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)

We have to be careful to not do this. Judith Merrick (talk) 20:19, 17 February 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) Thank you, but no response there Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary?

I don't see a consensus to keep this section. On the other hand, there is not a clear consensus to remove the section. There is some mention to trim it.

How about this as a compromise? Trim it down to the basics of the 2008 campaign. Iraq, Guantanamo/treatment of suspected terrorists, tax increases for the $250,000 people, health care, missile defense are probably the main positions. Hurricane Katrina is not a big issue, every politician is opposed to hurricanes. This could be a subsection called "Pre-presidential positions" which could be hidden text. Then in 2012, we could have a "Re-election positions" which would not necessarily be his campaign positions but a summary of his positions in 2012. Those could be very different particularly if there is an al-Qaeda nuclear attack on New York or if Citibank goes bankrupt and takes down the other banks or if there's a giant New Madrid/St. Louis earthquake that flattens St. Louis and Memphis. JB50000 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Good idea. 2008 positions and later 2012 positions

This appears to be the new consensus. Keep the positions for the 2008 campaign. Actually, I think it's a little like advertising but this is ok. There probably should be a major update in 2011. However, it is very historical that his 2008 positions stay here, like his Iraq opposition (which is almost a non-issue now). JB50000 (talk) 04:33, 28 February 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)

Concerns with edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White House source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

So there is general agreement to stick with the facts and be very, very careful if including any analysis and lean towards not having analysis? JB50000 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The divergent opinions of four editors do not constitute a consensus. If there is any consensus in this and other recent discussions, I would say it is that *cough*"no single editor"*cough* is qualified to determine that their particular views are supported by a consensus. Another view which seems to be supported at near-consensus levels is that the article is in pretty good shape as it stands, and is not in dire need of a constant deluge of proposals for new "guidelines" for its improvement. But hey, maybe I'm just claiming consensus support for my own views... Wouldn't be a first here. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is humming along just fine under Wikipedia's suite of policies and guidelines without editors unilaterally inventing new ones. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in this discussion, consensus can never trump policy. Dayewalker (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

JB50000, isn't this what we already do? Tarc (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. So the consensus is not facts only with limited analysis but any kind of opinion is allowed for this article as long as it has reliable sources and verifiability? I am not arguing. I want to understand. There has to be an answer. It can't be - only what I like and what I can get enough people to tag team revert my way. Is Daywalker saying consensus doesn't matter that we can edit according to policy? (sorry if misunderstood). Scjessey's this article is fine is not true, witness the box closures and protests, from time to time.

I thought it was mostly facts but there has been a flurry of opposition within the past hour. It can't be - only what I like and what I can get enough people to tag team revert my way. There must be an answer to this question! I take it that the real consensus is that properly sourced and verifiable opinion is allowed? JB50000 (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have a proposal for specific text to be removed or information to be added, the by all means introduce it for consideration. I'm sorry to stretch WP:AGF here, but this is beginning to look like a fishing expedition. Tarc (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The neutral way is to decide first. To use a "case by case" basis can be a way to find an excuse for something you want and another excuse for something you don't like. Judith Merrick (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We should have some people editing like negative analysis yes, positive analysis prohibited or negative analysis no, positive analysis yes. So let's agree on being very, very careful when including any analysis. It is not right to cherry pick whatever you want and then say "I have a source that says that". JB50000 (talk) 04:40, 28 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 Mormon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not remove this tag, let the bot do it. It is easy for those who want to end discussion to try to remove the tag. Unfortunately, that happens a lot here.

Currently, the infobox lists his religion as "Christianity" with a reference but there are newer references that use the term Non-denominational Christian. Other suggestions include Protestant, Non-denominational Protestant, United Church of Christ (until 2008)/Non-denominational (2009-present), etc. Thank you. 07:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two preferences:

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

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

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

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

Protestant

(member of the United Church of Christ until 2008)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reponse to the RFC - There really is no more reliable source than Obama's own website, which does indeed list him as simply "Christian." Unless Obama has at some point stated that he is anything more specific, that's what we should call him. Let's use a little WP:COMMON sense here people. There are all kinds of sources debating about his religion, so rather than join in the potentially libelous debate, let's just call him what he calls himself. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"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: [9][10] 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)

Based on the handling of other trivia not allowed, this should go and mention of the dog should be in the Family of Barack article. JB50000 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It was already there. Please read before adding material indiscriminately. Tvoz/talk 06:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Defining "small" for law firms in the US.

Referring to this diff [11] a 12/13 associate or lawyer firm is not small. It is not big but it is somewhere above middle. The vast majority of firms are single practitioners (American Bar foundation statistical report from 2000 ) and to have 12 or 13 lawyers places this firm in the top (roughly) 30% by numbers of people and into the top 10% by counts of firms. A reference that uses "small" is significantly at odds with what we have as the demographics of firms around that time. I say drop the "small".Ttiotsw (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK answering my own question - Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Unnecessary_vagueness says to avoid words like "small". We have the size - that will do. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of national statistics to create your own definition of "small" is synthesis and original research. Use of the Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Unnecessary_vagueness in this case is off-point. The MOS refers to vagueness; there is nothing remotely vague about the phrase "small, 13-attorney". As used, "small" is an additional descriptive conveying public (or media) perception. The use of the term "small" is referenced to TIME magazine and the Los Angeles Times, both considered reliable sources. To those two cites, are there any reliable sources out there that refer to Davis, Miner as a "large Chicago law firm" or similar wording? (I did see one referring to them as "tiny but politically connected", or similar phrasing, but didn't make a note of it at the time.) As far as national statistics, the comparative is presumably not intended to relate to every law firm in the country, but rather to the law firms in a major metropolitan area bidding for the services of a magna cum laude Harvard Law grad who happened to be the first black editor president of the Harvard Law Review. In context, it seems like perfectly appropriate use of the word. Fat&Happy (talk 16:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't have a source that specifically states what the size of the law firm was (or how many lawyers) at the time Obama was there. So we shouldn't be giving specific numbers or vague quantifiers. If in doubt, leave it out. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Et tu, Scjessey?

Morain, Dan, "Obama's law days effective but brief", Los Angeles Times, April 6, 2008, Retrieved February 14, 2010 ("small", p. 1, paragraph 3 (excluding intervening 'correction' notation); "13-attorney", p.2, paragraph 1)

Ripley, Amanda, "Obama's Ascent", TIME, November 03, 2004, p. 3, Retrieved February 13, 2010 ("small", paragraph 2) Fat&Happy (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of these sources. But why is the quantifier important anyway? Does it really matter how big (or small) the law firm was in the context of Obama's life? I still think it is superfluous information that adds nothing to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the main subject of commentary is alluded to in my first response above; he was pretty much in a position to accept a high-paying job with any prestigious Chicago law firm he wanted, but chose to go with the "small, 13-attorney civil-rights" firm instead. This has been presented as an indication of his dedication to community service, though others point out the political connections of the firm, saying he chose them to advance a political career. There might also be implications that he would have had a chance to participate more at the smaller firm, but that seems to be discounted in the LA Times article.

I'm actually pretty neutral about whether it should be there or not. It seems the old 12-member wording was there forever, until someone placed a {{cn}} tag on it, so that might mean a long-standing consensus of relevance. Or long-standing apathy. I think some indication of the type of firm he chose adds to the article, and my main goal here was to maintain existing content while adding verifiability. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thinking more about it as I re-read my response above, I'm inclined to a phrasing like "small but politically powerful firm specializing... ", which alludes to both sides of the debate about his motivation without taking sides. But of course, that would entail trying to find the source where I saw that comment, which isn't worthwhile if every word added to the article needs to be parsed and debated ad infinitum, and then still be subjected to revert wars. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you were going for "small but politically powerful" you'd have to be careful about synthesis and make sure it was fully supported by a source. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. As I said above, I ran across the phrase "tiny but politically [something]" recently, but didn't make note of where. I'm pretty sure (but not 100%) it would have been in an RS, since I bypassed most Google hits that wouldn't qualify. But just for S&G, is changing "tiny" to "small" synthesis or editorial prerogative? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is perhaps noteworthy that Obama chose this one rather than making the more typical choice of a large firm that would be more prestigious for a junior lawyer with ambitions to make money as a corporate lawyer, but neither "small" nor "politically powerful" catches the salient details of the firm and why one would choose it over others. Rather, Obama was apparently pursuing a different goal. I think it's best to avoid characterizing it at all. For what it's worth, a 10-12 attorney firm would be considered small in the US at the time. I think a mid-sized firm would be in the range of 30-100 or 200 lawyers. There is no single standard, though. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment-I don't think this really matters one way or the other, as far as I can see. So why not just use sources and cite what they reference? Descriptors can mean nothing, or they can mean everything, depending on context. My vote is cite WP:RS and put in what descriptors they use. DD2K (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources are good for facts, not always good for tone and word choice. Calling a law firm "tiny", as Time Magazine does, is setting an informal but authoritative narrative tone for Time's readers. But tiny is not an apt description of a law firm, and I doubt most sources comment on its size in that way. Citing the rough or exact number of lawyers is more informative. "Politically connected" is also more to the point, but even that is probably a little opinionated and vague. In many towns there are some high profile small firms that do business with the city and its leaders, and there's a revolving door between the city and those firms. Many power players, unlike Obama, don't have the academic credentials to qualify for the bigger firms just out of college, nor would they choose those firms if their ambition is local politics. To really do this right it would be great if we could get some sources to describe exactly why Obama chose that firm over others (if he indeed had a choice), and see if there's a way to describe that in several words. I also agree that it doesn't matter a whole lot. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not vital, but we must not be sloppy. Some want small. But Wikidemon points out that Time Magazine says tiny, which is not the same as small. We can put 12, like it was. Or we can put that the Chicaco office currently has 10, which the law firms' website says. So my vote is 10 or 12. JB50000 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you spent more time actually reading the provided references instead of opining on what they might or might not say, you would realize both the cited TIME source and the LA Times one say "small", with the LA Times one later also using the "13-member" wording. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent titling?

Other presidents are linked like "John_F._Kennedy" with a middle initial - why is the link for this president not Barack_H._Obama? This creates inconsistency with others and appears to reduce stature of this person.

188.194.100.217 (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, article titles need to be consistent to the person in question, not to everyone else that also happened to hold the same job or office. I'm pretty sure most sources, the media, etc., consistently refer to him as Barack Obama, not Barack H. Obama. Kennedy, on the other hand, is generally referred to as "John F. Kennedy," not "John Kennedy." Similarly, John Quincy Adams is consistently referred to by sources as such, and not as "John Q. Adams." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactally, for the same reason Richard Nixon is not at Richard M Nixon. WP:COMMONNAME applies here.--76.69.166.252 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad example. Nixon WAS called Richard M. Nixon by Americans in those days. Judith Merrick (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty inconsistent. Look at the list; Clinton is Bill, the Bushes are George+initial, Nixon through Reagan are all their familiar names, FDR through LBJ have initials, and it continues in that vein. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it has (In JFK's case) something to do with the fact JFK was know as John F Kennedy in the media, and Obama is not known as Barack H Obama most times...?--大輔 泉 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is what we said, 4 days ago. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Feedback

Hello Barack Obama editors. I have created a draft article on the international media reaction to Obama's 2008 election here and would like to solicit your feedback. Please leave comments and suggestions on the page's talk page here. Thank you --Amandaroyal (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

2 New photos found

The President of Argentina (right) and President of the United States (left)

• 
  Presidents of Argentina and the United States
• 
  doing some sightseeing

2 good photos. JB50000 (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the provenance and copyright issues seem to be in order (I'm no expert), I don't see any problems with the photos per se. In fact, it's good to see evidence that South Carolina's recent moves toward warmer Argentine relations have apparently evolved to a bipartisan national effort. Probably substituting the official title of the second photo, "President Barack Obama looks out over the Forbidden City in Beijing, China. November 17, 2009" would be an improvement over "doing some sightseeing". It would also be better to mention the Argentine President's name, Cristina Fernández.

However, I question the need for even more photos in the article itself. As it currently stands, I can't escape the feeling we're editing the DK Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia, not Wikipedia. Like seriously, what important information is conveyed by an image of Obama's signature at the bottom of a memorandum, or even one of him signing a bill while Biden looks over his shoulder? Sometimes a picture really isn't worth a thousand words. So overall, I'd prefer to see more pictures in the existing commons gallery, even though I consider it currently to be an aesthetic horror. But if there's a particular section in the article, or maybe the Presidency article, where either of these seem to fit in, I say "go for it". Fat&Happy (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the picture of Obama and the Argentine president adds anything at all, and perhaps the picture of Obama in China could be added to the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article, although I don't think it's particularly illuminating or compelling. But neither one illustrates anything in this main article, so I would not include either one here. I do agree that if either photo is used anywhere the captions need to be improved. Tvoz/talk 01:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest a global review of all the pictures in the article and some possible pictures. That way, the best can be selected. The best or most important photo is in the infobox and I think the worst photo is of Abington, Pennsylvania where Mr. Obama looks like he is singing and directing the choir with his hand. A photo that doesn't appear but might be good is this one because Mr. Obama declared H1N1 as an emergency and ordered enough vaccine to meet the demand in North America.

• 
  caption to be determined (getting H1N1 vaccine)
• 
  Bad photo already in the article. Looks like he's singing "he lives, he lives, Christ Jesus lives today" while directing the church choir

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Suomi. About this issue, there was no consensus to add or change photos in the article. Of course I support the idea of updating the article with relevant and appropriately weighted material, including photos. But I don't find how any of these photos adds to the article in any but a decorative sense. Decoratively speaking, the China photo is probably best. The photo with the Argentine leader certainly conveys a warmth and comfort level between them that is modestly relevant to an international relations standpoint except for the fact that I am unaware of any news that makes our relations with Argentina particularly noteworthy to Obama's bio. I accept your opinion of the photo you removed from the article, but I don't think most people would see that as being grand or religious.

To the photo of him getting a flu shot, I have a few issues with that. For one thing, it is entirely inappropriate for the health care reform section. Yesterday the president held an unprecedented day-long meeting with congressional leaders; I would be happy to consider a photo from that event, which seems the single most relevant nexus of Obama and health care reform that can be captured in a photo. Consensus determined last year that the H1N1 issue had not become notable to his biography.

To the digital TV edit, I think perhaps you misunderstand the story, which is neither relevant to his bio or his presidency. Digital TV has been available in the U.S. for several years to cable and satellite subscribers. As to the coupons, my reading of the reference is that the Senate extended a policy of coupons that was already in effect, and did so seven days after he took office; again, not relevant to Obama. Arguably this could be relevant to an article about the congress insofar as it is a somewhat rare example of the sort of esoteric issue they manage to overcome partisan divisions over, but it has nothing to do with Obama. Please don't be discouraged, I assume good faith in your efforts and welcome your continued participation. Abrazame (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the top two :) JB50000 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this[12] picture? It shows a facet of Obama rarely explored by the mainstream press. PhGustaf (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Kenyan nationality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop blowing smoke

Okay, for about a year we had eighteen words:

"Obama has tried to quit smoking several times,[203] and said he will not smoke in the White House.[203]"

Earlier this month, somebody expanded it to twenty-eight words:

"Before being elected, Obama reportedly smoked for about twenty years. He has tried to quit smoking several times, and said he will not smoke in the White House.[213]"

Now we have fifty-two:

"Although Obama has reportedly smoked for about twenty years, shortly after his election he said he would not smoke in the White House itself — which is a no-smoking area. He has tried to quit smoking several times and continues to use nicotine replacements, but has acknowledged still having a cigarette "occasionally".[213][214][215]"

Three times as many words, yet not quite three times as much useful information. Because of other distractions, I didn't make an issue of this when the "about twenty years" thing was added, even though that's pretty much a given with a man in his early forties, as nobody starts smoking in their thirties or forties, and as the "before being elected" thing was pretty obvious too. But part of the point of inline citations to web articles is so that when somebody wants to know more detail about a minor issue, they can click and read more at the source. For all of the details one might update, the fact that a current article on a routine check-up spun a positive health report into a smoking headline does not mean we double or triple the size of the issue in this article. His vision is 20/20 in both eyes, but no sentence for that? He takes a nonsteroidal anti-infmammitory for tendinitis, doesn't seem to interest anybody. His cholesterol is up slightly, nobody thinks to add that. But he had a cigarette in June, that's biographical? No.

For pertinence and concision, I am changing to the following:

"Obama has tried to quit smoking several times over the years and currently uses nicotine replacement therapy, though he has acknowledged that he has not quit entirely."

I am retaining the December 2008 ref to allow interested parties to learn about the White House detail and keep both of the current refs to source the new details. If he does quit, we can shorten it further. If some other detail comes out, we can discuss here whether we add or replace something to include it. Abrazame (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I approve this change. --John (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Factoids in Wikipedia articles are like hedges - they grow and become unruly without periodic pruning. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Obama smokes Benson & Hedges? Bus stop (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No way, he has much better taste than that! I mean, really, not much of an issue guys. --大輔 泉 (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Physical Attributes

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

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

No mention of Hawaii in lead?

The lead should really mention the fact he's originally from Hawaii, if only briefly. 82.124.235.191 (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a significant enough element of his biography to warrant it. The amount of coverage of his Hawaiian origins during his election campaign was remarkable for someone who made his political career in another state. A lot of it had to do with how race relations were different in Hawaii than on the mainland, and that that had shaped him as an individual. Typical examples: Obama had multiethnic existence in Hawaii, In Hawaii, clues from Barack Obama's origins. Personally, I think it's fair to say he's more of an Illinoisan than a Hawaiian now, but it does seem to be a matter of debate - Is Obama Hawaiian or Illinoisan?, Hawaii vs. Illinois: Battling over a Favorite Son - TIME, Obama's more Illinois than Hawaii, folks in Chicago say. I don't think it's entirely fair to mention in the lead where he got his undergraduate degree but not where he was born and (mostly) raised. This is something that could be done succinctly.82.120.177.181 (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm the same person as 82. Since there are no objections, I'll make the change. Ucbear (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Profanity at bottom of page

(Lizzie Borden profanity) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.188.250 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted. If you still see it, you are probably viewing an old version of the page; bypass your cache if so. (this was the vandalism edit) Rami R 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Juris doctor = "doctorate"?

Is it common practice in the english wikipedia to call JD "a doctorate in law", in light of it being first professional degree, unlike JSD (doctor of judicial science)? -anonymous