Talk:Barack Obama

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)

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. [4]. 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. [5] 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 [6]. 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)

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)

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)

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 [7] 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)

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)

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)

Violation

This article violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and therfore needs to be taken care of. Thanks! --White Trillium (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. How does it, exactly? I note that Obama's approval ratings have been neutral-to-positive; Gallup has had him oscillating around 50% approval for the past four months, which is a distinctly average rating for a president fourteen months into his term and, given how controversial the PPACA appears to be, impressive. Unless you're referring to the fact that we don't refer to him as a Kenyan Muslim socialist fascist who will gay abort your grandma, and in that case, Wikipedia is not a place for crackpot racist theories. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, you don't even live in the U.S. and your comment is irrelevant. --White Trillium (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant, exactly? This article isn't restricted to just Americans. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not welcome biased points of view. I recommend the protection level be raised. --IViking (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by one-liners aren't very helpful. Provide specific suggestions for article improvement, please. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 27 March 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)

Childhood use of stepfather's surname

Twice now, edits of mine have been reverted. As noted in this article [8], 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 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)

. Do most sources covering that period of his life mention it?

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)