Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

Religion needs changing

I have looked at all the presidents for the last 100 years. Obama's religion in the infobox near the top of the article is non-standard. All the other presidents say Roman Catholic, Baptist, etc.

Obama's should say "United Church of Christ (until 2008), non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)" This is because he used to be a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ until he chose Evergreen Chapel, Camp David. Evergreen Chapel is non-demoninational, though it is not Catholic.

Just saying "Christianity" is too vague. Most Christians are either Catholic or Protestant, with many Protestant demoninations. There are also some other Christians, like the Coptics in Egypt and others. But Obama is not a Coptic. Mormans are usually considered Christian, though some Christians think they are not Christian. Obama is certainly not a Mormon.

There was one other president in the past century that had a change of religion and the year was noted, like above.

Even though there is a lot of hostility and opposition to change (no pun intended even though Obama is for change), please consider this change. JB50000 (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, dude, if you're taking it upon yourself to edit article space in an encyclopedia — despite the request of a number of editors to discuss changes on the talk page first — you could at least take the two seconds to spell-check your text. The phrase is not "non-demoninational Christian", it's "non-denominational Christian". Yet the qualifier modifies the overall scope of the chapel, and not Obama's religion. We don't need to add two words to point out that we are not specifying a denomination of Christianity when the simple lack of a specific denomination suffices to make the same point in a more succinct way. The point of that church's non-denominationalism is to serve the greatest number of individuals, not to be "new-agey" or something like that. The actual current minister at that chapel is Baptist, if I recall, yet is similarly an erroneous data point when inserted into an infobox section about Obama's religion.

This is not unlike the editor who wanted to — and did — add ten words to specifically state that Obama "reportedly smoked" for some time before he tried to quit smoking. While it's not untrue, it's the sort of sloppy edit that editors here, grappling with tendentiousness and POV and vandalism and incessancy — much less actual interesting discussions about specific improvements — are allowing to slip into the article and chip away at the concise relation of notable, relevant and well-weighted facts. We already note Obama has failed to quit smoking several times; clumsily and unnecessarily stating the obvious — in equal to or more words and characters than we already presented the information — does not improve the article.

However, if the argument is to substitute "Protestant" for "Christian" as it appears now, I would support that. Clearly the United Church of Christ was a mainline Protestant denomination and just as clearly Obama has asserted no change to his basic Protestantism. It was primarily a break with his former pastor, and more broadly a break with that particular church. I have elsewhere in these archives enumerated the individuals from which Obama receives pastoral care on a somewhat regular basis, and if I recall correctly, all were Protestant. On the basis of these points, I have supported and will support the substitution of the single word "Protestant" for the single word "Christian". The argument against this seems to have been that there is no new reference for Obama's being "Protestant". My argument is that there is no reference for Obama's having denounced his long-standing and well-referenced Protestantism, and indeed no other indication of such. Abrazame (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has given a valid reason why we should be less specific than all the other presidents in the past century. The infobox should read "United Church of Christ". This is not a church name as his former church was the Trinity United Church of Christ.

The next thing would be to see if he still considers himself to be a member of the United Church of Christ denomination. I can't find confirmation that he is. He is now seems to be a non-denominational Protestant.

So the entry should read "United Church of Christ (until 2008), non-denominational Protestant (2008-present)". There are indications that he had no religion as a kid but I don't want to get into a can of worms. For now, the infobox should read "United Church of Christ" because we must at least put that much in or the article is inaccurate and vague. JB50000 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: If Wikipedia is to be believed, an alternative to United Church of Christ is Congregationalist. Of course, that is a little less specific, but an improvement over Christianity. The change also helps against Muslim rumors about Obama. By being vague, like Christianity, that just gets people suspicious. If one is specific, like Baptist or Congregationlist, then the Muslim rumors are quashed (unless editors want people to think he is a Muslim trying to hide) JB50000 (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

United Church of Christ is more a loose affiliation of churches than other Protestant denominations and, as such, when he pulled out of Trinity he also pulled out of the UCC denomination. So listing UCC in the infobox is not accurate. At best he could be listed as non-denominational Protestant, but even then it's not clear. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no argument with that. That is an improvement over just "Christianity". So "United Church of Christ (until 2008), non-denominational Protestant (2008-present)"? Or we could put "presumed non-denominational Protestant (2008-present) but I don't like that. JB50000 (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How are denomination changes handled in other articles? I know another President has changed denominations, just drawing a blank on which one. I've checked a couple of other articles of people that changed denominations/religion and so far those don't even list a religion in the infobox. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If people want to list his current religion (non-denominational Protestant) or his current and recent one (add UCC), this is a legitimate discussion. Part of the Christianity debate in the news before was arguing whether he was Muslim or Christian. We know he's not Muslim. But the use of Christian is just an argument that he's not Muslim. We can do better than that and bring up this article to the standard that every president in the past century uses -- listing his denomination (if Protestant) or putting Catholic (like JFK). We are making progress (thanks, Bobblehead), please no arguments just to make drama. JB50000 (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is no reason to change the listing, as it describes his religion as it is now understood. If you scroll over the text with your mouse you will see that his religion is cited by sources and when he left Trinity he dis-affiliated himself from UCC. It's listed and sourced right in the box. So until Obama declares what denomination he wants to be considered now, it's listed as Christian. There have been other Presidents with similar listings. Andrew Johnson is also listed as Christian, as is Rutherford B. Hayes. Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson have no religion listed and are directed to an explanation in the body. So until Obama declares otherwise, the correct listing is Christian, which is sourced and declared by Obama himself. We can't change it to what we think it should be, it has to be sourced. DD2K (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Factual error: None of the cited articles use "Christianity". Andrew Johnson's infobox says that he is no denomination stated. Abe and Thomas Jefferson says see below. Even Hayes is the closest but doesn't use the exact word Christianity. All presidents within the past 100 years say Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. Also those other article are not featured articles so they could be flawed. JB50000 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not Obama's campaign office. He is not Catholic. He is Protestant. He is appears to be non-denominational. Non-denominational Protestant or even non-denominational Christian is ok. But simple Christian and it looks like we are just trying to fight Muslim rumors, not present information. Not everything is sourced. Do you have a source that he is a man? DO you have a source that his official residence in the White House and his private residence is Chicago? Who's to say that his Chicago house is just un-rented investment property? We need to assume as little as possible but things like the Chicago house and he is non-denominational is clear.

Also, are you trying to say that Obama has no religion, like Lincoln? No, this is not true.

This source say he's picked a non-denominational church. http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/06/the-obamas-pick-nondenominational-camp-david-church.html For those that don't know, in the military, there are Catholic services and non-denominational Protestant services. They are not the same. Obama has picked the latter. JB50000 (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No sooner does somebody suggest or declare or agree upon something than JB50000 dives in to the article with something completely counter to that. Many talk page posts of yours are in complete disregard of previous statements. Your first and only acknowledgement of me was a blunt threat on my talk page, for doing my editorial responsibility at a BLP, as more than one other editor acknowledged. You speak of not wanting to get into cans of worms, yet rather than participate in a discussion and staying on point, all you do is pour worms onto the page. If there is no reference for his being now or in the recent past a non-denominational Protestant, we are not to presume that he is. If you want something more specific than Christianity, I've already indicated what reasonable word that would be: Protestant. If you don't like that, it stays Christian until you find a really good reference for something else. (And you might contribute your reason why to the discussion.) In the meantime, the next time you're seized with the compulsion to quash something, post it at the talk page first, allow a few days for comment second, read and process that comment third, determine whether there are valid editorial points made fourth, and if there are no meaningful objections or better ideas, add it to the article fifth. This jumping in at step five, then going to step one, then ignoring people and either reverting or moving to the next topic, is not doing yourself, us, this article, or least of all this talk page, any good. Actually editing with the summary "this has no opposition" when I've clearly outlined my opposition to it above and you have made no response whatsoever is unacceptable. And this crap about we're not his campaign office is completely uncalled for on a simple semantic issue of how specific we get in describing his Christianity. You're the one that stated it was your goal to squash Muslim rumors, now you're writing that it looks like we're just trying to fight Muslim rumors. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith with you. Do we have a source that he is a man? No, no worms with you. Abrazame (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is almost no way to WP:AGF with this user. His drama filled explanations are just absurd. Something is definitely up with this editor. DD2K (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What's up is that a reasonable change is suggested and just "no no no". Users should look at themselves for a change. Just ignore the explanation and here's a summary. The proposed entry was "Non-denominational Christian" or "Protestant" or "Non-denominational Protestant". Christianity is the worst of the 4 choices. JB50000 (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to bring up any Muslim foolishness. Anyone that would look at the religion box, see Christian, and think 'he's trying to hide he's a Muslim', isn't going to be 'fooled' because it says Protestant. Anyone that doesn't know that Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim by now, and would think what you are insinuating, don't want explanations. They want to bury their heads like an Ostrich. The footnotes explain the current situation well enough and the listing of Christian is sourced and from Obama himself also. And by the way, I'm not fooled by your Lincoln false shock/accusation either. Not fooled one bit. DD2K (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In summary, editors have advocated "Christianity", "Protestant", "non-denominational Protestant" (or "non-denominational Christian" - with references). There is no consensus for Christianity. There is a good reference for non-denominational Christian. So it seems like that is the front runner. JB50000 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I think the consensus is to not change the listing at all until Obama declares a denomination other than Christian. DD2K (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) JB5000, there's no consensus whatsoever for your change. You've now changed Obama's religion three times on an article that's under 1RR probation (which you've been warned about). I highly suggest you don't touch this article again for the next 24 hours, and continue the discussion here. Dayewalker (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thanks for letting me know and I will leave here for today. There is no consensus for Christianity so those who change it are going against consensus. The only consensus we have is we all don't want "Muslim" put in. Some want "non-denominational Christian or Protestant", some want other things. The reference that I used is the most recent. The reference that some use to justify "christianity" is older AND has other errors, making it an unreliable source. I've looked up 3RR and it suggests dispute resolution. This sounds stupid since are people going to argue over the word "the" and every improvement suggested? Thanks again, Dayewalker.

I'm so puzzled why many insists on fighting when it is clear that Christianity is too vague, has old sources (with newer sources more specific). JB50000 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, don't look up WP:3RR, look up the link to the Obama article probation page that was posted on your page. You don't get 3RR on this page, especially not reverting against multiple editors. If someone had reported you to ANI or the Obama Probation page tonight, you'd have been blocked. Please keep this in mind in the future.

As for the article, consensus is clearly against your change, and in favor of "Christianity." Please continue the discussion here instead of reverting on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your summary, JB50000, is either purposely provocative or it is delusional. You fail to grasp what "no consensus" means. There is no consensus for any of your suggested changes. There has been consensus for Christianity for over a year, and none of your squirrely worms have changed that consensus. "Non-denominational" is not a denomination, as I suppose I have to spell out for you. So if he has no denomination, that is already conveyed by "Christianity", just as it would be conveyed by "Protestant", but it is not necessary to add two additional words to be conveyed by your other suggestions. I never fail to be amazed at the people arriving here claiming to want to make the article better and then tying up the editorial work with this sort of nonsense, all while filling the page with wormy asides, and ignoring attempts at reaching compromise.

JB50000, your three reverts of this data point at this page in less than an hour, in total disregard of the discussion at this page, already place you in violation of WP:EDIT WAR. I see from your talk page you are already aware of WP:3RR, and for infractions at this very article earlier this week. Every time someone tries to explain something to you, instead of taking their point, you either completely disregard them or restate your point more defiantly. Clearly you are not interested in editorial collegiality here, and you have been warned several times about your tendentious editing here, so I don't think you'll be surprised when someone takes your next iteration of this as justification for a block.

And | this attempt to have the last word of an argument in article history is completely unacceptable. I'd say that's the last straw, but I'm logging off; if someone else wants to take that up somewhere, I'd be thrilled to see it, and support it, tomorrow. Abrazame (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Under the article probation guidelines, I believe there's a provision for the topic banning of obvious agenda-driven POV pushers, such as this one, whose entire argument is 'If you liberals don't want people to think he's a sekrit afwul muslin, you'll make up something better to put here', which is almost certainly bait for more comments about liberals lying to protect him. He's violated 3RR, he continues on multiple fronts to edit against consensus ,and his defense, despite having the 1rr article restrictions pointed out multiple times, is to assert ignorance. How long do we tolerate this nonsense? ThuranX (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No consensus

First of all, if the consensus was that he is a Muslim, we need to disregard consensus.

Second of all, there is no consensus for christianity. The non-denominational reference is much newer and much better. As for lack of consensus, see this (excerpts from above)...

• So listing UCC in the infobox is not accurate. At best he could be listed as non-denominational Protestant

• So until Obama declares what denomination he wants to be considered now [comment: Obama has now joined a church, a non-denominational church. If he joins, that is what he is otherwise he could attend but not join]

• I've already indicated what reasonable word that would be: Protestant.

• This source say he's picked a non-denominational church. http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/06/the-obamas-pick-nondenominational-camp-david-church.html

See 4 editors, 4 different opinions. This is no consensus. Also no consensus for the version "Christianity". JB50000 (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove this tag, let the bot do it. It is easy for those who want to end discussion to try to remove the tag. Unfortunately, that happens a lot here. Currently, the infobox lists his religion as "Christianity" with a reference but there are newer references that use the term Non-denominational Christian. Other suggestions include Protestant, Non-denominational Protestant, United Church of Christ (until 2008)/Non-denominational (2009-present), etc. Thank you. 07:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we get it, you're not listening. You're free to stop the gratuitous use of the word "Muslim" — which you have used ten times in a thread that is not about that religion. Unless of course there's some reason for your doing so.

You have chosen to ignore it before, but for the last time I will tell you that the references for "non-denominational" are for his chapel, not his pastor and not what the infobox is there to convey, his religion. That you would state that he has to be non-denominational to join a non-denominational church, otherwise he could attend but not join, is absurd, and seems — unless, again, you just wanted to start a thread where you could say "Muslim" a lot — to be the reason for your erroneous assertions, if nothing else. The whole bloody point of a non-denominational chapel is not that it eschews worshippers of other Protestant denominations, it is that it doesn't eschew worshippers of other Protestant denominations. Do you really understand this little about a subject you have taken it upon yourself to edit over a period of several days in an encyclopedia??

You act like this is something we get to whip up ourselves. No, these things exist in the real world and, aided by Wikipedia guidelines, we distill what the sources direct us to acknowledge. Camp David is a military installation and the non-denominational chapel there was conceived in order to serve the broadest spectrum of Protestants without having to have fifteen different chapels and fifteen different ministers, choirs, organists, etc., all on one base. It was not conceived to strip worshippers of the denominations of their faith. And so, they currently have a Baptist minister but will shift to a minister of another Protestant denomination after three years, so as not to show favoritism. And there are plenty of references simply for "Christian", including two added this evening by another editor. To your third of five tendentious edits tonight, "President of a North American country" isn't enough for an American. I daresay "Christian" is enough for Christ. The pattern at this page will not be to add excess verbiage when it does not clarify any point, or improve the writing, but simply satisfies the preconceived misconceptions of a single editor despite the best efforts of others to educate him on the subject. Abrazame (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Last night when I saw your edit here, I decided to do some research on the lists of Presidents to see exactly what religion they were listed at. Which is when I found that most were in fact specific in what denomination of religion they belonged to, but not all had specific denominations listed. And in fact there were a couple who had almost the exact same listing as Obama. Still, I went about the research and was assuming WP:AGF, until you started making bizarre edits,1,2,3 and drama filled reasoning. Not to mention, you changing the listed religion without any consensus. And let me explain consensus to you, since you don't seem to understand what it means here. You need consensus to change an established fact in an article, not to keep that established fact. This has long been the listing of Obama's religion, since he left the UCC. Your reasoning and drama filled edit summaries remind me of what's transpiring currently in some right-wing hysteria circles. The fact is, Obama has not declared his current denomination, is listed as a Christian on his website and inside the info box of the Miller Center of Public Affairs. So that is the current consensus listing. Christian. There is no need or frantic reason to change that descriptor, it covers the cited sources and what Obama describes himself as. Now, that should be enough for anyone to just let things play out. We are not supposed to use WP:OR and decipher what a WP:BLP shouldbe called or what we want them to be called. We use sources and the descriptors that come from the WP:BLP themselves. So I put my vote as "Leave as Christian until other developments/sources indicate otherwise". DD2K (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree as above. Dayewalker (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

i agree that listing his religion as christian is sufficient. Theserialcomma (talk)

The reference used for Christianity is an unreliable source. Their infobox lists his occupation as community organizer and public official. Would you image the uproar if anyone removed from the Wikipedia infobox Obama's occupation of author and constitutional law professor. There would be shouting and maybe even gunshots! So that source is unreliable. Christianity people need to go back to the drawing board. As of now, the non-denominational Christian reference is the best. Frankly, I like non-denominational Protestant or Protestant but this is the best reference we have so far. JB50000 (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

An RFC response (not the only one). "Christian" is too indeterminate for this purpose. In a Western nation, it would be like saying he was a "human being" and expect that to convey information. He clearly is not Catholic, Episcopal nor Othodox, but "Christian" includes all those groups. So "Protestant", at the very least. I would think that his selection of a church should indicate his religion. Apparently there are other editors who won't allow it to be that easy. Student7 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be easier to just remove it from the infobox completely? There's no policy reason why it needs to be there, and I would much rather see readers rely on the more complete information that can be found in the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that the American President is a Christian is indeed like saying he is a human being. America has barely had a Catholic president, much less a non-Christian one. However, making fine distinctions among the various branches of Christianity seems beside the point. It does seem a little odd to list the religion of a president. With a few exceptions, presidents are expected to keep up with their religious observances and beliefs, but this is quite tangential to the life and times of a president. It reminds me, faintly, of the occasional Japanese practice of listing the blood type of pop culture figures. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The argument that the "reference used for Christianity is an unreliable source" is incorrect. First, we all agree that the assertion is correct, so a gold-plated source is not required. Second, the reference is extremely adequate and easily satisfies WP:RS. The only question concerns whether a "better" (more precise) label should be found, and whether a sourced label is available. I favor precision, but our discussion on what is the correct term to describe Obama's religion of course is totally irrelevant per WP:OR: we need a source. For whatever reason (not relevant to this discussion), no one has found a good source with current information that gives a more precise label. Until that occurs, this discussion is just chat and violates WP:TALK. In reply to a suggestion above: since all Presidents have "religion" in the infobox, and since there are good sources for "Christian" the term should not be removed. Johnuniq (talk)

No one has found? Just wait. I have some but would like a more complete response, not a piecemeal one. JB50000 (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

These editors are discussing things on a religion board but their analysis may be helpful. Note that they posted these comments on the religion board but they are talking about Obama. Note: These were removed from here by another user but GFDL allows Wikipedia text to be used elsewhere besides the original page.JB50000 (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments: all four are largely accurate, it just depends on how much detail we want to provide:

1. Christianity is accurate, but there are so many varieties of Christian, I'd prefer more detail than this
2. Protestant is better, although there's still many varieties of that
3. I have mixed feelings about "Non-denominational". It's true that Obama no longer associates with a particular denomination. But it's still true he's more Protestant than say Catholic or Orthodox.
4. Listing both UCC up to 2008 and non-denominational thereafter is the most accurate, but maybe too much detail for an infobox?

My two preferences:

1. Non-denominational Protestant (better than Non-denominational Christian - he's closer to Protestant than anything else)
2. United Church of Christ (until 2008), Non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)

--SJK (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this just illustrates a point I've made a number of times before. Infoboxes are usually POV. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like Non-denominational for two reasons: (1) Just because a person worships in a nondenominational chapel doesn't mean that that person leaves their denominational identity behind - e.g. I could easily describe myself as a Baptist or a Methodist or whatever, and still worship in a nondenominational chapel; (2) there are a number of nondenominational churches out there that appear to have made a principled decision not to belong to a denomination or as a criticism of denominationalism - I don't think there's any suggestion that Obama has converted to that type of nondenominationalism. I think just plain Christian is too generic - he's clearly not a member of the Roman Catholic Church or any of the autocephalous Eastern churches. My vote would be for:

Protestant

(member of the United Church of Christ until 2008)

Adam_sk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just reverted — for the second time — an edit by User:JB50000, with the edit summary "Don't revert this again, JB50000, discuss it on the talk page", and then while I was writing this post, it was reverted back in by User:GB fan, with the edit summary "Ummmm."

It is disingenuous to make a formal request for comment and then, rather than read and understand what those comments happen to be, instead go and search other threads on other pages for two arguments you feel support your case, and post them here out of context and with official signatures so that someone skimming this discussion would mistake them to be in support of your comments.

If there is some other discussion that you feel informs this one, then link that discussion for us, and if you like, quote and cite the editors in question in the text of a post of your own where you present this argument. Those other editors may or may not currently be active at Wikipedia; they clearly didn't choose to weigh in on this RfC themselves; and so this thread is not the place to ask them for clarification of their views. If what others discuss on "a religion board" is relevant to the editors here, why not link that board so that anybody who cares to know about their opinions can read them in context? You should know by now how talk pages work and you certainly should know how citing sources works. We cite where they are from and when they were posted, and we link to those postings.

I repeat, it is not enough to say that it was posted somewhere else, it is necessary that we know where it was posted. Similarly, you don't stack the deck of an RfC with the signed comments of individuals who have, in fact, not responded.

Finally, stop treating reverts like cartoon arguments. DISCUSS things at this talk page when they are reverted. Discussion means both coherently presenting your position in the first place AND it means read and understand and respond to the comments and questions others are taking the time to write you about the issue you claim to be interested in. Abrazame (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• These actions should be reported to ANI. You can't copy and paste comments in a RFC as if they were posted there. Period. What should have been done is that a warning and a self-revert issued to JB50000, and if not reverted a report at ANI should have been made. This is just getting ridiculous. If other editors want to keep re-adding comments from other pages into a RFC, they should cite their reasons why such an extreme measure should be allowed. DD2K (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And so it turns into a full-blown edit war, with User:Jojhutton reverting the abovementioned misleading posts devoid of context, with the edit summary "undoing a questionable reversion". Why, then, not question it, Jojhutton? Why five minutes after I posted the above discussion of the issue would the response not be to engage in this discussion, rather than simply revert? This is not responsible editing, it is disingenuous posturing against editors here, and it is contentious edit warring. I fail to understand the urgency three editors see in restoring these out-of-context posts by editors uninvolved in this discussion. It is indicative of a complete lack of editorial collegiality that there is no talk page discussion whatsoever from any of these three, JB50000, GB fan, and Jojhutton; it also suggests a failure to embrace the spirit of an RfC. I've never before seen User:GB fan here — which itself is a problem, reverting the decision of an involved editor at a talk page, ironically in an RfC to which he makes no contribution of his own — but JB50000 has carved out a pattern of edit warring and ignoring salient editorial points.

As for Jojhutton, I was interested to know if this editor had moved on to other edits or was composing a response here, and noted several edits after this one. An edit summary two edits previous caught my eye, however; this revert to George W. Bush contains the summary "Not notable for BLP. per unwritten rules set up at Talk:Barack Obama". What kind of justification is that? This goes beyond tag-team edit warring. It seems clear that there is some politically motivated personalization at play here, although one that seems to deem itself above discussion, and it is resulting in irresponsible editing on a scale that reaches beyond this page. Abrazame (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. Another editor, gave me some pointers as far as being civil - if you want this editor to leave some tips on your user page, just ask. As far as tag teaming, there are far more cases of tag teaming from the liberal faction. My faction, the absolutely neutral, pro-article improvement whether it's a positive or negative piece of information is a very lonely faction with few people unfortunately.

Thanks for someone else's suggestion of the link which I'll do next time. It is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#RFC_for_religion_-_President_Obama That discussion was ONLY to get help defining what the different religions are and did NOT ask people to comment on Obama. I did let the people know that I copied their comments here and gave them the option to black out their names.

If people wait a few days, I am gathering reliable source references which could resolve this issue! Stay tuned. I have one good reference but want to get some more. The other possibility is to just wait out the RFC and save up comments over a few days.JB50000 (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the simple Christianity label because that is what Obama claims as his religion. According to snopes.com he has been associated with the United Church of Christ since the mid 80s, went to Catholic school as a child, and went to various religious institutions with his mother throughout his childhood. However, he describes himself as Christian and they quoted him as saying that he is "rooted in the Christian tradition."

I also think it's important to understand the differences between non denominational, United Church of Christ, and Congregationalist before saying them like they are interchangeable. Just because a church is non denominational doesn't mean they don't have a set of beliefs. Also, different non denominational churches hold different sets of beliefs. Especially Congregationalist churches, because they believe Jesus is the leader of each individual congregation so practices vary church to church. However, while United Church of Christ is non denominational they still have set beliefs that apply to all their congregations.

Non denominational is part of Christianity they just don't follow the rules or rigid practices as their denominational counterparts. So I don't see the need to specify non denominational when the whole point of non denominational churches is basically that they are Christians but without the labels.Ag627 (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

When an encyclopedia indicates someone's religion, it is really only capable of discerning (and therefore indicating) what is confessed by the individual's mouth. Discerning his behavior against Christian scripture hints that Obama may not truly be a Christian yet, or at the very least remains an unguided Christian; however, if his mouth would agree with the statement that he "is a Christian," then we can only put Christianity down as his religion. As for narrowing down to specific denominations, it still comes down to his mouth. There will always be members of any particular sect who strongly disagree-- it cannot really be left to some general audience to discern. But if there is notable controversy within his particular confessed sect, that becomes newsworthy in itself. Totoro33 (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in response to those above criticising JB5000 for copying my statements from another page to here, I have no objection to his so have done. I think those who would criticise him for so doing are frankly just being petty and pedantic. --SJK (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't criticize him in your defense, and my consideration was not what you would prefer. You're probably unclear on this, but JB50000 never mentioned to anybody here that in the middle of this discussion he had gone over and begun the thread he called an "RfC" (but did not link to this page or this actual RfC) to which you responded at the WikiProject Religion. Did you know that? This isn't about protocol for its own sake, it's a little about a collegial heads-up, it's a little about not going behind your colleagues backs, but it's largely about how you can't compile the opinions of random people elsewhere as if it's a fresh and specific and informed consensus here, while never giving us the context or the source. Even after posting your response — and reverting it back into the article some four or five times against the opposition of several editors and without talk page discussion, in violation of collegial requests and several bright-line policies — he did not indicate where your comment was from, or what, precisely, it was in response to. There are shadings of difference in how things are handled from one page to another at Wikipedia, much less in the wider blogosphere, and if you don't choose to weigh in on the issue here, and are a non-notable person and have no refs to support your opinion, then your opinion is not clearly relevant to this discussion.

There are also shadings of accuracy and detail. I might well have one take in the abstract, a second given a misrepresented set of postulates from one dodgy individual, a third once I read a specific discussion amongst a variety of moderately informed people, and a fourth after I checked the source references myself. Frankly, anyone for whom that were never the case would raise my suspicions, as, after all, regardless of how confused he may be on how to post an RfC at a project page, or how consensus is used and how it is reached, we are nevertheless required to accurately cite reliable sources for data points. In the abstract, I agree with you that Protestant is better, more specific, and surely accurate, and have argued as much in this thread and one here long ago. It makes sense. Yet without a trustworthy and clear-cut reference from a reliable source, what's to prevent someone from saying that, similarly despite ironclad refs, it makes sense Obama is X, or Y, or Z? Before you dismiss that, I warn you that POV pushers are already not only using one argument here to establish M.O. for other arguments here, but they are actually using their perceived upshot of discussions at this page to justify edits elsewhere in the project, however ingenuously that may be.

To the issue of data points, something else you may not be aware of — as JB50000 misrepresented the issue in the thread to which you responded elsewhere — is that there is no reference stating that Obama's religion is currently non-denominational Christian, nor that his current pastor is, merely that his current chapel, the only one at the Camp David military base, is. The apparent though situational absence of a denomination, or attendance at a non-denominational chapel due to its convenience, does not encyclopedically make you, in a word (as it were), "non-denominational Christian". "Non-denominational Christian" is, in one permutation of the phrase and therefore in many people's understandings, a thing unto itself. The absence or vagueness or transitional phase between or uncitability of denomination in this particular case is not "Non-denominational Christian", it is "Christian", and a chapel where the current minister is Baptist and five years ago was Lutheran and in two years is as likely to be Presbyterian, is not the non-denominational sort that confers that qualifier onto someone's personal religion, it is one that doesn't require or refuse and indeed one that does not confer any particular qualifier.

Additionally, JB50000 also misrepresented that there are no references stating that Obama is Christian. In fact, there are several. He also made the specious argument that you "have to go back 1.5 centuries" to find a featured article biography of a president here at Wikipedia to find one that "merely" states "Christian" in the infobox, and not some more specific denomination. As if what Obama's religion is should be determined on a statistical basis. As if "mere" Christianity in an infobox is the result of inaccurate editorial work and not something that actually best captures the subject's actual identification. He also writes that "even those say ... see below", as if we give no further explanation or background of Obama's religion at the article when, in fact, it gets a large paragraph in this biography that reads,

"Obama is a Christian whose religious views developed in his adult life. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that he "was not raised in a religious household". He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents (whom Obama has specified elsewhere as "non-practicing Methodists and Baptists") to be detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known". He describes his father as "raised a Muslim", but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful". Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change".[209] He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.[210] Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.[211] After a prolonged effort to find a church to attend regularly in Washington, Obama announced in June 2009 that his primary place of worship would be the Evergreen Chapel at Camp David.[212]"

Sadly, this section does not include any of his declarations of his own Christianity or the testimonials of others (though perhaps that would be undue weight to this issue in an article of this size), but along with those, found in the references, it certainly reads to me as support of "Christian" over specifying "non-denominational". I'd be interested to know if you think the opinion you gave to the misrepresentations JB50000 established there still holds true given these different facts and the actual references (or any other notable reliable sources relating to Obama that you might, as a member of WikiProject Religion, have come across). Why would we put the qualifying detail "non-denominational" in the infobox if it's not in the article? And again, it's not in the article not because of an oversight, but because consensus established that due to the circumstances, it was appropriate to give this coverage and no other, pending any further citable development or clarification.

One thing I don't disagree with you on is that the issue seems petty and pedantic (News flash: semantic arguments are thought by some to be pedantic), but I assure you most people here are perfectly happy to leave it as "Christian", which is, after all, both unarguably accurate and the most solidly referenced, and they wonder why this is being pushed so feverishly by basically just this one editor, JB50000. I guess my last question would be, if you were not unaware that JB50000 had officially called an RfC here, then why would you respond to him at WikiProject Religion's talk page instead of here where your post could have been discussed and absorbed in context and useful to developing a consensus? I'm not sure I wouldn't enjoy discussing this issue with you, but this is, after all, where we're discussing it, and not there. Though in the end, this isn't about what any of us believes as religious dogma or metaphysical consciousness or expresses elsewhere, it's about what editorially responsible people decide on this page is appropriate to place and able to be cited in this article's infobox. As if there aren't more pressing issues relevant to Obama's work that we could be evaluating for the article. Respectfully, Abrazame (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right that per RFC process, I should have responded here rather than on the WikiProject page. I did not pay careful enough attention to the process at the time I responded. And maybe when JB5000 copied my comment, he could have been clearer about where he copied it from.

As to the meat of the dispute, I don't like simply calling him a Christian because Christian is such a broad term. Whether or not he calls himself "Protestant", or someone else calls him that, its pretty that is what he is. There's no evidence to suggest he identifies with Catholicism, or Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy. So "Protestantism" is a broad descriptor of the type of Christianity he subscribes to; if you look at his familial background on his mother's side, his wife's familial background, his and her history of church attendance, the common thread through it all is Protestant. The particular Protestant denomination may change, but the Protestantism doesn't. To call someone like Obama simply Christian, in my view represents a narrow view of what constitutes Christianity, and I think some people are in such a Protestant milieu that they tend to forget about the existence of other historical branches of Christianity, and end up confusing the merely Protestant with the merely Christian (the latter of which I doubt actually exists). --SJK (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that all sounds reasonable and I would agree, except it's WP:OR and conjecture. Which would work if we were trying to decipher what religion some past historical figure should be listed as, but not with a WP:BLP, imo. When the info box was changed(after Obama and his family resigned from the UCC), there was a discussion here numerous times about what to list in the Obama religion box. After much discussion it was agreed by consensus to place the religious identifier as 'Christian' until a reliable source indicates otherwise. Nothing has changed, except more sources list 'Christian' as Obama's religion. Including his own websites. So while I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with changing the descriptor until a reliable source indicates just what denomination of Christianity Barack Obama identifies with. We have to remember this is about changing a consensus that has been reached already. I have no problems with changing the descriptor if we are not using WP:OR to decipher the listing and are using a reliable source and consensus. DD2K (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@SJK: Your conclusion is extremely reasonable, and if I were a media executive I would be very happy to have someone write an article for my paper where Obama is described as "Protestant" (that would be the valid opinion of the writer). But this topic area is extremely contentious (for example, it is subject to probation), and there have been multiple examples of editors wanting to inject some "obvious" conclusion into Obama articles. Accordingly, it is appropriate to rigorously apply WP:NOR. I don't think anyone here has objected to a more specific description of the religion: it just has to be reliably sourced (and should be more than a trivial mention since there are several good sources saying "Christian"). Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In response, I agree with policies like WP:NOR,WP:RS, etc. but at the same time I think they need to be approached in a commonsense manner, as opposed to a literalistic/legalistic approach. Indeed, people forget another policy, WP:IAR - would that exist if we are meant to be literalistic/legalistic in our interpretation of other policies? And as someone who has been on Wikipedia since its early days (when I joined it was less than a year old), I've noticed over the years people becoming more and more legalistic and literalistic in interpreting these policies, focusing on the letter rather than the spirit. I think there are two groups of opinion here, the mainstream opinion (Obama is some form of Christian), and the minority opinion (Obama is a Muslim, etc). I think its justified on the basis of WP:RS to have a consensus for the mainstream opinion (our consensus should reflect the consensus of reliable sources), and to disregard the minority opinion. So that settles us in favour of Christian then, rather than something else like Muslim. But, moving on from there, can we be any more precise? Is there anyone who seriously doubts that Obama is some form of Protestant (as that term is usually used in contemporary American society)? Is there anyone, among those who agree he is some form of Christian, who seriously denies that more specifically he is some form of Protestant Christian, as opposed to some form of non-Protestant Christian? If we can't find a source for it, is that because its some kind of original research or opinion, or simply because no one has felt the need to state something so obvious? Stating the obvious isn't original research, and WP:RS does not require obvious facts to be sourced. And isn't it an obvious fact, that assuming he's a Christian, he's some kind of Protestant Christian, as opposed to being some kind of non-Protestant Christian? Does anyone actually dispute that? To invoke WP:OR or WP:RS to oppose stating the obvious isn't being faithful to those policies, but rather interpreting them in a legalistic/literalist way when they are not meant to be. --SJK (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

SJK's analysis is good. Fine with me (Prostestant Christian).

STEP BACK! Read the references carefully. Obama quit the Trinity United Church of Christ. Every source said it was because of the Rev. Wright's controversial "God Damned America" and other controversial statements. Obama never said he was changing his religion. So he is still United Church of Christ unless he says otherwise. United Church of Christ is also a religion. Look at Howard Dean's article (it says United Church of Christ). So are several other senators.

So we can debate this for the full 30 days for put United Church of Christ. As far the real story, it is possible that Obama picked us church for political advantage since it was the politically strong and correct church in Chicago and he really doesn't have strong opinions as far as denominations. If he had strong opinions and didn't care about politics, he would join the United Church of Christ in Washington, DC. However, this is all original research and not part of the article. As far as the article, all our RS point to UCC and no source says that he changed religions. He only changed churches. JB50000 (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a lot of religious people coming here for a while but it stopped. It seems that there is support for being more specific than just Christianity. There's one suggestion (mine) that there is no source that says he left the UCC, just left the individual church. I read somewhere that the UCC didn't want him but unless I see that again, it's a bit too controversial to include anything like that. JB50000 (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We had a furious discussion about this a few months ago; you might drag through the archives and check it out. I took essentially your position. He definitely quit Trinity, but there's so source but an unclear en passant mention in an AP article that he quit the UCC. For a long time, the infobox said, "Christian, last associated with the United Church of Christ" which seemed fine to me. He's lately been hanging around with a lot of pastors from different sects, but if he's adopted a new one he doesn't seem to have made it public. PhGustaf (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reponse to the RFC - There really is no more reliable source than Obama's own website, which does indeed list him as simply "Christian." Unless Obama has at some point stated that he is anything more specific, that's what we should call him. Let's use a little WP:COMMON sense here people. There are all kinds of sources debating about his religion, so rather than join in the potentially libelous debate, let's just call him what he calls himself. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• UCC Is there a RFC? If so, where is the lightbulb tag? References say UCC so that's what it is. Christian is imprecise. If it is on his website, it could be to strongly highlight that he is not Muslim because if you put UCC, people might not know what that is (University of Central Canada? Unified Command of the Central NATO? University Church of Communists? United Counties of Christians?). So it could be a campaign tactic. But we have good references to say that he's a United Church of Christ so that's what should be listed. Similar variations of UCC are so ok like Protestant (UCC) or UCC (Christian), etc. Gaydenver (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Gaydenver From my perspective, UCC means Uniform Commercial Code. SMP0328. (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, should spell out "United Church of Christ" and not use abbreviations. Gaydenver (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

More foolish trivia

Why isnt the fact that Obama stated he was the 44th single man to take the Presidential oath, when infact he was the 43rd because of Grover Cleveland taking presidency twice mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongbean (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it is useless trivia with no relevance or importance to a biography of Obama's entire life. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Physical Attributes

Shouldn't his physical attributes be posted as well (height and weight)? I found this article that says he's 179.9lbs and has a BMI of 23.7, which means he's about 6'1' ' if my calculations are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.28.30 (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No. He's a politician, not a baseball player. PhGustaf (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That does not imply that his overall health (as BMI is an important tool for determining overall health for people within certain averages) is irrelevant. Especially since his health has been called into question by certain media organizations lately and health factors have limited and sometimes killed presidents of the past. 76.2.235.75 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the President's health belongs in this article only if (1) he is hospitalized or (2) the Twenty-fifth Amendment is invoked. SMP0328. (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What 'media organizations' have called President Obama's health into question? His BMI was described as 'healthy' and the summary from the physician noted that Obama was in "excellent health". There were a couple of things Obama should be doing better in, but absolutely nothing that raises any of the concerns you are citing. He is in 'excellent health'. DD2K (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that Fox News called into question his drinking habits . I guess the point that he is in good condition was the point, but if people should assume that it wasn't mentioned in the article implies that it has never been called into question that works. I just don't really know the rules to these things so I thought I should ask here first. Thanks! Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.28.30 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not Fox News, that's Alan Colmes complaining about Drudge linking to a tabloid paper(the Daily Mail). In other words, a bunch of tabloid fodder. There's no need to debunk that type of silliness. Especially from an outlet who has already lost five libel suits the past 10 years. DD2K (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When his health becomes a major part of his biography, this kind of information (weight, cholesterol) should be included. So far, it is not. This is the neutral way and the way that all articles should take. A UT professor (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupation doesn't include President

Is there a reason for this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it is kinda redundant to list being "president" in a officeholder infobox. The field is meant to be used to their prior occupation. Tarc (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page too long.

I think I speak for everyone that some users might slow their computers down. We should archive this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emo-tional being (talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's currently set to automatically archive any thread that isn't updated for 14 days. People tweak that from time to time and it's generally set somewhere between 7 and 14 days. At 189K right now, it's not any longer than it usually is. I don't see any harm in shortening that to 10. But overall I think this article is just harder to work on than most, for many reasons. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be that the pictures currently on the talk page are causing some users problems, but that can be solved by users with slower connections by disabling graphics. Of course, I am not opposed to shortening the archive time back to 10 days either. Though it seems, once again, that some articles that should be archived are getting caught up and are not auto-archived and may have to be put in manually. DD2K (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look through, and as the bot judges on the big sections it doesn't currently look like anything is getting stuck. I'm going to change it to 10 days as there are a couple of large threads dated the 28 February. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK its down to 127k now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Juris doctor = "doctorate"?

Is it common practice in the english wikipedia to call JD "a doctorate in law", in light of it being first professional degree, unlike JSD (doctor of judicial science)? -anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.248.40 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia being an online encyclopedia, there actually are articles here where people confused by terms used in this article can find referenced explanations of the terminology and what it encompasses, including Juris doctor. It is at those articles and their talk pages that common practice for English Wikipedia usage is presented and may be discussed. Incidentally, the term is Doctor of Juridical Science. Abrazame (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not confused, I know full well the controversary regarding the designation of JD as "a doctorate", My question is whether it is common practice in the english wikipeida to pass judgement on that controversary in the way of using the term "a doctorate" in the article. If not, then this word should be removed from the article. If someone knows the answer to this question, I'll be happy if he responds. Otherwise I'll have to start checking myself the wikilinks to JD and see if in most of the articles it is regarded as "a doctorate".

For comparison, one might read the artile about the italian dottore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.7.33 (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama received a JD, though this stands for Juris Doctor in latin, it is not commonly referred to as a Doctorate of Law in English or by legal professionals (notwithstanding any 'controversy' around whether the degree has academic doctoral status or not). The connotation of the current phrasing more accurately refers to the qualification achieved under an SJD degree, which Harvard Law School also confers. It would be more accurate to say he earned his JD...Presently sounds awkward and inaccurate, and would be laughable to any legal professional. Wikipedia editors should have higher standards for something so basic- really hope someone can edit this silly error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.3.80 (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

New Party

An edit I made to this page, introducing a mention of Obama's endorsement by the New Party in his 1996 run for the State Senate, has been reverted, with the editor who reverted claiming: (1) a violation of WP:UNDUE, and (2) citation of "unreliable sources." I submit:

1. That a single sentence — indeed, a single part of a sentence — can hardly be considered giving "undue weight" to this (although a paragraph would be too much).
2. That the three sources I provided cannot properly be considered unreliable. Of the three, one was a press release from the New Party itself, one was an editorial from The Progressive Populist, and one was a page from Obama's own website, disputing that he was a dues-paying member but acknowledging that he had been endorsed by the party. (Two press releases from the Chicago chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America [1] [2] also indicate that Obama was endorsed by the party, if third-party sources are any more reliable.)

ᛟ ListenerX^TalkerX 03:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have deleted it simply for being non-notable. In fact, New Party (United States) could probably hit the curb as well, as it is only sourced to its own press releases and a handful of other questionable sources. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reliable source there is the Obama website(since this is an article about Obama and falls under WP:SELFPUB), and they cite the fact that Obama never solicited, or acknowledged the endorsement. So exactly what does that edit have to do with Obama? Nothing, really. So the revert was correct. It's undue weight and reliable sources not given as to any real connection to Obama. DD2K (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If remarks about Obama are to be excluded simply because he did not solicit or acknowledge them, this article could probably be halved in size. However, if the party itself is non-notable, I would agree that even a sentence is undue weight. ᛟ ListenerX^TalkerX 04:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

--If remarks about Obama are to be excluded simply because he did not solicit or acknowledge them, this article could probably be halved in size--Hmmm.... It's not a 'remark about Obama', it's an unsolicited, supposed endorsement. DD2K (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reliable sources among the mix. This has been repeatedly considered and rejected even on the New Party page as being of uncertain accuracy, and undue weight even if true. The significance to Obama is an order of magnitude less. If we were to compile a roster of every minor group, party, and individual who endorsed Obama in one of his pre-presidential campaigns this article would be many thousands of pages long. The signifiance here is that it's far left (?) party with some unpopular positions, so during the election some writers were apparently trying to see if there was any dirt to be dug up here, and apparently there was none. So the relevance is a minor piece of failed opposition research I think. If it were noteworthy in anyone's judgment we would have a lot more than three minor unreliable sources on it. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Foreign policy suggestions

I made some suggestions to improve the article. I don't feel like fighting so just read the link and if you think there's room for improvement, then make a suggestion here or use some of the suggestions mentioned. link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judith Merrick (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Kenyan nationality

Should be noted in infobox, even though it is a former nationality. He was a dual citizen for the beginning of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.223.188 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating that? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html Fat&Happy (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Far from being birther nonsense, it's right; he would have automatic citizenship of the United Kingdom, and later, Kenya, until it being automatically renounced. I'm not sure if it would warrant mention in the article, though, as it's of minor import. If it was, I'd suggest the following wording:

By virtue of his father's citizenship of Kenya Colony, Obama Jr. had automatic British—and later Kenyan—citizenship. He lost his dual-citizenship on his 23rd birthday because he did not affirm an allegiance to Kenya.

Sceptre ^(talk) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Earlier discussion has pointed out that Obama indeed had Kenyan citizenship, but it lapsed when he turned 21. The issue then is WP:WEIGHT: How and in what way did the citizenship affect him sufficiently to be notable in a summary-style article? Not enough for the infobox, to be sure, and probably not enough for the article at all. It's mentioned in one or more of the subarticles, and that's enough. Sceptre's suggestion isn't bad, though. PhGustaf (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spectre's suggestion is 99% ok, but there's a little mistake. Better is to modify it and say "He lost any claim to dual-citizenship on his 23rd ....." This is because there is no source that says Kenya claimed him or that he claimed Kenya. Kenya doesn't know everyone that could be a citizen. Those people have to do something like apply for a passport after which Kenya says "ok, here's your passport" or "no, you are an illegal, no passport for you". JB50000 (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If Obama Sr. had Kenyan citizenship, then Obama Jr. would have it too, until his 23rd birthday. See the factcheck article that says that, while neither claimed each other, he still was a Kenyan citizen. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I agree with the above. I can be convinced even stronger if I knew that Obama Sr. had a Kenyan passport. I think he did because he was not an American citizen. JB50000 (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

--If Obama Sr. had Kenyan citizenship, then Obama Jr. would have it too-- In a purely technical matter, that's correct. But it was never enacted upon and has no bearing in Obama's life. Right? What possible difference does having a possible, technical, citizenship status if it was never actually acted upon? Thus never even really happened. I'm sure the same could be said for many people based on their heritage. I've been told I could, or could have, claimed German citizenship because my grandfather was born there. Though I would not appreciate someone assigning me German citizenship status without my consent in some article. It's rather an obscure, technical matter that doesn't reflect any real purpose. DD2K (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this seems perfectly reasonable. I don't think it deserves a great deal of elaboration, but some simple little mention of the fact that he had a default dual citizenship which dropped at the age of 23 because he never did anything with it is fine.Jdlund (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC).

Why? Why is it important? Please address the really obvious WP:WEIGHT issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Because its true and verifiable. The first president in a hundred and sixty years born a british subject is rather notable I think.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's true and verifiable, and I can see at least mentioning that fact in passing as an interesting factoid. But Jojhutton, first president born a British subject? Seriously, stop and think about that one. How many presidents do you think we had before we had one who wasn't born a British subject? My guess would be Martin Van Buren. I realize this taps into sensitive points because ignorant people think that Obama being born a dual citizen alone makes him ineligible to be president. But anyone who knows anything about con law knows that is nonsense. There's no reason it should be controversial, his father was a Kenyan national so he had a default dual citizenship. It's not a big deal, it's just kind of interesting. It's not hugely important and it didn't seem to have much impact on his life until he went to Kenya to visit his distant relatives, but I really don't have a problem with mentioning it.Jdlund (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Any dual citizenship applying to Obama is due to events from before he was born, and has had zero effect on anything since his birth. Accordingly, WP:WEIGHT indicates that the information does not belong in this article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable accomplishments in the lede?

Now more than a year into his administration, might it be time to begin including in the lede events that have occurred during his tenure as President? So far we have only his Nobel Prize and his defeat of John McCain. When is an appropriate time to begin chronicling the administration's accomplishments or hallmarks (I'm thinking primarily of legislation)? Grunge6910 (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

British citizenship

According to Barack Obama, Sr, Barack Obama was born the son of a British citizen otherwise than by descent. Barack Obama is thus automatically a British citizen by descent. Unless there is evidence to suggest that Barack Obama has renounced his British citizenship at some stage in his life, reference to his British nationality should remain in the article. Qwerta369 (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is a lot of evidence that this should not be in here. This was discussed here many times before, here is one of those discussions, but you can just read Factcheck.org's summary. DD2K (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable that he is the first president in a hundred and sixty years born a British subject. Its true and verifiable.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The fact remains the Barack Obama was born, and still is, a British citizen. Please do not revert edits which are referenced as this is considered vandalism.Qwerta369 (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not a fact, it's incorrect. Please stop adding that, it's been discussed and rejected, and if you read the links, is not true. Don't edit war here. DD2K (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama was born August 4, 1961 - this is referenced. Barack Obama's father was, at the time of Barack Obama's birth, a British citizen otherwise than by descent - this is referenced. In accordance with the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama is thus automatically a British citizen by descent - again, this is referenced. Why do you say "that is not a fact, it's incorrect."? Qwerta369 (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Qwerta369, you are a step or two beyond a violation of WP:3RR, for which you can receive an administrative sanction (block of editing privileges). Abrazame (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• ""Comment"" User:Qwerta369, you need to keep reading the page. It states:

Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

:1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...

:2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963....But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1984.

You are using original research by using a link to the father of Obama and the birth certificate. There is no reliable source that states that Obama is of British nationality. The body of the article, and other Obama related articles, do give the details of the early life of Barack Obama and his heritage, but there is no reason at all to add "British" to his nationality in his info box. Some technical rules of certain nations and whom they regard as prospective citizens has no bearing on those people unless they act on it. Which never happened, so is irrelevant. DD2K (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest adding British (Until 1984). or whatever year it ended. Yet does anyone not believe he was born a British subject? It would interesting hearing fromanyone who doesn't think so.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do not. He was born in America to an American mother and has declared his American nationality. Also, the website states he lost the ability to become a British citizen in December of '63, and any Kenyan claims in August of '84. Both are technical matters that were never acted upon by Obama, so are irrelevant to his nationality. Just because some nation has a set of citizenship rules does not mean that everyone who falls under those rules is automatically a citizen. Find any reliable source that indicates that Obama ever claimed British citizenship. There are articles that explain all this, but it definitely does not belong in the info box. It's all original research. DD2K (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Per prior discussions it should not be included. It's speculative, distracting, irrelevant, generally non-noteworthy, and it plays to fringe points of view. I don't see any new info or arguments here so I wouldn't care to participate in a rehash of this much-belabored point. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to rehash certain arguments as well, but a case could be made for its inclusion, not based on his eligibility for the presidency, that is a seperate issue, but based on how rare this actually is. The first president in 160 years born as a British subject, however long it may have been.

(To DD2K) Do you honestly believe that Obama was not born with British citizenship? I mean really, I can understand the argument that its not notable enough for the article, but to deny it all together is a bit strange. Do you wish to clarify? Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote.

Anyway, I don't wish to take up too much of anyones time. Just remember that when you continue to point honest editors to the FAQs, that consensus can change. You can't use an FAQ as an argument in discussions. that in itsself is distracting.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nahh, I'm not saying that he wasn't born with the eligibility to be a British subject, but saying that he never acted upon it and citing certain nations criteria for eligibility of citizenship(when one is a child) isn't retroactive. Maybe I am not making myself clear, but I will cite my German heritage as an example. My Grandfather was German and came to America when he was a young man. I've been told I am eligible to be a German citizen by family I still have in Germany. I wouldn't want people to list my nationality as 'German', because I'm American. Although I do identify myself as a German-American or American of German decent. There is a difference between heritage and citizenship. DD2K (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You do not understand British nationality law. Barack Obama's father was a British citizen otherwise than by descent at the time of Barack Obama's birth. This means that Barack Obama was born a British citizen by descent (to be absolutely correct, the term was "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" at the time, but it is now "British citizen"). Barack Obama was born a British citizen by descent by nature of his birth. His British citizenship is automatic, it is not applied for. A person who is a British citizen will cease to be so if he formally renounces his British citizenship at a British overseas mission. If Barack Obama has not done this, he remains a British citizen and, additionally, a European Union citizen. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that he was British at birth, but I think that there were some "acts" passed later that changed his citizenship to Kenyan. Even then, being foreign born, he would have to apply as an adult to keep his status.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Qwerta, you have this completely and spectacularly wrong. The British citizenship was withdrawn from Obama Sr and Jr in 1963 when Kenya declared independence. Also, the Act by which Obama Sr. received British nationality in the first place was repealed in 1981. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation is at follows:

1. Obama's father was CUKC (Citizen of United Kingdom and Colonies) otherwise than by descent
2. Being legitimate, at birth he was a CUKC by descent
3. Due to Kenyan independence, he acquired Kenyan citizenship
4. He lost Kenyan citizenship automatically due to Kenyan law against multiple nationality

As to point (3), http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html refers to section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution. That is sufficient for Obama to have become a Kenyan citizen, but is insufficient by itself for him to lose his CUKC. Now, I believe there was actually a British Act which would have deprived him of CUKC, but it would be nice to cite it explicitly. So I think the argument made above, and on factcheck.org, is correct as to its conclusion, but the steps in the argument are not quite correct. --SJK (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@ SJK,

I found a site recently that purports to fill in the missing link a bit; I meant to try to locate it again today, but got caught up watching the health care debate and forgot until now. :

The gist of the information on that site was that you are correct, the Kenya(n) Independence Act (1963) removed CUKC status from the newly-defined citizens of Kenya. However, it also added Kenya to a list of countries (Canada, Australia, etc.) whose citizens would be considered "Commonwealth Citizens" or "British Subjects" (the passage quoted seemed to say the two terms were equal and interchangeable). The author of the web site argued that since Commonwealth Citizen status was granted by virtue of Kenyan Citizen status, it was automatically lost when the Kenyan citizenship was not affirmed in 1984.

Unfortunately, the British Nationality Act of 1948 was pretty much scrapped by a revised Act in 1981, while Obama's Commonwealth Citizenship was still in effect. How the new law affected the situation is unclear. I have absolutely no independent knowledge of British law, citizenship or otherwise, but I had always had the (vague) understanding that British citizenship, once established, was fairly permanent. I'll still try to find the site again and link it for reference (although it would certainly not be any more of a reliable source than the various "birther" sites), but at least the above may help you fill in some gaps if you're interested. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is my understanding of the situation:

• Yes, I think you are right, it was the Kenya Independence Act 1963 (c. 54) which would have deprived him of CUKC. Unfortunately, the copy of it I can find [3] I think the sections regarding citizenship have been repealed as spent? One would need to find a non-consolidated version to confirm.
• "British subjects" and "Commonwealth Citizens" are not quite interchangeable. Essentially, prior to 1949, there was only British subjects. Then this was divided into CUKC citizenship and Dominion citizenship (e.g. Canada, Australia, etc.), yet who remained British subjects. Later, this term was changed to Commonwealth Citizens, but there was a small category of people who were British subjects pre-1949 but did not acquire either CUKC nor Dominion citizenship. So, in present day usage, "British subjects without citizenship" means those British subjects in 1949 who did not acquire any other citizenship (and certain of their descendants). The British subjects who acquired CUKC or dominion citizenship are now called Commonwealth citizens. IIRC, British subjects without citizenship will lose that status if they acquire another citizenship. But "Commonwealth Citizenship" is defined purely in terms of citizenship in a Commonwealth country. So long as Obama was a Kenyan citizen, he was also a Commonwealth Citizen; but as soon as he lost his Kenyan citizenship, he lost his Commonwealth Citizenship also.
• The change in British nationality in 1981 isn't relevant here. What they did was replace CUKC with several other categories, e.g. British Citizenship, British Dependent Territories Citizenship, British Nationals (Overseas), etc. So anyone who was a CUKC pre-1981 still had some form of British citizenship. (The story behind this is complicated, but I understand the main concern was to limit immigration of certain people from the former colonies, especially Asians living in Africa, by giving them a "second class" citizenship.) So if Obama had CUKC at BNA1981 entry into force (1 Jan 1983, I think), he would have acquired some other form of British citizenship, but per the Kenyan independence Act he didn't have CUKC, so he didn't have any of those successor citizenship either. But to say "the British Nationality Act of 1948 was pretty much scrapped by a revised Act in 1981" is a bit misleading, since the 1981 law was defined in terms of the categories of the 1949 law (i.e. you acquired a BNA1981 citizenship if you were a BNA1948 CUKC at entry into force, and certain other criteria determined which type of BNA1981 citizenship you acquired.)

--SJK (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Middle name

It should be taken out because the only people who ever use it are conservatives who want to associate him with Muslim extremists. --70.250.214.164 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It's on his birth certificate, and he chose to use it at his inauguration. PhGustaf (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is standard policy in bio articles to state the person's full name in the intro sentence, so politics is not a factor here.--JayJasper (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Using Obama's middle name as a pejorative has been done to death, and yet he still won the election by a substantial margin. So one would have to believe that most Americans are aware of the attempts at the particular associations you are referring to, and rejected them. In any case, it's his full name and definitely should be stated so in the article. DD2K (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead changes

I just want to say that I support the subtle changes to the final paragraph made by Joker123192. After reverting his edit, I realized that the move of the Nobel Prize was not the only aspect of that edit. I feel his refinement improves the last paragraph and want it on record that I do not stand by this part of my own revert. My apologies; the red text automatically highlighted could be a bit more specific about which text was actually changed, which is not the fault of any of the editors involved. Abrazame (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Health Care Reform section

We might want to rewrite this section and include sources. One issue I can see is that it implies that the PPACA was the same as the Obama proposal; it's not, as the PPACA doesn't have the public option (one thing that is mentioned in the section). Sceptre ^(talk) 23:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would guess the entire section should be rewritten, sooner or later. Or maybe just fixed up now and rewritten later. I don't like adding that type of stuff to WP:BLP articles as if they are news outlets, but I suppose something like HCR has to be mentioned when it passes or is dinged into law. Most of the information should be directed to the Health care reform in the United States and the Presidency of Barack Obama articles. DD2K (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick fix to clarify a few things including the point Sceptre raises, but that's not to say it couldn't yet be improved on. (I didn't remove or add any ref, I did shift one.)

I'm not sure what I think about the length of the House bill being noted. If the argument for that data point is simply because it's a fact, then it seems that we should add the length of other legislation and reform noted in this and other presidential articles by the same argument — but of course the purpose/content of these bills are infinitely more relevant facts than their number of pages. If the argument is because the data point was a criticism of the opposition, then it requires context. My understanding is that it is not uncommon for major legislation and reform to run to a thousand or two pages, so it would be reasonable to note whether the criticism had merit or was merely a cynical tactic; if it was the latter, it is perhaps more suited to their bios than here, and really best explored in the article about the "debate". And, it was the longer Senate bill they made the point about, not the House bill. If it was to make the point that the bill with the public option was shorter than the bill without it, that point isn't being made without the length of the Senate bill, which is the one that was passed. It's also hard to resign the complaint about the bill's length with the fact that there will now be a great many more pages worth of amendments and alterations, including many made by Republicans. We declare the date the House bill was introduced, yet that's another detail we don't note about the Senate bill. It may be relevant to note that the, what, 435-member House was able to come up with and vote to pass a bill faster than the 100-member Senate, but of course that point is not made without the date of the Senate bill.

To I think both Sceptre's and DD2K's point, the real relevancy to this biography is what it was Obama's hope to do for the country and which of those aspects did and which did not make it into the bill he signed, and perhaps to note when the first few benefits go into effect. But I would agree that, while this is landmark legislation and the primary piece of Obama's agenda (outside the issues of the economy which arose shortly before the election and which he tackled first, with the Recovery act and the various things with autos and mortgages and jobs et al), we need to be concise in our coverage and trust that we are linking to good articles with properly weighted detail elsewhere. Abrazame (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Why is it not possible to edit this page? I believe I have something useful to add. Obama has been criticised for not lowering taxes; I would like to insert material concerning this. Further, although science funding has increased, Obama is neglecting humanities. Can someone add this please or permit me to edit the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesswealth (talk • contribs) 12:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Childhood use of stepfather's surname

Twice now, edits of mine have been reverted. As noted in this article [4], HuffPo, The Sydney Morning Herald, TIME, and others, Barack Obama was once known as Barry Soetoro as a youth. These are all RS. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC).

There seems to be a lot of editing on this point. While I don't see any problem with the sourcing, I also don't see how adding a childhood nickname adds much to the article. I certainly don't think it rises to the level of calling it a "known alias," as this thread title indicates. Dayewalker (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as being at all important, but from what I've understood in the past it was a bit more than a nickname. IIRC, he was registered in school in Indonesia under that name, which would indicate it's the name most people there knew him as, so it really is more of an AKA than a nickname. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm under the impression it was a legal name while living in Indonesia. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I knew that is what you were trying to imply and insert here. Well, your impression is incorrect. President Obama has always had the 'legal name' of Barack Obama, but used the name "Barry" in his youth and while in Indonesia sometimes used his stepfathers surname Soetoro for convenience. DD2K (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Cite source. I would also argue that registering for school is a legal activity, thus it was a legal name. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, that's not the way it works, in either of your requests. First, I don't have to prove a negative, and this type of mania has been tried and tried before, and I knew you were trying to push the Larry C Johnson - Orly Taitz line of bunk that somehow because Obama's stepfather signed him up as "Barry Soetoro" at a school that he therefor had lost his US Citizenship and is ineligible to be President of the United States. It's pure BS and has been debunked many times. Editors here are under no obligation to cite sources that prove your claims are false, it's been done. The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources prove that. I think it's safe to assume that you are not working towards improving this article and have a different agenda. DD2K (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, no. I believe Barack Obama is a United States citizen and also believe he is legally the president of the United States, but this is neither here or there; you shouldn't be assuming my political positions based on one edit. Cite your source in regards to Barack Obama using the name Soetoro as a form of "convenience" rather than legally, when the TIME article suggests nothing of this sort. I am working based on the TIME article only. Registering for school is a legal activity, using Barry Soetoro to register for school indicates it is a legal usage of that name. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor does the TIME article suggest it was his "legal" name. Even if you are considered an expert on Indonesian law in the 1960s, your opinion on the legalities associated with filling out one form at a private, Catholic school would be nothing more than opinion. For his legal name to have been Soetoro, there would need to be some legal record of an adoption or official change of name. Somehow that document remains uncited and undiscovered. The source says he was once known as Barry Soetoro. It does not say his parents changed his name to Barry Soetoro, nor on the other hand does it say he used the nickname of Barry Soetoro. In normal journalistic writing style, that doesn't mean he walked into a building one time in his life and someone said "Hi there, Barry Soetoro", and that was the once the name was used. But it doesn't mean he once had his name legally changed either. The clear implication is that for all or most of his time in Indonesia he was called by his stepfather's surname; in the real world of 40 years ago, the usual reason for doing this would be for convenience and to avoid confusion by having the whole family called by the same name. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting he legally changed his name. I'm just saying the name "Barry Soetoro" was used legally as a name. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know for a fact that you are wrong, and I assume millions of others do too, from personal experience. My cousin, the child of my mother's brother, came to live with us when he was two years old after his parents died. My dad signed him up at two schools using our last name, but never legally changed his last name. My brother(cousin) was never adopted because our grandparents wanted him to keep his last name, as he was the last male to carry on the family name. But up until middle school, he went by our last name. This was in the late 70's and early 80's in America. I assume that is the case in many other countries. What I know for sure is, assuming that it's a legal contract(registering a child at school) is pure folly. As for basing your agenda on "one edit", I am not doing that either. Including this current attempt, I see several others(1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that lead me to believe this. Corsi's nonsense has been debunked. DD2K (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that 'personal experience' wasn't a valid argument here? Again, I'm not saying his name was legally changed; I'm saying it was a legal usage of the name. Thus a 'legal name'. Again, whatever you think my 'agenda' is, you're wrong. You're turning this into a political argument I wish to take no part in: The first pages you linked I edited based on information from the source. The last one you linked is based on information from the WP article itself, which not only states "usage varies greatly,' but 6,171 Americans self-identified this way in the last census. Your interpretation of a word is obviously different than many. How do you interpret Kurt Cobain's usage? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't using "personal experience" to try and add something to the article, it was to refute your claim "registering for school is a legal activity", which is based on nothing but your opinion and has been refuted by every reliable source. It's not up to me to prove that it wasn't his 'legal name', it's up to you to provide a reliable source stating it was. And excuse me if I don't assume good faith here with someone who believes Obama's legal name is "Barry Soetoro", is not [[African-American] but a "mullato", and campaigned in Kenya for Odinga. All proven false and all in line with the Johnson-Corsi-Taitz line of conspiracy. DD2K (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Registering for school is a legal activity; not my opinion. I don't believe Obama's 'legal name' is "Barry Soetoro". I'm saying he used the name legally at one point in his life. Second, 6,171 Americans self-identified as mulattos in the last census. Whatever you're trying to paint me as for using the word, you're wrong. I'm using the word as defined by the WP article. Given the first sentence of the article, am I wrong? The Odinga edits were based purely on the source. I think the Birther conspiracy is ridiculous DD2K, and I'm offended you're linking me with those people. They do not represent my beliefs in any way, shape, or form, and there's not much more for me to say about that. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, even if the article on compulsory education you pointed to used the word "legal" anywhere, which it doesn't; even if it weren't flagged for having multiple problems, which it is; even if it even mentioned Indonesia and the laws and practices there, which it doesn't – the fact remains that 7–10 year old children don't register themselves for school. Any paperwork filled out was filled out by his stepfather, and just as a parent can't renounce a child's U.S. citizenship, a (step)parent filling out a form with inaccurate data doesn't mean the child supplied the data or "used it legally". Fat&Happy (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't read the article then, because it refers to "compulsory education law" many times. Parents/legal guardians register children for school, something that is legally compulsory. Thus, a name used for school registration is a 'legal name'. Minors cannot make their own legal decisions, you know that. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem being in the article somewhere, but I don't think too much importance should be attached to it. The brief mention that says he was sometimes known as Barry Soetoro seems like it would do. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who phrased it as "was sometimes known as," and my rationale was and continues to be that since his name since birth is Barack Obama, it doesn't make sense that he would have been always "known as" Barry Soetoro at any time. Since he may have been referred to as Barry Soetoro at the same time he was still named Barack Obama, I think "was sometimes known as" makes the most sense. Incidentally I don't get the whole fascination with the name "Barry Soetoro." It's marginally at least an Obama conspiracy theory about how he isn't really who he claims to be. That's why I don't want to give undue weight to it. Grunge6910 (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is starting to get absurd. Obama was six years old when his family moved to Indonesia, and his grandparents gave him the nickname Barry from the start. So "Barry Soetoro" was just derivative of his nickname and using his stepfathers surname. Which fits the definition of "nickname" -. At ages six through 10, Obama was referred to as "Barry Soetoro" to some, but his real name never changed. It was always Barack Obama. There is a reason why this isn't discussed by reliable sources much. A little kid that's six years old doesn't decide he is now a different name. DD2K (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple questions. First, was Obama generally known by the nickname / alternate name "Barry Soetoro" during part of his childhood? We have one source that seems to suggest he was, but isn't totally clear on that point. Anything like that, if true, will have lots of reliable sources. It's pretty clear it was never an official or legal name (your legal name is the name you're born with unless and until a judge approves your petition to change your name and you register it accordingly). Second, if we get past that point, is it a biographically significant event that would merit inclusion in this main article? The fact that it's been trumpeted by some fringe / conspiracy people is a red flag. It doesn't mean it's not true or important - they love to emphasize his middle name "Hussein" but that's his name so it goes into the article. But there's some doubt. Do most of the sources covering that part of his life mention this? Was it really a nickname or just a name of convenience his parents sometimes used due to a new stepfather? The latter would not be worth mentioning here, maybe in some more detailed sub-article relating to his childhood. Anyway, I have a feeling all of this has been discussed and there's good info on it, I just don't see it here in the current version of this page. Does anyone have a link? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Huffington Post, as I linked in my first post, an arguably left publication, even acknowledges the name. I linked several sources up there. I never said it was his 'legal name', I said he used the name legally. There is a difference. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Africa project – Tanzania???

What is this project designation, and the inclusion in related categories, based on? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw that too and wondered the same thing. Doesn't make sense. Does it? DD2K (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I also am puzzled by this. Africa and Kenya are obviously sensible, but Tanzania? — Gavia immer (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Took it out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This article was recently tagged as being part of the Tanzania project by a bot, due to categories on the page - probably Category:Luo people. Was a false positive.--BelovedFreak 11:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Description of Obama as "professor" at University of Chicago is inaccurate

The second paragraph of the section "University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney" lists Obama as a "professor" for twelve years, clarifying that he was a lecturer first and a "senior lecturer" later. The title of "lecturer" is distinct from that of "professor". I propose that the paragraph be modified to start, "For 12 years, Obama lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This claim has been made over and over, and debunked every time. This(that Obama was a professor) has been confirmed by reliable sources and the claim that he was not has been debunked by Factcheck.org and Snopes. So it's a fact that President Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor. DD2K (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama was never on tenure track at the University of Chicago as a quick phone call to the University has just proven. He was a lecturer for all his years there and he did it on a part-time basis. And the idea that someone who works hard to gain tenure track and earns the right to be called a professor, that somehow 'professor' is a pejorative term denoting 'old right wing meme' as DD2K stated in his edit summary, is offensive.Malke2010 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the edit summary. The "old right wing meme" is the repeated claims that Obama was never a professor, despite statements from the university and reliable sources to the contrary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke_2010, you should follow the links I provided and try to understand that this has been discussed and proven false. Obama was considered a Constitutional Law Professor by the university, and that has been proven over and over. There is no doubt. In the links I provided are direct quotes from the University of Chicago, so pretending that a 'quick phone call' proves otherwise is disingenuous. At best. DD2K (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are no substitute for the University itself. Obama was never on tenure tract. He was always a lecturer. He was never a Con Law scholar. Blogs are disingenuous as is any claim that they are accurate. Obama's listings in the Un Chicago directory was as a 'lecturer.' Blogs can't beat that.Malke2010 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't 'blogs', it was Factcheck.org and Snopes. Both respected institutions for debunking false accusations and urban legends that get mass emailed. And they quote the University of Chicago directly, and the quote has been repeated in just about every reliable sourced media outlet. Perhaps you should have actually read the links I provided before you made the claim that you called the university? I would say that claim you made, and the subsequent posts you are posting, makes clear that there no longer needs to be any WP:AGF with you here. DD2K (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The University of Chicago is the last word on this. Call them yourself. Factcheck.org is a blog, as is Snopes. These are not respected secondary sources like the New York Times or the Washington Post. I find it curious that you are using these blogs and not using the New York Times or the Washington Post to back up your claims of 'right wing meme.' You can call Obama a professor all you want, but he was never a professor. He never applied for tenure track. The University of Chicago's faculty directory proves that. In the last edition Obama was in, he was listed as a "Senior Lecturer." The directory is a bona fide source for a citation and can be used in correcting Obama's article. You are free to call the Un of Chicago yourself. And just because an editor disagrees with you, or presents sources that contradict your claims, doesn't mean that editor has an agenda or that other editors can't assume they have good faith. Please read the Wikipedia policy WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. You don't want to establish a WP:CHILL effect in what could appear to be an effort to drive away editors from making contributions to Obama's article. Malke2010 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined." (source) - CASE CLOSED. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Not really a professor. But you can call him that. Malke2010 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Factcheck and Snopes are not blogs, but if it's the NYT you want, here's an article about his time as a professor, referring to him as professor throughout, including the headline. [5]. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) This issue has been discussed before and resolved, if you search the talk page archives. It is correct that Obama was a professor, per the university and plenty of reliable sources. There is no question about his actual role; it is a definitional matter, and the definition of the word is not fixed. We could add a word or two or rephrase perhaps to eliminate the ambiguity but past proposals to do so have not gained consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In the proper usage of the title, he is not a professor. It's all right to make the distinction, because saying he was a lecturer doesn't take anything away from Obama, since he is the President of the United States. Don't see where any other Un Chicago profs have done that. This is from Slate which explains the difference. [6] You guys get over the top here but that could be why the article is still in such good shape. Malke2010 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are claiming that the University of Chicago is using the title improperly? Gamaliel (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm showing you why there's an argument about this stuff in the first place.Malke2010 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no argument, only people who, for whatever reason, can't accept that the University of Chicago knows what it calls its own employees. Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweet mother of God, this again? Seriously? There is no objective criteria for what constitutes a professor. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that says you have to be on a tenure track to have the title professor. A university creates its own parameters for who is a professor or adjunct or some other title. University of Chicago refers to him as being a professor at their law school http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media. Having the title of "senior lecturer" has no effect whatsoever on whether or not he is a professor. If University of Chicago calls the Senior Lecturers who work at their law school "professors" then they are professors. He was a professor, period. End of story. (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this was discussed almost nine months ago in May 2009:

1. Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Academics
2. Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Lecturer and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law_School
3. 15:31, 10 May 2009 Newross (talk | contribs) (→Early life and career: "was a professor of constitutional law" --> "served as a professor of constitutional law"; add "as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004")

two "minor edits" changed consensus wording:

1. 03:02, 29 October 2009 SMP0328. (talk | contribs) m (→Early life and career: Wording tweak)

   served as a professor of constitutional law → was a constitutional law professor

2. 14:28, 24 November 2009 Afterwriting (talk | contribs) (Minor style edits.)

   Lecturer → lecturer
   Senior Lecturer → senior lecturer

Newross (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that legwork - very helpful! - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Litmus test for objectivity

This is an excellent test to see if an editor is objective or not. If you insist on calling him Professor, you may be extremely partisan and biased but if you don't insist, you are neutral.

On the other hand, when Obama is considered a Muslim, if you insist, you are extremely partisan and biased but if you reject that, you are neutral.

There is no other way around it.

Obama was not a Professor. He was a faculty member at the rank of Lecturer. To say that all faculty members' profession is Professor and, therefore, Obama is a Professor is intellectual dishonesty not worthy of Wikipedia. Similarly, if you are a lab tech, you cannot honestly call yourself "Biochemist" without some intellectual dishonesty and overselling.

Many famous people are on the faculty but are not a full Professor. There is no shame to being Lecturer. In fact, Obama was even more senior than that. He was a Senior Lecturer. In Germany, it's even more stringent. Often there is only one professor and everyone else has a lower rank.

The accurate version will say that Obama was on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School where he held the rank of Lecturer then Senior Lecturer. He taught part time from such and such year to such and such year.

This makes him look good because full time professors are often abstract and impractical but the distinguished part time people, like Obama, have practical ideas and can inject realisms to coursework. JB50000 (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This claim has been made over and over, and debunked every time. This(that Obama was a professor) has been confirmed by reliable sources and the claim that he was not has been Factcheck.org and Snopes. So it's a fact that President Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor. By the way, this is not a forum and it's getting pretty monotonus with the same posters coming in and making the same kind of claims over and over. I really think any 'litmus test' should be decided by a quick WP:SPI on a few of the posters in here. I definitely think there are some 'good hand-bad hand' games being played here. DD2K (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. Don't like someone and call them a sock. Looking at the archives...same of behavior over and over...collapsing boxes, calling people sock. It is also an attack on Wikicup, of which I am a participant and beating many other editors so far, many of whom have zero points. Prove that you are not an Obama staffer. I am one of the most neutral people here, challenging extreme right wingers and left wing nuts. JB50000 (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What this basically boils down to is trying to play up the confusion between Professor and professor. Professor is lying. professor is a weasel word and then it requires a long explanation about his position. Basically, he was a part time faculty member. Look up this http://www.missouriwestern.edu/eflj/faculty/ Is Meredith Katchen a professor of English? That would be stretching the facts and overselling. President Obama is a great leader, very articulate, very effective in his agenda (with one exception). He won the Nobel Peace Prize fair and square. He doesn't need to pad his resume calling him professor. By being realistic, the Wikipedia article gains credibility. JB50000 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To assist in settling the matter, I've asked some editors who write the Professor article in Wikipedia and some Wikipedia administrators who are university faculty members. If they say that the general public understands the difference between Professor and professor, then the article is fine the way it is. If they say that the general public may not understand or may confuse the two, then that helps settle this question. JB50000 (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, well I consider your 'litmus test' a personal attack. And I don't remember accusing anyone on here of being a sockpuppet(before my most recent post). So that's another claim by you that is not true. Also, I think you should stop trying to insert WP:OR into the article and the talk page. Going around asking people to do your WP:OR and making posts(forum shopping) all over Wikipedia doesn't really fit within the guidelines. Try citing reliable sources, like everyone else here has done to show you that Obama was considered a law professor. There are several citations, and direct quotes from the university itself, that back that up. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean anything. Not here, not ever. Reliable sources, WP:Consensus and WP:Weight do, and using those guidelines you are incorrect. DD2K (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It boils down to supporters of professor argue on a technicality, that any faculty member is a professor. They ignore that there is much confusion between Professor and professor. So either there has to be a lengthy explanation/disclaimer or there is none and people get fooled. This reliable source explains it. http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-04/2005-04-20-voa2.cfm The reader is confused between professor and other titles (lecturer is mentioned in the article). This also brings up the issue of prose. If you have prose that can lead to confusion, this is bad.

You want reliable sources. Look here. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx NBC is saying "That's something that has caused some criticism and allegations of exaggeration".

Is Wikipedia unreliable? No! Wikipedia says in the Professors in the United States article "Although the term "professor" is often used to refer to any college or university teacher, only a subset of college faculty are technically professors" See even those editors recognize that there is confusion if you use the word professor for Obama.

I am opposed to saying "Obama is a fraud, he claims to be Professor but he isn't" 'cuz that would be a smear on Obama. Instead, a factual note saying that he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago (that's the most important). If you want to say he was offered a full time postion, fine. If you want to say he was a Senior Lecturer, fine. Mention that he was professor and then you MUST have a lengthy explanation to prevent confusion and that's poor prose. You know that there is confusion because the Voice of America reference shows that there is confusion.

This issue is so easy and clear cut that if you oppose it (by wanting a deceptive version or by wanting a smear version), then the Wikipedia system is broken.JB50000 (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand what WP:OR states, or what a reliable source is. I suggest you go and read the guidelines, because you are doing nothing but making your own assumptions and trying to insert your own opinions based on definitions of titles or words. It's painfully obvious to anyone that the citations given(FactCheck.org, UofC, NYT) have put this issue to rest. There is no way to overrule those citations without violating WP:Undue Weight, WP:RS and WP:OR. I do believe this discussion is over. DD2K (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The real litmus test should be this: either explain why the University of Chicago is unable to correctly identify its own employees or stop wasting everyone's time. What better source for the title of an employee than an employer? It's not about logic or arguments or partisanship. Wikipedia runs on sources, period. The best source, the source that employed him, says that he was a professor. Unless you can trump that, this is all just pointless chatter. Gamaliel (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this particular sub-thread, and any long discussion, is a waste of time, even though I do hold the minority position that we should use more precise language and not simply call him a professor because his employer and the sources do. The sources, for example, may say it is "cold" in Moscow this week but that doesn't stop us from being more precise and reporting just how cold it is. It wouldn't kill us to add a short adjective clause like "non-tenure track", "adjunct", "part time", "visiting", "associate", or whatever it is. But I think I'm in the minority on this and not much chance of changing anyone's mind so I won't go off on how [insert favorite Wikipedia accusation] everyone here is for disagreeing with me. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison

Scjessey's version is above:

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

A more concise version:

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama taught constitutional law part time at the University of Chicago Law School. His title was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was offered a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

This concise version has none of the disclaimers like the top version. There is no chance for misunderstanding. This is no chance of resume inflation. There is respect for the President. Because of this, both Obama staffers and right wing extremists probably hate these version. The staffers want resume inflation. The right wingers want to diminish his achievements. By being neutral and fair, this article gets credibility. With the neutral version, we can focus on this man's fine leadership, good achievements (with one possible failure or delay), a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize, etc. JB50000 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there has been a huge misunderstanding here. The text I quote in the section above is not from any article. It is from the University of Chicago's statement on the matter. It is the source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I posted on ANI asking for administrators who are Ph.D.'s to clarify between a Professor and a professor. Whatever the consensus is among them, that will help resolve this discussion. JB50000 (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So you want them to discuss if the word should be upper or lower case 'P' ? Don't they have other things to do ?. If he is a professor according to an accredited university (thus making it a reliable source) then that's quite OK to add and if they spell the word with a capital 'P' then we use that. Seems simple to me. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was a British academic, not an American one, but the concise version above looks fine to me. I've looked at the University page and of course they use a small 'p', that's no surprise, just the way English works, see [7]. Dam was a professor with the title Professor Emeritus etc... There can be no doubt that we can say Obama was a professor. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns with edits

This editor is persisting in removing the word professor from the article. When I reverted one of his edits, which hid the removal among others and called it fixing the bad prose, he got hostile on my talk page, and reinstated his edit, but changed it to put professor in quotes and write up a disclaimer which made Obama look like a liar. Isn't the ARBCom and the page protection situation in place to eliminate this sort of politically motivated attacking? ThuranX (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Then think of a way to not make him look like a liar but also not create confusion between Professor and professor. Think about solutions, not insist on a bad choice. If you don't like my idea, think of a better one and report it here! JB50000 (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as hostility, it is you who are hostile, calling other people's edits "smokescreen". Please don't!JB50000 (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I put a 3RR warning on his page, I'd suggest someone also give him the article probation notice for future reference. I agree that there's no consensus about the professor edit. Dayewalker (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is a definite problem with the user concerning WP:Consensus and WP:OR. Otherwise, he is purposely removing/adding text to the article that he knows is against consensus and using original research. And not only that, but is reverting other editors multiple times that are correcting him. DD2K (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no original research. There is no consensus. I raise a valid point so that means there is a lack of consensus. When there is a valid point, like confusion between Professor and professor, then we are REQUIRED to fix this. Want to insert the word "professor" somewhere in there. Then make a valid suggestion. Don't like it, then make a valid suggestion. I have made several suggestions trying to get better prose.

I have made valid suggestions, suggestions that are neutral because they neither smear the man, nor overinflate him. Some people above criticize me but they fail to improve things and just stamp their feet and revert.

So rather than be like a obstructionist, make some wording suggestions. Don't just insist on poor prose that creates confusion. Even the wikipedia article, Professors in the United States, makes points that I'm raising--there's no denying that the prose causes confusion.

But you win. I will let this confusing prose remain for now. I am quitting for a few days, at least a day. Go ahead, call him Professor of Law or Associate Professor of Law.

JB50000 (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no poor prose that creates confusion, the descriptors are reliably sourced and easily understandable. The descriptor 'professor' is mentioned twice in the article. The first, Constitutional law professor, is as part of his occupation list. The second is in this paragraph:

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..

Which are cited by reliable sources and indisputable. This should be a non-issue, and I am not going to comment further on it, considering the issue closed. DD2K (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue could be made closed with simple changes. The fact remains that there is confusion between professor and Professor (Professor is one of the most senior faculty ranks, just below Chairman). There is also a historical issue that causes fighting here. During the campaign, the Obama campaign released information that he was a law professor. Maybe they thought that the general public wouldn't know what a Lecturer was. In the very loosest sense, a professor is any university teacher. However, a teaching assisting saying "I was a professor" is considered dishonest. The Clinton campaign picked up and this and attacked Obama. Obama needed to save himself so he appealed to the University of Chicago. Not wanting to offend a future president, they issued a carefully worded statement.

If Wikipedia were a book, then the nuances of the professor controversy could be explained in detail. However, since Wikipedia summarizes things into a sentence or two, the epic of the campaign is not needed in this article. Some editors seem to want to argue on the Obama campaign's original point, that he was a professor. The most succinct way would be to just say that he was a faculty member. To say that he was professor but offer no guidance or clarification on the difference between that and Professor is not good. The best way is to say that he was a Senior Lecturer. If additional information is desired, the next most important thing would be either that he was offered a tenure track professorship or that the position of Senior Lecturer is a very special position, much more so than Lecturer.

Given the animosity of the past discussion, this will undoubtedly close as unchanged without true consensus or the best wording used. JB50000 (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The importance you place upon the word "professor" may be your personal viewpoint or a U.S.-centric thing. Technical colleges around here call their staff Professors and they're not on any tenure or academic track. Same with the university I attended - if you were part of the faculty, your were called professor or associate professor. If the University of Chicago says Obama was a professor at the university then that's the wording we should use. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into this and now realize that there is an intense backstory to the professor issue. Initially the Hillary campaign suggested that Obama was inflating his resume. The Obama campaign cried "mommy!" but then asked the University of Chicago to help them in a bind so the University, not wanting to cross a future president, hedged. So some people could be playing a hyper-cheerleader and want to present the most pro-Obama stance. The really anti-Obama people probably want to quote the controversy. The neutral stance would be to not mention the controversy but to neutrally say that he was on the faculty or that he was a Senior Lecturer. Some blogs describe exactly what I say. JB50000 (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Ever hear of WP:NOR and that blogs are not WP:reliable sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said I wanted to use blog material. I also didn't do any OR. We must all do OR to understand an issue otherwise we are not thinking.JB50000 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"I ... didn't do any OR. We must all do OR ... otherwise we are not thinking.JB50000 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)"

Yep. That seems to pretty much sum up this discussion. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. With that bit of bizarre grandstanding, you have pretty much torpedoed any chance of you ever being taken seriously on this page again, or any chance of other's giving your editing suggestions anything more than a polite dismissal. Tarc (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not bizarre grandstanding. Foreign politicians and a U.S. senator's office have been caught editing their own articles so we know that there has been manipulation. I never accused any specific editor of editing their own article. We also know can make a pretty good guess to how a militant supporter or militant opponent would decide on certain editorial questions. We assume good faith in not accusing others but to not assess the supporter's view and opponent's view and choose the neutral view is part of being a good editor.

What I wrote has reliable sources about the Hillary campaign attacking Obama for resume inflation. One news organization (used by other editors in this article) confirms my summary...

The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not." We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.

So the bottom line is that it that there was a Hillary-Obama dispute. Some editors might want to take the Hillary side or the Obama side but Wikipedia should be neutral. I don't even think we should mention the dispute but should be mindful to take the neutral standpoint and not take sides even if we don't mention the dispute. JB50000 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"I don't even think we should mention the dispute" So why have you just posted almost a page of text? Per WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM (not to mention the general sanctions) we should only be discussing how to improve the article. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the dispute on this talk page helps understand the issue. So if we just report on the Obama campaign's response and their tactics to address the issue and not even report the controversy nor the other side, we are not being objective. Yet, there is a way to not mention the controversy by just stating in the most neutral terms what he was, namely a Senior Lecturer who was offered a position on the full time faculty. JB50000 (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not what he was described as though according to reliable sources, including the university itself. Verifiability, Not Truth, remember. We aren't here to judge or to interpret how we thing things should be. As I said on that AN/I, even I would never address a non-tenure track person such as Obama as "professor", but that has no bearing on what we're talking about here. Tarc (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

White House source

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Obama's biography at the White House website. There is no denying that the Clinton campaign did try to attack Obama about being a law professor. Obama struck back by getting the University of Chicago to issue a carefully worded statement to support him.

Years ago, Bush tried to say Saddam smuggled uranium from Mali. Later, the White House admitted that the statement did not undergo the rigorous checks that happen before a President makes a statement. The White House usually checks its facts carefully and issues carefully worded statements.

The White House has released an Obama biography. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama It says " Upon graduation, he returned to Chicago to help lead a voter registration drive, teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and remain active in his community." It does not say "...lead a voter registration drive, was a professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago". This shows that mentioning professor probably doesn't reach the level of passing a cautious review by the White House.

We should be sensible. The neutral way would just be to eliminate the issue of professor or no professor. I don't know why the discussion is so long for what should be a simple issue of writing stuff in a way that gets around controversial language! Spevw (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, neither anti nor one sided presentation. The White House is more a RS for this one since they don't want to highlight an old Hillary controversy.JB50000 (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NBC News reports that there was an issue regarding the Obama campaign calling him Professor verbally or maybe professor (capital P sounds the same as little P). It says

He is a senior lecturer and has cited that he is a constitutional law professor on the trail. That's something that has caused some criticism and allegations of exaggeration. It's something the Clinton campaign has pushed as well in conference calls with reporters in the past week.

So we have to be mindful of that and not take sides. Rather that blow up the controversy, a compromise edit of not mentioning the full blown controversy but just matter of factly mentioning that he taught constitutional law the University of Chicago Law School from what years and was Senior Lecturer (which is really a big deal, better than assistant professor) from what years.

Isn't this the neutral way of doing things without getting into the NBC reported controversy? JB50000 (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, but also note that we seem to be in the minority on this. It is technically correct to say that he was professor because the weight of the sources say so... but the term is ill defined and may give some people the wrong impression, so why not be more precise and say exactly what he was / did? Anyway, this seems to be: (a) a lost cause, and (b) not terribly important. The silly little controversy over the issue was, well, silly. It was a non-issue over a non-event. Opposition researchers briefly thought they could accuse Obama of resume fraud, and when they couldn't, they tried anyway. It got no traction. But still, we should be as straightforward and precise as we can here. Just my opinion of course. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikidemon, precision is better. This is crazy and dysfunctional - all this dispute over 1 little word. English has thousands of words, surely there's another one that is just as good, better, or more precise. Judith Merrick (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume that everyone here is completely neutral. If one is biased and wants to write a promotional piece on Obama, then they should support the use of the word professor since it pads his resume. The neutral way is what Wikidemon said, it can give the wrong impression, so the use of the word "professor" should be removed. Wikidemon also says it is "a lost cause" which could mean that some people will insist on it. Why? It's not logical if they are not trying to write a promotional piece. Assuming good faith would then mean they are not trying to promote him, just not logical. Let' go with the neutral, logical wording, which is just to drop the word "professor". We aren't saying "Obama is not a professor" because that would be biased the other way. Gaydenver (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I just really want to know where people got this idea that professor absolutely and at all times means tenured faculty or tenure-track. It is true that that is often how an institutions define "professor" but there's no objective universal standard for the term professor. There is absolutely no reason to assert that only one who has tenure or who is on a tenure track is a professor. It falls upon the institution to define what that positions means for that institution. University of Chicago does things differently. They call their Senior Lecturers professors. That's the end of it. There is no debate after that. It makes no difference that he didn't have tenure and it makes no difference that he wasn't on a tenure-track. UofC is very picky with its grant of tenure so that's not all that surprising. My point here has nothing to do with politics, it's just common sense. It's not "resume padding" it is an objective fact. UofC says that their Senior Lecturers are professors and that Obama was a professor, then he was a professor and that's it. Period. No debate, no controversy, no room for discussion. It's a dead issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a professor of a major university. Talking with colleagues at the University of Chicago, this is not the way they do things. They do not call people like instructors, professors. Their press release was politically motivated to get a friend out of trouble. We shouldn't say it was politically motivated. When I was a junior faculty member, if I called myself professor on my curriculum vitae, another university would laugh and not hire me. A UT professor (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

UT Professor, I don't know if you are actually a professor at UT (I am going to guess no) but you are full of it when it comes to U of C. I went to the U of C law school (though it was after Obama taught there). A number of their classes are taught by Senior Lecturers and they are all absolutely referred to as professors. Every last single one of them. And no you cannot compare a junior faculty member with Senior Lecturer, certainly not what U of C means by Senior Lecturer. The press release had nothing to do with politics. You may disagree with a Senior Lecturer being called a professor but that feeling is irrelevant. U of C defines their Senior Lecturers as professors (at least within the Law School) that's the end of this discussion. There is no debate after that. It's not about politics, this is an issue with one, and only one, clear right absolute answer. U of C called him a professor; he was a professor. Period. It doesn't matter if it is potentially "misleading." If people don't understand that there isn't a consistent universal meaning to the label "professor" (something that even the faux "professor" above me doesn't understand) then that's their fault. Wikipedia should be about verifiable facts and it is an absolute, incontrovertible fact that at the University of Chicago he was a professor.Jdlund (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to add another long rant, but I think of some of you are very much mistaken about what U of C means by Senior Lecturer. I don't know what that position means at any other school, but at U of C it is a very distinguished position in their law school. It usually is someone who is accomplished. For instance the three seventh circuit court judges who teach classes on occasion (Posner, Easterbrook, and Wood) are all Senior Lecturers. You better believe that if Richard Posner teaches a class every student in that room will call him Judge Posner or Professor Posner, and absolutely the school will refer to him the same. Just so you all know, because as a U of C grad watching this brandishing of ignorance about this issue has been really annoying, Senior Lecturer is not some trivial little position anywhere near akin to "junior instructor" or "associate faculty" or whatever. It is a serious and meaningful position and yes they are called professors.Jdlund (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I generally avoid these retreads, but given the sudden influx of professors here (he said drily), I'd be interested to know if you both (and whomever else feels the need to weigh in in a timely manner so this thread can finally draw to a close) would agree that we should change the link of the term professor from the more general, historic, perspectives-around-the-world article to the more relevant Professors in the United States? Not unlike president versus President of the United States or senate versus United States Senate, it's entirely irrelevant to its usage in this article what the general word means throughout the world, and that international variance is perhaps causing (enabling?) some of the confusion here. Those interested in etymology will know to push further; those interested in clarifying the specific context of the term here will find it sooner, and those interested in perpetuating this sort of argument at this late date will be reminded that the term is, after all, linked, to an article explaining the term in context, presumably with whatever caveats are appropriate to the depersonalized examination there. (I'm just employing logic and common sense, I have neither edited nor read either article.) Abrazame (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Since no objections, I have just made that change. The sixth word in Professors in the United States is the link professor so apart from the fact that the U.S. usage is the more appropriate, anyone wanting a more general discussion will be able to easily find it. Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No objections? I object. The utmost neutrality should be observed. Using the word "professor" takes the side of the Obama campaign and is opposite of the side of the Clinton campaign. I am changing it to say that he was on the faculty, which gives weight to neither side. Judith Merrick (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And I have reverted said change. The arguments of the likes of JB5000 are long-debunked, please don't take his place. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And I've had to revert it again, since Moogie's version included a gratuitous misuse of the beloved apostrophe. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The objective, non-POV version is faculty or senior lecturer. Professor is the POV version. Judith Merrick (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not, it is not the POV version, it is the version supported by reliable sources, as you have been told several times now. Please stop dredging up old discussions. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

US vs British/Australian English

In Australia or Britain, a senior lecturer is definitely not a professor. But in American English, the term "professor" gets used a lot less more loosely than in British English. So, a lot of people who would not be professors in British or Australian usage (such as senior lecturers), can nonetheless be professors in US usage. Since this is an article about a US President, it should use American English, and so the American usage of "professor" should apply. But maybe it should mention the difference in usage, for the benefit of non-US readers? (Or even some US readers who seem to be unfamiliar with their own dialect of English?) --SJK (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it that dialectically you meant "more", not "less". As has already been stated in this thread, we do not link to generic terms like president and senate for the benefit of understanding of or in countries that have different establishments, or in previous eras in history, as generally one does not define what things are not, they define what things are, particularly in biographies and even more particularly in bios as concise as those in an encyclopedia. Not unlike the way other words have more than one meaning but an article that defines that word would define it as meant in that article, these terms are linked to what those terms mean in the context they are being used, and, unsurprisingly, not to articles about what they do not mean in the article's context. Ideally anybody who found the term confusing or its usage at odds with a foreign (to this article) vernacular would click on the link to investigate the possibility it is being properly used here before suggesting at this page that it isn't. That some don't is their error, not ours. As is also noted above, the article about what the term means elsewhere in the world is linked to from that article's first sentence. To your parenthetical, this method of using encyclopedic tools to learn rather conveniently serves readers foreign and domestic with help in what this article is talking about here, and those articles contain links for further reading on the general topic. Abrazame (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I meant more loosely not less loosely, I have corrected myself. I think there is a difference between a word like "President" or "Senate" and a word like "professor". Most people know that "President" or "Senate" means rather different things in different countries -- the US President has very different powers from the Irish President; the US Senate is a very different institution from the Canadian Senate. On the other hand, the fact that different countries use the word "professor" differently is not so obvious. Its easy for someone to read the word "professor", and read it according to the usage they are familiar with, and not realise it means something different in the dialect or context in which the article is written. So I think, if we are going to call Obama a "professor", we should clarify (even if just by a footnote) that a professor in US usage need not be a full professor (unlike Australian/British usage). --SJK (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So, using SJK's explanation, we need a disclaimer or explanation if we use language that could be misunderstood or is deceptive. Or just eliminate the deceptive language. Judith Merrick (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No we don't, and no it isn't. Are you quite done? Tarc (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The First 100 Days Section

Could somebody put a supplement into the first 100 days section regarding Obama's Nobel Peace Prize nomination? I feel it should be noted that the Peace Prize nominations closed on February 1, only 10 days after he took office. The subsequent controversy arising from that nomination is based on events in his first 10 days in office, and what he did (or didn't do, depending on your point of view)Big mack1 (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} In the first sentence the page labels Barack Obama as an African American when he is not. He is an American because he was born here. If it is necessary to point out he is black then he is an African because his father is from Kenya. Only people brought on slave ships and their descendants are African Americans.

Psuengr (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Many verifiable reliable sources disagree with your opinion, and we can only present information from such sources. I am quite sure that others will discuss your suggestion, but such a change would require a clear consensus - and appropriate references. I do not think that such a consensus will form; the article makes his birthplace and family history perfectly clear.  Chzz  ►  01:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

See African American. The term also refers to ancestry. SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see Q2 on this page's FAQ--JayJasper (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if this was before the civil war the op would be right but since then African American is defined as those Americans who have African ancestry or have at least one parent from Africa. Now would people shut up about this shit? You people will say anything to deny the fact that you have a African American as a president, get over it.98.82.103.91 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But actually I think some of the objections are coming from non-Americans who don't really understand the American conception of race. To someone who's never heard of it before it could seem a little weird to call someone African-American when they are of mixed parentage, not from Africa, etc., so they mistakenly think the article sounds biased. Also, I think there are some people who object to how race is perceived or described in America and want things to change. They have every right to their opinion but we have to remind them that Wikipedia follows society's use of language, it doesn't create it. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that some people don't want to use the word "Black". So they use "African American". African American is not the same as Black. Nelson Mandela has been called African American but he said he is not African American. He said he is not American. He is correct. So just because some sources says Obama Sr. is African American is not enough. Otherwise, you'd call Nelson Mandela an African American. Obama Sr. is not African American. Obama II is sort of, close enough for me.Judith Merrick (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Who on Earth calls Nelson Mandela "African Amercian?" I've never heard anyone say that and I would have laughed pretty hard if I had. He's African. Barack Obama is also of African descent and was born in America, which is all anyone means by African American. He's also of European descent, so you could say he is both African American and European (or whatever country the Dunhams descend from) American. Him being a European American and President is by no means notable, but it is notable that he is the first African American President so there you have it. Pretty straight forward.Jdlund (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Obama and the New Party

I heard that Obama was once a member of the New Party and did a google search to get some information. A couple of links I immediately found are here: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-36-how-socialist-was-obamas.html http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html

Obviously these two sites are extremely biased against Obama, but every single page I find on the subject is pretty much the same. Despite the bias and tone of the articles, the evidence appears to be pretty solid and I haven't been able to find any compelling evidence that he was NOT a member of the party, however briefly. Could someone do a more thorough check on this? If he was a member, I think it should be added to the article.

Apologies if this has been discussed before.

User:Dilcoe —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

The two sources you have are blogs and therefore not reliable sources. Find reliable sources that cover the matter and then we can discuss if it should go in the article, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's a google search: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=obama+new+party&meta=&aq=f&aqi=g3g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Basically there's pages and pages and pages of websites all saying the exact same thing. I'm just wondering if it's notable enough to mention despite there obviously being no reputable news sources supporting their claims. In all honesty, the reason I'm posting this is because Conservapedia is citing the total lack of any mention to something that they consider an irrefutable fact as a reason that Wikipedia is bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilcoe (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Pages and pages of websites saying the exact same thing is a pretty good indication that one unreliable source printed something that was cloned and mirrored across a bunch of other blogs. We can probably find the same situation with stories regarding him being born in Kenya, or being a secret Muslim. We don't include those claims either, no matter how much Conservapedia would like us to. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia says the Earth was formed 6,000 years ago, and gives virtually no credence to other views (even other Christian views) that the Earth was actually formed over 4.5 billion years ago, so I think it is clear the statements made by Conservapedia and its proponents can be safely ignored. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On this one I honestly don't know what is true. I think it is just as easy to say that any claim should be verifiable. I went through an extensive search and all I see are blogs saying that Obama is connected to the New Party and that this is definitive proof that he is a Socialist. These sources are clearly not reliable sources. What seems especially questionable about the claims is that they say that he sought their endorsement in 1996. He was running unopposed in 1996, why would he have sought anyone's endorsement? One did have a supposed image of the New Party's newspaper which claimed Obama as a member. Even if this is a legitimate image of their newspaper, them claiming him doesn't mean he ever claimed them. I just think we should stick to the fall back position and say that until it is verified by reliable sources and shown to be important to his overall life and deserving of a mention in his bio, it stays out.Jdlund (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy: where are they?

Entry 6 of the FAQ suggests that criticisms should be a part of each entry yet I have yet to SEE any criticisms and I don't actually believe that having a criticism section makes for a poor article and denying one makes me suspicious of bias. I must have somehow missed the numerous criticisms and controversies content but cannot seem to find a single one throughout the entirety of the Obama articles, or even a single entry within other sections, it is almost as though the man is projected as some sort of latter day saint. Please would someone paste me the content/links that I being blind must have missed? Twobells (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Biographical articles are not laundry lists for right-wing caterwauling, and we're not here to cater to your snide "help me find TEH CRITICISMZ!" comments. The George W. Bush article presents an equally neutral point of view, and further detail for both men about (notable) opposition to legislation, political positions, etc...can be found in the sub-articles. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

'Laundry lists for right-wing caterwauling'? You have to be kidding me right? Who said anything about the right-wing.... Are you suggesting that any journalistic or legal critiques of the man indicate 'right-wing' bias? If what you say is true about the GW Bush entry then I think that is equally amiss. A WP:NOV is not some sort of flag to deny any criticism but to remain neutral and project the FACTS some of which some will be critiques.Twobells (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC) The world leader entries have critique sections, an example: Tony Blair#Criticism and yet it seems that US presidents don't, interesting indeed and now I understand why wikipedia has been banned as a research tool in many educational institutions.Twobells (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

All that shows is that the Tony Blair article (and the sub Criticism of Tony Blair, which is even worse) need a'fixin. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for actual, y'know, edits, then present them. Waving one's hand vaguely at an article and declaring "there's problems!" rarely accomplishes much. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the Blair article, thanks for pointing that out, Twobells.--John (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a suggestion thank you, I would like to see a criticism and controversy section, which was my original point.Twobells (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it is going to work; you don't get to create a section first and then populate it with, again, laundry lists of what you perceive to be negative information. Public image of Barack Obama for example has info on the Jeremiah Wright controversy, the playing of the race card against McCain in the election, criticisms over lack of experience, and so on. Criticisms are worked into the text of of the article, rather than given separate sections. The Tony Blair article references above is in pretty bad shape. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Being a summary style article, one would expect most criticism to crop up in the related articles more than this one (as Tarc alluded to). It is important to note that most criticisms are likely to be directed toward specific actions or policies, rather than toward the man himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Most credible ones anyway. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

All above, and also, having standalone criticism and controversy sections will devolve into "Muslim Kenyan Anti-Christ communist racist atheist fascist who wants to nationalise your hopey-changey socialism and gay abort your grandma who isn't shovel ready and he also killed and raped a girl in 1990". It's why they're discouraged, actually. Criticism of articles are the exception and not the norm. Incidentally, you gave GWB as an example, but that criticism article was gotten rid of (in name, at least) a year ago when we agreed that it was unfair to have one for Bush (especially as he did have outstanding approval ratings in his first term) but not for Obama (whose approval ratings are average and actually higher the same as Godking of Conservatism Reagan's in '82). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

this sectionis why wikipedia can never be neutral on anything ever other than unknowingly for a few seconds before the edit war will loom. so much texts , so much insults , 0 constructive cooperation. also hint - the left criticizes obama too so are foreign nations outside the US left-wing axis 79.182.50.19 (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How exactly isn't it neutral? Sceptre ^(talk) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple comments

Closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Citizenship In regards to Wikipedias answer "The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article". The president of the United States Of America is supposed to be an american born citizen. If the president was indeed born in Kenya wouldn't this create a "significant legal or mainstream political impact"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.52.129 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC) He wasn't. Go speculate on his being born on the moon. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Ties to Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky Where are the ties to Saul Alinsky?? You mention George W. Bush as a member of the Skulls and Bones society. Don't you think people might want to understand WHERE obama got his radical views? One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method, Mike Kruglik, would later say the following about Obama: He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better. For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley's National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). Can we have some honest accounting of this guy? http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppakap (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay

I may have missed it but nowhere in the article does it mention that Obama failed to close Guantanamo down by his self-set deadline. I feel this is notable enough to be included under foreign policy. However, as a new user I did not want to do this in case I was breaking a rule/repeating. I do not have an anti-Obama bias but I feel this is notable. Thanks. Jamioe (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Already addressed at Presidency of Barack Obama#Guantánamo Bay detention camp. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of Being Listed as African American

Question asked and answered - This is not the best forum to discuss the merits of racial identification.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How come the article lists Barack Obama as the first African American president? Is it not more accurate to state that he is the first president of mixed race? If one may say "He is first African American President," is it not equally valid to say "He is the 44th White American president"? Why is his white heritage blatantly ignored? It is simply unfair to not acknowledge his white ancestry, given he is equally as "white" as he is "black." Onixz100 (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) This has been discussed extensively: see Q2 at the top of the page. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC) He self-identifies as as much white as black so I think "mixed race" rather than a straight African-American would be more appropriate. Darmot and gilad (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Please read Q2 at the top. Our opinions do not matter (see WP:NOR); what counts is what reliable sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I'm sure it would be trivial to find an authorative source stating that BHO had an African father and White mother, making him mixed race. Darmot and gilad (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC) No, the source itself would have to use the terminology "mixed race." We are required to adhere closely to the wording used by the source. And we wouldn't want to be relying on a fringe view or applying undue weight to a given terminology. Bus stop (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, Obama just ticked "African-American" on the census. Sceptre (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Right, and that is what the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources refer to President Obama as, African American. His heritage is described in the body of the article, but as far as references and describers are concerned, Obama should be referred to as African American. DD2K (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Yes a continuation of supporting the ignorant one-drop rule that has screwed people of African American descent for centuries. It's still a step backwards in American society.Mcelite (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC) A step backwards? Well, I suppose. If you consider being regarded as an African American a negative thing. For those proud to be regarded as such, and most reliable sources, it's a pretty big step forward and a positive. DD2K (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC) A reminder: this is not the place for continuing discussion of the relative merits of being considered African American or anything else - the only thing relevant here is DD2K's correct point that we go by what reliable sources say. And the article does, of course, make clear exactly who his parents and grandparents were. Tvoz/talk 16:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC) He is the 6th, yes i said 6th mixed president. "The only difference between Obama and these former presidents is that none of their family histories were fully acknowledged by others" http://diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/1461/. just because he is the first to proclaim his african decent does not mean he is fully black. as we all know his mother is WHITE, yes i said WHITE. It should read something different than what it it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scootnasty (talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Of course, if you want to be technically accurate, he's probably our 44th African-American President, so the whole discussion is a bit ridiculous. Oh, that's right; the discussion has been ridiculous all along... Fat&Happy (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Stimulus Act

Under economics it is mentioned that the ARRA gave money for education and infrastructure, but it leaves out the VA. The ARRA allocated a large sum of money for the VA for much needed facility renovation. Is there any way that can be included? --152.131.9.132 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but wouldn't facility renovation fall under infrastructure? It also seems there's a limit to how detailed this article – as opposed to the Presidency article – should be about specific Acts. What phrasing would you propose? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the actual birthplace of President Obama

We're not dealing with birther conspiracies day in and day out. Consult the FAQ, pls. Tarc (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is reported that Kenyan government officials have recently declared that President Obama is actually born in Kenya. According to an article at WorldNetDaily [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139725], a member of the Kenyan Parliament named James Orengo said in March 2010, "How could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America? Millie Odhiambo, another member of Kenya's parliament, even declared, "The president-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country." Also, a YouTube video [8] showed First Lady Michelle Obama Michelle Obama saying that her husband's "... home country was in Kenya...." I do not want to stir up more controversy regarding this issue, but I believe this new discovery deserves some critical attention. Whaley5000 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC) See Q5 in the Frequently Asked Questions section at the top of this page. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why were the Presidential Styles of Barack Obama removed?

This question has been satisfactorily answered.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could someone please either answer that question or put his Presidential Styles back in the Article? They were accurate back when they were there. Presidential styles of Barack Obama/Archive 69 Reference style Honorable Spoken style Mr. President Alternative style His Honor I look forward to hearing something. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Since no one objected, I made the addition. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC) To your comments/expectations above: Lack of a response is not tacit approval. Nor is a day and a half enough time to consider your question unresponded-to. Especially when you are referring to an edit made by an editor of a different name (i.e. don't make editors pore over edit histories for the edit in the first place to discover what edit summaries may [though apparently didn't] note as the reason). To the edit, broadly: I'll presume you haven't been around long enough to know that we discourage the addition of unsourced data points to a featured article. More specifically: Why do you call it "Presidential styles of Barack Obama"? (It's not Wikilinked, and a Google search of the term in quotes brings up nothing. Of course, "Presidential style" is a completely different concept as popularly understood, as a search of that term will show.) Are former presidents not so addressed? Do presidents choose their own terms of address? Who decided all of whatever of this is the case? (An office of protocol? Congress? George Washington?) Are primary representatives from the president's administration or other government leaders not so addressed in similar circumstances? Oddly, "Honorable" is not referenced at President of the United States. More oddly, "Excellency" was — before I removed the reference and requested a better one — referenced to a United Nations transcript where every country's president is being called Excellency; presumably this is to level the playing field and lower the chance for offense in a body that hosts not only Presidents but Prime Ministers, Premiers, Kings, Princes, Shahs, Amirs, Emperors, and their various representative sovereigns and potentates, etc., who may have all manner of peculiar exalted honoraria in their home countries. What we cannot presume is that because this is the practice at the United Nations then this is what all U.S. presidents are called in all territories internationally. Such a thing should be sourced to an official document setting forth such protocol and not simply an example of its usage. If it's a particular subject of interest to you, you and User:Tktru might consider WP:sandboxing (and citing) up an article about honorary titles that covers not only the trivia of the protocol but its history and context. Don't misunderstand, all of this background does not belong in this article or even the general Presidency article (and it obviously has no place in an infobox), but you may notice we Wikilink virtually every concept to an article or articles both within Wikipedia and cite them to WP:Reliable sources that allow a reader to understand such historical context, which is the ultimate purpose of an encyclopedia. Abrazame (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC) It is true that all Presidents have the same styles, and it was indeed George Washington who chose the style "Mr. President," a precedent that all other Presidents have followed. If I may draw a comparison between the Presidency and the Papacy, however, I will point out that all Popes also have the same styles (except for Posthumous styles, which were never used during their actual reigns), and this does not stop us from including their styles in InfoBoxes on their own respective Articles. As with Popes, why should it not also be so with Presidents? For what it's worth, both are non-kingship high administrative offices. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Do you have a source to verify that the "Presidential styles" in fact have anything to do with Barack Obama (as opposed to simply going along with the job)? Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Presidential styles do go along with the job, but that is equally true of Papal styles. For the sake of consistency throughout Wikipedia, I'm asking why we should include such InfoBoxes for Popes but not Presidents. (As I already said, both are non-kingship high administrative offices.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Broadening the reference sample a bit, I find that other current and former heads of democratic governments such as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Stephen Harper and Kevin Rudd do not have separate "Styles of..." infoboxes in their articles. They do have one style each, "The Honourable" or "The Right Honourable", as appropriate, at the top of their regular infoboxes; this would be the equivalent of "The President" (for addressing written communications) or "The President of the United States" (for introductions). Using either U.S. version in the same way would be only partially correct and require explanation distracting from the main subject of the article. In addition, I find no reliable source confirming two of the styles shown in the infobox which was removed – either "Honorable" or "His Honor". After leaving office, Obama will be entitle to be referred to as "The Honorable", so maybe the editors on the Carter, Clinton and two Bush articles will want to include the honorific in the main infoboxes there, but I don't see any need or value for now on the Obama page. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Now, that makes some sense. There is one more thing I should point out, although I hope it changes eventually. Despite the United States of America being a generally democratic state, the President is not elected by voters at large. Instead, not entirely unlike the Pope in this regard (but of course he has a term limit, unlike the Pope who is in office for life unless he resigns), the President is elected by a conclave college of sorts. The main difference (strictly in terms of the election itself, that is) is that the members of the college are elected by voters at large within their respective districts (unlike Cardinals, who are appointed by the previous Pope). Even so, the Presidential Electors are technically not under absolute obligation to vote for the candidate whom they claimed in their respective campaigns that they would vote for him. I seem to understand that other tripartate democratic heads of state are actually elected by voters at large. The President of the USA, however, in the sense that he is elected in the manner I just explained (See also Electoral College (United States)), is ever so slightly more similar to the Pope than are other democratic heads of state. He, in his own right, is more similar to them than he is to the Pope, but he is a little more similar to the Pope than they are, in terms of how he is elected. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I'm not clear on the relevance technicalities of the method of election have in this discussion, but regardless, I would disagree with the comparisons and distinctions you make above. The examples I used are (or were) Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. None of those positions are determined by direct vote of the populace. As a slight oversimplification, they are chosen by their respective Parliaments, though there are other formalities involved in their appointment to office. The Prime Minister of Italy and the Chancellor of Germany are also technically appointed, though by an official elected by their parliamentary bodies rather than the Monarch or her representative as is the case in the UK and two Commonwealth countries mentioned. France, however does elect their PM President directly. Again, none of the current holders of these offices have "Styles" infoboxes. Comparing them, it seems in method of selection, the U.S. is closer to the other Western democracies than to the Catholic Church. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I knew that about Britain. Come to think of it, there are relatively few tripartate republics to cite as examples. For once, I resign. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommending an External link.

• Barack Obama Realtime Pictures

A user would be able to browse Barack Obama's past pictures using the timeline horizontal scrollbar. There is a column on the right side of the page where all the events attended by Barack Obama is listed.If you click on it, only those images of barack obama show up. I would like to recommend this link to the "External Links" section. Suggestions? Agarwal113 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Obama and Taqiyya

I would appreciate input from editors of this article regarding this recent edit naming Barack Obama as an "alleged" practitioner of Taqiyya. Thank you. --Ibn (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed per WP:BLP policy, user warned. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Older Name

There are [9] [10] multiple (there are many more) valid, reputable sources that acknowledge that President Obama used the name Barry Soetoro when he was a youth in Indonesia, and more than just a nickname, but a name he was registered for school as. Suppressing the fact that he was known as a different name at one point is disingenuous and needs to stop. The sources are there. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you bringing to the table that hasn't already been discussed in the past, e.g. Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_69#Childhood_use_of_stepfather.27s_surname ? Tarc (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you would have stopped trying to change the wording to make it seem like Obama was "known by everyone" by the name you are trying to add, and make it as if it is something it is not, there wouldn't have been a problem. But when you make edits like these(1,2), (changing the original wording) and with edit summaries that disregard the truth and try to provoke, it makes keeping the little tidbit in the articles not worth the trouble. The sources stated exactly what you purposely removed and yet you took the wording out to fit your own preconceived beliefs on the issue. So I would say just keep it out now. DD2K (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(note that Erroneuz1 is currently blocked but we can take that up when he/she returns) The earlier discussion petered out without reaching a consensus to include the old nickname. Frankly, I'm not sure as a question of fact (in other words, information of due weight verified by reliable sources) whether Obama really was called that in any significant way, and whether it matters enough to mention here. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but to support it I'd need to see some good sources. You'll see in my last post to that old thread[11] that I asked two questions - is it for real, and if so is it significant enough to be worth mentioning. Both need reliable sources on point. A source that merely notes that he had that name on a school transcript, or his father/mother used it, doesn't show the relevance or importance. It leaves it for us to connect the dots by arguing from our own knowledge about how nicknames and government paperwork work, or sources irrelevant to Obama, which is something we can't do. The fact that the name is more common among the fringe-y conspiracy theorists and detractors is a red flag that urges extra caution here. It's not fair to accuse editors of promoting an agenda, or to assume it's not true just because his opponents repeat it... it just means we should take extra caution to see if this is a real thing like his middle name being Hussein, or some trumped up nonsense like saying that he is a closet Muslim. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say I totally agree. Even though I edited the portion that included the name, I felt it was a borderline WP:UNDUE entry. The user that started this thread, and altered the entry, claims that it's not clear that Obama was using his family given nickname and his father's surname, or that he was known to "playmates and in school" by that name. Well, if that's not clear than it's better to leave it out until it is. It's not noteworthy enough to have as a red flag for the fringe to pile on. DD2K (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I found the other edits 'disregarded' the truth DD2K. The TIME source says 'Millions of Indonesians' - millions - not just 'playmates' or people at school. The other edit says the name was a 'combination' of a nickname and surname - this is Original Research. The actual 'origin' of the name 'Barry Soetoro' is unknown. The articles never explain that, thus it is invalid information and should not be included. I have no preconceived beliefs, I've found a great number of sources report that he went by this name as a youth, (in fact, here's a photo of the aforementioned document from one of the sources that was released by the AP in 2007 [12]) and think it's a pertinent piece of information for the article. When you're registered for school under a certain name, it is more than just a nickname. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. Information on the name Barry Soetoro should remain. Qwerta369 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the previous discussion, I don't see what this trivial bit of information adds to the overall BLP. I'm in favor of its exclusion. Dayewalker (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it adds significant value either. DD2K's current mention of it on the "Early Life" page is well placed, reasonably weighted, and sufficient. PhGustaf (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, it is an interesting little fact of the president's early life. Why oppose its inclusion? Qwerta369 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can find at least two solid NYT cites saying that Obama doesn't like beets. That's an interesting little fact, too. Should we put it in? PhGustaf (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Are you trying to tell me that you don't understand the difference between the Indonesian people regarding him by that name in the present day, and when he was six years old? Do you believe that a six year old suddenly changed his name by himself and "millions" of Indonesians suddenly knew him by that name? Your posts are precisely the reason why this entry is now removed. There is an agenda here being pushed by you, and the entry is undue weight making it not worth the trouble. The sources stated that his step-father signed him up under that name at a school, his family gave him the nickname "Barry", and that his playmates regarded him as such. If you want to make that into something different, I doubt you will find much support in any of the Obama articles. In my opinion, you've proven that you have some kind of agenda and your edits on Obama articles should not be met with good faith. DD2K (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no agenda, and wish you would stop projecting your own personal agenda onto me. I have not misrepresented any of the information from the source material, others are making that into something different. It is obvious you and I disagree on the inclusion of this information, and a 3rd party and/or others need to voice their opinion. DD2K opposes, I favor. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that many editors have rejected what you wish to add this this and other articles on the same topic. Not just one. Tarc (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing it, and am still awaiting moderator intervention. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't have "moderators". Content is determined by what we call consensus here; unless you can get consensus for the language you want, it won't be included. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has reached a dead point. We have moderators, they're called administrators. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't moderators. Everyone's opinion counts towards a consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, I'm inclined to believe that those who disagree with changes to a politician's page are likely biased. Moderation is needed. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, however, moderation is going on right now on this page. All editors are allowed to express their opinions on topics to try and form consensus. Any admin will tell you they're just like every other editor, except they have some extra buttons. Their opinion is worth the same as a non-admin, it's all just discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't accurately consider the opinions of those who are biased as neutral moderation Dayewalker. So again, some form of moderation is necessary here. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't just say editors are "biased" and refuse to acknolwedge a consensus. Consensus is pretty clear here, no single admin is going to come in and "moderate" this to your liking against consensus (unless that consensus were in violation of policy, which it isn't). If you disagree, open an request for comment for further opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Erroneuz, please read consensus to see how editing works here. When there is truly an editing impasse, there are other avenues available for resolution such as mediation, but that is more for when somewhat equal numbers of editors on either side need a 3rd party to discuss a resolution. This is a one-to-many situation. Tarc (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dispute between myself and DD2K in regards to the inclusion of sourced material in this article. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You should quit calling this just a dispute between two people and referencing only me. At least five other editors have objected to your edit and made it clear that they are against the inclusion. Even though you were blocked from editing, you were obviously reading this section. Ignoring consensus and misstating the facts is not a good way to have any kind of rational discussion. DD2K (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the clear and overwhelming census. The information is far too trivial to be worth adding. It was never his legal name. Should we go through and find every possible nickname a President once had as a child and include it? It's silly and meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.219.192 (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a nickname when it's listed on a school registry form. I'm quite certain former president Bush does not have 'Dubya' listed on any official forms for a name. How is that trivial information, when an entire country knows him by this name? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a nickname and I'm against inclusion as well. I don't really see the point of adding such a trivial tidbit. I see some agenda pushing here but it doesn't matter, this falls pretty squarely under WP:UNDUE. BrendanFrye (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We need good sources. If Obama was really Barry, this should be mentioned just as Gerald Ford was formerly known as Leslie King. Willie Sutton Bank President (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC) (striking comments of banned sockpuppet)

Is there something not good enough about CBS, TIME, the document from his school, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, Asia Times....? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

Yes. Having reviewed this (yet again) I do not see that those references add up to a convincing claim, in light of the discussions on this page, that (1) B.S. was an alternate name, as opposed to something that some people called him for a while, or that (2) the matter is biographically important. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Leslie King was Ford's birth name, but Barack Obama has always been Barack Obama. The whole BS thing is BS, and more appropriate for Conservapedia. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 07:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So, where the article states:

"From ages six to ten, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, including Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi School.[16][17]"

add, after "school"..."where he was registered as Barry Soetoro." I've been reading here and in archives. "Consensus" should not allow the majority to leave out facts. He was, in fact, "registered" as Barry Soetoro. So... say so. (Paleocon44 (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

So that's one of his names, much like James Earl Carter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The McChicken costs $1 (talk • contribs) 21:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I just looked at my handle. THAT'S a 'shot' or 'dig' at VP Cheney who was contemptuous of "paleocons". I voted for Obama. For the aficionados, I even voted for "Baghdad Jim". (Paleocon44 (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Obama-Netanyahu East Jerusalem disagreement

I undid an edit by Wikifan12345 that included a link to Haaretz that had nothing to do with the issue and to the Jerusalem Post that makes it seem as if building settlements in East Jerusalem is no big deal. Now, I am almost always "pro-Israeli", but I know this is a highly contentious issue and the UN resolutions and recognized borders come into play here. I don't want this to turn into an Israeli-Palestinian battleground, so it's best to leave the language as it was and not add to it with views from all sides. Perhaps if the current language is not agreeable to everyone, someone can suggest something else. DD2K (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to stir up any Israel/Palestinian disputes (it's only 2 sentences) but rather make the section more accurate. The only major change I made was substituting "Arab East Jerusalem" with the actual neighborhoods the Obama administration criticized. There is no official "Arab East Jerusalem" just as there is no "Jewish West Jerusalem." It is all Jerusalem, with part of the East considered to be occupied by the UN and EU. The other slight change I made was replacing "approved" with "continue." Netanyahu wasn't approving anything. The construction was already planned many years before and totally under the direction of the housing authority. It was a preliminary announcement - construction won't even start for several years. So in the least we must change "approve" with continue because that is a blatant inaccuracy. I don't really see anything political about my edit. On a side note, part of the construction in Gilo was reserved for Arab housing. If I recall 1/3 of the housing will be earmarked for non-Jewish residents. Not sure if that is relevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you added an old Haaretz link that had nothing to do with the current situation. Also, the text did not state "Arab East Jerusalem" it stated "predominantly Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem", which is correct. In any case, the minutia of the settlement plans have no place in this article. The policies don't state exceptions. I changed the wording of "approved" to "continued", taking your word for it. Thanks. DD2K (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link. This is the right one. There is no "predominantly Arab neighborhoods". Gilo and Ramat Shlomo are unique neighborhoods as part of the Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem. We must be more specific about the neighborhoods. In other words, homes are not being built in Arab neighborhoods. These are pre-existing communities that are expanding. Also, ~50% the E J'lem population is Jewish. Can we restore my edit, or in the least be more specific? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't need to be more specific about the neighborhoods, this is not an article based on that. The New York times state it's the predominantly Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem", and I added that source. There is no need to get into the demographics of Jerusalem, in the present or before the occupation. The section is fine as it is. We aren't putting in links from Palestinian sources, or Israeli, so it's fair.

Why shouldn't we be more specific about the neighborhoods? Barack Obama was very specific about the neighborhoods he was referring to. The current status makes it look like construction is going on within existing Arab neighborhoods which is certainly not the case. As far as Israeli sources go, Jerusalem Post and Haaretz are perfectly reliable. JP has a relationship with mainstream US media like the WSJ. We should strive for accuracy, not what you as an editor want. Discriminating against sources simply because they are located or based in Israel is wrong. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Obama has changed the U.S.' Middle East policy somewhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The McChicken costs $1 (talk • contribs) 21:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

"Wikifan", do you re-read your entries? I added "not" between "certainly" and "the". Which, may I say, is the truth. I COULD say a lot more about this..... but, I forebear. (Paleocon44 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

link

if the page isnt supposed to talk about the conspiracy theories (faq q#5) then there should be a link to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories --Usyflad10 01:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's not the job of Wikipedia to direct users to fringe conspiracy theories. If someone is searching for the "birthers", they are easy enough to find. DD2K (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Links are for further elaborations of the sections in the main page. So there is a link for 2008 Presidential Campaign for instance. Or they are for further elaboration of things that are at least mentioned in the article. There, rightfully, is no section discussing the birther conspiracies and it is far too trivial and irrelevant to warrant a mention in the article, so thus there is no link. Besides as DD2K pointed out, anyone who wants to find that article will know how to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.75.22 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a link in the see also section would be prudent, any articles about obama should be listed in the see also section, or at the very least be put into a common category or some other grouping such as an infobox. This is standard for all wikipedia articles.XavierGreen (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nvm it actually is already present on this page in the infobox at the bottom titles public image.XavierGreen (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As sort of an "aside": DD2K, I see your handle, all over the place, in various disputes. Am I wrong in asking (honest question) that "all" of your entries involve keeping certain entries "off" of this article? Are you "for" any facts, at all, being added? (Paleocon44 (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Paleocon44, let's try and stay focused on the article. We're here to comment on articles, not on editors. If you have a problem with another editor, please take it to the correct forum, or that editor's talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lovely. Another 'new' editor that really supports Obama but wants to stop and change the bias on Wikipedia. Very familiar. In any case, I don't feel the need to answer your accusation. It's obvious that fringe conspiracy theories should not be included in serious articles, except as a reference to the conspiracies. DD2K (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Name

Why isn't "Barack H. Obama" the title of this article when the article on former president George Bush is titled, "George W. Bush"?

Because Obama isn't commonly known by his middle name or initial, whereas Bush was commonly known by his initial (even just as "W") in order to distinguish him from his father. We use the most common form of any person's name as the title for their article, and give the full name in the lead, just as is done here (and on George W. Bush's article as well). — Gavia immer (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the same reason than Bill Clinton's article does not use his middle name Jefferson.--76.71.208.161 (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Economic management

I don't believe that there is a "consensus" among all economists that the stimulus package credit the economic growth. There are economists out there that disagree.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Economics 101: pump money into the economy and it will jolt higher. How long? Who knows.. I just read the section in question though and think it is biased. Employment may have went down slightly, but it should be mentioned in the section that the unemployment predictions of the Recovery Act have fallen well short of what was projected. Maybe the addition of some CBO numbers would suffice. The section does not need to be expanded, just redressed, but unemployment and the economy for that matter isn't too rosy.--NortyNort (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you are reading the right section? It most definitely addresses each of the points you addressed. It reads:

Unemployment numbers rose briefly to as high as 10.1% in October 2009 (the highest since 1983), and the "underemployment" rate to 17.5%, before decreasing and holding at 9.7% in early 2010. In the third quarter of 2009, the U.S. economy expanded at a 2.8% pace and in the fourth quarter it grew at its fastest rate in six years, 5.7%. A consensus of economists credit the stimulus package with helping to stop the downturn and create economic growth. In February 2010 the Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that the stimulus bill created up to 2.1 million jobs. Other possible signs of recovery included an upturn in exports and a rise in consumer spending.

You think that's biased? It's all cited and sourced by reliable sources and looks pretty well balanced to me. DD2K (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Jerzeykydd, consensus does not mean unanimous, it means majority. So I have no doubt that there are some who disagree, even if they are in a small minority. But the facts, reliable sources and the CBO all point to the stimulus package as not only preventing the disaster that was left for Obama by the previous Administration, but also creating up to 2.1 million jobs(1,2,3). All in all, the section(as it stands now) seems pretty well balanced and very well sourced. DD2K (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything in the paragraph is objective, except for one sentence: A consensus of economists credit the stimulus package with helping to stop the downturn and create economic growth. There is no factual evidence of this. However, some articles cite polls of a sample of economists. In fact, this poll [13] cites that 73% believed the stimulus bill had zero impact on the job market. The sample was 68 people at the National Association for Business Economics. So I think we should come a compromise.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is definitely factual evidence, and the CBO and other independent outlets have analyzed the data and come to the same conclusion. To be honest, before you posted on my talk page(you could have just left this here, I have pages I edit watched), I never heard of the National Association for Business Economics. Even so, it seems as if they are a pretty legit organization. Still, why are you taking polling at an event as something equal to the sources provided in the article? So 73% of 68 people(actually 68 member firms) or around 49 people polled say it had no effect. But then the data released by the same group touts that firms are hiring for the first time in 2 years and industry demand is the highest in 4 years. That sure doesn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps personal opinions of the people polled are outweighing the facts produced? DD2K (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We can debate this issue for hours. You can say it's a fact, and I can argue it is an opinion. Let's come to a compromise to include all of the information, instead of simply saying that most economists believed the stimulus worked, which isn't actually true. Let's put down a brief summary of the CBO's findings and put down the poll of economists that I mentioned.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I saw this, I actually added something about this. And yes, it seems we could argue about this because you are refusing to accept the CBO and other sources citing what you claim is not true. Whether others want the addition to stay or not, I don't know. DD2K (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What is your deal? You can't keep changing the wordings that the sources use to fit your own views. The NYT not only uses "consensus of economists' and 'broad range of economists', they list many of the economists and give the data from their projections and the projections of economic groups they are employed at. Krugman may be liberal, but he cites economists and how it's impossible to not credit the stimulus for turning the economy around(even if he thinks it should have been bigger). DD2K (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's safe to say that we both have conflicting views.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

People can have differing views without disrupting an article. You deleted a whole section with the edit summary stating "no specific nonpartisan economists were mentioned in the articles", deleting 3 sourced links(1,2,3) that had at least 4 nonpartisan economists and three independent forecasting-analysis groups sourced in their articles. Then you deleted the section once again, deleting the 3 sources and the cited material, with an edit summary stating "Paul Krugman is a liberal economists...it appears that DD2K has been obstructionist....I think DD2K has a liberal bias", as if Krugman was the only economist cited. On an article that is on probation, that borders on vandalism, at least. Finally you took your dispute to the talk page, after being reverted by three other editors, and made a request. Even though I do not agree with the content in your request, I added the material. Which still did not satisfy you as you continued to delete cited material two more times(1,2) and changed the wording of the addition you requested to fit your own view on what the source stated. I would say you deliberately put a false edit summary to justify removing material that you did not like, even though it was well sourced with reliable sources. DD2K (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I frustrated you. I was unaware that I got rid of any references. You can put back those refs. And as far as the wording, right now I support the wording of the paragraph 95%.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody can ever prove that a President's bill helped or hurt. Recent bills have used biased names. No law ever is called the "Tax Increase Bill of 2011". They always call it things like the "American Programs Enhancement Bill of 2011" even if a tax increase. Even the "Domestic Spying Act of 2002" was called the "Patriot Act". Politicians are like that.18:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The McChicken costs $1 (talk • contribs)

Indonesian

Obama doesn't speak Indonesian "at a conversational level." He knows a few words - he couldn't have a conversation with someone in Indonesian. He probably knows about as much French as he knows Indonesian ("terima kasih" = "merci", "apa kabar" = "comment allez-vous"). To quote Obama: "I don't speak a foreign language. It's embarrassing!" [14] Urmarkt (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No one can speak indonesian, its not a language, i assume you are refering to malay?XavierGreen (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd have an uphill battle winning that argument at Indonesian language, much less across the web or with an Indonesian. Malay is the language spoken in Malaysia. In the same family, and quite similar, but recognized as a distinct language, is Bahasa Indonesia, the Indonesian language. Abrazame (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Malay is also the national language of Singapore. Qwerta369 (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Its virtually the same thing as regular malay, its like saying australian is a language rather than a dialect. No one considered it to be a separate language until the Indonesian government said it was, so its status as a language has more to do with politics than actual linguistics.XavierGreen (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not called Indonesian. It is Bahasa Indonesia. 18:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The McChicken costs $1 (talk • contribs)

That's rather like saying there's no such language as Spanish, it's Español. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama's endorsment of ACTA

I'll leave this to someone else to write up but.... One thing that should be noted is Obama's strong support of Acta. Some people are widely support his stance, others strongly opposing, I think this is enough of an issue to be warrent a mention....

and article by cnn is here http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20000347-261.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefalcon (talk • contribs) 11:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see anything significant about this yet. Maybe if it passes, but even then it needs to prove important. The existence of vehement debate doesn't make it notable. Vehement debate happens all the time over trivial and important things. Bottom line here is that nothing has passed and there is no way to know how important ACTA will be yet.23:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs)

Honorary Doctoral Degree

Obama received an honorary doctoral degree of law from the university of michigan as of today (May 1st 2010). Perhaps somebody could include that information? VonLoyola 18:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing that he has lots of honorary degrees, titles, and awards. For most anyone, those are not terribly significant to the biography, unless there is something particularly noteworthy about them. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe another article? The Honorary Degrees of Obama. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The awards of Obama would be more appropriate, so how about it? I'll help out!--Iankap99 (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Censorship is wrong

My comments were shoved into a box as well as many others. The excuse is that there is no change to the article. Most discussions do not lead to change but that doesn't mean discussion should be silenced. What's the big deal? The ACLU is for discussion. The John Birch Society is against discussion. Right wingers should not have the final say here. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reclosed these discussions. They have run their course. Please don't throw arround accusations like "censorship" casually - that's a big word, and managing talk pages is not censorship. If you have a specific change to propose to the article, talk page, or the way we're doing things, please articulate it directly and we can discuss, but be aware that issues like Obama's religion and race have been discussed over a long period of time by many editors, and what we have in the article now reflects a long-term stable consensus, supported by the reliable sources on which Wikipedia is built rather than individual opinions, and that is unlikely to change. We get many visitors to this page, and we don't always entertain a full discussion on a subject that is already decided everytime someone wants to talk about it. Hope you can understand the dynamics of collaborative editing here. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I made comments different from anyone else. If we close discussion, then we could ban Congress or have Congress meet every 2 years, like in some states. The fact is that whenever there is new discussion, it should be heard.

That is like gun control. People could say that everyone has hashed and rehashed but there is always something new. In the 1980's, there was not Columbine and now there is. So that is one (tragic) example of new ideas for an old subject. Best, The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is a mess; please fix it.

It needs to be archived again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.63.194 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A thread on this talk page is archived when it has not been altered for 10 consecutive days. Having many active threads does not make this talk page "a mess." SMP0328. (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

By historical standards, it's actually quite short and orderly at the moment. There's a lot of header material because the FAQ section defaults as uncollapsed but you can fix it by hitting the "hide" link. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 69: Religion

OP banned as sockpuppet; no compelling reason to refute current and historical RSs and mischaracterization of consensus - no change to be made to article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The consensus for that discussion was that Obama's religion is United Church of Christ. There was some support for Protestant. Christianity was not the consensus but a 3rd choice. Judith Merrick (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Are you saying the choices ranked 1. United Church of Christ, 2. Protestant, and 3. Christianity? I should point out that the United Church of Christ is part of Reformed Christianity ("Protestant"), which in turn is part of Christianity. This is almost like asking whether he's a human, a primate, or a mammal. The answer would be "All of the above"! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Given how sock-infested it was by JB5000/Gaydenver, there is no consensus that can be drawn from such a tainted discussion. Start anew if you like, but it really seems like a lot of quibbling over a minor issue. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Sounds like Al Gore and those wanting a re-vote! If Gore were president, Obama would never have become president. Romney might be. Palin would still be an unknown governor. Judith Merrick (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Gaydenver was found not to be a sock of JB50000 but Tarc was accused of being a sock. Huh? It seems that the pro-Christianity people were quibbling over "a minor issue". In terms of objectivity, Christianity's sources are SPS (self published sources) which are deemed unreliable. References show that he is United Church of Christ. Obama distanced himself from Rev. Wright, not the Church. Obama was on TV yesterday and he did not repudiate the United Church of Christ. He just doesn't go to church often but has designated Camp David as his church for now. Judith Merrick (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC) As you yourself note, labeling him as United Church of Christ is potentially problematic, given some ambiguities on the issue. Better to just simply say Christian. Grunge6910 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) And Christian is not potentially problematic, it is problematic. Putting Camp David church is just making things up and fiddling with facts. United Church of Christ is the most accurate and specific. If accuracy and specificity is not desired, then change his name to Bernard H. Obama II since that is almost correct. Bernard, Barack, very similar. Judith Merrick (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Got to point out how horribly flawed and fallacious your argument is; the United Church is at least part of Christianity. To compare Barack with a name which is nothing more than similar is absurd. Christianity might not be the precise answer, but it seems no one is completely sure what BO's true affiliation is, other than...drum roll...Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.213.122(talk) 08:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Wrong, that was not the consensus. Also, the sock puppet investigation did not find anyone to be different people, in fact the conclusion was that they were either the same person or in close contact IRL. I would call that either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. While I appreciate the work done by the admins and CUs, it's unbelievable to me that you and the others listed are not either the same person or working to undermine Wikipedia together. In any case, it doesn't matter right now. All of your proposals were rejected and claiming 'consensus' when there is none is eerily familiar. DD2K (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Eerily familiar? "change his name to Bernard H. Obama II since that is almost correct" vs. "why don't we just say he's the president of a large North American country?" At the very least it seems like a couple of editors flunked the same Logic and Comprehension classes.Fat&Happy (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC) This is pretty silly. United Church of Christ is a subset of Christianity. Saying that Obama is Christian is accurate if he belongs to any Christian church or denomination. The example about Bernard is totally irrelevant. The 888th Avatar (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Christianity is accurate and we shouldn't be more precise or detailed than that at this time without additional reliable sources. Technically, Obama is a former member of the United Church of Christ, see this correspondence, and the cited Associated Press article says as much: "The United Church of Christ, the denomination from which Obama resigned when he left Wright's church, issued a written invitation to join a UCC denomination in Washington and resume his connections to the church." Obama has not yet resumed his connections, so the UCC is most likely is, and will remain, his former denomination, yet these sources are not quite enough verification to assert that the UCC is indeed his former denomination, e.g. United Church of Christ (until 2008) added underneath Christianity. To do so, I think we may need additional secondary or tertiary sources that verify his break with the UCC as a consequence of leaving Trinity. --Modocc (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC) So Modocc seems to be saying "United Church of Christ (until 2008), Christianity (2008-present)". This is honest. I'm not sure he quit the church, just the Trinity United Church of Christ so I was thinking United Church of Christ. But either one is better than Christianity alone, which is almost a coverup, shame on Wikipedia. Judith Merrick (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) No, Modocc seems to be saying his personal opinion is that "United Church of Christ (until 2008), Christianity (2008-present)" might be accurate but it would be improper to post that without clearer reliable sources. "almost a coverup"? A cover-up of what? He's a secret Coptic or Gnostic? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Modocc isn't even saying that, he specifically stated at the beginning of his post that "Christianity is accurate and we shouldn't be more precise or detailed than that at this time without additional reliable sources". The editor(Judith Merrick that makes these leaps into "consensus" by completely ignoring real consensus does the same things over and over. The same exact leaps and muddying of issues that JB50000 had done over and over. I triedpointing that out in an official manner, and let the results be what they were. But this is just ridiculous. DD2K (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I've had this discussion watched for some time, and I agree that User:Judith Merrick is another likely sock of User:Gaydenver /User:JB50000, so I've blocked him accordingly. Spellcast (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I don't think it will come as a surprise that I totally agree with that assessment. DD2K (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Hasn't Obama self-identified as a Christian since at least as far back as when people started claiming he was Muslim (i.e., before the Wright hoopla)? Can't someone self-identify their own darn religion? I don't see why this is a big issue. Barring some unusual circumstance, he should be called whatever religion he calls himself: in this case, Christian.LedRush (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Crazy, if this easy point can be agreed upon, can we agree that Obama is a male? Willie Sutton Bank President (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) (striking comments of banned sockpuppet) It's amazing that you guys are squabbling about such a petty issue. He's a Christian, he's a Protestant, and he went to a United Church of Christ. It should be mentioned, however, that Protestant and United Church of Christ are not actually religions, but denominations or subgroups of Christianity. Does the term Christian offend you so much that it has to be erased from the sitting president's biography? I'm surprised there isn't an argument yet to simply call him a theist. I shouldn't be surprised by this discussion, since this page has long been the home of liberal zealots content with erasing any aspect of Obama's past that doesn't live up to the idol they have in their minds.72.201.251.230 (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC) If you'd actually read the discussions though, you would see that it is the so-called "liberal zealots" that are the ones who were in favor of keeping the entry as "Christianity". Tarc (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Zealots' opinions should be noted but not necessarily considered. I looked up the United Church of Christ and it is not controversial or radical so mention seems neutral. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Since Barak Obama Sr. was a Muslim, Barak Obama II is a Muslim by birth. So that needs to be added to the information, please.75.57.121.90 (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) No for two reasons, 1, judeo-christian religions are based on the mother. Second of all, religion has nothing to do with birth, it is a belief system, not a race.--Iankap99 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Iankap99, you need to take a Comparative Religion class. Barak Obama II is a Muslim by birth.75.57.121.90 (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC) This is true that he was born a Muslim. However, only if the bio is book length should there be discussion about how his father was a Muslim, later Atheist. If the bio is only a page long, then it could be misleading to mention it like 75.57.121.90. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Iankap99 is right, you are both wrong. Religion has nothing to do with birth. Obama was not born a Muslim just like I was not born a Christian. BrendanFrye (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) On second thought, he was born into a Muslim family but did not accept the religion. That's one trouble with 30 seconds spots, people just zero into on the word Muslim. He is not a Muslim. I am not certain why there is the fuss about being a Protestant. Some want him to be called a Protestant but some are opposed. I can't figure out why. Also Brendan and my comments are recent and it is bad practice to hide them in a box. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Hello again. Respectfully, if one wishes to figure out why some have one opinion and some another, that's the very reason we archive these talk pages; the expressions of those opinions are found there. You could also do some reading at reliable sources elsewhere. If you're interested in being a part of such a conversation, you might take a class on comparative religion, find a chat room off Wikipedia, or discuss this at a Wiki Project for religion. This page isn't actually here for any and all comers to participate in an open discussion about and and all general or specific themes related directly or indirectly to the article subject or data herein. It is here so specific, rational and well-sourced suggestions for improvements to the article may be discussed and potential changes honed; or, alternatively, for explanation of why edits or suggestions are found to be inappropriate for this brief bio. Discussions viz a viz this subject have already transpired several times over and, contrary to your comment in a "censorship" thread below, you didn't add anything new to that broader discussion. One's very first thought and very second thought on an issue (particularly when they are hunches and not actually rooted in fact) isn't necessarily helpful, especially as it is apparently not your intent to change the wording in the article, and for all of these reasons your comments are irrelevant to the purpose of this page in general and this thread in particular. We welcome your educated suggestions on other issues that might be appropriate for article inclusion, and that's best done by participating in an active thread or beginning a reliably sourced thread of your own, as you did with the Uganda situation. Hopefully you can understand that reopening or appending multiple closed threads without understanding the reasons for closure and without any compelling turn of events altering the situation, and without even intending to change the consensus in every case, is not the best way to enter the editorial process. Incidentally, something is technically amiss with the formatting of the now-closed thread above, as prior to McChicken's post there of 5/12 it had lingered several days past the current 10-day auto-archive date, in fact 150% of the current standard archival period. Can someone adept at this sort of thing give it a look? Abrazame (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Looks like the period is 14 days, whatever. The point is this is not a discussion of opinion. The instructions say to discuss changes for the article. The man is Protestant, I don't know why there is such an effort to call him just Christian. Usually that term is used in countries where most people are not Christian. Since this article is about an American, Protestant is better. If the article is about a Lebanese in Lebanon, then Christian might be better because Shites and Sunnis do not know the difference between Catholics and Methodists. Obama is not a Catholic, fa4r from that! Again, OBAMA IS NOT A CATHOLIC, so using Christian for an American living in the U.S. is not a good idea. This is the suggestion that I have for improving the biography. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Last time I edited the infobox, I said, "Christian, last associated with the United Church of Christ". This is inarguably true. The UCC has no particular dogma, but is often considered a "liberal" denomination. Obama has chosen to be private about his faith lately, and until he or an RS says otherwise, "Christian" is the best we can do. PhGustaf (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC) UCC is not liberal. The Unitarians are the liberals. About 10 years ago, they were in the news when a Unitarian church had a "show your talents" sermon. Some churchgoers played musical instruments but they allowed a stripper to do partial striptease, taking off most of her clothes. Obama is not keeping things private, he is just keeping things normal. This Easter, he went to a civilian church rather than the Camp David Chapel. Rather than privacy, what Obama is doing is not having the press office blow up the issue like they do for the news of the day that they want to promote. All presidents plan strategy on when to release big news and what big news to release. Some big news is event driven (like the oil spill) but some big news is driven by the political aides, like when to make a big stink about the economy or immigration.http://abcnews.go.com/WN/president-obama-takes-easter-mass-church-regular/story?id=10283263 Your suggestion is better than mine. UCC is more specific than my idea of Protestant. The Chicken costs $1(talk) 01:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC) The Chicken costs $1 is a sock puppet of JB50000/Gaydenver/Judith Merrick. It's hard to believe that nobody sees the obvious duck in the room when they post the same way over and over about the same "concerns". Dave Dial (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Race Specification

original question answered - no change to be made to article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article says that Obama is the first African American to become president. While it is true he is not white like the previous presidents, he is not completely African American. His father is African American and his mother is white, which makes him the first mixed president. Just a quick fixup would be much appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added byArchitectheroes (talk • contribs) 21:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC) See Q2 in the FAQ above. This question comes up about once a week. Acroterion (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC) If a mixed man robs a store, the description is going to be "African American male". This is true even if the eyewitness has no evidence that the suspect is American, much less completely black. Could very well be a man who had a Nigerian father and a British mother.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The McChicken costs $1 (talk • contribs) 21:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC) If i knew the man that robbed the store was of mixed race than i would tell the police that because he would be easier to identify.XavierGreen (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Just because a piece of information is repeatedly, even by sources often considered reliable, does not make something true, especially if the information is heavily tinged with cultural bias. Calling Obama "African-American" and leaving it at that is misleading. Like so many other cases when we focus on the "otherness" of someone we identify as a minority, we make the privileged group invisible. Since it is taken for granted that somebody is white, straight, or male, (etc) we only give specifics when they belong to the less-privileged group. Calling Obama "African-American" instead of "biracial" or "multiracial" enforces white hegemony. I understand this topic has been discussed extensively, but I don't see any evidence that this harmful aspect has been addressed. Sabbrielle (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC) The job of Wikipedia isn't to establish the "truth." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC) The job of Wikipedia is not to spread falsity, on the other hand. Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible. This comment is a statement of fact, not an effort to convince one way or another for a specific edit. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) African American Abrazame (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Consider my answer to a similar question at the Robert C. Weaver discussion page:Talk:Robert_C._Weaver#Ethnicity. Dave Golland (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC) McChicken, if your goal here isn't to convince us one way or another of a specific edit, then your comments do not belong on this talk page at all. Talk pages are for discussing changes that need to be made to article, they are not here to be your soap box.--OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Still he is not completely black and saying simply that he is is a form of this thing called Selective OmissionDerBarJude (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC) You do not have to convince people here – it's all the sources that have described Obama that you need to "correct".Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC) It may be noteworthy to mention that Obama is biracial but chose African-American/Black/Negro on the census form instead of multiracial. Maybe it could read after it says where his mother was white and father Kenyan Luo that "Obama declared his race as 'African-American/Black/Negro on the 2010 census form and not 'some other race' or both black and 'white'." (This last part, not some other race, is quoted from the NY Times article and is not my conclusion. It's their conclusion) References: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-the-wild-things-are/201004/president-obama-checks-the-black-box http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/us/politics/03census.html http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/2137473,obama-census-black-040210.article http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/02/politics/main6357568.shtml http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/nation/la-na-obama-census4-2010apr04 I am surprised that there are so much coverage over this issue and makes one think that Wikipedia should also devote one sentence to it (summarizing dozens of news reports into one simple sentence). The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC) The suggested change to the article is just a short sentence "In answering the 2010 census, Obama checked one box under the race question, "African-American/Black/Negro"." The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

First African American?

I was interested in the phrase: "He is the first African American to hold the office." Is this the best way to phrase this?

• Shouldn't it be noted he is only half African American, since his mother is white? For example, if Jesse Jackson were to be elected in 2012, wouldn't it be considered another milestone, in the sense he is fully African American? So shouldn't the "half" distinction be made?
• Shouldn't it really mention he is the first "half black president"? It seems this is the real milestone. If both of his parents were white South Africans who came to the U.S. he could technically be considered African American, yet that wouldn't be worth noting. It is really his race that matters in this case, correct?

I hope this fosters some discussion. Thank you. Newuser54 (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Searching this talk page shows that "African American" is discussed in the FAQ at the top (Q2). Also, you can put "African American" in the "Search archives" box to see the previous discussions. In essence, Wikipedia does not dream up how to describe people, instead we follow reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read FAQ2 and the articles linked therein. Abrazame (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think that it matters, because he doesn't really identify with his white heritage. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Billheller (talk •contribs) 05:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

Why are Navbox, Time Persons of the Year 2001-2025, Featured article, and the Link FAs redlinks? Is it a template limitation? They aren't redlinks in the history of the article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has to do with a limitation of navboxes, as previously discussed above. I guess someone who knows how to edit that portion of the article should explain how to fix it, and then some here could make a proposal on which ones to keep and which to get rid of. I was looking through them again and there are some other dead links there too. Dave Dial (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)