Talk:Barack Obama

Redundant discussions

In case anyone is wondering if they have an original comment about one of the frequently-discussed issues for this article, here is a list of discussions at length which have taken place just in the past couple of months.

Race

• Talk:Barack Obama/race
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Barack Obama is half-white
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Ethnicity in first sentence
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Media coverage of ethnicity controversy and the intro
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Mulatto, the term is Mullato
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#He's Multi-Racial.
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 43#Obama and race

Religion

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Religon
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Religion

Citizenship

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Supreme Court Controversy
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Still no mention on the birth certificate?
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Donofrio v. Wells
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Unverified Birth Hospital Needs Revision and Reference

Full name

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Article Name
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Barack Hussein Obama JR, not II

Give this some consideration before deciding to start another one. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion about Obama's birthplace, citizenship, race/ethnicity, etc. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to read about where Obama was born and have concerns about it, read Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Citizenship facts, rumors and claims and in particular this source which is heavily utilized in the article.

Where is the archive on Ayers? 68.5.11.175 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we select one from this list? ↜Just me, here, now … 19:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Any of those should do. I do wonder why the Ayers topic is not included in the "Discussions". Admins getting censor happy?Miker789 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the whole WND invasion? They spammed the page and we even got mentioned on Drudge and Fox News for having "whitewashed" the article. Soxwon (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did the discussion on Teleprompters go? I don't believe that was finalized.Miker789 (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus and Tertiary Sources issue

Closing discussion. Please see the answer to Question 2 in the FAQ --Bobblehead (rants) 18:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So if everyone were to still have a concensus that the world was flat, would that mean it was correct to put in wikipedia, as tertiary sources stated so? Furthermore, it should be people of directly mixed ancestry that should decide what terminology to label themselves, not the general public concensus. We do not use this type of labelling for any other race than black, thanks to the slavery etc, and we already know that the concept of the on-drop rule, where everyone with a trace of black ancestry is labelled black was formed in the 1920s by white supremacists who wanted to keep the white race pure, hence labelled any in-between as black. It's an originally racist concept. Why wouldn't any 'african american' with a trace of one-drop of white ancestry, i.e (usually lighter than dark brown)be called white? It's precisely the same absurd principle. Mixed race people's opinions are continuously ignored in all sections of society. In fact there has been evidence shown from 'reliable sources' such as New Scientist to say that mixed race people are discriminated against mroe n the workplace than black people, and govermnet statitiscs form teh UK show that mixed race people are 50% more likely to be a victim of crime than ANY of the other main ethnic groups in the country, including those that are black. If the point in race labelling was to identify these issues, then surely mixed race people should be classified seprately , because statistics have shown these different trends. If they put 1st African American president, they should also include 44th European-American president of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.129.91 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) If you have concerns with how Americans label racial backgrounds, this isn't the venue for it. Grsz11 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC) So what determines whether a consensus is in fact factual information or popular opinion? There are probably numerous sources in other countries that say the American Government is planning on nuking Iran, it doesn't mean it's true. Could this be stated as factual information in Wikipedia? The race aspect is just an aspect of this discussion, involving reliability of tertiary media sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.129.91 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this issue has not been covered in the FAQ section 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.129.91 (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing how to improve the Barack Obama biography article. It is not for meta discussions about consensus and sourcing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsuccessful health politics

Closing discussion. Brothejr (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My proposal for the article: WHO raised the swine flu alert level 5. Currently US has the biggest number of proven swine flu cases 91, compared to Mexico's 26 cases. It is indicating that something is wrong in US, one reason can be that we had no health minister.Multiplyperfect (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC) We don't do original research - and how many times do you need to be told that this is a high-level summary article and we wouldn't cover that level of detail here? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC) WHO fears swine flu pandemic imminent for the source. Multiplyperfect (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) "high-level summary article" Uff. Without critics, this is only a big tale about superman. Multiplyperfect (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC) What the WHO says + your take that something is wrong with US response = Synthesis and original research. it's not going in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC) If you can't solve a puzzle then don't edit! I'm a thinking man, not a copy paste machine like you. Multiplyperfect (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I've asked that you are topic banned from those articles, you may wish to comment here before that happens. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Good riddance. We're better off banning him; his only purpose on Wikipedia is to demonize Obama, using the most spurious of 'logic' and the mast fanciful of 'what ifs'. ThuranX (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC) As discussed before, it is too early in the evolution of this event to know what will happen, whether Obama's role in it is significant enough to mention here, and exactly what that role is. If you're worried about an epidemic, there is a lot to worry about and a lot of places one can go to worry. There is no hurry here - editing the Obama article is not the biggest priority. Wikipedia, as they say, has no deadline. Wikidemon (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC) What are you talking about? Obama is the president, responsible for solving the crisis. Multiplyperfect (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC) It's not going into the article at this time because the sources have not established it as a signifigant biographical or career event in the life of the president. We will keep an eye on it as news stories emerge. I'm not interested in a debate on the subject - at this point we've all explained it. Your disagreement is noted.Wikidemon (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

U.S. GDP sees worst drop in five decades

Discussion has moved to Presidency of Barack Obama. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it would be good for Obama's article: U.S. GDP sees worst drop in five decades The source can't be better. Multiplyperfect (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Actually the source is worthless, we don't use wikis as sources in articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC) In this case see the sources on wikinews. I'm a little surprised, never thought that wiki is blacklisting wiki. This is weird. Multiplyperfect (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Wikis are not considered reliable sources because anyone can edit them and they lack strong editoral oversight - this is why wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source. I see you learnt nothing from your recent block and it's like the next one is going to be for good. Either you are trolling (and thus shouldn't be here) or are incapable of grasping our policies and/or the purpose of this article (and thus shouldn't be here). --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC) This material isn't relevant to this article. Multiplyperfect has been warned. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is time to stop feeding the troll. Future posts that are not inline with WP:TPG will be removed. BigDunc^Talk 21:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - Troll indef blocked. Mfield (Oi!) 21:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hospital of birth cited is hearsay, not fact

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

Academics

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

We have discussed this before, and it seems like the solution was to keep professor.But as seen in the article, it only mentions Obama as professor at one point and the sentence goes into saying that he was a lecturer and senior lecturer, the reference especially the second one , is titled "Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?" and explains why he is considered as a professor,Now professor also apears in the info box ( i think that is what it is called ) also says he was a professor, even though he never had that title, what is in the info box I could agree might need change, but I will look through archives before that.Durga Dido (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This article in the New York Times offers an additional reliable source that clearly describes Obama as a professor, in case anyone thinks we need it. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too. I don't think an en passant mention of his (effective) title is particularly strong evidence. The reporter probably didn't ask his precise title. But we have the letter from the law school, which looks like plenty to me. PhGustaf (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you say, "professor" was his function and "Lecturer" his job title. When my function was "software engineer" my title was "Member of the Technical Staff". Which of those terms is the more descriptive? Everybody knows what a professor does, which is what Obama did. "Lecturer" is far less clear. PhGustaf (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh? I'd have thought it would be the reverse: a lecturer is somebody who lectures, while a professor is somebody who ... professes? Actually I do happen to have some idea of what a professor is: It's a lecturer who's unusually eminent (Britain), who's merely over 40 or so (Japan) ... I'm not quite sure about the US. But maybe that's just me, guilty from birth of not being American: let's agree for now that professor is indeed more understandable than (Senior) Lecturer. Then I suggest this:

For twelve years (1992–2004), Obama was a professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

Again with the same wonderful footnote appended. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see no reason to change it at all. We've had this discussion before, and worked out the present wording. I wouldn't complain about your last suggestion, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else did. ;) PhGustaf (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason? See the very top of this section. (Hmm, I'm reminded of the line uttered by British shopkeepers, back in the days before Tesco, ASDA and the rest drove them to extinction: "Sorry love, we don't stock it. As I've told three customers just this morning, there's no demand for it these days.") ¶ Here's a new idea:

For twelve years (1992–2004), Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

again with the footnote. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes, right after the section above was started by another SPA, and AFTER a trolling SPA was banned. We have the university calling him a professor. I'd point out that there are NUMEROUS categories of Professors - adjuncts, tenured, emeritus, visiting, and lecturers. Almost all of them teach, or have taught, classes and grade students, get offices, get paid, and so on. Thsi nit=picking is a semantics game, part of the 'discredit Obama' POV this troll pushes. I'd wager a RFCU would reveal it's all the same person. ThuranX (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, I haven't the slightest interest in the motivation of KenmanLF. He could be a paid-up member of the KKK for all I care. I am interested in the particular point that he raises. If RFCU finds that he is the same as the tedious and rightly blocked "MultiplyPerfect", I will still be interested in the point that he raises. If you'd like to make an RFCU on me as well, you'd be most welcome; I'd read the result with amusement. As long as you don't do this, you're just going to have to accept that there are other WP editors -- and, if I may say so, experienced WP editors in good standing -- who want to judge suggestions and requests on their merits, and not on the presumed motivations of the writers. -- Hoary (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I noticed that it was KenmanLF's first. He's probably not our chum MultiplyPerfect: although he's similarly curt, he does manage two entire sentences free of a single solecism. There's nothing either in his (lack of) edit history or in what he says that's blatantly incompatible with the harrumph of a wingnut. Yet that does not make him one. Moreover, it wouldn't matter even if he were one: we judge an objection or suggestion on its merits, not on our reading of the author's motivation. Indeed, he raises a point with which I agree, and have agreed before. Of course, I too may be a wingnut; I look forward with amusement to a demonstration of this. ¶ Now, there's no rush to fix this. The sky won't fall, and Barack Hussein Obama won't turn the US into a gay socialist caliphate* no damage will be done, if it stays as it is for a little time. But then the question will sink into the oblivion of Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59, and anyone who brings it up thereafter is that bit more likely to get the retort "What, again? That's already been discussed." As it is, you'll find the matter kind-of discussed from here in Archive 57 to the foot of that long file. That was almost a month ago, and it wasn't resolved. How would a further delay be of help? -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC) (* Would you like a smiley with that?)

Well, not entirely. Sockpuppets are best ignored - they don't have any right to be here at all. Entertaining their suggestions, or getting worked up over them, both encourage them. On the other hand, per article probation please note that this page is not the place to have process discussions about editors. So if thoughtful editors want to consider the issue can we please do so & as Hoary suggests and do so without reference to questions of who is who? On the substance, Obama was a professor and that's that but any way of making things more clear consistent with the sources is fine by me. Wikidemon (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I responded to BOTH points, but Hoary chose to focus on the part that meant he could ignore the main argument. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The assertion is that it's confusing to the reader when we call Obama a professor and then point out he was a lecturer as well. I don't think it's confusing. If consensus is it's confusing, the fix is to not point out "lecturer" at all. I think that costs too much information. I'd leave it be. PhGustaf (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

and I suggest something like:

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

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

The first version (minus the bracketed parenthetical) is better. The second raises more questions than it answers. Frankly, "Obama taught constitutional law at [UoCLS] from 1992 to 1996" or "Obama was a professor of constitutional law at [UoCLS] from 1992 to 1996" is probably the best. Any more than that is deliving into the unimportant tangential matters of nomenclature, what the university thinks, and titles with unexplained significance. If truly necessary we could add a footnote with text that goes something like "Obama's title was Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, non-tenure track part-time positions that the University considers professorships." That would clear it up for anyone who cares, but I don't really see the point - it's in the sources available by link. Wikidemon (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The first (minus the bracketed parenthetical) is what we already have. I think it's confusing, its sense depending as it does on discrimination between the lowercase "p" of "professor" and the upper case of the alternatives. I warmly agree with everything else that you write. You give two alternatives that you like; of the two, I prefer the first; but I'd happily go along with the second. Yes, your subtitle looks good too; like you, I wouldn't want to add it, but it's handy to keep around in case there are repeated questions. (Whether the questions are good faith, bad faith, faith based, or reality based community based.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For me this may seem like something obvious,with that I mean the whole issue around why we call him a professor in this case,while he never held the title, maybe because I heard all the fuss and also heard the answer as to why.For me the sentence "served as a professor" is saying that he worked as one but that he never was one officially,if he was we would just say ""he was a professor".The thing I am concerned about after reading and reading the section is the classified as in "he was first classified as a lecturer...." this part is not in dispute or can be confused at all because that is what he did and this would be his title if such a title exists.So it should just say from XXX- to -XXX he was a lecturer etc.How about this line. "For twelve years Obama worked at the University of Chicago Law School regarded as a professor,teaching constitutional law.He worked as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004."Even told for the second part I would like the sentence to be"from 1992 to 1996 he worked as a lecturer..." etc but that part is not the dispute here.With my proposed line we say exactly how the situation is without losing the professor part. Durga Dido (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that we should just refer to him as a small-p professor, since that was the job, and it makes the article much clearer. The footnote can contain a blow-by-blow account of what the exact job title was from year to year. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with SS. PhGustaf (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Federal Spending in Stimulus Package

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

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

and change it to

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

wouldn't that sort of detail about *what* the federal spending be covered on the stimulus article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We should link to the stimulus article. I have no general objection to there being a little bit more description of what is in the stimulus package, but the source[4] you (Joker) are providing does not seem to cover some of the words you are trying to insert. For example, the only occasion I see of "unemployment" at that URL is with regards to budget issues in 11/21/08 ... neither stimulus nor Obama related. cheers, --guyzero | talk 19:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this instead?

"The first 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency included his signing into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package on February 17, 2009. The bill included increased federal spending for health care, infrastructure, energy spending, education, aid to states, and a number of tax cuts and credits."

Is that more accurate?--Joker123192 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest waiting to see the upshot of the discussion on the Presidential talkpage that Abrazame refers to below. regards, --guyzero | talk 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What method did you use to cull those particular specific expenses as most notable to single out among the dozens and dozens and dozens on the list? "Food stamps" strikes me as a bizarre choice for the second mention when there are several much larger programs in terms of money and others far more notable in terms of representing fundamental shifts. I'd rather see the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 specifically noted and Wikified in that section so that people might perceive it in its totality and full scope rather than one editor's pet projects—or pet peeves. Abrazame (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am simply using the specific expenses used in the "Presidency of Barack Obama" article. I know it sounds odd to have the same sentences in two different articles, but I think that it is fair that the same amount of detail is in the Barack Obama article for people who read this article.--Joker123192 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What is notable to his presidency, and the degree to which it is examined, is not necessarily notable to his biography, and vice-versa. That is precisely why there are two different articles. But thanks for the heads-up, I'd like to know the editorial reasoning for why that's specified in the Presidency article and will query this on that talk page. Abrazame (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The editorial reasoning it is the Presidency article is because that certain sentence is in the Economy section of the article. Therefore, the things that are in the stimulus are important, and could use more detail. And also, seeing as there is also a Presidency section in Obama's biography, his presidency is notable to his biography. And if his presidency is notable to his biography, then shouldn't there be more details about what happened during his presidency, such as what was in the stimulus, in his biography? If you take a look at the articles about all the other presidents, there is tons of details about each of their presidencies in their own biography. Why should it be any different for Obama? --Joker123192 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)