Talk:Barack Obama

Campaign is over, political positions section needs to go

The campaign is over. The political positions sections need to go. If not, it doesn't represent his positions too well. Keeping it represents the dumbing down of Wikipedia because it is way too simple and not even accurate. JB50000 (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think that the political positions of the US president are important to Wikipedia readers? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Political positions needs expansion. Also, we need a controversies section.Malke2010 16:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need a "controversies section"? Why can't notable controversies be woven in to the body of the article where appropriate? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A controversy section appears in many BLP's on wikipedia. Weaving them into Obama's article and then using soft articles as citations by friendly Washington Post type reporters where Obama isn't asked hard questions appears dishonest. Also, somebody searching specifically for information on his controversies would have to wade through the entire lengthy article. As the article stands now, the controversies are synthesized to downplay them, offer references that support the synthesis, and then the next sentence moves on to something else, as if the controversy has been explained away and dispensed with. The synthesis WP: SYN isn't allowed.Malke2010 17:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So your argument is based on the idea that because other articles have controversy sections, then this article should too. Sadly, that is not a good argument for a controversy section and ideally articles should interweave controversies into the relevant section. (Before you reply that we should go into those articles that have controversy sections and remove them: this is not the place to make that comment and if you have problems with those sections, then it's best to take it up in those article's talk pages.) Thanks - Brothejr (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about other BLP's. It's about the WP:SYN of Obama's controversies. Please stay on topic.Malke2010 17:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, I was on topic and you might want to read what WP:SYN actually says because simply put: it has absolutely no baring in any of this. The facts as stated by the references are in the article, just not in a convenient section for you to go to. Brothejr (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a synthetic argument to me.Malke2010 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you are making no sense. The premises of your argument has been: we need the controversies pointed out in a section for easy reading. As far as a synthetic argument, if you mean is it made out of Polyester, then no I prefer Denim myself. Now, back on topic, if you actually have a suggestion for a specific improvement/addition, please write it here. However, if you're here just to comment on other editors or how this article is written, then thank you for your comments, but this is not the place for them. Brothejr (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem upset. Please stay on topic, and WP:CIVIL. I was asked by another editor why I felt there needed to be a controversy section. I answered. Then you came back with your question. I answered in a polite and informed manner.Malke2010 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And you where given a polite and informative answer here too. To add on in regards of "controversy sections": For quite some time we're trying (just as Brother stated above) to "interweave controversies into the relevant section" and not just for this article. Look into the edit history of other major politicians and you'll see the effort being made. Simply said: "Controversy sections" are mostly depreciated at least where possible.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW: The section title implies a different discussion. Just saying. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but I think Brother's comments were clearly lacking in WP:CIVIL and I appropriately and accurately addressed them. I agree that a WP:BLP is better served by weaving controversy, but it seems that the practice on this particular article has been done through WP:SYN. A good compromise would be to revisit some of these citations to insure WP:NPOV and allow the addition of the legitimate counterpoints to the controversies.Malke2010 19:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Brothejr's comments were civil enough. The neutral point of view is well represented in this featured article. If you have specific suggestions for inclusion then by all means make them, but calling for a controversy section just for the sake of it will get you nowhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Brothejr was the polite one answering your questions and it seems that you may need to read both WP:Civil and WP:SYN. Your understanding in both of those guidelines seems to be lacking somewhat. DD2K (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama's controversies should be revisited, especially their WP:SYN with the questionable citations. As regards Brother's sarcasm, I suggest you drop the WP:STICK.Malke2010 20:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) Now finally you lost me too. What exactly are you referring to when you point out wp:SYNTH and what citations do you see as questionable ones? Could you please clarify? That would be a start so you can get more specific answers. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you see a particular example of WP:SYN, or weak citations, why not bring it up here after revisiting the matter? I don't see how that has anything to do with whether criticism and controversies are culled to form their own dedicated section, or woven into the portions dealing with the subject matter at hand. I don't think you'll find much appetite for a renewed proposal that we break out a new section for that, and meta-discussion about which way encourages better editing practices might be more useful at WP:CRIT than here. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(ui) back to the original question, I think that "positions" per se are a lot less important to a sitting president than a candidate. During the election one can look at a candidate's proposals, policy platform, record, and stated positions, and probably a few other things. Once elected their actual performance in office becomes relatively more important. This article, and even more so the child articles, suffer a bit by conflating all of these things. Making a speech announcing your position on something is a lot different than getting legislation passed (or signing it despite reservations). - Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stay on topic(jk)...errr...I mean I agree. I was going through the Barack Obama political positions section and thought it definitely needs to be cleaned up. Or maybe even some of it moved over to Political positions of Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama. I wouldn't oppose a change in that section off-hand, and do believe it reads more like a candidate than a president. DD2K (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Positions that might've changed since he became President should be updated, of course, but we're stuck with RS's that say so. Let's take a look at Gitmo for example: He still wants to get out but it seems to take longer than he (Obama) expected. Does it change his political position at this point? No, I don't think so. It's changing his timeline unless he pulls back on the basis of his original promise. We should take a look at each of his positions and see if sources show an "unexpected" change in his position to some issues.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include every time Obama modulates his position to allow for the realistic timing of something. He seems to be firm in his convictions on Gitmo, for example. Changes in position from campaign promises should not be made too much of. The reality of governing should be considered when reevaluating his positions.Malke2010 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"...when reevaluating his positions." Again and for the last time: What exactly would you like to change? Unless you keep on talking about in general this will only become a disruptive thread which we had plenty of and will be closed soon. So please come up with something we can work on or this thread is gone/closed very soon.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's very clear I was responding to your comment "We should take a look at each of his positions and see if sources show an "unexpected" change in his position to some issues." If you are going to look at each of his political positions you should do so with the understanding that he is now governing, and, in fairness to him, that is very different from being a candidate making a promise. If you do that, then it doesn't matter if he's had what you call an 'unexpected change.' And framing comments the way you did above, comes across as bullying and threatening with an ultimatum. You do not control this article or this talk page. Everyone is free to offer suggestions, opinions, and to edit. It's always best to WP:AGF.Malke2010 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ROFL. You can't go around accusing fellow Wikipedians of "bullying" you, "threatening" you "with an ultimatum" and ownership ("You do not control this article or this talk page.") while insisting they assume good faith in the same breath. That's akin to saying "don't fucking curse" to someone. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) So much for wp:AGF. I no longer talk to you with the environment you've set. Bye bye The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that s/he's not even made clear what the "bullying" part is. I just read a lot of blablabla but even if asked more than just once the editor doesn't (or can't????) give a clear answer what s/he wants to have changed. Seems to me just another editor who is not up to date (wiki wise) and just wants to have a "criticism section" no matter what???? I'm clueless, honestly, and if nothing constructive will come from this editor how to enhance the article I will do what I already said in my last edit summary. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There's already been useful comments, such as that this section is better for candidates that are running, that there is the problem of positions changing so do we use the current one and ignore the old one or just show how it's been slightly modified. If Magnificant Clean-keeper is saying bye-bye, he can leave but should not close the discussion.

So focusing the discussion...one question is if we should keep it only current or make it the history of his positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs)

Continued discussion of whether to have this section or not

1. Support JB50000 (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep talking about it. It's important for his positions to be known, especially with all the babel coming out of Congress. This is a good article, overall, and people wanting to know more about Obama will come to Wikipedia and if his positions are spelled out, it could be helpful to them. Also, he's only been in office one year. Maybe the political positions could become a separate article, a stub, maybe, if people don't want it on the main article.Malke2010 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Malke, you're the reason I collapsed this thread because you led it of track and had no concrete answer to what you actually want to have changed. Even after you're asked several times you made no specific proposal whatsoever. To make this clear: I collapsed this section since became a dead-end which had nothing to do with JB's original title. And if you would've read the "Political positions" section in this article you would know that there IS a sub article [and BTW, not a "stub"]. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Further comment. The section should definitely stay although it might be possible to trim it down further. The only question is how far and which part(s). Some specific suggestion would be appreciated.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments to individual editors are best left on their talk pages.Malke2010 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment made above and stayed pretty much on subject (at least as far as I see it) and those do belong here. If you have further "things" you would like to discuss with me on a more personal bases you certainly can do so on my talk page.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When people edit BLP's, they seem to forget that the reader's best intrests need to be the first priority. With that in mind, we need this section. Many readers may just be looking for that topic and instead of weaveing it into the article, it would nice to have hem in clear sight. (Then again, this is comming from a McCain supporter so I may get blamed for political bias but oh well....)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - On first glance I would lean towards deprecating this section in favor of putting any useful information into the chronological sections about Obama's major acts, legislation, etc. That's not to say a separate article could organize his major beliefs, positions, initiatives, etc., thematically rather than chronologically, but I don't think that's the best way to present information here. I don't think we'll be in a position to encyclopedically assess as a lifelong matter what Obama's political positions have been until the final chapter is written. I don't terribly object, though, so if peole want it to stay so be it. It might also help to look to some other presidential featured articles to see how they treat this. Not per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but rather to get some inspiration on how to do it well. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If we want to see and learn from other presidential articles we would need to look into their article's history and see how they where "treated" at the time they where in office. Of course, since WP didn't really exist before maybe George W. Bush (and since then changed it's approach quite a bit - just think about criticism sections which are now mostly depreciated) it might be difficult if not impossible to apply those credentials from then to now. Maybe we have to refigure it (if we want to change it) which would or could then be an example for other high profile articles to come.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If featured / good quality articles about deceased or retired world leaders don't generally have a "political positions" section we can perhaps surmise that it's not always a good idea even when done, which I think would mean there is even less of a call to try to summarize the matter while still in office. If they do, we can perhaps see some examples of how it can be treated. It's just a data point that could be useful. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama is still serving his presidency. It's only his first year. There's a lot going on right now and members of congress have their own agenda. If you remove the positions section entirely, even if there is a sub-article, I am concerned that his voice here is being subdued.Malke2010 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Also agree with readers' needs.Malke2010 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: History of his positions - a concise summary.

1. Oppose (support complete removal), but this is a possibility JB50000 (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (DDK2 and Wikidemon seems to suggest an oppose and favoring removal of this section, which I can see their point)

Proposal: Keep the section only to reflect his 2008 positions then when he campaigns for 2012, replace it with his party platform

1. Oppose This would be too commercial an approach, not very encyclopedic. JB50000 (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think either of the above two is viable as a proposal to be !voted on. In the first place, I don't think there is much call at all for expanding the political positions position section by turning it into a chronological account of how they arose, evolved, changed, etc. By nature "positions" is a snapshot of a person's current thinking. If we want to turn that into a moving picture by examining it over time we are basically retelling the entire biography but from a standpoint of his positions, as opposed to his actions, events, etc. I don't think that's called for in this main article. That would be a matter for a sub-article if anything, and would have to be fully developed there before we come up with a condensed version here. Regarding the second proposal, we can't !vote on what we're going to do in 2012. All we have to work with for now is 2010. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We do have a sub-article and you know it. Are you thinking about creating a new sub? And if so under what title as "political positions" is already taken.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I would not wish to create a new sub-article. I am saying that before we consider a section here on the evolution of Obama's ositions over time there should be a sub-article covering it. Whether or not the "political positions" article gives us a starting point I don't know, but I don't think it's a good idea either way. The current child article is a half-formed and messy attempt to distill Obama's position in the present, although it is more than a year out of date in that respect. Right now we have a "presidency of" article, and articles about his legislative career. Going through his life in order to distill out his political positions would be redundant because it takes a second pass through the same things, it is slicing the same cake in a different direction. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with you that the "political positions" sub needs some major updating. After the election had passed the article was pretty much abounded and is severely outdated as new developments are implemented in his "presidency" article while neglecting the other (article). To incorporate the positions article with the presidency article would be overkill in size so I wouldn't be opposed to a major redo of the first one and then again summarize it here on Obama's main article but this would be a major effort and would take more than one editor to do so. But don't count on me as I usually only fix errors or other minor (or not so minor) content as you should know by now. Not that I wouldn't like to help out more but... [private]. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at least a summary on this article.Malke2010 00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support how does this proposal violate WP:SOAP at all?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that the proposal violates wp:soap? I can't even find the word in this section so I'm a little confused. Can you enlighten me, please? Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that anywhere, Coldplay. Are you saying that this proposal violates WP:SOAP, because I don't think it would, not in the least. The President of the United States better well have positions. That's why we elected him. The question is whether or not to delete his positions from this article.Malke2010 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just asked him on his talk page about the "soap" thingy which left me clueless as I too couldn't find even the word in this section.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he confused it with WP:SYN, which would also not apply.Malke2010 01:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it never says anything about soap. However, it may be considered advertiseing by puting his positions on the page. Sorry for the misunderstanding.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

First year in office

This article has some summary style accounts of some major policy issues during Obama's first year in office [4]. It's a very liberal source (LA Times) so it's quite flattering and leaves out the unfavorables, but I still thought it was interesting and might be worth using as an article source. I think more substance on the most notable aspects of Obama's career needs to be added as it develops and the depictions his previous campaigns and platform are overdue for trimming. I'm making this a subsection of the above discussion as it seems to relate to that discussion in some respects. As there's been action on his policy positions, that content needs to be worked in and some of the lesser spin and fluff removed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama's health care position has changed somewhat. During the campaign, he was against the public option but now he's for it. However, he will not join a jihad for it and is probably willing to let it go. Dumb down Wikipedia and what are you going to say? Obama is for Obamacare?

In selecting positions, who is to say that his Venezuela position is not notable or not to be mentioned, yet the obscure subject of Dafur is mentioned. The economy, especially the banks, is a big position (he favors taxing transactions and really taxing the greedy bankers) yet nothing is mentioned. On the other hand, teacher pay is mostly at the local level so why have any mention of it?

This selection of topics has components of original research, which is forbidden.

There are two possible selections. #1 is to rewrite it to the level of a featured article or #2 is to get rid of it. Now it is so far from a featured article that any high school senior writing it for history class would get an F. JB50000 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be the WP:SOAP bit that cropped up earlier, methinks. Try not to refer to Dafur as "obscure" in the future, please. To be fair, this article is not "F" material. It's actually one of the best articles on Wikipedia, if you look at it from a neutral perspective. We must be careful not to overload this article with recentism, and avoid using POV terms like "Obamacare" and "greedy bankers". -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is one of the best articles in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is really in trouble. It is flawed but it is too much of a fight to get it to be a best article. JB50000 (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Don't call it Obamacare. Don't paint Obama with the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi brush. Obama originally wanted a universal plan. He said he thought the plan in the U.K. had failed because it included a private option. Doctors and hospital administrators agreed with the original universal plan. It works like Medicare and everybody is covered. Harry Reid has been riding on private jets paid for by health insurance companies for years. Obama has not. He has his own jet of late.Malke2010 14:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to make some sort of point with that comment? And when did Obama say that UK and Canadian health care had "failed"? And why are you soap boxing your dislike of Harry Reid on this talk page? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Never said anything about disliking Harry Reid. Merely illustrated that Obama's positions are not always represented well by party leaders with their own agendas to service. This is why it seems like a good idea to keep Obama's positions in his article, or in a sub-article, at least for now. For a sub-article, perhaps someone could open a sandbox and others could help out with suggestions, citations, etc.Malke2010 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC).

As an engineer, I prefer numbers. Could there possibly be a spot in this "First year in office" section which involves the employment of the American citizen? I have no problem with citing the actual numbers of employed Americans on day one of inauguration and with the shrunken number 1 year later. We should not have the number as a percentage, due to unreliable percentages from the source. We should keep the numbers as whole and real as reported by the IRS. The number should be the population minus number of full-time-tax-paying jobs. This would be very easy to report the difference within a one year time-span. Any objections? Bikeric (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that an editor inserts their own chosen statistics into a BLP in order to convey certain information, then, yes I object. The whole purpose of requiring a reliable source is that raw numbers can be picked and given a slant to support a wide variety of interpretations. Therefore, a relevant source is required: a source that is reliable and is suitably qualified in the interpretation of the statistics and how they relate to the incumbent President. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Continued problems with political positions

The problem continues. This section is full of original research ideas justified with references. The choice of topics is purely original research. Even the writing is inaccurate and biased. Look here as an example...

Obama has supported eliminating taxes for senior citizens with incomes of under $50,000, and raising taxes on income over $250,000, on capital gains, and on dividends.[169] He has also supported simplifying tax filings and removing loopholes.[170]

There has been debate to whether Obama is raising taxes for some people by supporting certain health care measures. Some union members with good health insurance will be taxed. Democrat and former Clinton aid Stephanopolis questioned whether the insurance requirement was a tax. This article can't be one sided and just paint part of the picture yet it's also not a debate article. The article should not be about what Obama promised and what the retort is, yet we shouldn't also just be a mouthpiece of the 2008 Obama campaign.

The quote also says that Obama supports simplifying tax filing. He's done nothing in a year so maybe this political position was just a campaign gimmick?

The point is that there is surely a reference to his pledge of simplified taxes but the reference is just repeating a campaign promise. It is not necessarily a major position of Obama because he's done nothing.

So the fairest thing to do would be to get rid of the section. If it is not gotten rid of then every position must be analyzed and proof that it is an important position must be made. That is very hard to achieve.JB50000 (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He is a sitting president. He will probably run for reelection in 2012. His political positions are relevant. It's not like he's retired. Here is his tax plan [5].Malke2010 06:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to write the article for former Finnish prime minister Aho and came here for comparison. The political position section for Aho is difficult to write. He was against EU membership. Later, he was for it and rightfully brought Finland out of the periphery of Europe by getting EU membership. Now EU membership is a non-issue.

So for Aho, should there be a political positions section? If so, how should it cover his EU position. Also who is to choose which positions to list.(somme issues are obscure, somme issues are hard to say, somme, like the EU are easy). These are difficult questions that I can't answer for Mr. Obama because I even have difficulty answering it for the article on Mr. Aho. If there are any ideas, let me and others know on the Aho talk page. As far as this article, I can only suggest discussion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You might also try asking for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics .. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 20:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be renamed!

This article needs to be renamed "Barack Obama and American history since 2009". Instead of renaming it, we must focus on the man, not U.S. history. If he is involved, mention it. If he is just peripherally involved, do not mention it. Judith Merrick (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, we should chop out any mention of Abe Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation from his article. After all, it's just "history" and not a "focus on the man", right? Tarc (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

These two comments are weird. Merrick needs to take into account that the President and recent U.S. history are intertwined. Tarc needs to not be so sarcastic. The middle ground is probably the best, be aware of the focus of the article but have a little leeway. JB50000 (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that Tarc needs defending, but it was Judith who introduced sarcasm in the title of this section and her opening sentence. Tarc's response was in kind ... and he's right to boot. Tvoz/talk 06:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you Judith, but the History must be written at a later date. My College History books (1492-1785 and 1786-Present) will have a third companion. "9-11-2001 to Present". The 1786 to present book will need to be completed and ended. The most current book will not be able to be written for many years, and in my opinion and therefore not credited, will begin at 9-11 and not BHO. We are living in variable times in which the balance could be shifted to one side or the other. The balance was lowered in 2008, and we (freedom and liberty loving Americans) are on an upswing now (as of 2-5-2010), but the "History" is still unwritten and YOU will have the ability to contribute to the cause of Freedom in America in the future. Those persons in control of what gets written right here on Wikipedia, just like yourself, will have a voice in the account of these days. I ask of you to stay vigilant and keep those who alter without citation to be held accountable. This also includes yourself and myself. Keep up the good work and refresh yourself, as I will, on the rules of proper content and editing. As long as we both hold the TRUTH as a torch, those who would wish to extinguish it, will not have the breathe.Bikeric (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Judith's banter is perhaps on the spot. I think we've spent many years weighing how BLPs should read and at the end of the day we all realize Wikipedians are not biographers by any stretch. It seems the best BLPs are ones of people who have been dead--for a long time (Soren Kierkegaard comes to mind). For those still living, it seems we can only do the best and that means adhering to presenting verified sources in linear progression. Where a true biography would sensationalize to capture the true essence of a person's life, WP must instead make points with facts and allow the reader to make the final judgment. As for focusing "on the man" well unfortunately WP suffers from notoriety ballooning. What people stand for in "real time" is often more important than simply the person. This is why we have better BLPs on celebrities than officials. For example for my illustrious Governor Tim Pawlenty, his biography is 90% about decisions he has made during his term but in 50 years most people will probably say he was a husband and governor and nothing more (fingers crossed). Judith's point is well taken but perhaps discussion should be relegated to the village pump. davumaya 08:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Once the subject has died, their article is no longer a "BLP" (biography of a living person). Any edits to biographies should respect the need to document things from an historic perspective, and be mindful of recentism. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, Davumaya - I can't count how many times I've said here and on other BLPs that "this is a biography of a person's whole life and career, not a news article". I think it's a legitimate discussion (better off held somewhere else), but I was just mentioning that chastising someone for sarcasm in response to sarcasm wasn't really necessary. And indeed when we're talking about the President it is inevitable that the article is going to focus more than it ought to on events that happen day-to-day, but my experience on this particular BLP since 2006 has been that we manage to sort it out over time. Tvoz/talk 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Health Care

This section has been rewritten with the above comments in mind. Most information has been kept but now the emphasis is on health care as it related to Obama, not just a general U.S. current events lesson. Here it is: JB50000 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes in health care was one of Obama's key campaign promises and a top legislative goal.[156] He has proposed an expansion of health insurance coverage to cover the uninsured. As a candidate for President, he distinguished his proposals from that of his Democratic rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, by not requiring Americans to purchase health insurance.[157][158] By June, 2009, he began to advocate a requirement that Americans purchase health insurance.[159][160] As President, his proposal would spend $900 billion over 10 years and include a government insurance plan (option) to compete with the private sector. It would also make it illegal for insurers to drop sick people or deny them coverage for pre-existing conditions, and require every American carry health coverage. The plan also includes Medicare spending cuts and taxes on insurance companies that offer expensive plans and a tax on implanted medical devices, such as artificial knees and heart valves.[161] Obama originally set deadlines for Congress to pass health care legislation by August, 2009.[162] On September 9, 2009, during the Congressional summer, Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress where he addressed concerns over his administration's proposals.[163]

President Barack Obama's signature on the memorandum expanding funding for health clinics across the country. December 9, 2009.A health care bill, after the inclusion of the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, allowed passage in the House.[164][165] On December 24, 2009, a version of the bill was passed in the Senate[166] after concessions were offered the Senator Ben Nelson, the remaining Democratic holdout.[167][168] However, the January 19, 2010 election of Republican Scott Brown from a heavily Democratic state, Massachusetts, was reported in the press as a sign of voter dissatisfaction with health care legislation.[169][170] After the election of Brown, Obama called on Congress not to "jam" legislation before Brown was seated in the Senate and suggested he open to scaled back health care legislation.[171] Obama then focused on the economy amid speculation that he would announce a scaled down health plan during his State of the Union address in late January, 2010.[172]

Your edits made the article almost unreadable and were incorrect wording on the sourcing. There was nothing wrong with the article as it was written. I reverted it back and think that there is not a consensus for your edits or the wording you are trying to use. DD2K (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the above proposal but there is something wrong with the current wording. Obama has shifted strategy to get his plan passed and that is really important for the article. An article on health care in general would not need the Obama emphasis because it would be a health care article, not an Obama article.

For example, Obama's change to a requirement in having people buy insurance. We aren't saying if it is good or bad or if Congress forced him to or if it was a change in political strategy. But he did change and pushed for it. Another example is the old/current version makes a big deal about the Stupak amendment but that has nothing to do with Obama. It has everything to do with the Stupak amendment article.

The old/current/bad version makes no mention about Obama calling on Congress not to pass legislation before Brown is seated. This is a major omission in an article about Obama. There are tons of sources saying this and none refuting it. It is a change in the health care situation. The new wording doesn't say Obama is bad, it just states his actions after that election.

If you look at the issue of healthcare and Obama, you will see that the new/proposed version is much better than the incomplete old version which omits lots of Obama details. After all, this article is about Obama first, health care second, not vice versa. JB50000 (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely say that you are incorrect in most of your claims. You inserted wording that was not supported by the sources cited, you inserted text that read like a beat writer typing shorthand for a heavyweight fight in 1965, and included your own WP:OR on the reasonings of Legislative minutia. We don't even need to know the Legislative minutia, much less try to give an opinion on what the reasonings are of the many people involved is. I wouldn't oppose an edition of text that included the Brown win in Massachusetts, with Obama's call to not push the Bill through. But we don't need a play-by-play of the Legislative process, or to make judgments of a Bill that has not yet made it's way to the President's desk. DD2K (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This section badly needs updating since it says the Senate and House passed health care legislation. That is not accurate since Reid and Pelosi are trying to figure out what to do now that Scott Brown won in what was suppose to be a safe Democratic state. A really neutral wording, focusing on Obama and what Obama himself is saying can be:

After the January 19, 2010 election of Republican Scott Brown from a heavily Democratic state, Massachusetts, Obama called on Congress not to "jam" legislation before Brown was seated in the Senate and suggested he was open to scaled back health care legislation.[171](reference 171 is an article that has the word "jam" in the title and is about scaled back legislation) Obama then focused on the economy amid reports that he would announce a scaled down health plan during his State of the Union address in late January, 2010.[172] (Reference 172 specifically is a CNN article entitled something like "Obama refocuses on the economy")

JB50000 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This stuff all suffers from recentism. Frankly, this is political minutiae that needn't receive the urgent coverage you wish to give it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RECENT. It seems like some of this argument is about reacting to every bit in the news. Obama's position has not changed. He's still for health care reform. It doesn't matter if he has to compromise to get it done. Politics is compromise.Malke2010 06:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, you should remove the sentence that the Senate passed the bill on December 24, 2009. That is recentism. Also take out the Stupak amendment because that is a minor detail that has nothing to do with Obama and will be a forgotten bit of trivia in 2011. Some people will oppose mention of the Brown election because they think it is anti-Obama or makes Obama look bad. But if you read what's going on, somehow there's been a major shift in the health care agenda that somehow suddenly happend the day after Brown won the election. You can claim it is a coincidence but something is going on now that wasn't before. JB50000 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize is not an image

He won the Nobel Peace Prize. The prestige should not be diminished by Obama-haters and put in the image section. His image is that he is tall and articulate. A Nobel Prize is an honor. Where else can it be? Under Presidency? JB50000 (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You should start an honors section or even just a Nobel Prize section. It's the Nobel Prize. They don't happen everyday to everybody. And mention that other sitting presidents won, etc. It's huge. Let it be huge. Also, the going to church thing. Seems like you're making too much of it. Over explaining it makes it seem like there's something wrong with it. All the presidents have ended up at the Camp David chapel. Plus, he was at the same church for 20 years and had to give up on it because of the controversy. Obviously not easy to just go off and find a substitute. And having a president standing in the pews with a couple hundred random citizens all around him doesn't sound safe to me. I don't care how good the Secret Service is.Malke2010 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a special section for honors, or for the prize. And winning the Nobel Peace Prize does speak about Obama's image, since it was awarded for aspirational reasons, rather than achievement. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody wins the Nobel every year, and, applying the 10 year rule, who can even remember the ones from 10 years ago? If Obama's award is remembered, it won't be because it is such a great honor, but because of the near universal "WTF?" reaction when he got it. Kauffner (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And how much you think is your personal opinion worth here? For sure pretty fucking misplaced. Anything to say to enhance the article?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So which part is an opinion? I thought it was an objective application of the 10-year rule to determine notability. Kauffner (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What part of your comment is meant to enhance the article. If there is one please explain what change should be made according to your posting.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama Administration Misses Deadline To Close Guantánamo

Please read the following article: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-misses-deadline-close-guantanamo

And from the main article of Obama: "and ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010"

Obviously we need to expand this text, regarding that the deadline missed. PeterXaver (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly there should be a discussion on this issue somewhere in the archives. Something simple on it is probably appropriate, more detailed at Presidency of Barack Obama perhaps. I've studied the Guantanamo issue, it was pretty foolish of him to set that date, he obviously wasn't filled in about the logistics involved. Grsz¹¹ 02:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The change could be put in political positions. Obama was for closure on January 1, 2010 but now his position is to move the people to Illinois and probably close Gitmo some time in the future. JB50000 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Another account whose first edit is here, looking to insert criticisms? Hrmmm.... Tarc (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Such comment could be interpreted as Tarc does not want any criticism of the article so he attacks the user (PeterXaver). Unlike Tarc, Graz11 addresses the issue. Please, Tarc, just address the discussion. PeterXaver quotes the ACLU so he may be a critic of the President as being too conservative.

Back to the issue, the issue of closing Guantanamo was a major issue of Obama's campaign and was one of the very first actions done. So this issue isn't trivia. If the issue is discussed, then a brief mention that the plan was changed to delay closure makes sense to include. So that's 3-4 sentences, what's the big deal? JB50000 (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. It would be appropriate to include this. Obama has delayed closing the base in what appears to be the realities of a new president now having access to all the information that a candidate is not privy to. So long as the entry does not suggest a POV, and it stays within the requirements for a featured article, then it would make a good addition. I always try to think of the students using wikipedia to learn about a subject. Understanding what the president has done and why is helpful for them, and seems reasonable for inclusion in his article.Malke2010 07:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll address what I please, JB50000, especially regarding an article that has seen such a rampant and disgusting sock-puppet attack for the past year. Several banned users have an unhealthy obsession with Obama, unfortunately. As for "the issue", I'm not against a brief mention if it is deemed worthy by other reputable editors. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already pretty well covered in the Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#cite_ref-124. As it's not like he flies down to Cuba in a rented C-5 Galaxy and loads the prisoners and stuff onto pallets by himself it's not really that related to him. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is directly related to him. He made it an issue to differentiate himself from McCain and to show he was a change. He can order that prisoners be moved to several federal prisons but it would create an uproar (or release them as has Israel when they really wanted a dead soldier's body back). The problem with this article is that there are supporters who want to sanitize the article and opponents who want to smear the man (of course, not everyone belongs in one of these 2 camps). So, each one of us has to show that they are reasonable by accepting that the Guantanamo closure was a major issue created by Obama and that something happened after that. That something can be discussed here (he postponed closure, he was told that it wasn't possible (without creating an uproar), or something else. As far as what Tarc said, the problem is that even reasonable changes require so much fighting that only those with a strong stomach will stay and every one else will get chased away. In fact, I've had enough of this talk page. Goodbye. JB50000 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dreams from My Father

I assume there was a big discussion on this but I can't find it in the archives. Why is there no mention of Obama's memoir in his BLP? It was clearly a literary achievement.--Jarhed (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is noted a couple of times, and it is used as a reference. Also, being a summary style article, it gets more coverage in its very own article: Dreams from My Father. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I somehow missed it.Jarhed (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing-Trolling does't need 'translation'. WP:NOTAFORUM DD2K (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
translating into Wikipedia lingo There was some comments by another user, since removed, which is translated below. I'm not sure about the first one but the next two may have some merit depending on sources found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC) If there are reliable sources about Obama not cooperating with other leaders about Afghanistan, then this is a discussion matter. If there are reliable sources about failure to close Guantanamo Bay, this is a discussion matter. This subject, you'll find lots of reliable sources. If there are reliable sources about change, this is a discussion matter. On TV, there was discussion that independents cringed when hope was mentioned. Is there such discussion in written form? In short, the removed post is crudely written but may have some merit for some topics. JB50000 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC) You haven't translated it. I understood very well what the original editor User:Fruit.Smoothie said. You took out all the nuances of their invective. That's not a translation !. We've already discussed GITMO closure and you were not able to highlight why something that belongs in the Presidency of Barack Obama (or a suitable administration) article should be also added here. I'm guessing the other stuff is equally poorly weighted against here and should be in the Presidency article too. If we don't allow them to say it in their own words then why should use act as meat-by-proxy ? Say what you want to say in your own words. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:09, 28 January 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. [6]. 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. [7] 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 [8]. 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)

JB50000

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)

Antichrist/Messiah Theories

Personally, I DO NOT support either of these theories, but should they be mentioned here? Why do so many people think these weird things? I mean, we should try to add a little note about this. I'm neutral about Obama, but I think it is essential to add current social perceptions about any issue. If you think we shouldn't, though, just delete everything I wrote...I'm not the argument kinda person...Have a nice day, guys (whatever you do)! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Only fringe crazy types off their meds subscribe to this sort of thing, so mentioning this in the article (or indeed any article on Wikipedia) would really be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Scjessey, that's kinda...POV, to me, but as I said, I really, really don't want to make a big deal out of this. By the way, I haven't edited the article. But it is an interesting point...false, perhaps, but maybe not completely non-notable. But I doubt that's for me to decide. Anyway, ^_^! Have a fantastic day (or evening)! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not "kinda ...POV", it's exactly right. Adding anything about this lunatic fringe BS would be more than "kinda...POV". It's like adding a note on the page of someone saying that "some people believe he's a vampire", or "some believe he/she's a flying goat disguised as a unicorn". The suggestion you are making is completely off base and doesn't pass any reasonable test for any serious discussion. DD2K (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It'd be awesome to actually see a flying goat disguised as a unicorn, though. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay...don't really get how this has to do with this whole issue, but again, you really shouldn't call the opinions of others "BS"...even if it is, come on, it does seem somewhat biased to just say that outright. Please, please, don't get mad at me, it was just something I noticed while surfing the web... Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're surfing the wrong web then! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I am not mad at anyone, and didn't mean to offend anyone. I just think people should know that accusing a person of being the Anti-Christ or the Messiah is absurd. Especially by Wikipedia standards and WP:BLP to boot. DD2K (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately we have Conservapedia to serve as a repository for such POVs... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true. Different standards produce different quality. DD2K (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that if you look you'll find either Hitler comparisons or anti-Christ comparisons to many past presidents. And I am talking about claims made while they were president. Nixon was one of the unique individuals who got both (so did Kissinger for that matter). Every Pope for god knows how long as well as many prime ministers of England, France, Germany and Italy have all gotten "potential anti-Christ" write ups from someone or another. My point is that calling a president a potential anti-Christ is actually not unique or noteworthy. Chalk it up to the amount of power America has post WWII and the fact that the book of Revelations is heavily cryptic, often vague and uses very esoteric references. Many Christians don't even attempt to decipher the book and there are many who think they know what is in there but don't. Take the Left Behind books, most of that stuff is blatantly just made up and pretty bizarre interpretations of what is there but people take it at face value because almost no one is willing to unpack such a complex work. Throw in how vague and cryptic it can be and the book can be spun into arguing that almost any powerful person fits "the signs." So no I don't think it should be added to Obama any more than it should be added to various Popes over the years or Bush or Clinton or Reagan or Nixon, etc.Jdlund (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, every President has fervent detractors. Obama probably has more than most on account of issues of race, and also a changing of the guards. All kinds of things spill out when people feel threatened. That's been extensively written about, but I'll bet it would be hard to sort through all the opinion pieces to find a core of reliable sources like academic works. As far as I know the messiah thing is more of a cultural meme than an actual belief, people refer to Obama being people's messiah as a way of belittling him and his early popularity by poking fun of his supporters and their supposed blind devotion. There's a harsh edge to that because it comes dangerously close to bigotry to put people down in that way. Also, I've noticed of late that some democrats / liberals use the messiah thing in a similar way. The antichrist thing is probably more real - there are in fact a few people who actually believe Obama is somehow in league with Satan, and an even smaller set who get into the whole false messiah myth. That would be the fringe of the fringe. I think that's worth covering if there are good sources for it, but not here. We could fill up entire articles with all the kooky beliefs that people have about every President, and as a WP:WEIGHT matter that would overwhelm the primary subject of those articles, which is telling their life story. This would belong in the family articles about Obama's public reception. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, we only mention in passing the possibility of the Pope being the Anti-Christ, which is way more likely than Obama; Obama being the anti-Christ is based on his political views, whereas the Pope can somewhat reasonably be hypothesised as the anti-Christ. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, to many people the concept of a "messiah" or an "antichrist" is ridiculous enough without applying such labels to well-known figures. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, y'all. You just reminded me to make a very important edit.[9]

OMG, I so did NOT want to offend any1 with this, AT ALL. (why do ppl, like this random japanese guy (or gal) I've never talked to ask me rlly random questions on my talk page, i dont know, maybe its because of this). plz, though, I'm really srry for posting this...wait, dude, scepter, why is the pope the antichrist? (just wondering...) GUYS, have a fantastic and smashing day! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

New guideline for this article.

We should come to an agreement, everyone of every political opinion and those with no opinion. This is about what we want the article to be.

One possibility is to stick with the facts. Only facts, no conclusion. If it is an opinion, then cut it out.

Another possibility is to allow reliably sourced analysis, but trying to keep the analysis down, when possible. Part of a historical article or biographical article is to analyze history. For example, in World War II, we could just list the battles and when Germany surrendered. Or we can use reliably sourced analysis to explain why the Battle of Britain was won (or lost if you are a German) and how that battle was important for the war. The importance of the Battle of Britain is commonly accepted but cannot be proven. The Iran hostages hurt Jimmy Carter's presidency. That cannot be proven but is thought to be true by reliable sources.

This latter possibility is more educational but more difficult to write.

Which possibility do others prefer? I am very neutral. I think the first one is easier since Obama is a current figure and lean very, very slightly to this choice. However, I can see the better educational value of the latter but at a cost of needing huge discussion for each analysis or opinion put in the article, even if it is the reliable source's opinion, not the Wikipedia editor. Again, please no arguing, just discuss how we should proceed. JB50000 (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting meta-question. Thanks for thinking of that. Although I would prefer the second, I think you're right that it would be very difficult. There's a stalemate that settles in when so many people are watching an article, and also, it's very hard to know how history will judge today's events. For practical reasons I think we have to stick with the facts, then with small pieces of analysis like "did the stimulus plan work" or "were the tea parties a major challenge to the Presidential agenda" we can probably trail a year or so behind the news, at which point it won't be an active political issue and might generate some more thoughtful analysis among historians, journalists, and other academics as opposed to news of the day, which is often just a scorekeeping of political gains and losses. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Given JB50000's clear anti-Obama biases, I'm leery of this even being raised. The article is actually in pretty good shape, using WP:SS and steering readers to the issues they are interested in. I suspect this is more about focusing on the nature of some sources, so he can eliminate praise from sources he will find wanting, and including more criticism from those he finds supporting his views. This, in turn, makes the article far more about 'analysis' than facts, but hidden in the guise of 'It's a fact that Beck says Obama is a racist,' rather than a more neutral 'Beck, in the summer of 2009, accused Obama of being a racist, citing his whatever...'. Given JB50000's reluctance to accept consensus on the use of a word which Obama's own employer used, I find it quite difficult to believe that JB50000 will accept any other consensus not in agreement with his already decided thoughts. ThuranX (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop these personal attacks. I have no anti-Obama bias. ThuranX, you just stop accusing people. If you have no opinion, stay away. If you think the article should be just the facts, say so. If you think certain kinds of opinion can be in the article under certain conditions, say so and say how and when.

Besides you just accused me of being a Nazi when I said I was against Nazism. I said I preferred the facts only but you are saying I want to insert opinion. JB50000 (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Godwin in one. Interesting. No, You're clearly interested in inserting your opinion, finding numerous ways to cast aspersions on Obama's use of 'professor' to describe his position, when we have clear,irrefutable evidence from his employer, yet you continue. It's no personal attack to state what multiple people see, and that's all I have done. I stated what I saw and explained my objections to this entire line of questioning. Your reply is a opoular GOP debate tactic - state that anyone who doesn't give a binary yes/no has an agenda, but because you just want a yes/no, you surely cannot, when it's clear your question is a fallacious trap of the 'have you stopped beating your wife' style. If we say facts only, you'll argue that regardless of what the Law School says about what its professors are called, his specific title, in another part of the same press release, is Senior Lecturer, so we should use that instead, and you will perpetually rewqrite it in that 'Obama called himself a professor but he's really just a SL' style. IF we select analysis, you'll throw policy in our faces any time anyone tries to phrase anything in a way you object to, stating we aren't staying neutral, but your analysis based statements will always be neutral, and we'll spend weeks bogged down in POV debates for any edits anyone but you wants to make. You seem to think we're all new to this game. We aren't, we can see what's coming in this 'honest debate'. ThuranX (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is meant to reflect (not the same as "report") coverage from reliable sources, put into an historical perspective. I believe it does that extremely well. The sort of thing being advocated by JB50000 is "interpretation", and perhaps even "revisionism" of those sources. For example, if a source said "Obama is an excellent speaker", JB50000 would want this article to say "Obama is a speaker" by the rationale presented above. I must concur with ThuranX that this kind of approach is not appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry to see a good faith discussion degenerate into false accusations against me. "JB50000 would want this article to say..." is so far from the truth that such statement is hurtful. Basically, I wanted to discuss if the focus of the article should be very factual since the man is a current political figure or if there should be some attempt at historical commentary. Initially, the first response was constructive but subsequently, there hasn't been much useful and guiding comments. JB50000 (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the responses are not clear, but to summarize as best I can. If mistaken, feel free to correct:

JB50000: I am very neutral. I think the first one is easier since Obama is a current figure and lean very, very slightly to this choice. (Facts only is easier, analysis difficult)

Wikidemon: Interesting meta-question. Thanks for thinking of that. Although I would prefer the second, I think you're right that it would be very difficult. There's a stalemate that settles in when so many people are watching an article, and also, it's very hard to know how history will judge today's events. For practical reasons I think we have to stick with the facts, then with small pieces of analysis like ... (Prefer analysis but given the difficult, stick with the facts first)

ThuranX: Argumentative, no opinion offered.

Scjessey: This article is meant to reflect (Analysis, not facts only)

So the censensus is best summarized as "think we have to stick with the facts, then with small pieces of analysis" (quote from Wikidemon). So heavily based on facts and, as Wikidemon said, be very careful with any analysis. So if one source says something with analysis, it should be disregarded. JB50000 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Why is the WP:LEAD section so darn short? In absolutely no way "able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". For such an extremely long article/subarticles, I would sure expect more than this. A significant portion of the article is not summarized in the lead. In no way is it even vaguely adequate to stand alone. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article itself is already 160KB long, and takes a very long time to load because of that, the length seems appropriate to me. This is an unusual article in its size, popularity, and overall visibility. Perhaps you could list the additional points you feel belong in the lede?  Frank  |  talk  20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article is that long, the lead should reflect that to adequately summarize the article. With its size, popularity, and visibility, I would sure expect the lead to be rather long to summarize such a large topic. I see nothing in the lead about his presidency at all, other that he has one! It lacks info about political positions or family life, his image or two Senate careers. Any article of comparable prominence, especially an FA, would have a much better lead than that. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank is confusing the file size listed when you edit the page and the actual prose size of the article. The file size you see when you edit the page is incredibly inaccurate as it includes references, pictures, wikitext, prose, templates, etc, etc. All of this results in a number that is so inaccurate that it isn't even worth mentioning. However, there are several tools that are available that can measure the actual prose size of the article, the most popular one of these being Dr pda's page size tool. According to this tool, there is only 35k of prose in this article. Of course, this has nothing to do with whether or not the lead is a good enough summary, but it should be noted that WP:LEAD says the lead should not be over four paragraphs, which is what this article currently has. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. 160KB combined with all the revisions on this article mean that it takes a long time to load, period. Adding more to it isn't going to help that, whether it's prose, refs, templates, whatever...  Frank  |  talk  23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will make a few comments. I was about to post the just about same thing as Frank, but he relayed it better. I'm sure if someone wants to make an constructive addition that would enhance the article, editors would have no problem with that. Now, on the page size. I don't have the tools for the Dr pda script, but the page size calculator gives the size of the page at over 736 KB and states it would take a 56K modem over 107 seconds to load the page. We have to remember that page size includes pictures too. In any case, I do believe the leade fits right in with Wiki standards, but there is always room for improvement. DD2K (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed that each of those four paragraphs has only two to four short sentences!! The lead is simply too short! Maybe the article wouldn't be so big if there weren't three references to every sentence in the rest of the article, taking up more than half the page. I bet something somewhere discourages against that ridiculous density and that many of those refs could be merged. And just a little more text is not going to have any more effect on loading time. I will see what I can add to the lead to actually make it a complete summary and combine refs to make up for it. Reywas92^Talk 23:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So what is your proposed change to the lede?  Frank  |  talk  23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The lede urgently needs a summary of year 1 by an expert: so here's a way to go:

According to Washington Post columnist Dan Balz, Obama, "has emerged as the most polarizing first-year president in history. In that year, unemployment hit 10 percent, his health-care initiative failed to pass the Congress, his poll numbers eroded, independents deserted the Democrats in major statewide elections and some members of his party hit the panic button after Republican Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts." [ref: Dan Balz, "The stuff of riveting political theater," Washington Post, Jan. 30, 2010. Rjensen (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest everyone read that article, look back here at the quote used here, and ask themselves if that fits the gist of the article. It's obviously cherry-picked and was already attempted to add to the lead. There may be something there to add to the Presidency of Barack Obama, but adding that to the lead here is absurd. It's not even the purpose of the article cited, as Balz was setting up the fact that Obama seemed to put the hit on the Republicans in his meeting with them in Baltimore. What criteria is he the 'most polarizing first-year President in history'? What are the caveats concerned with poll numbers, elections and unemployment? Many. DD2K (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not sure I agree with the "urgent" need, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't help the article. I do think the quote you've listed isn't really a summary but rather a talking point. That seems like the kind of wording which ought to have balancing wording that speaks more objectively about his presidency, and by the time we get through discussing how to achieve that in the context of this article...another year of his presidency will have gone by. Perhaps that particular bit would be more appropriate in presidency of Barack Obama? I suspect some will ask what I mean by this. Here's some expansion: unemployment is a tricky situation and it will be hard to achieve consensus that Obama is responsible or even directly related to that. "Independents deserting" is the stuff of political hyperbole and not directly related to Obama (although of course a case can be made that it is), and the "panic button" regarding Brown is also of questionable importance to a biographical article about Obama. His presidency? Yes. His overall biography? Not so much. Again - some mention might be appropriate, but I'm not convinced this proposal is it.  Frank  |  talk  00:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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 Morman.

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)

Space program cancellation, need for sticky to keep attract of what is notable a year or so later

A few things are definitely historical when that happen. 11th September 2001 is one of them. Others, not so certain.

Obama is going to cancel plans for American human exploration of the moon and Mars. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8489097.stm This is possibly historic but it would be useful to have a sticky so that a year from now we can see what is historic and was is not.

I am very much involved in the notability discussion among different editors (for example, is Balloon Boy notable, how about the murder of ____). While the notability discussion involves if an article is notable, to some extent, inclusion of information in article should be notable, though the criteria is a bit less strict. By having a sticky, we then can decide after a year or so, what is notable enough for this article.

Cheers, Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That raises an interesting philosophical question; since Balloon Boy never actually went up in the balloon, is Balloon Boy still Balloon Boy? Tarc (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Heene = George W. Bush. Balloon Boy = Mars program. Larry King Show = this Wikipedia thread. Abrazame (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

List of possibly historic events. Consider at a later date if truly historic.

1. Obama's plan to maybe end NASA manned moon and Mars exploration, contract out astronaut missions to the private sector. February 2010.

   If I remember correctly, this is a Bush carryover. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup - the BBC calls it as it is when they say that Obama "Terminates George Bush's Constellation Moon programme" [10] because it was "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation". Obama also "Adds an extra $6bn to Nasa's budget over five years". Go figure - "The decision was immediately condemned by Congressional figures who represent workforces dependent on Constellation" - who would have thought ?. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't say this doesn't disappoint me. Hopefully NASA comes back with a better plan that will get funded. Humans better be thinking about finding habitats elsewhere. Nothing lasts forever. DD2K (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

o/~ Even cold November rain o/~ Ikilled007 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Until it happens it's probably too speculative to be considered biographically important. Right now it's just an intention or a position. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We haven't had a man on the Moon since 1972. In fact, the entirety of America's adventures on the moon, spurred on by John F. Kennedy, span three and a half years in the first term of Richard Nixon, from July 16, 1969, to December 14, 1972. (Of course in Nixon's two terms there were two recessions, record postwar unemployment, horrible stagflation, a stock market crash, an oil crisis and two wars [counting Vietnam and the Cold War] before Nixon left office, all of which had something to do with that.)

Not that it's intended that way, but "List of possibly historic events..." is a coatrack waiting to happen. Anything that is not now notable but in the future turns out to be evidently historic should be discussed at the point of that historical hindsight, and not strung along here with all its bastard cousins in tow, growing fringier and more populated until then. Abrazame (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, even if we were to stick to the legitimate cousins. :-)  Frank  |  talk  21:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1. We should consider Obama's reaction to the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts. The event is probably a turning point in Obama's health care policy. Obama did order Congress not to jam legislation through until Brown was seated. Obama's chief of staff stopped more liberal Democrats from running TV ads against other Democrats, calling the plan "fucking retarded" (which Palin, in a fucking retarded fashion, criticized the fucking phrase. (of course, we're not going to fucking put the last phrase in). Seriously, Obama has reacted to the Brown election in a big way in the past 2 weeks in a policy way.

In contrast, this article mentions that the bill was passed by the Senate 60-39. This is related to history but is not really an Obama event and less critical to the biography of Obama than the Brown election. If we write about the Brown election, we should focus on the Obama reaction and, as history progresses, changes in policy resulting from the Brown election.

1. We should consider that the recession ended in 2009 as there were two consecutive quarters of GDP growth. http://www.jhcohn.com/About/News-Archive/Economic-Notes-Recession-Ended-In-November.aspx So the recession started on January 1, 2009 (when there were 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth) and ended on December 31, 2009. (Incidentally, during the presidential campaign, there was a debate whether the country was in recession. It wasn't but it began less than 2 months after. However, it has ended according to the economic definition of recession). JB50000 (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Correction: The recession was declared in December 2008 but backdated to December 2007.

Let's hope it ended.... if it's a "double dip" recession, then pronouncements of its end could be premature. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Need for first rate references:One reference omits author and constitutional law professor (info in the infobox) from that reference's infobox

A Miller Center reference, which is just a summary without references, not a primary source, is used to justify Christianity as Obama's religion. That same reference lists his occupation as community organizer and public official. They do not list him as lawyer, author, or constitutional law scholar. If they are that sloppy or inaccurate, they are an unreliable source. If they are deemed reliable, then that source advocates occupation: community organizer and public official.

My opinion: Let's use only reliable sources. If our arguments or edits use unreliable sources, those edits are no good for this article. I think the Miller Center reference is unreliable unless others can convince me otherwise. JB50000 (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Er... are you complaining about this? It's perfectly reliable. The Miller Center of Public Affairs is affiliated with the University of Virginia. And they're not claiming that Obama wasn't an author, or didn't teach constitutional law; they just chose to emphasize different aspects of his career. This is pretty simple: Reliable source A notes that he was a community organizer and public official. Reliable source B notes that he was also a lawyer and taught constitutional law. Reliable source C notes that he was an author. They're not contradicting each other; they're describing different aspects of the man's career.

That said, I do think that the Time article about his decision to worship at Camp David is a relevant source to this discussion, and should be included among the sources listed at the footnote for Obama's religion. (Incidentally, we should use the original source, not the reprint of the article at BlackChristian.com.) I suggest that it would be appropriate to leave "Christianity" in the infobox, but add this source and a note saying that Obama attends nondenominational Christian services at Camp David in the footnote. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a more polite comment than some we've been seeing. The A, B, C analogy is good to a point. However, if it is so sloppy as to miss stuff and it gives no references itself, it is a bad source. Missing that he's a lawyer is a big ommission that is unexcusable for a place like the Miller Center. JB50000 (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We do not require that sources which are, in themselves, judged to be reliable cite their sources. If the New York Times or the Washington Post say that something happened, we don't need to know the reporter's source for the incident; we just cite the newspaper. The omission of Obama's law career is an editorial decision they made; that doesn't make the Miller Center unreliable.

Furthermore, there are now two other sources in the footnote to "Christianity", both of which support the use of the term. Crusading against the Miller Center's reliability isn't going to help you. If you want the infobox to say something more specific than "Christianity", you'll have to find a reliable source which describes Obama in more specific terms, since his resignation from Trinity UCC. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok Josiah Rowe, that sounds good to me too. I added the link to the Time Magazine article from June and the quote:

Obama has told White House aides that instead of joining a congregation in Washington, D.C., he will follow in George W. Bush's footsteps and make his primary place of worship Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David

But I also cited the Washington Post article from February 4th, 2010 that stated:

Obama prays privately...when he takes his family to Camp David on the weekends, a Navy chaplain ministers to them.

I hope this is satisfactory, although the footnotes for that section is getting pretty long. We are going to have to trim it down when the situation is more clear. DD2K (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me; others may tidy up the reference format later. I don't know whether we really need to cite the Newsweek article; if we're looking for something to trim in that footnote, I'd start there. But in a case like this, where there's been (unfounded) controversy and edit warring, an excess of sources is preferable to a dearth of them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's focus the discussion on the original topic, judging the references. When a major newspaper reports something, they are usually considered reliable even though errors do happen from time to time. This Miller Center thing looks like these factcheck.org or other think tank summaries. Does Miller have errors? This section is not about religion, it's about references. We should always strive for the best references. JB50000 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You want us to use only YOUR references, which support your clear anti-Obama agenda. This is becoming wiki-lawyering. ThuranX (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks. Please do not try to insult me and please do not try to call me a Republican. Obama is a complex and fascinating person of whom America has never before seen in a President (at least since JFK).JB50000 (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Politico considered reliable? How about Huffington Post? JB50000 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus to remove sourced and valid information from the infobox. While Obama may be fascinating, I do not think that is a good reason to post several messages here each day. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus to remove conclusions based on unreliable sources. I'm with JB50000. Don't say that he has an anti-Obama agenda simply because he calling facts to your attention.ExitW3Must (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Two users do not a consensus make, especially when one of them only created their account less than a week ago. Things that make you go hmm... indeed. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Or you could say that two accounts, even if old, have been created by the Obama campaign or the Nixon campaign because a champaign knows how to manipulate Wikipedia and plans years in advance. Besides, it is an insult to compare me with ExitW3Must because that person supports impeachment, which is a very nasty and political maneuver. Furthermore, my opinion on this subject sharply differs from ExitW3Must.

My position is that the Miller Center is a summary type source and is not a suitable reference. However, there are probably (or should be) references to say that Obama is Christian. I have no doubt that he is Christian. He is also the President of a North American country. It is better to be more specific, namely that he is President of the U.S. and that he is Protestant or non-denominational. He is certainly not Egyptain Coptic Christian, which is a Christian denomination. But this thread is NOT about religion, it is about the quality of sources. We should use only top quality sources, not second rate ones, like the Miller Center reference in this case about religion. In other areas, we should also demand top quality sources. If there is opposition to top quality references, then this article is completely broken. JB50000 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, if you can find a reliable source explicitly identifying Obama's religion — since his split from the UCC — more specifically than "Christianity", the article can be changed. However, the Time article just says that he has chosen to attend "non-denominational Christian services" at Camp David. Identifying Obama's religion as "non-denominational Christianity" could be construed as an act of original synthesis, and it doesn't really tell the reader anything. The fact is that the picture is complex, and not easily reduced to a single label. The footnote (and the relevant passages in the article) give more details, so it's fine that the infobox says "Christianity".

As for the quality of the Miller Center — they're a politics research facility associated with a major American university. That's sufficient for WP:RS to be met. I don't think there's anything in WP:RS against "summary sources". There is no "opposition to top quality references" here; people are simply disagreeing with your assessment of the Miller Center as a source. (And I'll remind you that the consensus at RS/N was that the Miller Center was a reliable source.) Trying to besmirch the reliability of this source (or, for that matter, the other two sources currently in the footnote which describe Obama as "Christian") is not a productive path forward. Your only hope is to find other sources that label Obama's religion more specifically, if they exist. I hope this is helpful. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Obamas have a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo."

Not a big deal, but this sentence does not have a cite. Either of these should suffice: [11][12] 71.57.126.233 (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the references. DD2K (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I object, Socks, the First Cat is not mentioned in Bill Clinton's article!! Besides, Bo is the girls' dog, not Barack's. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/12/Meet-Bo-the-First-Dog/ (The Obamas welcome Bo, a six-month old Portuguese water dog and a gift from Senator and Mrs. Kennedy to Sasha and Malia) so Wikipedia is wrong. Bo is not Barack's dog. Socks the First Cat (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I confess, I am not Socks the Cat. That cat can't type. Besides, Socks died and I'm not dead. Socks the First Cat (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a childish sounding reply but there is a valid point, the dog is Barack's gift to his daughters, which he got free from Senator Kennedy.

This is a potential undue weight issue because it's so trivial but it can stay until other information gets rejected or taken out because of space considerations or undue weight accusations. JB50000 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempts on life?

Nothing is said on the attempts on his life of which there were allegedly four. Kind of useful information considering 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is opposed to censorship but we also don't want to give cranks ideas that they can shoot the man. People say "other crap exists" but we should often compare other presidential articles to this one and vice versa. Other presidential articles don't mention attempts unless it was major (usually involving killing of others or if the plot was very advanced). JB50000 (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This user has asked the same question before, and there were 2 responses. It's archived at Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 65#Attempts on life?. - BilCat (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, my bad. Who deleted it then? I never got a chance to read it 99.236.221.124 (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

On this talk page, it's automatically archived by a bot (a computer program). It usually takes several months before a talk page is long enough to need to be archived, but this page is very popular. There are already 68 pagoes of archives from this talk page. -BilCat (talk)

Got it, thanks. However did you remember the comment from so long ago? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't. I looked in the archives, and found it. the discussion is here, just click on this link. - BilCat (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ETHNICITY OF PRESIDENT OBAMA. HE SHOULD BE LISTED AS THE FIRST BIRACIAL PRESIDENT. THAT IS SIMPLY FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.224.98 (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

See Question 2 (Q2) in the FAQ section at the top of this talk page. It's a cultural thing more than genetics as to why he is identified the way he is. - BilCat (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think modern Africans in America refer to themselves as "African American" even if they are more than half white. I seem to remember a hip hop star with a similar case. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama's Re-take of the Inaugural Oath

Because of a mix-up with the words during Obama's actual inauguration, he decided to be sworn in a second time the next day "out of an abundance of caution". There is a reasonably in-depth mention in the Presidency of Barack Obama page, but what is the consensus on whether it belongs on this page or not? Here is my source: [13].--Mister Zoo (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

At one time shortly after the event I think this was considered and rejected as a trivial matter. It was actually Justice Roberts who flubbed it and Obama repeated Roberts' mistaken wording. This became the subject of some rather zany conspiracy theories, particularly among the conservative press, as well as wider speculation on whether or not Obama was truly the president or his actions valid during the period before the redo, or whether the redo was effective. This was mostly just a curiosity and nothing seems to have come of it. It's certainly a notable event and has gotten serious coverage a lot of places, it's just a question of whether it's notable enough to mention here.- Wikidemon (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't notable enough to mention here, and it shouldn't really be at Presidency of Barack Obama either. The proper place (from a notability standpoint) is Inauguration of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned on his user talk page that this fact is a very minor point. However, I also see that Bo the dog is mentioned a few sections higher. If we are prioritizing to how important a fact has to be, then either both facts should be included, only the oath twice fact included, or none of them included. This is because Bo the dog is not even Barack Obama's. Barack Obama said on the campaign that he would give his daughters a dog, not that he was going to give it jointly to himself and his daughters or that the family (of which he is a member) would get a dog. Even the White House website says Bo belongs to the daughters. The oath is different. It involved Barack's own mouth.

The way the article is now, I am slightly leaning towards putting the oath first fact in but can be easily convinced that neither that nor Bo the dog is to be in the article.

I've noticed that some editors (the worst offenders haven't edited this section yet so rest easy, Wikidemon. You aren't one of them) take the position on issues that correspond with a hyper-cheerleading Obama behavior. In this issue, it may make Obama look like a verbal klutz (actually it's easy to do if you're being thrown a curve by the Chief Justice) so the hyper-cheerleading style response would be to oppose it. The Bo the dog issue is a positive issue, so the hyper-cheerleading style would be to support it. Guantanamo is a very tough question but Obama made it an issue and now has been told that the place couldn't be closed by 1/22/2010. Since it is potentially bad news, the hyper-cheerleading style would be to oppose inclusion. We should try to be neutral and not be a hyper-cheerleader nor a hyper-critic. My analysis of how to treat the oath twice fact and the Bo the dog fact shows that I put neutrality and article improvement as the only criteria for this article.JB50000 (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In a biography concerning the life of Obama, why should a foul-up by Justice Roberts (which Obama politely repeated as he was supposed to do) be mentioned? The mistake by Roberts was immediately noted and rectified. The only people who think it is interesting are those who regard it as anti-Obama ammunition (but there is no reliable source of that opinion). I do agree that the Bo stuff is trivia, but it is only nine words, and I see that interest in the dog is well documented. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some "trivia" is desirable because of the human interest factor, although I don't think the dog is important. I fully expect suggestions to incorporate the "second oath" nonsense to be vigorously opposed, however. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)