Talk:Barack Obama

Untitled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factcheck and Snopes are not blogs, but if it's the NYT you want, here's an article about his time as a professor, referring to him as professor throughout, including the headline. [4]. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

In the proper usage of the title, he is not a professor. It's all right to make the distinction, because saying he was a lecturer doesn't take anything away from Obama, since he is the President of the United States. Don't see where any other Un Chicago profs have done that. This is from Slate which explains the difference. [5] You guys get over the top here but that could be why the article is still in such good shape. Malke2010 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

two "minor edits" changed consensus wording:

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

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

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

   Lecturer → lecturer
   Senior Lecturer → senior lecturer

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

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

Litmus test for objectivity

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

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

There is no other way around it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison

Scjessey's version is above:

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

A more concise version:

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

I was a British academic, not an American one, but the concise version above looks fine to me. I've looked at the University page and of course they use a small 'p', that's no surprise, just the way English works, see [6]. Dam was a professor with the title Professor Emeritus etc... There can be no doubt that we can say Obama was a professor. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns with edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White House source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US vs British/Australian English

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

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

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

Violation

Or perhaps is the reason everyone is so angry at this foreigner is due to the EXTREME liberal bias on wikipedia? And no I am not a conservapedia member. I am an old earth creationist, however that is irrelevant. I respect other opinions, but we can't jump on someone for disagreeing. That would be wrong. (swampy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swampfoxben (talk • contribs) 06:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Drive-by one-liners aren't very helpful. Provide specific suggestions for article improvement, please. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct Trillium, Sceptre does not live in the US, and how sad it that someone who does not live here is more objective and neutral and fact oriented than many of the bigots and far right nutters are in our own damn country about our own president? Do me a favor and please stop contriubting to making us look bad in your own small and pointless way. Thanks! Tell Conservapedia I said "Hi!" Jersey John (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

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

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

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

 Not done

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

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

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

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

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

Childhood use of stepfather's surname

Twice now, edits of mine have been reverted. As noted in this article [7], HuffPo, The Sydney Morning Herald, TIME, and others, Barack Obama was once known as Barry Soetoro as a youth. These are all RS. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama and the New Party

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

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

Apologies if this has been discussed before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive 69: Religion

The consensus for that discussion was that Obama's religion is United Church of Christ. There was some support for Protestant. Christianity was not the consensus but a 3rd choice. Judith Merrick (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Given how sock-infested it was by JB5000/Gaydenver, there is no consensus that can be drawn from such a tainted discussion. Start anew if you like, but it really seems like a lot of quibbling over a minor issue. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Al Gore and those wanting a re-vote! If Gore were president, Obama would never have become president. Romney might be. Palin would still be an unknown governor. Judith Merrick (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Gaydenver was found not to be a sock of JB50000 but Tarc was accused of being a sock. Huh? It seems that the pro-Christianity people were quibbling over "a minor issue".

In terms of objectivity, Christianity's sources are SPS (self published sources) which are deemed unreliable. References show that he is United Church of Christ. Obama distanced himself from Rev. Wright, not the Church. Obama was on TV yesterday and he did not repudiate the United Church of Christ. He just doesn't go to church often but has designated Camp David as his church for now. Judith Merrick (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As you yourself note, labeling him as United Church of Christ is potentially problematic, given some ambiguities on the issue. Better to just simply say Christian. Grunge6910 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And Christian is not potentially problematic, it is problematic. Putting Camp David church is just making things up and fiddling with facts. United Church of Christ is the most accurate and specific. If accuracy and specificity is not desired, then change his name to Bernard H. Obama II since that is almost correct. Bernard, Barack, very similar. Judith Merrick (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, that was not the consensus. Also, the sock puppet investigation did not find anyone to be different people, in fact the conclusion was that they were either the same person or in close contact IRL. I would call that either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. While I appreciate the work done by the admins and CUs, it's unbelievable to me that you and the others listed are not either the same person or working to undermine Wikipedia together. In any case, it doesn't matter right now. All of your proposals were rejected and claiming 'consensus' when there is none is eerily familiar. DD2K (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Eerily familiar? "change his name to Bernard H. Obama II since that is almost correct" vs. "why don't we just say he's the president of a large North American country?" At the very least it seems like a couple of editors flunked the same Logic and Comprehension classes. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty silly. United Church of Christ is a subset of Christianity. Saying that Obama is Christian is accurate if he belongs to any Christian church or denomination. The example about Bernard is totally irrelevant. The 888th Avatar (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Christianity is accurate and we shouldn't be more precise or detailed than that at this time without additional reliable sources. Technically, Obama is a former member of the United Church of Christ, see this correspondence, and the cited Associated Press article says as much: "The United Church of Christ, the denomination from which Obama resigned when he left Wright's church, issued a written invitation to join a UCC denomination in Washington and resume his connections to the church." Obama has not yet resumed his connections, so the UCC is most likely is, and will remain, his former denomination, yet these sources are not quite enough verification to assert that the UCC is indeed his former denomination, e.g. United Church of Christ (until 2008) added underneath Christianity. To do so, I think we may need additional secondary or tertiary sources that verify his break with the UCC as a consequence of leaving Trinity. --Modocc (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Africa project – Tanzania???

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism and controversy: where are they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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