Talk:Barack Obama

Vandalism

2nd para of lead. --139.78.10.1 (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundant discussions

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

Race

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

Religion

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

Citizenship

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

Full name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hospital of birth cited is hearsay, not fact

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

Academics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and I suggest something like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the university's opinion trumps Thegoodlocust's. See reliable sources for more on this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice response - anyway, obviously the university would be a biased source, as well as a primary source, when we should be using secondary sources. The university, after all, not only employed him and has a personal relationship with him (as well as being a collection of liberal leaning people), but they also have motive to make Barack, and thus the university, look good. Anyway, this article has so many problems, I'd fixed a few a couple months ago after a bunch of hassle, but its all whitewashed again. TheGoodLocust (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

I don't think that an employer is generally considered to be biased when it comes to describing the jobs of its employees. You can always post at the reliable sources noticeboard for a second opinion on that. Anyway, I'm happy to assume that you've learned something from your blocks, and I look forward to seeing some constructive suggestions as to how we might improve the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, are you actually going to argue that a person's employer isn't a primary source with regards to their employment? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Methinks you need to re-read WP:PRIMARY. That's exactly the sourt of primary source that's perfectly acceptable. Not all primary sources are created equal. --GoodDamon 22:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please quote the relevant segments of the article, everything I've read says otherwise. Show me how this primary source is somehow "different" and "acceptable." TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Stating that Obama was a "professor" based on what the university and mainstream newspapers say is perfectly acceptable. --GoodDamon 23:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that pretty much closes the case on this. Small "p" professor seems perfectly compatible with the wikipedia guidelines and doesn't appear to bestow some mythical rank or title to Obama which seems to be what some people are worried about. If the school refers to him as a former professor, then in accordance with the above, it seems npov to have the article use the same term. Ikilled007 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."

I rehighlighted that for you. Also, and more importantly the source that is being used and misinterpreted isn't even a university newspaper - it is a blurb on a university website. So, if we are supposed to "use care" with primary sources, then why are we quoting a university website and then calling that a "university newspaper?"TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The factual details and sourcing here are not under any legitimate dispute. Obama had a part time non-tenure track teaching position at the law school for twelve years, while also serving as a law firm lawyer and did some other things as well. Among other subjects, Obama taught constitutional law. The definition of what a "professor" is and how that differs from an "instructor" or some other classification varies from school to school, and isn't really a hard fixed definition in common speech. So the only question is what word to use. Sourcing works best for determining factual questions, not style issues of word choice. But the best we have sourcing-wise is that the school itself considered him to be a professor. Any attempt to reason it through by finding other sources about what a professor is in a different context, and then applying it to Obama's case, would be synthesis. Anyway, for style reasons we should find a short, neutral way to describe it that is as straightforward and close as possible to the unelaborated facts. We definitely need to avoid any hint of controversy or inconsistency - there was an extremely tiny conspiracy theory going around the conservative blogosphere before the election, and some weird re-hashes after the election, that Obama's credentials were faked. That kind of stuff is not fit for inclusion and taking this discussion there gets us seriously off track. Wikidemon (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

lol, the facts and sources are not under dispute? what the hell do you think this is? I've flat out shown you people are wrong about using a press release since it is a primary source and now it doesn't matter? You people never fail to surprise me. You have a primary source press release with motivation to "exaggerate" as a source that he was a professor, but the real professors at UoC didn't consider Obama a real professor - why is it then that we are using an after the fact press release that was meant to help out their friend and former colleague rather than his title at the time and the professional opinions of real professors who worked at the same college? TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're not going to discuss this politely, and you're not going to cite any sources to back up the insinuations you're making about a living person, you probably shouldn't be editing anywhere near an article that's covered by article probation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion has ceased to be productive -- it's moving away from, not towards, any concrete proposals for improving the article. I'll go ahead and be bold, though, and implement a change that seems to represent some median point in what's being said above. Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What sources do you want me to cite? And I'm being very polite - I was just told by wikidemon that sources and facts don't matter. If I did put up a source then I'm sure it wouldn't meet the high standards of "university press release to quell scandal of former employee." Hell, I'll give it a go anyway! This source says things like, "Obama was a part-time teacher; he was not a professor in terms of having an academic output." I mean, that was only said by Richard Epstein a real professor at UoC, but I'm sure that source is somehow inferior to a scandal-suppressing press-release. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to close this discussion, but I'll end it with this: Accept the fact that the school and the majority of reliable sources describe Obama's job there as "professor." Case closed, end of discussion. That you can cherry-pick a single quote from a set of interviews -- a set I can similarly cherry-pick from to prove Obama was a professor -- is immaterial. --GoodDamon 15:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept that fact that the school and the majority of reliable sources describe Obama's job there as "professor." Case for that closed, as far as I'm concerned; but it shouldn't be the end of discussion about what this article should say, as the article is arguably confusing and as this discussion is (below this) being conducted politely and reasonably among people who accept that he was a "professor". Perhaps you would like to join. -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think most of us are being polite and reasonable. I'm less convinced than you are that the text is confusing as it stands. But my suggestion to clarify it furthrt is to use "professor" in the text, and mention the precise job titles in a footnote. PhGustaf (talk)

Time to cut the baby in two. For twelve years, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. There's no need to say more than that (although the cited sources do say plenty) and it's neutral. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the matter is covered in the daughter article, and given summary style, this solution sounds fine. PhGustaf (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't adding "non-tenure track" or "non-tenured" in front of professor serve the same purpose? That way it clearly denotes that while he was still a "professor" he was not a "Professor". But on a completely unrelated note. Isn't the entire Early life and Career section too long for a WP:SS section? Early life and career of Barack Obama has about 27k of readable prose, so a proper summary of that article should really only be 5-6 paragraphs long. I've always considered a proper summary of an child article in the parent article to be equivalent of the child article's lead. If this article followed proper summarizing then this wouldn't be an issue because the second sentence wouldn't even exist in this article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

←This again? See Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 24#Professor, for last year's version of this idiotic argument - I suggested wording then which I think stuck for a while, although I don't remember now - close to Sheffield Steel's suggestion: Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School part-time from 1993 until his election... . I'd go with that, or with SS's or with lower case professor which is what dozens of sources use, and I'd suggest we end this. Tvoz/talk 19:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And SS's edit as amended by Wikidemon to read From 1992 to 2004, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. is fine too. Tvoz/talk 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Update to section

I'm starting a new section in case anyone wants to talk about the actual text. I've made a fairly minor (in my opinion) bold edit[4] (after goofing with a big fat typo that Thuranx caught quickly and reverted - my bad) that attempts to smooth out the description of Obama's teaching career. It avoids any attempt to classify what he did, and simply says he taught constitutional (and others - see the sources) law courses at the school for 12 years, and then gives his official position. If anyone wants to go into the nitty gritty about calling him a "professor" or not, and explaining how Chicago actually classifies such things, I don't think that's really necessary but there's plenty of room in the footnote for that. And folks, a strong request with some teeth in it - please keep it on topic and don't use this occasion to complain about other editors. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. If you want to stick in my source, for future reference, then you are welcome to do that too. I'd do it myself but it'd probably get instantly reverted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, looks like I got reverted too! Nobody's immune. Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this person (the reverter) want a vote? I guess I don't understand why we have to call him a professor when it is disputed, takes up room, and when there is contrary and less biased evidence that says he wasn't really a professor. I mean, why the insistence on calling him a professor? Is this wording somehow more accurate? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be me -- I have a comment or two above, but drifted away when the discussion got bulky. My feeling is that he was a de facto professor. His precise title is the detail that belongs in the footnote. The example I gave is that I was a "software engineer" rather than a "Member of the Technical Staff". I thought the discussion was headed in that direction, but I could be wrong. Leaving it as is is fine with me. PhGustaf (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure he could be considered a de facto professor for the reasons I previously mentioned (e.g. no academic papers/research/credentials), but while I agree he may have been called a professor by his students that doesn't make him a real professor. Again, please refer to my source, Richard Epstein a true professor of law at UoC on the subject. I'm not trying to insert into the article that, "Barack Obama was a Senior Lecturer and not a real professor" - I'm just trying to simplify it by removing the extemporaneous descriptor that is definitely disputed and likely inaccurate. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty good reference. But what gets more weight: an official statement from a university or a casual comment at an interview? PhGustaf (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the source. As for that "official statement," it is not only a primary source (which we shouldn't be using) but it also came out in response to a mini-scandal, and UoC (esp. since they get public funding) would definitely have a motivation to make sure Barack got elected and make him look good, which would, in turn, make the university look good. So again, which gets more weight, a reactionary comment from a university public relations office with a likely bias, or the off-hand comment of a real professor without an apparent agenda? More importantly, if the title is in dispute, and there is no real point to including it, then why are we including it? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

←There are plenty of sources that refer to Obama as a "Professor", so I see no reason why this title should not be used per previous (exhaustively explored) consensus discussions. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there are plenty of sources which have repeated Barack Obama's claim - I completely agree with that. However, that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't have the academic credentials of a professor nor has he actually worked as a professor (research and writings are a big part of that). Again, the term is disputed, entirely inaccurate and completely unneccesary - unless we want to continue resume fluffing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In my first post in the parent of this section, I pointed to this source (The New York Times) which refers to Obama as a professor. There are plenty of independent sources that do much the same thing, and they are not "repeating Obama's claim" as you put it. The term "professor" is an ill-defined title that can be applied in all manner of situations, including simple honorifics. Since there is a preponderance of reliable sources that use this term, there is no reason at all why it should not be used. This has been discussed many, many times, and each time we have come to the same conclusion - the term "professor" is fine. Nothing has changed since those discussions took place, except that even more reliable sources now exist to verify the title. Please stop accusing good faith editors of "fluffing" the article simply because it doesn't reflect your personal preference of how it should be. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon's edit looks good to me. Nobody seems to have disputed the claim that Obama was a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer. I don't dispute that he was a "professor" (small "p"). There are now claims that he wasn't a "professor" (even with a small "p"); even if these claims have some merit (and I don't think that they do), let's put them aside for a moment. Most people seem to think that it's worth pointing out that Obama was a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer. (Me, I don't particularly care either way, but for now I'll go along with the idea.) So, a question. Granted that the article is going to say that Obama was successively (with or without quotation marks) a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer, and granted that "professor" (small "p") is "an ill-defined title that can be applied in all manner of situations" (Scjessey), how is the article made more informative by being made to say that Obama was a "professor" (small "p") while he was also a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer? And a follow-up question for those who think it is beneficial: Does the benefit outweigh the confusion likely to arise from saying that he concurrently had an Uppercase title and this lowercase quasi-title within the same part of the same university? In replying, please skip the customary mutterings about the nefarious motives and methods, whether obvious or mostly hidden, of your fellow editors. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

off-topic

Ah yes because the New York Times is a "great" newspaper...good grief. And yes, they, like most newspapers are simply repeating the myth of Obama. You say there is no reason to take it out and I say there is no reason to include it. I have a source that has actual expertise in this area and you have a fluff piece from a biased paper. Uhh...hello? McFly? But hey, I like your argument, "this is what we've always said and so this is what we must always say" - I guess that makes it easy to ignore my new and superior source of information (not to mention one that actually lines up with the facts you always seem to ignore (e.g. no advanced degree in law)). TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Quit with the sarcasm, and the original research. If you can't contribute constructively to a collaborative editing environment, you'll be banned from editing Obama articles. Please read the article probation page if you need a reminder of good practice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What original research? And I can't be sarcastic and yet you easily let people who've had expletive filled rants about anti-Obama people post here? Interesting double standard. And hey "Steel" I do contribute constructively - you just don't like what I contribute. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is with conduct rather than content. If you don't know which comments of yours in this thread constitute original research, I suggest you revise the definition of the term. Essentially, all the statements you are making to argue your case are original research, unless you have sources that you're not sharing with everyone else. A few examples from this thread:

• "he doesn't have the academic credentials of a professor nor has he actually worked as a professor"
• "obviously the university would be a biased source"
• "In my mind, a professor holds an advanced degree in the field they are teaching, trains people up to masters/Phd level in their field, and produces academic writings on their subject. As far as I know, Barack meets none of those criteria and therefore is plainly not a professor"

Hope this is clear enough. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I'm talking about, you refuse to read my source and then you say the conclusions I derived from those sources are original research. My source clearly says that he didn't have any academic output - that is sourced and not OR as you love to claim. Obama doesn't have an advanced degree in law, he merely has a j.d., that's simply a fact - how is that original research? Honestly, it seems like you are looking for the most spurious of reasons to attack me. And yes, the university would be a biased source for the many reasons I've listed such as being a primary source, releasing a statement from a public relations office (whose job is to improve the image of the university and its faculty), being dependent on public funding and actually have at least a million dollars earmarked for them by Obama [5], and having a personal relationship with the man - but hey, I guess I'm being irrational for thinking they'd be an unreliable source. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Was there some reason for highlighting those words after I responded? It kind of makes my response look different. Anyway, you seem to have a problem with my using qualifiers, and yet,there are other people who have used qualifers too like "I feel" - why the focus on my qualifiers? Anyway, the use of phrases like, "as far as I know" is because "as far as I know" Obama has no academic papers, indeed my source appears to confirm this, am I suppose to assume that he does indeed have academic papers? Is that somehow more logical in your mind? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The "professor" press releases came years after the earmark, and the earmark was for a hospital - unrelated to Obama's position as a professor. Academic papers are not a necessary requirement to be called a professor. That's just your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Okay, so he earmarks over a million dollars for the University of Chicago's hospital (a month before his wife gets a 200% raise there), $8 million for human genome research there, which comes out to $9 million total, and then later on their PR office gives him a good statement and they are completely unbiased? Really? Really? You might want to read up on conflict of interest, and you might want think whether it was a good idea to piss off their current Senator/possibly future president or not. Oh, and no academic papers aren't required to be called a professor, hell I used to be called professor when I was younger, but to actually be a professor requires a bit more than lecturing to undergrads - hell, many TA's are called professor by their students. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think y'all need to partake in WP:DENY with regards to TGL. He's spinning off into conspiracy theory arena and there is no need to continue this discussion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly would that conspiracy theory be? Or this simply another accusation to demonize me? AGF? No? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - I was called a professor when I was a part-time lecturer at a technical college. In many parts of the world (and also in parts of the USA), the term is nothing more than an honorific. Therefore, if reliable sources use the term there is no reason why it could not be used here (although it now seems a logical workaround has been found). All the rest of what you said was original research, possibly libelous, and definitely a case of shocking negative bias. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, another accusation of OR - apparently I have to source every single statement and word I make or be subject to harassment. I suggest you read about professors and that all of you quit making spurious accusations of OR. We all know about Michelle's raise right after Barack became Senator - pretending otherwise to accuse me of OR and libel is plainly ridiculous. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accelerated Archiving

Do discussions have to be archived so quickly on this article? Shouldn't they remain up at least a week or so? Some of us would like the chance to participate in them before they're summarily relegated to the dustbin of history. Even if the material is somewhat of a rehashing of issues already discussed, by archiving all such discussions so quickly, many editors are de facto locked out of having any input on them. I'm not suggesting rehashes should remain up for even a month, but at least a week would be nice, huh? Ikilled007 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Typically discussions are archived when they're reached their natural conclusion, but sometimes it is done more quickly as a means of preventing disruption to the Talk page. If you have a new contribution to make but the discussion has been archived, please start a new section. It isn't forbidden to discuss any aspect of the article, and the reception your suggestions get should be based on their merits. I take it you're familiar with the article probation, Biographies of Living Persons policy, and the importance of reliable sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I find that on this article specifically, it's not typical to archive discussions at their conclusions. They seem to be archived before many editors who'd like to have input have been able to add any input at all. Some people only check Wikipedia every 4 or 5 days and sometimes 3 discussions are begun and archived in that time. I mean, if a person shows up once a month and misses a bunch of discussions, that's fine... but if a person shows up every 4 days or so and controversial discussions are begun and archived that fast... I dunno, I can't be the only one who has found this to be a unfortunate trend on this article specifically. Ikilled007 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The threads that are archived most quickly are those that are perceived to be unproductive. At the risk of triggering something ironic, then, did you want to discuss any particular issue about the article? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought that the discussion of "professor vs lecturer vs taught" above was making some progress until it was suddenly archived. It did not appear to have reached a "natural conclusion" to me. But there have been several discussions which I have noticed have been begun and then archived so quickly that it was frustrating. If it happens again, I'll notify you on your personal talk page if you'd like. Ikilled007 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously a bit of a collective judgment call as to when a discussion has run its course in terms of usefulness, and naturally there are going to be times when individual editors disagree with the decision to close a thread (or to keep it open). In the "professor" thread above there was a lot of not very productive stuff and some stuff that perhaps was moving in a more productive direction, though from my (very quick) perusal I'd say more of the former. In a case like that I'd echo what Sheffield said above that starting a new section is completely fine, perhaps saying "I know the previous discussion devolved into acrimony and non-productive suggestions, but I still think we can/should work out issue x, etc. etc."

Ultimately there's no getting around the fact that there is a lot of disruption to this talk page which inhibits article improvement, and it's in our best interests to archive those type of discussions fairly quickly. If something useful is unfortunately lost in that process, which I suppose is inevitable, we can pretty easily begin again. Hope that's helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with (the alarmingly named) Ikilled007, in both the general point and the particular example. Of course it's very tiresome to have to deal with the hairsplitters, fanatics, and apparent borderline loonies who pop up here; so I do sympathize with the emotion "Oh do shut the &%#& up already!" On the other hand I also see an overeagerness here both to ascribe nefarious motivation to suggestions for change and then to dismiss the suggestion as merely a product of that motivation. In such an atmosphere, it's hardly surprising that the guardians of this article (who I think mostly do a good job) are themselves charged with acting to promote a PoV. ¶ Yes, I've read the "probation" text; which reads in part Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith; this makes no distinction between (a) BF assumptions by newcomers about regulars and (b) BF assumptions by regulars about newcomers. ¶ Back to Ikilled007's example of Lecturer/professor. I too thought that the discussion was going somewhere productive when a curiously combative editor jumped in with a mixture of intriguing comments, OR, and wild allegations. But as he's now out of the way (with no argument from me) I think the discussion might be allowed to resume. Not that there's anything that I now want to add to it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Federal Spending in Stimulus Package

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

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

and change it to

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

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

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

How about this instead?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See WP:Summary style. This article links to sub-articles which each go into much more detail about narrower subject areas, and provides a summary of each one. It has to contain less information, on every topic, than the sub-articles - otherwise there'd be no point having sub-articles, it'd be impossible to edit this one due to edit conflicts, the History would spiral to an unmanageable size, the Talk page would be swamped with topics that really weren't important... well anyway, you get the idea. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not be adding too much extra information to it. I would just like to change one sentence. Are you sure there is no way this could be added in?--Joker123192 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It can be included if you get consensus support for it, but the other editors seem to be in favour of reducing, not increasing, the coverage of this bill in articles other than its own. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ in the talk page has a bunch of problems

unconstructive discussion of fringe birth theories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The most glaring one is the obvious linkage to an invalid "birth certificate." TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC) The birth certificate has been vetted by reliable sources and has been authenticated by the State of Hawaii. What's wrong with linking to a picture of it hosted on one of the President's websites in the FAQ? Or are you just here to argue that it's a fake? --GoodDamon 22:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Okay, not even going into the gross inaccuracies/falsehoods of your statement about the State of Hawaii "authenticating" it, the picture of the "birth certificate" says it is invalid if it has been altered, and since it has been altered then it is invalid - that much is obvious by looking at it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is why we don't have a criticism article

unconstructive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because we'd get this: Cheeseburger controversy Obama went to a restaurant in Virginia on 6 May 2009 and ordered a cheeseburger. This sparked controversy for his choice of mustard instead of ketchup and for ordering his burger medium-well.[1] Sincerely, Sceptre (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC) We should definitely have an article called Criticism of medium-well hamburgers, because everyone knows that undercooked ground beef can give you the dreaded lurgy. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Good god man. This needs to be in the lead right away.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

An uncited bit I removed

I removed this uncited bit that also seems like a very POV assertion:

• Early in his presidency, Obama moved to implement the war strategy he had campaigned on, scaling back combat operations in Iraq and intensifying the effort in Afghanistan.

Feel free to discuss, cite and restore as appropriate. Assertions that he implemented something he campaigned on seems particularly promotional considering that content and sources indicating he has broken various promises are excluded from this and most other Obama related articles. I think a straight statement of his policies would be better. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Very reasonable in terms of a removal—it's a failed ref (i.e., the link is dead) making an extremely vague claim and thus has no place in a featured article.

Can we, pretty please, take this moment to revise and extend the section on Obama's presidency? Based on a couple of previous discussions about expanding the presidency section, I do think it's about that time, and probably a few other editors agree on that.

Of course any discussion about how to grow the section on Obama's presidency needs to proceed with all editors involved extending the utmost courtesy to one another. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a dream

"I have a dream" that on some day (maybe in 2080?) there will be a critics section on Obama's page. We are not in North Korea/China/Cuba. Prodtree (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not soap boxing. Do you have anything constructive to say? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is constructive: open a critics section. Yes, I know this is so hard on politics pages, I've many experiences about it in other languages on wikipedia. But why are you Obama fans fear about critics? That would improve the article. Prodtree (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read question 6 in the FAQ section at the top of this page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Compare it by question 9: "This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy." In math it is called contradiction. Prodtree (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)