantively responding to a major development and not blogging or scandal mongering.) It was a poor choice of words for me to say "Most people's suggestions" (are somewhat irrelevant, even irresponsible). What I meant was that "Most new sections are created to introduce suggestions" (that are somewhat irrelevant, even irresponsible). Of course I didn't mean that it was my take that rarely to never is anything pithy said here. When I said "most" I meant more often than not. I did not mean "most or all," which you paraphrase me as saying. Don't take my words out of context, push them to a greater extreme, and then tell me I've gone too far.
What I did say and what I stand by is that most of what is suggested comes off as inappropriate or irrelevant attempts to dog one man, and I wish we could expand the focus of a portal to avoid enabling more of that. A quick scan of the first lengthy archive (58) suggests 23 completely unhelpful topics out of 32, including "Hard-shell suit", "Obama's plan against swine flu" and an effort to blame recently released GDP shrinkage on Obama, along with another swing at Bill Ayers, a retread on his citizenship, something about his brother, some sort of fringe documentary, not one but two sections complaining that the article doesn't deserve featured staus, a couple of sections on the dog, and someone announcing their creation of an article on the hyped allegation of censorship of a painting of Obama as the crucified savior, the ref for which has since been shown to be self-promotional hype and the article deleted. While I don't want either of us to dwell on those, if I'm so wrong in my assessment, are you're suggesting that these aren't irrelevant at best, better-handled elsewhere for a few, and spurious or even prejudiced at worst, for a brief encyclopedia bio?
As to your point about FDR, how much of the criticism that is there is both about and was extant during the first three months of his first term? (Particularly off the mark is your assertion about "his record on issues of race", as in the context of the times he was a hero to a great many different sorts of minorities.) I have never said or implied that there should not be criticism or greater detail on certain issues at this article and I have not done it in the post above. I explicitly said "no president has a 100% success record," so I don't understand why you seem to be schooling me on the fact that he'll need to be having criticism unless he ends up with 90% approval ratings. Did you read my post, or just skim it?
The biggest irony of your post is that you essentially say the same things: This is a summary article, most of the material will be better covered in topic articles, we should end up with meaningful and enduring criticism in this article, we need to take a long-term view and shouldn't dump a bunch of "critical" views for their own sake.
My point was that some of those editors buzzing about this place do not seem to have contributed responsibly (if at all) to articles about the issues they're raising here. With most of these allegations, if they're going to make it into Obama's bio, they should be able to make the hurdle into a more specifically relevant article first, don't you think? In other words, if someone is alleging that Obama's handling of the current swine flu epidemic is deficient (as presently called for at the Presidency talk page, or pick your issue) wouldn't such a fact (were it so) be even more notable for the article on the epidemic?
Finally, as to your comment that my U.S. global issues portal counterproposal goes beyond the scope of this page, isn't that precisely the point of a Barack Obama portal—not to mention the "List of topics" article—that we have established these as things that go beyond the scope of this page, so they are relegated to other pages, yet editors want to forever tether this page (indeed, this man) to them nevertheless? My point about that, which I would hope strikes someone as reasonable to address, is that Obama shouldn't be the beginning, middle and end focal point for anyone in or out of this country who would seek to blame or malign or complain about the handling of every (arguably) newsworthy issue. Swine flu could have the potential to be more notable than a normal flu season, the stimulus may be a grand success or a mixed bag or completely forgotten about, but why must we tattoo every fear-mongerer's or naysayer's words upon Obama at this point? Similarly, the issues about the economy and stimulus and wars and torture and Guantanamo and military tribunals, etc., are more productively viewed and discussed as what those humongous and complex issues are, which are Pandora's boxes that were opened in a previous administration and must yet be dealt with, rather than simply "tag-you're-it" and hanging it around Obama's neck hoping it'll drown him. Yes, he is now responsible for leading us through this, and his decisions and their effects (and not just the right says this and the left says that) will likely prove eminently notable to the story of his presidency, and even his biography. I'd say it's time for a mention about tribunals in Presidency. But back to the point, a portal devoted to Obama is like opening a mall for the cottage industry of Obama smearers (to those reading this, if that's not you then don't take offense) to move in and take up shop, whereas if it was about the broader issue of our country, those people might get to work establishing that there are different notable views on all of these important issues without having to vilify Obama over it all. Abrazame (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't really think we're in disagreement. Sorry if you feel I misread your "most editors do such and such" statement, I certainly meant no offense to you personally, I'm just wary of comments on this page that generalize about a group of editors and want people to avoid those comments because they can be misinterpreted. Not a big deal. I don't think I characterized your comment as stultifying or indeed anything even approaching that. As to the criticism aspect, I of course was not trying to "school" you as you say, but rather make a general point for anyone reading this talk page that I thought was important and with which I thought you might well (and apparently do) agree, as I suggested when I said "perhaps you agree with that and the difference between our comments is one of emphasis." You're obviously right in what you say about FDR and his popularity with "minorities" and I never said (and never in a million years would have said) otherwise, but I find that completely beside the point I was making, which was simply that biographical articles about presidents should and do have critical aspects in them (had Wikipedia existed in 1933 we would have had different stuff in the FDR article then we do now, just as if Wikipedia exists 75 years from now our Barack Obama article will look a lot different). Again we seem to basically agree about all of this so I don't think there's much more to discuss. And yes I did read your entire first comment, and the second one too.
As to the portal issue, I'm sorry but it's just not that important to me and I don't have major feelings about it either way (I was responding to other aspects of your comment aside from the main thrust, as I noted at the outset). I like the idea of a "current world issues" portal (or maybe something of more limited scope) assuming we don't already have one, but I just think an idea like that is much bigger than this talk page and should be discussed/proposed/engendered elsewhere. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama, Published

Do we have a complete list of Obama's publications. I know he's authored two books; are there any scholarly publications or essays or columns (newspaper/news magazine, etc.) or any noteworthy legal briefs (from his days with the law firm), or anything in addition to the books? I imagine there have to be some. Shouldn't we have his publication history included? Seems that is both relevant and noteworthy. Thoughts? Ikilled007 (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The names that go on legal briefs is a complicated matter that bears only passing relationship with who wrote the darn thing. I would hate to say "Obama wrote this" simply because his name is on the brief (in firms, three or four names may appear on an appellate brief and it may have been actually written by a junior associate or law clerk who is not mentioned. Happened to me when I worked for a public interest firm.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I could see that being a useful list - worthy of a full "list of" article perhaps - but it might be more difficult to develop than one would think. Obama's people are not known for being very forthcoming in terms of stuff he wrote in the past, though this article discusses what was apparently the one thing he published while at the Harvard Law Review, an article with the boy-I-can't-wait-to-read-that title "TORT LAW - PRENATAL INJURIES - SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE CAUSE OF ACTION BROUGHT BY FETUS AGAINST ITS MOTHER FOR UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF PRENATAL INJURIES." Aside from that he obviously must have a number of newspaper editorials as part of his various campaigns and/or pushing his legislative agenda since holding elective office, but odds are a lot of those were not even written by him since that's pretty standard for those kind of op-eds (though if he attaches his name to it obviously we could count it as his publication). A quick search does not reveal a reliable list of all of those and it would probably take a lot of work to gather it (and could shade into original research territory). I guess my overall view is that such a list would be nice to have but it's hardly a pressing need and I'm not sure how we would put it together. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
You can run into the WP:NOT problems when you try to put together comprehensive lists of things. Maybe there's an off-Wikipedia site. Law briefs aren't authored or published in the conventional sense, so mixing them with journal articles, editorials, books, and speeches might create some confusion. A list of cases lead or argued, or matters handled, is probably more useful as a vita item for an attorney. Basically what we're looking for is an extended curriculum vitae. Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, guys. Just thought that since he's an actual scholar as opposed to... ahem... certain other recent presidents, there might be an easily accessible body of work we could include. Ikilled007 (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Lecturer and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School

  1. At 13:18, 3 May 2009, new editor KenmanLF—in their first and only edit—started Talk:Barack Obama#Academics.
  2. At 20:32, 6 May 2009, discussion of Talk:Barack Obama#Academics degenerated with the arrival of Thegoodlocust.
  3. At 16:01, 7 May 2009, administrator SheffieldSteel, with the comment: "BAMF - problem gone"
    → removed the 11-month-old mention that Obama was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004
    → removed the 6-month-old mention that Obama "served as a professor"
    from the Early life and career section, condensing:

    For twelve years, Obama served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. He was first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.

    to:

    For twelve years, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

    which was shorter and less informative than the lede section:

    … and also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

  4. Through 20:55, 7 May 2009, unproductive discussion of Talk:Barack Obama#Academics by Thegoodlocust continued.
  5. At 21:02, 7 May 2009, discussion of Talk:Barack Obama#Academics was closed and archived by Bobblehead with the comment: "Nothing fruitful can come from continued discussion."
  6. At 23:37, 7 May 2009, administrator Black Kite topic banned Thegoodlocust from all Barack Obama related articles and talk pages for six months for repeated disruptive editing at Barack Obama and its talk page.
  7. By 06:40, 8 May 2009, several interim edits had:
    → added mention that Obama "was a professor" from 1992 to 2004:
    to the Early life and career section, expanding it to say:

    From 1992 to 2004, Obama was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

    which repeated the lede section:

    ...and also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

    except changing "taught constitutional law" to "was a professor of constitutional law"


The 11-month-old mention that Obama was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004

added 05:14, 10 June 2008 by Newross during the Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 24#Articles Problems / Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 24#Professor discussion

should be restored to the Early life and career section, minus:

  1. the awkward "being first classified as a..." phrasing added as a minor edit 15:39, 15 September 2008 by Otheus
  2. the unnecessary, confusing "served as a professor" added without discussion 03:17, 17 November 2008 by Plausible deniability

The Early life and career section should say:

Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.


  • The Early life and career section should be more detailed and informative than the lede section.
    The lede section should be more detailed and informative than the infobox:
  • Obama's Senior Lecturer position from 1996 to 2004 was significantly different from his Lecturer position from 1992 to 1996:
    • teaching load: 3 courses per year as a Senior Lecturer vs. 1 course per year as a Lecturer
    • type of courses taught: Senior Lecturer (core curriculum courses normally only taught by Professors, elective courses) vs. Lecturer (elective courses)
    • salary: income from teaching 3 courses per year as a Senior Lecturer was greater than income from serving as a state Senator
    • academic status: the 7 Senior Lecturers are listed among the 51 Professors, not among the 58 (adjunct) Lecturers in Law[4]
    • exclusivity: 7 Senior Lecturers vs. 58 Lecturers[5]
The six other Senior Lecturers were:[6]
  1. Frank H. Easterbrook, A.B., J.D., Chief Judge (2006– ) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School (1981–1985).[7]
  2. Douglas H. Ginsburg, B.S., J.D., Chief Judge (1993–2000) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (1975–1983);[8]1987 Reagan nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  3. Dennis J. Hutchinson, A.B., B.A., M.A., LL.M., William Rainey Harper Professor and Associate Dean of the College; Associate Professor of Law (1982–1986, w/tenure 1985), Lecturer in Law (1986–1990), Senior Lecturer in Law (1990– ), University of Chicago Law School.[9]
  4. Richard A. Posner, A.B., LL.B., LL.D, Chief Judge (1993–2000) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Professor of law, University of Chicago Law School (1969–1981).[10]
  5. Andrew M. Rosenfield, A.B., A.M., J.D, Managing Partner, Guggenheim Partners LLC (2004– ); founder, former Chairman and CEO of UNext (1998–2004); founder, former President and Chairman of Lexecon Inc. (1977–1998); Senior Lecturer in Law (1984– ), University of Chicago Law School.[11][12][13][14]
  6. Diane P. Wood,, A.B., J.D, Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School (1988–1995).[15] (Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates#Names mentioned).
The 4 U.S. Appeals Court judges (Easterbrook, Ginsburg, Posner, Wood) were all tenured Professors of Law before becoming Senior Lecturers; Hutchinson was a tenured Associate Professor of Law before becoming a Lecturer and then a Senior Lecturer; Rosenfield has been a Senior Lecturer for 25 years. Newross (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Senior Lecturer (not "professor of constitutional law") is the title listed in Obama's Who's Who in America biography entry and in his (37-word) Illinois Blue Book biography as state Senator:
    • Illinois Blue Book 2001–2002, p. 84:[16]
      Illinois Blue Book 2003–2004, p. 81:[17]

      Biography: Attorney; Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School; born Aug. 4, 1961, in Hawaii; bachelor’s degree, Columbia University, NY, 1983; graduate, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, 1991; married (wife, Michelle), has two daughters, Malia Ann and Natasha.

Newross (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


That's a fair summary of the issues and talk page history, but I disagree with the language reverted to,[18] for a number of reasons: slightly convoluted and backward sentence structure (mentioning number of years first, then specific years later); redundancy (taught constitutional law, then one title, then another); unnecessary and not very pertinent detail (title of positions is not important, and meanings of these titles is not apparent and does not help the reader). The key take-away is that Obama taught constitutional law, and as a secondary point that it was as a non-tenure track part time lecturer position rather than as a tenure-track faculty member. The sentence as reverted does not convey that, so it is less helpful to the reader, not more. As tertiary issues (and probably below the threshold of noteworthiness, unless people care enough about them to put them in the footnote) Chicago says it offered him a tenure-track position but he refused, and Chicago claims that "professor" is a valid descriptor, in response to some who cast aspersions of the accuracy of Obama's resume or bios. One solution is to have a paragraph-sized footnote about all this, including the distinction between the two titles / positions, but leave the language in the main body succinct and informative.
I'll add a new side issue that most readers probably don't know what it means to teach constitutional law at a law school, on two fronts. First, most people are probably unaware of the nature of faculty positions at law schools, which are different in terms of prestige, workload, credentials, career path, type of work, and pay than professorships in general (as a start, it tends to be highly paid and constitutional law is one of the most prestigious subjects to study and teach); and second, most people are (one hopes) aware of what the Constitution is but not so the subject of constitutional law, which is about a number of very different legal issues: federalism and separation of powers, due process, freedom of speech and other civil rights, and probably some other main subjects I forget. Being an expert / lecturer on free speech is much different than separation of power and states rights. Wikidemon (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with NewRoss's edit here, but tweaked the first clause to read "For over a decade", to reduce the redundancy in the dates. 'Sgood?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Better - though complex the sentence structure is no longer convoluted, and it now explains better that Lecturer and Senior Lecturer are professor positions (which though clear, may not be entirely accurate -- the long comments that begin this section). I think the redundancy could be eliminated completely by just deleting the introductory clause and starting the sentence, "Obama served..." Wikidemon (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking into account these later references:

a more accurate version would be:

In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law.

Newross (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But... two plus twelve is fourteen. How long did he teach? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama was at the University of Chicago Law School for 13 years—from 1991 to 2004; he taught at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years—from 1992 to 2004; he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for 8 years—from 1996 to 2004.

Obama was (the first) Visiting Law and Government Fellow for 2 years—from 1991 to 1993; he was a Lecturer for 4 years—from 1992 to 1996; he was a Senior Lecturer for 8 years—from 1996 to 2004. In the 1992–1993 academic year, Obama was Visiting Law and Government Fellow and a Lecturer. Newross (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

physical/anatomical facts?

would someone please add a section on "facts about the president" which includes but not limited too: Height? weight? What size suit does he wear? what is his favorite flower? What is his favorite song? Does he know any card games? Does he gamble? Who is his favorite movie star? What is his favorite movie? Which eye does he aim with? what is his hand size? his shoe size? What subject was his favorite in grade school? What did his teachers think about him? Was he an introvert? was he a bully? who was his best friend in high school? What classes did he excel in? Did he fail any classes in grade school? the list goes on. These are topics of interest that anyone would like to know especially about our President. hmm, what else? Does he have a nickname for his wife? for his kids? Does he have a favorite shirt? Does he have a favorite pair of sneakers? Does he currently have a best friend? if so, who is it? When did he first kiss a girl? Who was the first girl he asked on a date? Does he have aspirations for his kids? if so, what are they? How did he and his wife come up with his kids names? What is his favorite sport to play? What is his favorite sport to watch? does have a favorite professional team? a favorite collegiate team? the list of questions goes on. Storm norm (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Do any of those have anything to do with what makes him notable? We are not a collection of trivia. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you! Sounds like you admit that there are some "trivial facts" in Barack Obama's life. Can the fact that some "trivial facts" aren't pointed out be mentioned in the article? Also, you didn't exactly say that you opposed a section of facts. The presidency of the USA is almost by default one of the most (if not most) recognizeable jobs on the planet. By definition, the job requires service through defending the constitution and its laws, a certain level of scrutiny and attention and usually high standards on protocol, propriety and decorum on how to deal with these issues. In holding the highest office in the USA, Barack Obama publicly accepted the fact that his life is now in the public eye, is in the service of the people and therefore cannot in any way be deemed "trivial." Indeed, of all the public figures in society today, the President's TRIVIAL FACTS are probably the LEAST trivial. oh, did I mention he was elected to this position by his peers? oh, and that he was not born in illinois? oh, and did you know he will be 49 in 2010? I think my point is clear. Barack Obama left his private life a long time ago to delve into the public life. He chose to be a person in the political spotlight and therefore in the public spotlight. He is now the President. Facts about a sitting president aren't trivial and should never be. Height, eye color, hair color, shoe size, left or right handed, his grade school friends, his first kiss, etc, should be facts that are cherished by readers today and 100-200 years from now. what kind of watch does he wear? what was his first car? did his dad teach him how to drive? are all the kinds of facts that make a person who they are as a president. a simple fact like, what his favorite dish is, would greatly add depth, character and insight to an article about a man who won the election in 2008. AND, what better place to be directed too if I wanted to know what Barrack's favorite holiday is, than Wikipedia? its funny how humans are sometimes. we wish that we could go back in time to see Plato, Newton, Poe, Shakespear, King Tut, the list goes on. We wish we could add more to their already rich biographies and autobiographies. Now that we have a chance to really get to know a President, to really let the readers in on some good, everyday facts about a person who was president, who in 200 years will be unknown to anyone alive except through video, text and books, we have nothing to offer. There isn't any excuse for this. these gross omissions are what we as humans dream about knowing when it comes to our past and history.Storm norm (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm norm (talk • contribs) 09:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and the sort of things you are looking for don't sound very encyclopedic to me. This kind of trivia would only be included if it was notable, covered by a preponderance of reliable sources, and didn't fall foul of Wikipedia's policies on undue weight and neutrality. This kind of stuff is more suitable for a magazine or a blog, to be honest. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


I know that this will be taken as wrong by some editors as unconstructive, (...) but I kind of agree with storm norm. (well, partially) we shouldn't put everything suggested in this list, because that secion alone would be longer than the entire article! But a few basic things, like height, weight, favorite dish, etc. probably should be added. They just might make the article more interesting. However, alot of information about him, (and excluded from other important presidents, etc.) might be taken as bias. (I know, isn't it sad how every slightest, possible thing now is taken as bias?!) So, storm norm, unless you are willing to add these things onto every one of the 43 other presidents, this might not be taken well by some. Not me, but other editors, etc. Have a GREAT day!! :D Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A certain amount of trivial information, provided it is well sourced, is acceptable. Indeed, the article already contains a soupçon of this sort of thing; however, if we add more it will almost certainly be too much. Also, you will be hard pressed to find much in the way of reliable sourcing for the more esoteric stuff, and the information contained in this article should reflect the coverage of a multitude of good sources, rather than isolated pieces. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Much of the trivia recommended also really doesn't even have any objective fact about it to cover. A person's "favorite" movie/food/book/whatever is a pretty fleeting matter. Even if they claim some favorite thing in one interview, they might well say something different in the next interview; they can either change their tastes or respond to the context without any dishonesty in either case. Stuff like age, school dates, etc. are already in the article, and various obvious corollaries of those facts can be deduced by readers from what we discuss. Purely physical facts like height, weight, handedness are indeed the sort of thing we often cover for athletes and models, but they have much less bearing on politicians. Unless they are somehow especially biographically important, or for some reason subject of special 3rd party discussion, we really don't care about them for an encyclopedia. A book length bio might cover these things, as might a blog or "human interest" magazine article, but what we are writing is different from all those things. LotLE×talk 19:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well said. I agree on most points except handedness. As a lefty myself, I may be biased, but I feel it's somewhat important in the context that handedness often affects how one approaches a situation, as well as in some ways their outlook on life. Also, the recent and disproportionate number of left-handed presidents since WWII is also curious, if not important. Again, I'm biased because I love to see and identify my own kind. But yes, everything you mentioned (and perhaps his handedness) amounts to unencyclopedic trivia, especially in the realm of "favorites" which, as you said, is a fairly fleeting matter for most people. DKqwerty (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Everybody knows that left-handedness is a sign of unmatched intelligence and a high level of sophistication. Clearly, a left-handed POTUS is going to be orders of magnitude more awesome than a righty. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Tvoz/talk 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Scjessey forgot to mention that we lefties are much better looking than the norm and have excellent memories. The article used to mention that Obama was a lefty and that he enjoyed playing poker and eating chili. We took those bits out because the article was getting big and the points seemed trivial. The article is of course bigger still by now, and the points are no less trivial. PhGustaf (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
there is Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to expand the "Presidency" section?

I've brought up this issue before in previous threads found here and here but at this point I would like to see discussion translated into action and ultimately article expansion if others agree. We've passed the hundred day mark and are coming up on almost four months in office for Mr. Obama. Our section on the presidency is simply out of date and inadequate—it references nothing after late February—and I think it's time for us to update that section and best to do so systematically/by discussing it here. It should go without saying at the outset that this will take a bit of work. Ideally this is something we would do periodically as the presidency progresses, and overall that "presidency" section is going to have to expand over time (half or more of our article on George W. Bush is about his presidency, ditto the article on FDR—eventually we should see something similar here but it will obviously take time to build to that since we are still in the early going).

I don't think we need to go hog wild and add a bunch of new stuff, realistically we're probably talking about a couple of paragraphs or thereabouts. A lot of the stuff we add now will naturally be adjusted/removed later as more important issues come up, but I think part of keeping this thing at the "featured" level is keeping it up to date.

I would make just two very non-specific suggestions about how to go about doing this:

  1. We should definitely have more stuff about the response to the economic crisis. Right now we have nothing about the budget or the bank policies or the stuff with the auto companies, and some of that warrants a mention. Clearly the economy has been issue #1 so far and it should be easy to add some more detail there. This is not to say there are not other aspects which could be expanded/added but I think this one is a no brainer.
  2. Right now the section largely reads like reportage based on White House press releases or short AP wire reports. We need to start getting beyond that, and one good way to do that is thinking in terms of reaction to Obama's policies and perhaps even their effects (though in a way it's probably too early for the latter). For the former we should not just think in terms of praise vs. criticism (though that can be part of it) but also in terms of "reaction" that was neither explicitly positive nor negative. I'm being somewhat vague here on purpose, but to give one example we could consider including some information about polling data, though that opens up a whole can of worms (eventually we will need that kind of material though). For now any sort of discussion on reaction and/or effects would have to be incredibly brief and general—i.e. we would not want to quote Paul Krugman, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi or any other specific critic, supporter, or "objective" observer. We'll just want to capture a flavor of how the world outside the White House is responding to his presidency so far.

Of course we should try to work out an expansion of this section in a collaborative fashion rather than just having one editor write something up and dump it in and then arguing about it. I'm not sure how, or if, that's been done in the past but maybe doing some work in a sandbox somewhere would be helpful (or maybe not, it's just one suggestion). Personally I'm more interested in trying to help move us toward consensus than crafting the specifics, and I'm strongly of the view that the only way to work on this is if all editors so engaged comment only on suggestions and content and say nothing - as in nothing whatsover - about other editors. I'm quite willing to enforce that. What I have in mind is WP:CIV on steroids, to be a bit hyperbolic.

Does this sound like a reasonable general thing to do, specifics still to be determined? This talk page has been caught up in a lot of trivial stuff for quite awhile (though right now there are substantive discussions happening above) and I think focusing in on what to my mind is definitely a necessary expansion of the presidency section would be a good way to move us away from that. If it works it would also be good for the article, and good for America, and England, and France, and Japan, and Paraguay, and the rest of the world, and most of the solar system (I'm looking at you—Jupiter).

If others are down with this I think we should get started asap. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is time for this section to be expanded; however, since this is a summary style article we don't need to really debate about what should be in or out. All we really need to do is produce a reasonable summary of Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both Bigtimepeace and Scjessey. The presidency section can definitely hold some more material now that we are a while into Obama's term. However, we should also make sure that any such material is first mentioned in the Presidency article, and "back ported" into this main bio. I think a sandbox area on the talkpage would be a reasonable way to go about an expansion. Proposing a paragraph or two to add could be done there, and put in the article once it reached rough consensus. LotLE×talk 18:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec with Lulu, I'm referring at beginning here to last sentence from Scjessey's comment) Ideally, sure, but I think it's a safe bet that what we summarize will still be cause for debate. And while this article obviously falls under the summary style guideline, remember that things can run both ways. For example, if we make some additions here we can then let them "trickle down" so to speak to the spinoff articles, rather than simply waiting for stuff to "filter up" to us. The latter will simply not always work given the number of sub-articles. Presidency of Barack Obama will continue to engender spinoffs which will engender other spinoffs, and inevitably the further down you go the less those articles will be attended to, resulting in a situation where higher level articles might be held hostage, so to speak, to inadequate articles if we only think of the flow of information as going from the small articles to the big ones. Obviously this article is featured, and we can't let necessary content improvement be completely dependent on literally dozens of sub-articles that at times may be inadequate or even completely dysfunctional. Summary style is tricky in that respect, and in fact the policy on that does not necessarily account for an editing environment as complex and fraught as the Barack Obama nexus. The fact is that we have a lot more editors here at Barack Obama, and I don't think there's anything wrong with making some decisions here and then adjusting sub-articles accordingly (in Wiki theory and in my own real-world beliefs I'm all about change from the bottom up, but if that isn't happening we can and indeed must make changes here at the main article). Obviously the ideal situation is to just continually update Presidency of Barack Obama based on other sub-articles and then summarize that here, but again the odds are good that that simply will not work all of the time. And even when it does we'll still need to have conversations about what and how we summarize since there will inevitably be differing opinions about that. Perhaps right now Presidency of Barack Obama is fleshed out enough to the point where we can simply summarize it—there are definitely some good nuggets there—and if so then we should go ahead and discuss how to do that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair points. The good news is that Presidency of Barack Obama is in very good shape at the moment, so it shouldn't be too difficult to summarize it in an initial pass. I like Lulu's idea of a sandbox off this talk page for creating the summary, and I totally agree that information should flow both ways. I'm a bit too tied-up at the moment to tackle it myself, what with all the meta-nonsense going on at the moment, but I'll certainly contribute if I can if someone wants to get the ball rolling. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox created

Per Lulu's suggestion above I've gone ahead and created Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox. I put a sort of "what this is for" note at the top in a stupid little box and anyone who wants can feel free to adjust that and make it look more fancy since I'm terrible at the kind of thing. I don't have time at the moment, but possibly later tonight and more likely Sunday or early next week I'll take an initial stab at reconfiguring the Presidency section in the sandbox and then will post back here once I've done that so folks can comment and make changes and such (obviously anyone can edit this sandbox, but it should only be used for constructive collaboration and whatever is going on there should be discussed here). I very much welcome others to start some work in the sandbox before I do if they are so inclined, though so far no one seems to be jumping at the chance to work on this! Hopefully some specific proposals will stimulate more discussion.

If this sandbox thing works it might prove a good method to work on future changes that are fairly significant and therefore require some detailed discussion in advance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here to say that I'm sorry I have not gotten around to this yet, I've been distracted by other matters the last couple of days which was when I had been planning to work on it. Unfortunately I leave town for about a week and a half on Saturday and the odds are good I won't be able to do anything with this before then. As I said others are more than welcome to have a go at revisions in the sandbox, but if no one does, and if I don't start in on this by Saturday, I promise I'll get right into this once I'm back on-wiki after this vacation (which means the first week of June - I'll be online very little and perhaps not at all while out of town). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not just remove it altogether and link to Presidency of Barack Obama? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox Used

I put a proposed new Presidency section in the Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox. It has three sections. The economic stuff is only slightly changed, the war stuff more so. I eliminated reference to the first 100 days; topically that's not a good division. The mention of Gates and the generals is appropriate now but may need trimming as the Obama presidency ages. I couldn't find a good way to mention that the economic stimulus increased the deficit; it should be noted eventually but I recommend we put that off.CouldOughta (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama's article on other languages on Wikipedia

Believe it or not, on Hungarian language Obama's article contains a conflict section about him: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama. I wonder when will this happen in English. Nagypogi (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian makes my glasses need adjustment, but I don't see that it is a featured article in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Suggest, Nagypogi, that you get them to remove the conflict section as a means of improving the article. Let us know how you make out.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I won't remove that. In fact I've written the conflict section. And in Hungarian wikipedia the rule is that the new edit won't appear, until an experienced editor doesn't confirm that. For me this means that in Hungary the freedom is larger than in US. Don't fraid about critics/conflicts, those are just improve the quality of the article. Nagypogi (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the English Wikipedia values quality and fairness over a model where articles become a dumping ground for everyone's favored criticism. By the sounds of if it, the Hungarian wiki is little better than a tabloid rag. Tarc (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
And here I thought NPOV was supposed to be a project-wide rule. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Are policies and guidelines the same for all versions of Wikipedia or are they different for each version? SMP0328. (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently[19] not. PhGustaf (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't allow any criticisms or controversies about Obama onto our version of Wikipedia. If articles about these topics exist we must make sure not to link to them. Good work everyone! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Read this. SMP0328. (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Great image! Thanks, SMP0328! Now back to your regularly scheduled program ...--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_59&oldid=1253463910"