Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Obama's health report

I've heard many times that the USA presidents health conditions (diseases etc.) are public and we can read them. Where can I downbload them? Why there is no link for that in the Obama's article? Pikacsu (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to research the matter and find the link. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

End of term

There's seems to be an edit war going on over whether it should be mentioned when the current Presidential term ends. Let's discuss this, rather than edit warring. Should it be mentioned anywhere in the article? SMP0328. (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it seemed like an edit war, but I just don't see why the end of term date should be on the George W. Bush article and not this one. Friginator (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted my own revert because I saw that it was in GWB's article before his term ended. Not an edit war. Just a simple misunderstanding. Ward3001 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

←No, not exactly Ward - Friginator put it in, I removed it once, and he put it back instead of coming here to discuss - your edit was after that. Of course what happened on Bush's article doesn't dictate what happens here, but in any case, on the merits: Bush's exit was not put into his article less than a week after he took office in his first term - it was put in some time in January 2008 with some opposition to it, in fact. I think this is a wholly different situation, and it seems inappropriate to me for the introductory section of this biography. The Presidency of Barack Obama article might be an appropriate place for this, but not here, in my opinion. Tvoz/talk 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, and not to be morbid, but Obama's term only ends in four scenarios: forced to remove from office (via legal process, incapacitation, or death); chooses to leave office; or January 20th, 2012 at 12:00pm EST, whichever comes first. Since arguably his term ends based on information and RS we have today, the only "valid" date to put in today is "January 20th, 2012 at 12:00pm EST", the RS that is the Constitution. The only question is 'should' it be in the article. From a purely technical standpoint, sure, it's valid to include it, since only one of those four other events can change the date. It's solely a question of do we put the current "known" date in. I'm neutral on it. rootology (C)(T) 07:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

2013, actually. And it's fair to include, for those who might wonder when his term is scheduled to end. There is one other scenario, that there might be an amendment to change the date. Rather unlikely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not even going to bother logging in to ask. But isn't the constitution a primary source? Don't you have to rely on secondary sources writing about their interpretation of the constitution before you can cite? This does not seem to be one of the instances where a primary source is exempt from the guidelines which apply. Stating primary source information as if it were a fact about the practice of a thing would constitute invalidation of Wikipedia's continued role as a tertiary source. I don't come down one way or the other about the issue of IF the date should be included, but the US Constitution is a primary source document and only suitable for citation when talking about itself. If we're talking about how America's going to APPLY the constitution, secondary sources are necessary. 142.12.15.19 (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If the information is to be included at all, then it's "scheduled as" 1/20/2013. Anything else amounts to crystal ball. And if you find any secondary source that says anything other than what the Constitution prescribes, that would disqualify it as a "reliable" source. January 20th is not like the 1st or 2nd amendments. It's a straightforward and undisputed fact that doesn't require interpretation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All sources require interpretation if they're challenged, since all sources can be interpreted. Independent analysis is the only way to work with a primary source which purports to be a matter of law. Otherwise supreme court interpretations of what information in the constitution means could be declared "not reliable sources" because they appear to countermand or strike down extant sections. The fact that the date is in there doesn't alleviate the need for a secondary source which flatly states the term's end, does it? The remark can be made in general, such as "the date prescribed in the Constitution of the United States of America places his term's end at January 20th, 2013", so that's cool. I thought the proposal was putting something definite like "Obama's term WILL END ON...". And a secondary source isn't invalidated just because it countermands a primary source unless the source is unreliable for all other purposes as well, since there is no inherent superiority to primary source a or b except from terms of understandability and reportage. 142.12.15.19 (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Obama may run for re-election, and the result of a re-election race is obviously unknown, we don't know yet when his presidency will end. Saying His current term will end on January 20, 2013. is a true but meaningless fact and makes it sound like he's some sort of lame duck. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the U.S. Constitution. A Presidential term is for four years. If he wins another election, that's known as a second term. No one has said that when his Presidency will end. Ward3001 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting too hung on the fine details, oddly. His Presidency is not mutually exclusive from his term, he's only "President" beyond the honorific of the title while his term runs. Simply put, legally, he's president unless he's forced from office by impeachment, resigns, incapacitated/death, or Jan 20 2013, whichever comes first. It's just a question of do we list Jan 20 2013 as term's end right now. It would be technically accurate to do so, since we have no reason or source to assume otherwise. That's the only real question. Do we or don't we? rootology (C)(T) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Rootology. Do we or don't we? It's as simple as that. Ward3001 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying we don't. If he's re-elected, he will serve as the 44th president from 2009 to 2017, not as the 44th president from 2009 to 2013 and the 45th president from 2013 to 2017 (see the intro to Bill Clinton or George W. Bush). Yes, this would be two terms and requires a re-election but in this case the presidency is for all intents and purposes continuous. What I'm saying is that although it's true that his current term ends in 2013, stating this gives the incorrect impression that he will stop being president then. The biographically important date will be when his presidency ends which we don't yet know, not the end of his first term. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is getting hung up on the notion of his term not necessarily lasting until that date, how about the phrasing "his current term expires"? That conveys the meaning of why the date has any relevancy. I can't confess to caring whether it has a place in the article. Bigbluefish (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be stupid here, but what exactly is the relevancy? Until he announces whether he's running for re-election, and if so whether he wins or loses, we have no idea if this date has any significance whatsoever. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The man's been President barely a week & there's already discussion over weither to show when his current term ends? GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidents of some other countries are in an indefinite term of office. The timespan of the term is relevant. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

While there is, no doubt, a way to correctly state the information about when a presidential term ends, this seems nowhere remotely close to relevant for the lead of the Obama article (and probably not anywhere in this article). If readers are interested in the legal details of US presidential elections/terms, they can read plenty of linked articles directly on that topic. We're not hiding that information. On the other hand, how this pertains to Obama himself is just WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe he'll resign, be impeached, or die (heaven forbid the last, and all). Maybe he'll not run for second term. Or maybe he'll run and lose. Or maybe he'll win a second term. Putting any such scenarios in the lead is in no way relevant to this biography. Readers don't need speculations and probabilities. LotLE×talk 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the issue of whether we should include anything, I don't think this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue if it is stated that "his current term ends" on a specific date. Even if he left office for one of the unforeseen reasons mentioned above, it's still his term. For example, it was commonly said that Gerald Ford finished the remainder of Nixon's second term, and Lyndon Johnson completed Kennedy's term. Ward3001 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it is not crystal. However, rather than arguing all of this on first principles, why not follow convention? This must come up in every article about every person elected or appointed to a position for a fixed period. How do other good / A / featured articles describe terms for other politicians? Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The WP:CRYSTAL issue is not about the date his first term ends, but about whether the end of his current term will have any special significance. Because he may run for re-election and win, we don't know whether this date will be the end of his term of office or basically just another Sunday. Here's how the only other FAs where this applies treat it:

• Ban_Ki-moon (no mention, but Secretary-General of the United Nations says when the current term ends and that he's eligible for reappointment)
• Richard Cordray (end of his current term is mentioned, but he was elected out of cycle to fill a vacancy so this is not a normal case)
• John McCain (no mention other than that he's intending to run for re-election in 2010)
• Yoweri Museveni (article has sections for each term and lists the current term as 2006-2011)

This is not really a large enough sample to draw conclusions from, but if forced I'd say the prevailing "style" is that the end of a person's current term is not mentioned unless there are special circumstances. President of the United States, which is linked from the very first sentence of this article, clarifies the term of office is four years with a two term limit. If the point is to clarify here how long he might be President we could perhaps change the last sentence of the first paragraph to He was inaugurated to his first term as President on January 20, 2009. which basically says he's expected to be President until 2013 and may be until 2017. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL has nothing to do with whether the end of his current term will have any special significance; that's WP:N. WP:CRYSTAL does not address significance; it addresses whether a future event is likely to happen. And regardless of whether we decide to include the end of Obama's term, it most certainly will happen. WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

From WP:CRYSTAL: 1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and .... Let's turn this around. Regardless of WP:CRYSTAL, are you saying you favor including something like His first term ends in Jan 2013 in the lead? If so, why? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about whether the end of his term should be stated in the article. That is an issue addressed by WP:N, and I'm not expressing an opinion about notability. Of course WP:CRYSTAL says that a future event should be notable; virtually everything in Wikipedia must be notable. But notability is not the major issue of WP:CRYSTAL. I am saying that his term will end whether it is notable or not, and that the concerns expressed by WP:CRYSTAL do not apply. The only concern here is whether a statement about the end of his term is notable enough to include. Ward3001 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you have no preference about whether the end of his current term is stated (particularly in the lead). Is there anyone actually in favor of this, or can we just close this issue? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those who say the term is four years long and ends on January 20, 2013. Anything before that and someone would be filling out Obama's unexpired term. Newguy34 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no question about how long the term is or when it ends. The question is should a sentence like His current term will end on January 20, 2013 be added to the lead or, as SMP0328. asks way up yonder, anywhere in this article? Tvoz, LotLE, I, and (I'll assume) GoodDay are saying no, at least not in the lead. Friginator seems to be saying yes, in the lead. I've suggested an alternative (probably not for the lead) qualifying that his recent inauguration was for his first term (leaving it open what might happen later). No one else seems to be taking a stance. Is that about right? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

One giant impassioned 'don't care' here. Wikidemon (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that there is zero notability about the end of a president's first term, other than for wishful anticipators. It has no place in the article. Tarc (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If he wins the second election for his second term - does he have to be sworn in again ? If so then it ends 2013 and starts again once sworn in 2013 - Also it's not like it's a horse race and if he falls someone else will get the win, he's there till that date and thats it, unless dead, caught with some nasty secret or lie or kidnapped. In the UK we have no fixed term so we wouldn't put a date, you do have a fixed term so I cannot see a problem putting a date. If something bad happens we change the date, if not then it's correct - The Day will end at midnight, unless the earth blows up or we get hit by a meteorite or the sun explodes - the day ends at midnight cause my watch says so.--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's customary to do the swearing-in again when the President wins a second term. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not editors want to call it WP:CRYSTAL (which it is), adding this end-of-term bit is entirely unencyclopedic. For comparison, can anyone imagine adding "end of term" to the article on JFK?! We already know that past for sure, after all, even if we want to describe it as "Johnson served the latter part of Kennedy's term. For that matter, would anyone dream of adding to the article on Nixon that "He was elected to a term ending Jan 20, 1973; and reelected to a term ending Jan 20, 1977". While not quite as macabre, that would be equally strange sounding. At this point, we have no idea what the outcome of Obama's "first term" will be... and arbitrary insertion of content that happens to be relevant to the President of the United States or Constitution of the United States articles doesn't belong in the lead to this article. LotLE×talk 09:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

LotLE, Rick Block, Tarc, et al have it right. With Bush it could be argued that it was notable to include in the lead at the time it was added - January 2008, the start of his last year in office - as a countdown had begun regarding his lame-duck status. We've all seen the "1-20-2009 The End of an Error" bumperstickers and tshirts - the end of his Presidency was, in some quarters, as notable as the start of it. But regardless, a week into Obama's first term it seems out of place and unencyclopedic for this article, particularly for its lead. Presidency of Barack Obama perhaps, but not here. Tvoz/talk 09:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it is not notable, and should not be added to this article.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with LotLe's point. This is at best, a body, not lead para, point for the article about the Obama Administration, not the article about the person. ThuranX (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Steelers Fan

Can we add that he's a Pittsburgh Steelers fan under the Personal section. Here is the source- http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/01/30/obamas-big-endorsement-steelers-over-cardinals-in-super-bowl.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.138.187 (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No. He's a Bears fan first and foremost. And there isn't enough space in this biography for every little tidbit of trivia known about him. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No matter how smart he is about his football, it's not relevant. Grsz¹¹--Review 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Only maybe if he sends a sure-fire play to the coach, the way Nixon did once. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Given all the interest, I'm wondering if it would be a good idea or not to branch off a "personal life of Barack Obama" (or under some similar title) where people could add stuff about chili cooking, sports fandom, basketball playing, left-handedness, favorite pizza topping, etc. I know it sounds like it might be a bad idea, but it just might work. Wikidemon (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That would make it easier to truncate like a dead leaf, in case someone posts an AFD. How about "Worshipful attention to everything about Barack Obama"? I voted for him, but it seems like McCain's comments about Obama being a celebrity were right on the mark. P.S. I'm making fun of the idea, but I wouldn't oppose it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Or better, Useless and completely unencyclopedic trivia about Barack Obama. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And don't assume it's useless. Some readers will want to know not just that he likes chili, but what kind of slow-cooker he uses; the specific kinds of chili beans; the types of spices used; and what brand of antacid he takes when he ate too much of it. The companies that make Tums, Rolaids, and Pepto-Abyssmal will be hanging on every word. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about Information for obsessives of Barack Obama? SMP0328. (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we're putting way too much trivial stuff in this article, stuff like this isn't necessary at all. Wizardman 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We need a separate site called "wikitrivia" to cover this sort of thing. I'm sure it will be at least as well-sourced as "wikiquotes". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I hear he puts two tablespoons of splenda in his coffee, and only drinks using his right hand, unless it's past 11:30 CST, in which he switches to his left hand. Just saying. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard Obama beat up Chuck Norris. It can stay out, it's just trivia... rootology (C)(T) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What was Obama's school performance?

Why there is zero information about his school performance? What was his average mark/how many tests he failed, etc. I think we should write that, even though that was bad/good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.145.160 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We have magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. That might trump any earlier stumbles, if there were any, but I haven't seen a hint of any cite for such. PhGustaf (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Was it ever an issue, at any time? The grades of Kerry and Bush became media fodder during the `04 election, but I don't believe the same ever came about for either Obama or McCain. Tarc (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

McCain was fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis, but nobody brought that up during the campaign. PhGustaf (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know where are you? We talk about Obama's school performance, and not Mccain's or my grandmother's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.144.8 (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be worth discussing and reviewing if we had sources for his college performance, so we could decide if it's worth including (but probably would be better in the Early Life article). Sources? rootology (C)(T) 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Presidency Section

I suggest Section 4 (Presidency) to be moved into a position as 2.4 (under Political Career), seeing how his previous political career is featured there in a time-lined fashion. His career as a President should thus be featured there, as a summary like it is now, with the main article linked to from there! 80.216.56.89 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Presidency is too major to be a subsection, but I added years to the Political Career subhead to clarify. Thanks for the suggestion. Tvoz/talk 07:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First non-white western leader???

I think I would classify Jamaica as part of the west to where they've had black leaders, as well as South and Central America for hispanic people. Therefore Obama isn't even close to being the first non-white leader in the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.112.34 (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about Alberto Fujimori. A Japenese-Peruvian who was President of Peru.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And South Africa is historically part of the west. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review - First 100 days

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4 for a DRV on a First 100 days article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Political positions

I probably have formatted my inquiry incorrectly according to Wikipedia guidelines, so please excuse the mistake. I am concerned as to why President Obama's positions on abortion or gay rights are absent from the excerpt on this page. I recognize that there is an extended page detailing his views (including views on these issues). My honest worry is that people wish to remove these two social debates from the US political sphere. It is dishonest to manufacture an exclusion of these issues on an encyclopedia. Obviously, as an anonymous user, I cannot edit this page, or I would have made good-faith edits.

195.154.156.71 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See Political positions of Barack Obama, where many of the individual issues, such as LGBT and women's reproductive rights are addressed. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I, as I mentioned, was aware of the page devoted to his political positions. I am inquiring into how the political positions extract on this page was decided (I do know there are many edit wars, debates on popular pages like this one). Also, I want to know how can I propose an inclusion, or a further discussion as to why certain issues were highlighted in this page over others. I would contest the right-to-life/abortion debate along with the gay rights issue have importance equally with the other issues presented on this page. Again, I would expect the 'lock' on this article to bar me from edits even with a newly created username. Thanks. 195.154.156.71 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the issues are important — to somebody or other. So I find the rationale for singling these two out to be less than compelling. However, overall the section should be brought more up to date with the main subarticle on political positions, and should specifically attempt to be a summary of the content there. In particular, it currently seems to dwell disproportionately on foreign policy, and gives quite a dated account of his economic policy. Also, I am going to move (right now) the paragraph about the HIV summit to the subarticle. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand revamping in general. I hope, rather than singling out certain issues, to understand why the issues in the excerpt were selected, as well as why others were left to be exclusive to the sub-article. That includes, of course, the two issues I mentioned. It does seem to focus more on economy and international policy, with little substance on social issues. The discussion of Obama's appeal to the evangelicals doesn't reveal much in terms of his political positions.195.154.156.71 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

May I ask the reverse question to you, why do you feel that the Gay Rights/Abortion stances should be placed in the main article over any other issue. Reasoning stands to say that no one issue should be put in the main article and that they should all be left in the daughter article. My thoughts are that we should remove the entire section and just leave the link to the sub article for the readers to follow if they want. That way we are not equating one issue as more important then any other issue. Brothejr (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not be against removing the section. Since I've entered the edit process with the current section the status quo, any inquiry or wish to edit is now perceived as undermining the importance of the other issues. I am not attempting to do so. Instead I wish to learn why these issues were selected above others.195.154.156.71 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The best answer would be that when previous editors were writing that section, they were just showing a wide and very general examples of what his positions are. One of the things that needs to be remembered, is that this article was written in summary style. That means that we don't go into all the details and all the issues. Instead we just cover the over all picture and leave it to the daughter articles to go into the nitty-gritty. Plus, another issue here is what issues you believe in. The reason I say this is that those issues you believe in strongly are going to be the ones that you feel should be highlighted and are the most strongest to you. Yet, this does not mean they are more or less important then any other stance on an issue that Barack Obama takes. Also on a side note: if you truly want to edit this article, then why not take that last step, create an account, edit a few other articles for a very short bit, then come back and start editing here. Having an account does give you more choices and options then anonymous IP editing ever will. Brothejr (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

what is barack obamas position on serbias' kosovo and metohija region? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.187.11 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

see Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Kosovo. Discussion of changing the article text of that position probably belongs on the talkpage of that article rather than this one. regards, --guyzero | talk 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Open intellectual challenge: Why is Barack Obama considered African-American?

See the answer to question 2 in the FAQ. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Washington Post, one of the most respected and referenced newspapers in the world, printed an article in which it pointed out that Obama is not African-American, in the proper sense of the term. An African-American would be entirely (or majority) African in ancestry, and American in citizenship. He is one-half African and one-half Caucasian in genetic ancestry (50/50). Thus, the proper term to categorize his racial makeup is bi-racial. It is not factually correct in any true interpretation to categorize him as African-American. Many people loosely interpret the "American" portion of his ancestry as being synonymous with "white" or Caucasian, and the African portion with his "black" side. This is improper. Unfortunately, there are powerful and widespread political and social pressures to do so, and that is why the term has been misused. What could possibly be any other reason to do so? As a result, to insist on categorizing him on his Wikipedia page, in effect, is to condone and intentionally disseminate false information. I challenge anyone in the world to disprove my argument from an intellectual, logical perspective. Chck castle (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) It doesn't matter. The preponderance of sources say "African American", and he is so recognized by the public in general. Basically, you're making the "he's not black enough" argument, the flip side of the "not one drop" bar that once existed in this country. Everyone knows he's mixed-race, and the article makes his mixed ancestry perfectly clear. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh good grief...here we go again with the African American race thing.

Obama is called what he identifies with. If that's OK with him, then it should be OK with all of us, regardless of what some newspaper is trying to define as "African American" (which it is never in a position to do, in the first place.

A view from a colored, Negro, Afro-American, Black, African American person (yes, we've been called all of these labels throughout our lifetimes) with people in my family from both sides of the aisle...really, becoming hung up of race definitions is not of major importance in the grand scheme of things.→Lwalt ^♦ talk 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FAQ Q2

This is a dynamic website and just because some text stood there for a longer period doesn't mean it can't be changes. In this article we use a broad non precise term. But for an example Rod Blagojevich article talks about the first Illinois Serbian American Governor, not European American, because we know who his ancestors are. Blagojevich calls himself American of Eastern European descent and talks about Serbia as often as Obama talks about Luo and Kenya, meaning rarely, but we still don't use that in the article. But in here we call him African American. (full stop) Despite the fact we know he is first of all not entirely African American and more importantly we know that he is exactly Kenyan Luo American. So in two similar articles in one we use a broad term and in the other article we use the most specific one. Why?

The current FAQ is not some final truth and perhaps we should change it to this:

Q2: The article refers to him as person of African descent but Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Should he be called "person of African descent," "biracial," "mixed," "Kenyan-American," "mulatto," "quadroon" or something else ("African American," "black", etc.)?

A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. However Encyclopedia Wikipedia tries to contain as much as precise information as possible. It tries to avoid media generalization in order to also avoid misinterpretation and defamation and to provide readers with more thorough and encyclopedic data. That is why this article refers to Barack Obama as person of African descent. As you can see in other articles when person's ancestry is known, for an example Rod Blagojevich or Rahm Emanuel, they are referred according to their specific ethnic groups, in this example Serbian-American and Jewish-American. As for Barack Obama this would be Kenyan-American, however Barack Obama is not entirely of this descent. His mother was of white European ancestry and therefore we say that Barack Obama is a person of African descent.

Btw I tried discussing this with one user, but it can't be discussed because he literally wrote to me that he considers talk page correspondence to be harassment. Can we get some input from more serious editors?--Avala (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC) A bit off topic, but Avala is lying when he wrote about me: "he literally wrote to me that he considers talk page correspondence to be harassment". This is my response to him after he used a harsh tone with me about reverting his edit regarding ethnicity against consensus: "please don't make your arguments about Obama's ethnicity on my talk page. It goes on Talk:Barack Obama where the entire Wikipedia community can read it. ... please read WP:HARASS if you plan to repeatedly put your comments on my talk page instead of the appropriate page." Here's the diff if he denies it. Ward3001 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The "current FAQ" is the reflection of the broad consensus that has been reached on this matter. The entry will remain "African-American" unless it is determined that consensus has changed, which appears to be extremely unlikely. otherwise, all this is is digging up the same ol horse and re-beating it. Again. And Again. And again. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus of whom? I don't like such arguments as "oh this is a closed chapter, we decided on that. any questions regarding that are not welcome". Either you can address the specific thing I wrote here (about FAQ) and specific questions (consensus here going against Wikipedia-wide consensus that can be seen in other articles. why?) or you can't. If you can then please do so, if you can't then don't waste your time to write how you are not interested in discussion - if you don't post it will be an obvious thing.--Avala (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To read the history of the consensus on this matter, there are links at the top of this talkpage to the many archived discussions regarding identifying Obama as African American or something else. Consensus has continuously been the former, following the language of the overwhelming majority of reliable sourcing. In short, he made headlines for being the "First African American President", not "person of African descent" .... so we report A-A per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP. To answer your question, comparing this bio to Blagojevich or Emanuel does not demonstrate going against wikipedia-wide consensus -- we can find bios that handle the subjects ethnicity in a wide variety of ways, depending on the subject and the relative notability of his or her ethnicity, etc. We describe the details of Obama's parentage in the appropriate section. thanks, --guyzero | talk 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your constructive answer. However regarding the substance, I am still unconvinced that it is per Wikipedia rules to handle the very similar subject in different manners. It's very hard to find articles that match this one. For an example Alberto Fujimori, it says in the lead Japanese not Asian etc. And regarding Blagojevich - he campaigned as Eastern European American not Serbian American (though some media obviously emphasized the exact ethnic background due to the fact, that like Obama it's rare to have them in top politics). Even in his official biography it says his religion is Eastern Orthodox and not precisely Serbian Orthodox. Yet the article here deals with the subject in encyclopedic manner - it gives precise information. That is why I still can't figure out why do we put Obama on one side and all the other articles on the other side? Consensus doesn't mean much if it was made by people who dislike Barack Obama, if their intentions weren't good, if they edited in manner which can't be described as good faith etc. For consensus as you all know, it's necessary to have prevailing arguments, not votes support or oppose. It's per WP rules that consensus is not a set of votes but arguments. And I am still looking for an argument why are we using incomplete information here. The only thing I get is that Obama refers to himself in general as African American but like I said Blagojevich did the same and many others, they generalized for the media - you don't expect Obama to go around saying "Hi, I am Barack Obama, the first Luo-Kenyan and Anglo-Saxon American president". Nor Blagojevich to say all the time that his religion is "Serbian Eastern Orthodox Christian". Article on Bill Clinton begins with words "William Jefferson" and per this logic, he doesn't use that and everybody calls him Bill - we should drop it? --Avala (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As Guyzero points out, we are bound by what can be verified in reliable sources, particularly in the context that the reference to him being A-A is used. In the context that A-A is being used it is not saying that Obama is only African-American, only that he is the first African-American to be elected president. It's a nuanced difference, yes, but an example of what I'm talking about is Daniel Akaka. One of Akaka's parents is Chinese and the other is Native Hawaiian and yet, it is perfectly acceptable to say that he was the first Native Hawaiian to serve in the Senate and he is also the only Chinese-American in the Senate. The sentence is highlighting the notable part of his ancestry. Applying this to Obama's ancestry, there isn't anything particularly notable about him being the 43rd white person to serve as president that part of his ancestry is not included in the lead. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That I agree and is less important issue to me then the one that says African American when known perfectly where in Africa his roots are. Why are using broad terms if there is specific information? Arnold Schwarzenegger - the first thing we learn in the article that he is Austrian-American, not European American. Why? Because Arnold came from there and it's a known fact. Just like Obama knows his father is not somewhere from Africa but from Nyang’oma Kogelo. E-A term is not widely used like A-A for one simple reason - it is the unfortunate fact that most of the African American can't trace their ancestors to the exact spot in Africa while most of the Europeans know their roots. Nonetheless Barack Obama is luckier, he knows very precisely where his African ancestors are from (obviously because his ancestors came to the US in different time, more recently then ancestors of most of the A-A). So why is it the problem to say "of African descent"? It discreetly covers both the issue of him having other than African ancestors (and without going into unnecessary detailing in the lead) and him knowing his roots. I am not proposing anything radical, just the slight change of wording for greater precision.--Avala (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Because we follow the language that the vast majority of RS's use to describe him: First African American President, which, given the significant number of sources that report this idea, is noteworthy for the lead. The details of his specific parentage (and his father's origin) are also described in the appropriate section, so no information is missing and it is all located in the article with the same weight that the RS's discuss it. If the RS's later give significant prominence (in proportion to the other items in the lead) to the fact that his father is Luo, then we should look at this again, and consensus would maybe change. As a side note, (and I'm not at all trying to be snarky) my own POV -- and presumably that of most scientists -- is all of us are "of African descent", but applying that label to all bios in the encyclopedia would probably not be policy compliant (as RS's don't claim this per subject and it would be synthesis to do so.) Anyhow, apologies for the digression... regards, --guyzero | talk 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but like I said according to that logic we can drop the William Jefferson from Bill Clinton article because no one ever calls him that way neither he refers to himself as WJC. And I think it is rather clear that we when say "of African descent" we mean of Barack Obama as person, not human being.--Avala (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ahhh, sorry, must have misunderstood what you were saying, but anywho, in the US the term African-American is more a representation of race than a country of ancestral origin. So a black person that is from Jamaica may be referred to as African-American even though their lineage is not a direct path from Africa to the US. Granted, in the case of Caribbean blacks, you're more likely to be corrected and informed that they are from the Caribbean, not Africa, but the term still applies to them. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking the question, but I am not interested at this time in a major substantive change to FAQ A2 or the determination it explains of referring to Obama as African-American as a primary racial identification. It's there because it represents long-term stable consensus, and avoids the endless repetition of the exact same discussion every day or two. It's also there because those discussions keep coming up - if 100% of the people agreed we would not need to put it in a FAQ would we? Let's call it 88%-92%. Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the answer to FAQ Q2 and I think it's pretty good (although possibly it digresses somewhat when discussing race in the second sentence). Regarding the article content and lead, the former is meant to provide a comprehensive account of what has been published by reliable sources, and the latter is supposed to be a brief summary of the most important information about the subject. As such it is appropriate that, in the body of the article, we provide all significant information, with reference to what our sources judge to be important, and in the lead, we look at how our sources describe the subject in their headlines and article leads. As others have noted, most sources providing a brief or summary description of Obama describe him as either African American or black. I hope this explains why our article lead uses the term African American. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ is written by people who have followed most or all of the 49 pages of discussion about this article. It summarises good faith discussions in which the majority agreed on certain editorial outcomes. It exists so that people with a particular idea about the article can see at a glance if their issue is a frequently visited subject without reading through all the archives. It presents the rationale by which the consensus has generally been reached.

If you think there is a flaw in the rationale you are entirely welcome to discuss it. However, my problem with your alternative is that the details of his ancestry are not nearly as important as his ethic identity, which is a matter of self and public identification. Obama is African-American, by definition, just as he is also Kenyan-American, bi-racial and so on. What matters is that in terms of historical significance, in terms of the context in the civil rights movement and in American history, the most notable perception of Obama is as African-American. The rest of the article and its sub-articles make it quite clear the specifics of his ancestry and the factors in his racial identity. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I found the term Encyclopedia Wikipedia amusing. Thanks for making me smile. Paliku (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Public Service: Obama Race Arguments Reference

No telling whether it really will help, but I wrote up some of the "We shouldn't call Obama African-American" arguments on my user page, along with responses for each argument. It's effectively a longer FAQ Q2/A2. Perhaps referring the racial identity-questioners to a more complete response will help shorten these endlessly-recurring discussions. I copied the text to my talk page so feel free to comment on my Q's and A's. If it helps we might want to give it its own page. CouldOughta (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You say "Note that there is no Wikipedia page for Person of African Descent, Afro-Caucasian, Luo-American, Other Term I Prefer, and so on. This is just a clue that the term you prefer is not superior to African American, which is a term known and understood by the overwhelming majority of English-speakers". But what about the article for term Multiracial American, where Barack Obama is listed anyway? He undoubtedly is that. African American or black is misleading - looking at the article Multiracial American I learned some new things, which media never emphasize. For some people they always call black, it turns out that they have mixed heritage. Luckily their WP articles are precise - they say in the lead that they are Multiracial Americans. Multiracial American actually doesn't exclude the term African American, on contrary it includes it, as well as any other term that could be used to describe Obama's ancestry.--Avala (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The other aspect of this argument, one that is unspoken, is that the people who do not prefer A-A and say that he should be described as African Descent or Mix-Race have something personal here. Either they completely disagree with the term African American or they do not apply it to themselves, if it could be applied to themselves. There are many variations of that same thought, but it all boils down to the same thing. While this argument is only about the FAQ, it is still exactly the same argument that had been used before. Plus, it will soon lead to the article itself. To restate what other editors have said, we only report what reliable sources call him, nothing more. Brothejr (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition of 'reliable sources', a term this list is very reliant on, is never clearly explained. In my mind, if a cite states something which is demonstrably false, it is by definition NOT reliable on this subject. You've also missed out a big argument - called Barack Obama black is an insult to his mother and generations of her ancestors (not least Barack's maternal grandparents who raised him), by simply erasing their involvement in him. Mr. Obama met his father TWICE and did not like him, so how can his father take precedence over his mother? Another theory is that 'African-American' is an acceptable term for a multiracial person if both that person's parents identified as black - people such as Will Smith, Beyoncé Knowles and Colin Powell can thus be regarded as black. As a counter-argument, Lewis Hamilton's page calls him mixed-race (and notes his 'first black F1 driver' status) in the intro, and Lewis' father has had a much bigger role in his life than Obama's. Barack Obama is the Harvard-educated son of two well-educated people, one of whom happens to be black - his election says little about the plight and achievement of inner-city blacks in most US cities.--MartinUK (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if you have an issue with the term: reliable sources then this is not the place to discuss it. Please bring it up in the appropriate policy: WP:RS. Also, I have not missed a single thing about this argument. A variety of sources that have already been judged to be reliable, accurate, and verifiable refer to him as African American. He allows his friends to call him an African American, and so on and so on. Like I mentioned before, this all boils down to what you perceive him as and how you want the article to refer to him. This argument can be said a hundred different ways with a hundred different types of argument and debating styles, but it all boils down to the same thing. Brothejr (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is denying the fact that Obama is A-A as most of the media call him, but that is only one part of him. Barack Obama is a Multiracial American and while the media might ignore his maternal ancestry as uninteresting we should not do it for the sake of encyclopedic precision. And I have no relation to the term African-American one way or another. I just think that it is not precise in this particular example. This reminds me of a vigorous fight of some users a few years ago to have the article called Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and to use that wording in the lead. And they had consensus so it stayed like that while I was the odd user who proposed to use just Elizabeth II. Luckily Wikipedia matured over time and that as you can see now redirects to the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which talks about Elizabeth II. I am sure that these partisan attempts of users who dislike Obama or who simply can't get a good view over some issues will go away in some time and that then we will have a mature, encyclopedic, neutral and precise article.--Avala (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And I found this interesting text so I will share it with you: "Unless the one-drop rule still applies, our president-elect is not black. We call him that -- he calls himself that -- because we use dated language and logic. After more than 300 years and much difficult history, we hew to the old racist rule: Part-black is all black. Fifty percent equals a hundred. There's no in-between... To me, as to increasing numbers of mixed-race people, Barack Obama is not our first black president. He is our first biracial, bicultural president. He is more than the personification of African American achievement. He is a bridge between races, a living symbol of tolerance, a signal that strict racial categories must go."[1]--Avala (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course Americans of mixed race identify with Obama, and want to claim him as one of their own. They are quite right to do so, their campaign is laudable, and when it is successful enough that most of the media decribe Obama as mixed-race or biracial rather than African American or black, I will be at the forefront of those urging the article lead to change. But until then, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. We report what reliable sources say and we'll continue to do so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well-stated. What we see in wikipedia from time to time is the desire to "set the public straight" about what some editors see as some perceived popular misconception. That is not wikipedia's purpose, and it's why reliable sources are so important. I'll give you a more mundane example. The sources will all tell you there have been 43 men who served as President, but there have been 44 Presidents, because Cleveland is counted twice. I claim that's incorrect, because the President is a man. 43 men, 43 Presidents. There have been 44 Presidencies or presidential administrations. However, the conventional sources say 44 Presidents. Hence, that's what we report also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Many media reported on Obama becoming 44th president, 43rd person to hold an office. Let's not twist it. It looks like a deliberate attempt to present this issue in wrong light. It is quite clear that the fact of his ancestry comes from reliable sources too, sometimes even the same but they don't go each and every time through this. So you will find CNN discussing Obama's multiracial background in one report but in everyday news they will probably not mention it and if they do, they will probably just call him black or African-American. To sum it up: His multiracial background is not disputed, the only question is whether we should ignore it. Just like I said with Bill Clinton - using this logic - what most media use in 99% of the time and what he calls himself we would have to drop the William Jefferson. But we don't. It's another issue where I had a dispute with a bunch of users a few years ago who thought that the article should omit his full name because no one ever calls him that way. In meantime it became an article that features his full name and his birth name in the lead section for which I am glad. I am 100% sure that this article will come to that level of maturity through time, perhaps I am asking for that too early but nonetheless I know it will.--Avala (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's the basic flaw in your argument. You're claiming wikipedia is "ignoring it". That is absolutely false. There is a section in this article that explains it. There is an entire separate article that discusses his diverse family. Your complaint boils down to a claim that "mixed race" should be in the lead. But the sources don't put "mixed race" in the lead of their articles. Nor should we. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The article as it is now is already at that "level of maturity". Perhaps some editors just need to catch up? As others have noted, the only place where this "multi-racial" or whatever the euphemism-of-the-day is is left out of is the lead, since most reliable sources do not refer to him that way. They refer to him as simply "African-American" as a general description, then go into further detail later in their own reporting, if desired. That is precisely what the Wikipedia does as well; the general introduction, then the specifics later on. You're the one trying to swim against that. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that didn't go too badly. I'm a supporter of using "African American" in the lede and following with a clear, early paragraph that makes his heritage clear. My purpose in putting the arguments on my talk page was to provide a reference, and try to create clear, concise statements of the reasons to use "African American". Definitely not to start up the debate here again. MartinUK (talk) has brought up an arguemnt I didn't cover, the loss of Barack's (Nuts! I keep using his first name for some reason!) Obama's mother's contribution to his heritage. Rather than address MartinUK's new argument here, I'll respond on my talk page, since he echoed his response there. We're all free to debate here what term to use; if anyone wants to debate the specific arguments, feel free to go to my talk page. Not to debate what to call him-- but to address & refine the arguments. I'm intending to add all the counterarguments as well; with luck, future debates on this page can be conducted by cutting & pasting from the predefined list of arguments and counterarguments, thus saving time for everyone. CouldOughta (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Television Interviews as President

{{editsemiprotected}} Barack Obama's first television interview as president was with Arab news network Al-Arabiya, in which he stated that it would be possible to see a Palestinian state "that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life." So far, Obama has also appeared on the TODAY show with Matt Lauer, ABC News with Charlie Gibson, and FOX News with Chris Wallace.

The fact that Obama gave his first interview to Al-Arabiya is probably worth mentioning somewhere for its symbolic value, which was quite intentional. However, a generic statement about wanting to see a Palestinian state is something I think every American president has done. Paliku (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with the need for this edit. This is not the level of detail that should be going into a summary style article, and it would seem this would give the event undue weight. Furthermore, "completeobamaspeecharchive.com" is not a reliable source as far as I can tell. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama touches on the theme of Obama's outreach to the Muslim community; currently I think his statements about his approach are more important than specific gestures like this. Let's see if people hark back to this interview when talking about the issue in the future, then it might be relevant. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Agenda as president in lead

There should be a sentence in the lead section about his planned agenda as president, or what he had campaigned on, or however you wish to phrase it. I'm sure there will be a debate over every single word of the sentence, but I think things like restoring America's image abroad (whether the need to do so is real or perceived) merit mention as his central focus was a change from the previous administration. Paliku (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead should represent a summary of the article and even so you have a point here it can't go as far as "cherry-picking" points that one might prefer. Yet a short addition could be added after presenting/discussing it on talk to reach some consensus (especially when it comes to the lead).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a need to add any of this in the lead. The lead is only for the most major over all representative overview of the article. It's kind of like a quick snap shot of the man. I do not see Obama's agenda as that important to merit a line or two in the lead. Brothejr (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Obama's biography, not an article about his presidency. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a valid concern here, although maybe not about his political positions per se. The last paragraph of the lead discusses exclusively his political actions or achievements as a senator. His actions addressing the subprime mortgage crisis and Guantanamo Bay are at least as important and influential as this. I was going to add the following to the lead but then thought that there should be some feedback first:

Upon assuming the presidency, Obama's early actions included steps to address the subprime mortgage crisis and order the closure of Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

How does that sound? Bigbluefish (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still going to say no. I even will go so far as to say that we should remove that paragraph all together. To try an include some but not others brings up questions as to why we note some positions and actions, but not others. To simplify and also to stem any further "why can't we include this..." arguments, I say lets remove the entire paragraph. If people want to find out what he has already done, they can look down into the article or follow the links to the sub articles. Brothejr (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Being Bold I went ahead and removed the paragraph that should never have been there in the first place. The lead is there as a quick overview of the extremely major events of Barack Obama's life covered in the article. It is not there for highlights of his presidential positions, his political positions, stances, or any derivation there of. Brothejr (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Applaudably bold, and I for one agree. I now just wish I had been the one to realise the unnecessariness of that paragraph! Bigbluefish (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of discussions

Is there an article or section related to the Transition Team? Chadlupkes (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Race/ethnicity" section has (presumably by "Wikidemon", the self-styled "owner" of this page) not just been consolidated or shifted to another already existing section: it has, in effect, simply been removed. The contents are no longer available unless one presses a special link to enter the "archive". Wikipedia guidelines explicitly forbid tampering with other contributors' material on a Talk Page. The current treatment of the "Race/ethnicity" section (rendering none of the contributions visible on the main Talk Page, effectively "hiding" it all inside an "archive") is a violation of these guidelines.Jakob37 (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything that can be done to speed the loading of this talk page up, I'm all for it. It's taking forever to load, and old issues that have been discussed ad infinitum don't need to be here. It's hard enough to discuss current issues as it is. Dayewalker (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, there are several other "overly large" sections that could be archived. If User#1 thinks that Topic X is too long and boring, then that user may, without further ado, hide its contents inside an archive. But then User#2 thinks that Topic Y is too long and boring, so that user hides Topic Y's material inside an archive, although User#1 thinks it should stay visible. Is that how it's going to work?Jakob37 (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the issue of African-American, mixed race, Black, designation by oneself vs. by others, etc., this talk page has spiraled completely out of control. I was rather miffed a day or two ago to find that my contributions, along with others, on the subject had, without any consultation, suddenly been stuffed into an archive, and now I am doubly miffed to see that the same subject has grown another head, even much larger than the material subjected to archiving, and yet nobody is archiving it this time -- quite UNFAIR. In any case, the more important point I would like to raise is that 95% to 99% of the contributions on these interconnected topics have no PARTICULAR connection to Obama; these issues are part of the socio-political nature of American (U.S.) life. Since there seems to be no lack of Wiki-editors who love to manipulate other people's contributions, may I suggest that all this material, instead of being archived (effectively out-of-sight, out-of-mind), be used to construct a separate article on "race attitudes in the U.S." or something to that effect (cf. my comment in "Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama" ). The Obama article itself should contain an appropriately brief discussion of Obama's relationship to these issues, followed by a hyperlink to the (proposed) article where these issues are described/discussed in the larger context that they deserve. And the Obama Talk-Page will then hopefully return to a focus on Obama himself. The way that Obama has dealt with these issues is not so different from the way thousands or even millions of other people have done.Jakob37 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC) i have come to notice that some of the people on this board are extremely racist and wont admit in the text of the article that obama is half white ..i understand the importance to some of the people on here that he be considered black but face facts he isnt.. he is listed as the first african american when in fact ,he isnt ..he might be the first half african american ever elected then when a true african american is elected you wont have to undo all the lies you have spouted about this one.this is afterall,a place where people come for knowledge not some general idea that is put forth by some people

Your comments are totally off base from beginning to end. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC) bugs , nice brush off if i am so offbase then why isnt it mentioned anywhere in the text about his white hertitage..people are wanting to claim his citzenship but not the people who gave him the right to that citizenship his black father was not a citizen so why is everyone harping on his race and wont acknowledge the white side ..maybe if this source were more fair to other people there wouldnt be the rage about how a man with dual citizenship got elected president or about where he was born when anybody can have a birth certficate made up with about 30 minutes planning just a little research i can be anybody with a legitament birth certficate if you want to fair to the readers and to the man himself at least make it fair

Have you bothered to read past the first paragraph? Like where it states that his mother was white? Oh, and have you found any reliable sources that don't call him "the first African American President"? Of course he's African American. He's also English American. But that last part is hardly news, as most every President has been European American. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) yes i read the entire article and have seen lots of things about his life not published or ignored but the point i am making which you seem to be dodging he is only half and should be noted that way.. it is not as if it is hidden by him or anybody else if you were half italian 1/4 english and 1/4 russian would you want to be considered just russian ..he is english arabian and kenyan

We describe him the way the reliable sources describe him. And this has been already discussed at length. Your comments bring nothing new to the discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

69.134.20.90 (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC) so you need to change the slogan from "the free encyclopedia" to the free " follow the masses rumormill" if you cant post truths about somebody

First rule: Wikipedia bases its information on reliable sources, not on the "rumormill" and not on someone's opinion of the "truth". Second rule: Kindly put your 4 tildes at the END of your comments rather than the beginning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

my apologies for posting incorectly ,but back to the main argument so you are saying that it isnt a reliable source that he is half white. if it is a reliable source it should be noted in the lead paragragh instead of half way down on one line69.134.20.90 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources, and the wording is proper on that basis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm a bit intimidated by the attention this article receives, I'm not going to repeat an edit I've had to make several times in the past without some feedback. In the "Cultural and Political Image" section, it states: "With his Kenyan father and white American mother". This is a minor issue, but I think that "white" should be removed, simply because it is unnecessary. That he is of mixed ancestry is well-documented throughout the article. Originally, because I hate the whole concept of race, I wanted all mention of "black" (instead of Luo) and "white" (instead of English/American) removed, but as I am mostly satisfied with the White American article in how it addresses race perceptions in America, it works. The restating of it in the Cultural and Political Image section seems redundant if not obsessive. —Godheval^{T C W} 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the term "white", just as I wouldn't use "black" to describe Obama or his father. Since we are talking about the "Cultural and Political Image" section, I think describing his mother as European American would be appropriate. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking it was redundant to mention ethnicity again at all - his father is listed simply as Kenyan, so the mother should be American. If there is need to mention ethnicity again, then either the used White American or European American are fine.—Godheval^{T C W} 20:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Left-handedness

This is just as notable as his cigarette smoking and which baseball clubs he follows. I suggest it remains in the article.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All of those are of dubious significance to this article, which is primarily about Obama's career and major life events. Whether we remove one, or remove them all, we've generally given only light treatment to these less-than-major life details of a purely personal nature. They might be more appropriate for a "personal life of..." article if there is one. Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about him being left handed as all that notable, and definitly not his favorite baseball teams (Are we kidding). Yet his cigarette addiction is notable, especially in this charged climate of anti-smoking, and that fact that he is a role model for millions of our children.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, this is not notable as compared to his smoking and much less notable as compared to what baseball teams he likes. Though, the baseball teams thing could probably be removed too. Plus, it is a poor reason to include it because of the baseball info. Brothejr (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll play devil's advocate for a second. Left-handedness is a pretty fundamental physical / cognitive trait that can make some difference in a person's education and development. Advocates can point to higher accident rates, discrimination, learning disabilities, etc... yet left-handed people as a group are often seen as more creative. The US has had a disproportionate number of left-handed Presidents. There are probably a number of traits of left-handed people that set them apart from the general population to a statistically significant degree. If your issue was left-handedness, the fact that the president is left handed is rather important. So the point is plausible at least, it's not just trivia. I think the issue is mainly whether it is relevant to this article, not whether it is a notable thing or not. Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not notable enough, unless one can find citations from credible handedness/psychology writers relating his handedness to his performance as a lawyer, politician, president. ThuranX (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree with Wikidemon. Being left-handed is a notable thing, although it might not exactly be the most important thing about Obama. But if we're going to remove the statement about his handedness, then the statement about all the sports teams that he follows needs to go, too. Just about everyone is a fan of at least one sport or team, whereas only 10% (if I recall correctly) are left-handed. And there is an article entitled Handedness of Presidents of the United States; there is no Favorite Sports Teams of Presidents of the United States. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Cosmic Latte on this one.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm mildly in favor of including a very brief mention of the left-handed thing. But to include it, I think, as per some other editors, that we should find a citation that says not just the fact that Obama is left-handed but also makes some claim about its biographical significance. Even if it is just some WP:RS speculating that it had some effect on his personality, experiences, etc. LotLE×talk 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hell, just add it to the infobox : Handedness:Left. Die4Dixie (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And how about blood type, astrological sign, and chest size? Well, I'm not sure where I stand. But one request, could y'all please not call things that fall below your notability threshold junk or trash or nonsense? You know who you are! You might startle some people with that kind of language and then they'll be cross.Wikidemon (talk)

(EC)<Sarcasm>Well hell, if we going to include this then we need to also include how he parts his hair, how tall he is, what his first pet's name was, what his first car was, who his first crush was, and on and on. Heck, There are so many insignificant things about him we should include in this article, why should we just stop with his left handedness? We should create an article just on all these things so that people can learn everything about him. Anyone want to hazard a guess at how we should name that perspective article? </Sarcasm> Brothejr (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion yet again

The addition of the second site reflects through the use of the preterit, that Obama is no longer affiliated with the UCC. I believe that we should remove the cite or use it fully to show the separation from the denomination. This is an official communication from the denomination and can thus be used to corroborate that he is no longer a member of the denomination. there is nothing in the article that disputes this : [[2]]Die4Dixie (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I read the article, and typical of anything in which Microsoft is involved (my personal dead horse that that I keep kicking), I'm left confused. The implication is that he resigned from UCC when he resigned from the church, but is that true? I don't mean to impugn the quality of MSNBC journalism, but I am. Anyways, sans verification that he still belongs to UCC, we should remove any church affiliation. Honestly, I think he's non-religious, but that's just an opinion and original research. :D OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I assume you're referring to "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."? I don't think it would hurt to find an addition cite stating he resigned the denomination because I think a writer could easily mistake congregation with denomination. Grsz¹¹_Review 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The source added to his religion box uses the preterit when describing his church affiliation with the UCC, that in conjunction with the AP piece that msnbc promulgated that stated that he resigned from the denomination would tend to be corroborating evidence. I think the gratuitous mention of the UCC cite without more explanation of the resignation and Wright issue is undue weight. I believe we should remove the second citation from the information box, as it does nothing to clarify that he is currently a christian. You are correct in assuming that that is the part to which I referred, Grsz.Grammatically, the church's press release, by using the preterit, shows that he is not in. Were this not so, then it would have used the present perfect to show a continued affiliation.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[[3]] third paragraph. I will try to find the comments from a more reliable reporting source. The one who allegedly stated this is without a doubt a reliable source if he indeed did say this.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[[4]]. The horses mouth. The Obama's are no longer in fellowship with the UCC.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anything changed factually, since the last time this came up? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No; however, someone added a new citation to the box. I think that it should go, or be a lead in to a more developed discussion in the article about Wright and the leaving of TUCC. It is a dor opener that I imagine we don't want opened.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice try D4D, but we're not any closer to resolution on this matter. Thomas says he hopes the Obamas "will consider retaining their United Church of Christ membership" (bold added). You cannot retain something you do not already have. I would like to retain the $20,000 I just spent on a car, but it's not mine to retain. I can, however, retain the $20 that's in my pocket right now. Although it's still vague, to me the statement says that Obama (at least in Brown's view) is still a member of UCC (something that Brown wants him to retain). If Brown had said "return to membership" that would be much clearer. But you can't retain something that you have given up. Ergo, the Obamas have not given up membership in UCC, just the Trinity congregation. So we are left with conflicting sources. Nothing in the article about UCC membership should change, although I don't have a problem with removing the second cite that was added to the infobox. Ward3001 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm asking for. How an individual arrives at removing it is fine with me. The source is clear, however, that they are not in "fellowship" with UCC any longer.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's clear that Obama is not "in fellowship". The press release says "grieve when any of our members chooses to leave our fellowship". It doesn't say he did leave, just that it would be sad if he did. It's too vague. Ward3001 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[[5]] this source refers to his membership in the preterit. It is dated after the other. Preterit is used for completed/finished action. The present perfect would have been employed if his membership continued into the present. This source is an official release from the church.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It says "spent more than 20 years as a UCC member". That's still too vague. I've spent more than 20 years on Earth, but that doesn't mean I have left or that I'm planning to leave any time soon. I don't think this statement clarifies anything beyond what we have already discussed. Ward3001 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have made my point by using a contracted form of the present perfect "I've spent" ( for I 'have' spent). If you had said " I spent 20 years on earth," it would mean there was some interruption to your presence on earth and that it was a completed event.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree again. I spent 20 years on Earth. I plan to spend many more years on Earth. But all of this is extreme semantic quibbling, and I don't think we can reach any conclusions analyzing to death a couple of words that the writer probably didn't give two seconds of thought to. Ward3001 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take a wild guess here that "in fellowship" is a flowery term for "attending", or attending on a regular basis. I get the feeling this may have been brought up before, but has anyone contacted the church hierarchy to find out definitively whether Obama is still considered to be a member or not? So far, what we've got are smidgens of comments from different writers that we're trying to interpret like some Papal pronouncement from 500 years ago. How about actually asking someone that knows? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That might be interesting info and I'd love to have it, but for Wikipedia's purposes, as you probably know, it would be off limits because of WP:NOR or WP:SYN. But the UCC hiearchy might point us toward a published source that's clearer. My guess however, is that the top dogs at UCC might not know or might disagree with each other. I doubt that anyone speaks with the authority that the Pope or Cardinals have in Catholicism. In fact, that's probably one reason we can't get a clear idea of what the truth is, if there is a truth here. This may remain vague unless/until Obama makes a clear statement, which may never happen. The Obamas may just simply start attending a church and, as we have discussed, attendance is not necessarily equivalent to membership. Ward3001 (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Not as a source, but as confirmation or to tell us where to go, so to speak. And if the hierarchy can't even agree on what their own rules are, then the so-called reliable sources have no basis for whatever they might say, and therefore there is no choice but to say his church is still UCC until he declares otherwise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I offered to contact the Church directly if the community would accept their response, but was not encouraged by the lack of interest. If you are interested, I will do it and make any response, favorable or not, available to whomever desires to see it. If they are truly still members of the denomination, nothing would make me happier that an accurate reflection of their status. Accuracy is my only agenda with all this.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask. It may or may not help clear this up, but it can't do any harm. I think we need (1) their general rule for a hypothetical situation that matches Obama's; and (2) their position on Obama specifically, if they ineed have a position on it (they might or they might not). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Their denominational head quarters are closed. I will call in the AM to get the email address of the answerer of questions :). I will identify myself as an editor here at Wikipedia, state that editors would like a definitive answer if it is possible to give one, and that our goal in asking is not to disparage nor denigrate the denomination nor the Obamas, but rather encyclopedic accuracy.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually D4D, there isn't any question whether "the community [Wikipedia] would accept their response". We can't. Policy is very clear: no OR or synthesis. The most we can hope for is a suggestion by UCC about a published source specifically about the Obamas. Even if they direct you to one of their general policies, it violates WP:SYN for us to apply that to the Obamas. We can't interpret their policies. I also would oppose a statement such as "The Obamas resigned the Trinity congregation which, according the UCC policy means ..." That's synthesizing information not specifically pertaining to the Obamas and reaching our own conclusions. Whether our conclusions are right or wrong is beside the point. Either way, it violates WP:SYN. Ward3001 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The need at this point is to try to find the right answer. That should make sourcing easier. Right now the so-called sources, which are little more than offhand comments in news sources that contradict each other, are of little use. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I just don't want us getting swept off our feet in the excitement of a general statement by UCC and applying it the Obamas when we are not allowed to do that. Then we have another lengthy debate on this page. We can put UCC policy on United Church of Christ, but we can't put it on Barack Obama and imply something about Obama's church membership. That's where we cross the WP:SYN line. Ward3001 (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with OM. I read all the above citations and sites as saying that Obama left both his congregation and the denomination following the Wright second shitstorm. Some articles note he hasn't been back to any church much since, and has picked no church or Church as his new choice. Hardly the actions of a man secure in his faith. ThuranX (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be an original-research conclusion. He's been kinda busy. It would be interesting to find out if the family has attended any DC churches at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thuran, Obama has also said his faith is not contingent on his church affiliation. The question for me is not if he has faith or does he have security in that faith, but rather if he has an official affiliation or denomination.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with D4D here and as long as there are no reliable sources about his up-to-date '"affiliation or denomination" we should just leave Christian in the info-box without foot notes, remarks or what-so-ever.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with just "Christian" in infobox and no footnotes, but there should be no statement in the article that he has left UCC. That just isn't clear. Ward3001 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It would leave us all in a strange place : We would know the fact had a positive (or negative) truth value, but would be unable to allow the article to reflect that truth. (I also responded to one of your earlier comments above, Ward)Die4Dixie (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The info-box and the article are two different issues, so I say. Of course details of his past can and should be included in the article or a sub [aren't they already somewhere? At least they where at some point].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And if Die4 can get the "official" answer, that should tell us which sources to use, if any. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult to get anything "official" from so non-hierarchical and Congregational a group as the UCC. The pastor's blog D4D cited isn't much of a source. "Christian" is fine in the infobox until something interesting happens. PhGustaf (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This source seems to take the synth problem away from us, and connects the dots, again from UCC:[[6]]Die4Dixie (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again, D4D, but I must differ. If you're referring to the statement "withdrawing his membership from the church", are we talking about the church known as Trinity, or the church (Church?) known as UCC. In fact, the statement is made immediately after reference to Trinity, thus raising much doubt about the possibility that it refers to UCC. It still is not clear. Someone can belong to St. Thingamajig Church, or the Worldwide Church of Whatsits. We don't know what "church" refers to. I applaud you tireless efforts to get an unequivocal source, but this is just too vague. Ward3001 (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more about the 5th paragraph and the sixth where the connection between leaving TUCC is turned into how UCC members lament the breaking of fellowship. Perhaps still a tad ambiguous. Are emails ever considered reliable sources? I know that I have been able to use them for MLA styled papers and scholars certainly use letters in their scholarly writing. Anyone know if an official correspondence from the denomination would be a reliable source?Die4Dixie (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not really unless there is a third party source confirming such statement.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My response was to e-mails, just to clarify.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"5th paragraph and the sixth where the connection between leaving TUCC is turned into how UCC members lament the breaking of fellowship": Except it doesn't say he left TUCC. It says he withdrew "his membership from the church". Trinity Church, or UCC?? Back to square one. Ward3001 (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the ambiguity and seeming contradiction among the sources. The possibility has to be considered that the sources may not know the right answer either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to the email question, forgive my ignorance, but isn't there something about emails sent to the mysterious "OTRS" being official if the source is verified as authentic? I've never understood OTRS, but I see the term tossed around as a way to verify something like an image as authentic. It's probably a moot point anyway because I think there's an iceberg's chance in Hades of officals at UCC making an official statement about Obama's membership. Ward3001 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Whatever the UCC would state we could only use it as a statement of theirs, not as a fact. To use it as a fact we need at least one reliable 3rd party source.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but basically there are 3 possible answers to the question "Is Obama a member of the UCC?" - (1) "Yes"; (2) "No"; (3) "I don't know." Let's see what they have to say. We're waiting for an answer like it was an expected child. Give it a chance to hatch. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer number 4: We don't give out personal information about our members. Ask Mr. Obama. His number is 202-456-1414. Ward3001 (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Silly me. Yes, that's the most likely answer. Die4 could still pose the hypothetical and see what they have to say (or if they hang up). Thanks for posting the number for the White House. I'm thinking I'll call him right now and tell him to drop whatever he's doing, like trying to fix the world's problems (or watching Leno or Letterman), and answer some nosy questions from a wikipedia busybody. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When you make that White House phone call, mention me, because I know how we can fix many of the things that need fixing (or poke fun at if we can't); the burdens shouldn't be all his. Modocc (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

To turn this discussion in a more productive direction, I suggest that the following Newsweek article should be added to the article as a source on Obama's faith: Lisa Miller; Richard Wolffe (July 12, 2008). "Finding His Faith". Newsweek. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you leave your crap out of this discussion since you don't seem to understand the point anyway? Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's really not helping here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That article is pretty much all speculation, as well as being half a year out of date. It's a good thing nobody pestered Lincoln about this stuff, or wouldn't have stood a chance. Lincoln was, in fact, probably the closest thing we've had to a non-religious or non-Christian President, although he seemed to gain faith as time went on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a "horse" in this race, as it were. But the Newsweek source appears to be about two years more current than the other sources for Obama's religion. Regardless, it is some further somewhat in-depth coverage of Obama's religious beliefs from a major US news outlet. I'm sorry if Newsweek is taboo, and I also agree that the article isn't great, but you seem to contend that Newsweek is no longer a reliable source for anything pertaining to Obama's religion. I find this puzzling, as well as the above comment by MCK. Did I miss something? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for refactoring your comment, Silly Rabbit :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for your reception. The answer that we were searching for was about present affiliation. I certainly don't think your offer was crap. I have no idea if you have any history with clean keeper. I'm not sure how the information would fit in, and what information from the article/piece you would want included. Again, the reception was less than amicable, however I believe the fellow explained it didn't have anything to do with you personally. I hope he will reconsider, and that you will continue to contribute here at this and related pages. Another voice would be welcome, whatever the point of view.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have spoken with the denominational headquarters and have received an answer to our question. I am unsure how to share it with the community. Please email me via Wikipedia and I will forward it to those who are interested.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The postulated four possible answers to the question, "Is Obama a member of the UCC denomination," were (1) Yes (2) No (3) We don't know (4) We won't say. Which of those four best describes the response you got? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Because of the reluctance to come forward on Die4Dixie's part, I'm guessing their answer is "Pending" thus is both 3 and 4. They won't say we don't know, and are giving Obama an unofficial grace period. So lets label this answer 5, cause I don't care to begin secretly inquiring into unofficial emails responses. Modocc (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I spoke with Barb Powell by fone, and then sent her an email which she had agreed to answer. According to her, Obama ceased to be a member with the termination of the TUCC membership. She expressed the hope that he would reconcile. This is not a secret email, however, I used my name and school email account. I expect one might understand why I would prefer to forward this to those who are comfortable with me having their email addresses. Nothing secret nor sinister about that. If anyone has had experience with this kind of thing, could they tell me if there is a forum where by admins can authenticate an email and remove the personal information and share it with the community at large?21:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the correspondence, with Die4Dixie's real name removed. Looks to me like this is solid enough to keep out assertion of UCC membership (though not verifiable enough to assert UCC non-membership.)

Dear Mr. "Die4Dixie",

Thanks so much for contacting us.

In the United Church of Christ, membership resides on the local church
level. When someone joins a local congregation, that person becomes a
member of the UCC. Similarly, if one resigns membership from a local
church, the person technically ceases being a member of the UCC. If a
person then joins a different UCC congregation, he or she is, once
again, a member of the denomination. The United Church of Christ is a
non-hierarchical denomination, and the relationships between its
settings are covenantal. The local church, then, becomes the
determinant for membership. Therefore, at this time, the President and
his family are not members of the United Church of Christ.

Thank you for taking the time to inquire.

-- Barb Powell


---
Barb Powell
Director for Production and Administration
UCC Proclamation, Identity and Communication
700 Prospect Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44115
216-736-2175
<email redacted>



>On 2/3/09 12:07 PM, "Die4Dixie" <someone@some.college.edu> wrote:

Dear Ms. Powell,

I am an editor at Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone can not
only use, but also edit. In such a project, it has proven necessary for
the community to implement rules that govern the the way that we decide
what can be used to write articles and the manner in which it can be
used. As a community, we strive to present factual information in a
neutral way, and are particularly mindful of the information that is
added to biographies of living persons.

Currently, the article on President Barack Obama reflects that he is
Christian. Until the last week, the article reflected that he continued
to be a member of the UCC. As editors, we are unable to read the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Church and apply our personal
interpretations to arrive at a determination as to if the First Family
have retained their membership at a denominational level. Some of the
national media reports have also interjected a degree of ambiguity. In
light of this ambiguity and our prohibition on original research, a
group of editors felt that direct contact with the Church might help to
clarify the situation.

We would be extremely gratified if you could explain to us the Obamas'
current official relationship with the Church, and specifically if they
retain membership at the denominational level and the reasons they do
or do not. Your response will be shared with other members of the
community in order that the article be as accurate as possible.

I want to thank you for your having so graciously called me and for
your time and willingness to help us clarify the matter.

Sincerely,
"Die4Dixie"

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's really cool (I mean, the process, no opinion about the substance). There are some sourcing problems to work through I suppose, but that's as close to the horse's mouth as anyone ever gets on Wikipedia... Wikidemon (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we import the following (along with its link to the Wright controversy sub)?

From "Religious affiliations of United States Presidents":

Christian/formerly United Church of Christ.[Footnote]: http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/obama [Footnote]: An Associated Press wire story on Obama's resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ in the course of the Jeremiah Wright controversy stated that he had, in doing so, disaffiliated himself with the UCC. (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27775757/.)

↜Just me, here, now … 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• The fact is, most Christians have had denominational affiliation. The "religion" entry in an infobox is usually used to fill in the public on this point. Obama is formerly UCC, and otherwise is unaffiliated. Should this be included in the infobox with wording akin to the "Religious affiliations of United States Presidents" article's "Formerly United Church of Christ"? ↜Just me, here, now … 00:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your reliable source that he is formerly UCC (and the email above is original research). If you can't come up with a reliable source (and none of the rest of us have been able to do this), it can't go in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, the reason I started this thread was to discuss this issue in more detail. Those who mentioned in the above thread that they favor no mention of Obama's former affiliation should be allowed to defend their positions in this one. For example, D4D mentioned that the UCC should only be referred to if the Wright controversy was; but this objection may be met by way of my suggested edit's inclusion of a link to the article about the Wright controversy in its footnote. ↜Just me, here, now … 00:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well looking at it, Obama has not picked another denomination to associate with. It is clear he is not part of the UCC anymore. So for now I feel that the religion part should just be left as Christian. I also see this as a way to bring the Wright controversy back into the article and give it more weight then it has now. Personally, I do not see a need to rush and do this now, next week, or next month. Obama will be in office for at least four more years and in that time he will most likely make some kind of announcement as to which denomination he chooses to associate with. I do not think we should or need to be rushing things and there is certainly no urgency to decide this now. Brothejr (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your reliable source that "it is clear he is not part of the UCC anymore" (and the email above is original research). If you can't come up with a reliable source (and none of the rest of us have been able to do this), it can't go in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Which source claims Obama still is a member of the UCC? The UCC itself says that Obama was a member of the United Church of Christ for over twenty years. Then the Jake Tapper piece fleshes out the fact that Obama is no longer a member. Although I've never been a Protestant Christian, I've been somewhat curious about the rationale behind the various Protestant denominations for some years now...therefore I sensed that historical Congregationalism was not a-Church-one-"belonged"-to through baptism so much as it was a "congregation" of fellow believers who accepted a "Calvinistic understanding" of the Christian creed -- and thus had the hunch that the premise we've been arguing -- namely, whether a member of the UCC (one of the main, contemporary inheriters of Congregationalism) would still be UCC despite having quit his congregation -- would be out of synch with a basic premise of Congregationalism. Which is "original Research," I know. But, after we add in the UCC citation and Tapper, what more encyclopedic homework need be done? ↜Just me, here, now … 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer my own question: I guess if someone believed in Congregationalism -- and this despite their not being a member of a congregation of such believers -- they could remain a Congregationalist or self-identify as one. So I retract my statement immediately above. ↜Just me, here, now … 02:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC) (PS I'd gotten this article by Jake Tapper confused with D4D's AP piece. Sorry.) ↜Just me, here, now … 03:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Which source claims Obama still is a member of the UCC?": First, that's not needed. If you want to say "formerly UCC" you have to provide a source that says he is not UCC. That's what much of the earlier debate focused on. Please read it, including the archives. Secondly, I did provide a source earlier: [7]. Again, please look at the archives.
As I have said, you have provided no new information. This issue has been discussed in detail. Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We wnt to the proper board and consensus was that that was not a relaible source.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Amended proposal

Instead of "Formerly UCC" we simply state Obama was a member for over 20 years, leaving his present identification ambiguous (retaining our mention of his having resigned from Trinity and our link to the Wright controversy article in the footnote). ↜Just me, here, now … 02:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree to this proposal. I think most of us in all the previous discussion came to the conclusion that identifying him in the infobox as simply "Christian" will suffice, and details about his leaving Trinity (but not UCC) can be provided in other parts of the article. Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Combine the email that confirms the reliable source ( the ap story that I have linked to ad naseam) and we have grounds for formerly. The email corroborates the ap story. Don´t believe the email, email me and I will send you Barb Powell´s number. christian is fine. Mention UCC, and we have to deal with Wright. Leaving a denomination after 20 years is a significant event in the life of a person of faith, which Obama claims to be. As far as the other page, the article (ap source) is reliable for formerly on that page. I don´t understand what the problem is here other than disruption.I have reomved protesdtant as it is ORDie4Dixie (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the email is OR and not available for official use, so it does not officially corroborate anything. It might be interesting info for us as individuals, but it is simply not a part of this process. We all agreed in good faith before even contacting UCC headquarters that such information cannot be used in the article. So we are left with conflicting sources about "formerly UCC", and, with respect, I consider it bad faith to now try to change the good-faith agreement (not to mention violation of WP:NOR) and try to circumvent the previous discussion by using email to decide the issue of "formerly UCC". And please carefully note the words of admin jpgordon about the email: "not verifiable enough to assert UCC non-membership". If we follow such a path I will not hesitate to go to RfC, mediation, or arbitration. Ward3001 (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don´t know where bad faith comes from. I just reverted the article to the consensus version, which I want to maintain. The about.com, per consensus at the prper board is not rliable and the other source that claims he is in the denomination was considered suspect by others here as to if it is a relaible source. Please note: I want to maintain Christian, and nothing else. The email is not OR, it is a primary source, and they are usable, in certain circumstances, if the article is not based on them. I am not pushing this. So , please assume good faith ,and not BAD Die4Dixie (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And please behave in good faith if you want me to assume it. Please explain, in detail with links to Wikipedia policies, how an email sent to an individual user, which is not in any published work or on any reliable website other than Wikipedia, is not OR. And the about.com is no more suspect than the possibility that the writer of the msnbc article simply misstated himself. Let me repeat for about the fourth time. There is nothing new here. We simply have the same discussion popping up again. And at this point we certainly don't have consensus to state "formerly UCC". Ward3001 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you are trying to pick a fight that I do not want. I am in favor of the consensus version we have. ¿Why are you being so god cursed antagonistic?Die4Dixie (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm fine with using "Christian" and with taking out "Protestant". Where I have a HUGE problem is trying to slip the email in under the radar as an acceptable source for "formerly UCC" and pretending like it's not OR or that we have a consensus for "formerly UCC". Drop that issue and we're fine. Ward3001 (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell your not trying to pick a fight. Nobody wants to slip a fucking thing under any damned radar. I converted the article back to the fucking consensus version. I have not suggested we had any consensus for formerly UCC on this page. I was referring to the page that Just me mentioned. Now if you want to be pissy about it, I'll get fucking pissy. You have accused me of bad faith several times tonight. Now if you like, I will take the other pitiful source that you offered last week declared as unreliable as your about.jokes.com offer and have the ap article review as to if it is a reliable source and run with it. Now if you doubt the veracity of the email,( Barb informed me that she does the PR at the denominational level) or truly believe that he is a member of UCC, then say so. We can get this in with out the email. I'm happy with Christian. Now it might be more productive to find who ever keeps putting in Protestant and jump his shit. i'm only saying that if you mention UCC there, we will discuss Wright. I have a shit load of reliable sources about their relationship. Drop ity? You're the only one that has picked anything up.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I "doubt the veracity of the email". I said that the email is OR. And if you will read your words above, you're trying to say it isn't OR. There's a difference between "veracity of the email" and what is considered OR. Please read WP:NOR. I have no opinion about the Wright matter at this point. My only concern in this discussion is using the email to determine the contents of the article, in violation Wikipedia policy. I do believe you received the email, and that you received it as it is written above. The issue is not your truthfulness about the email. I believe the email is genuine. But that does not mean it is not OR. Why do you think admin jpgordon said "not verifiable enough to assert UCC non-membership"? Why do you think Wikipedia articles aren't full of citations to personal emails? It's because the email is OR, plain and simple. And if you think an email sent to an individual user is not OR, please give me the policy stating such. This is the second time I've asked you to do that. If you are willing to acknowledge that there is no such policy, then you and I are fine and we can bury the hatchet. But I don't intend to see anyone run roughshod over WP:NOR, whether you or anyone else, so please don't take that personally. You did a great job getting that email. But that doesn't negate Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. The AP reporting is by definition a reliable source. The AP is explicitly mentioned in WP:RS to be a relible source. The idea that he might have mistated is lunacy. The email cannot be cited in the article. You are absolutely correct. The AP source can. The DC gossip mongering publisher that doesn´t enjoy a history of fact checking is unreliable. As I have looked more deeply into the source, the more troubling it is. About.com is unreliable. It can be verified that the publisher has stated that she doesn´nt know sht from shinolah about the issue. Now I am happy with Christian. If someone wants to build a consensus in usuing the AP source to say formerly, then I am willing to discuss it. If no one does, then it should remain as the consensus version. If someone wants to take the other source you offered last week that contradiscts the AP source to the reliable source board, then I will support that too. The AP source alone, with about.com already being declared unreliable and the other source likely to be, would stand alone and support Justme´s proposal. Hatchet buried.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

.Oh by the way, Mary just updated your about.com article that you have maintained is reliable. You might want to check it again. Quote "I did provide a source earlier: [8]"Die4Dixie (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, hatchet buried if you're not trying to use the email in a non-OR manner. And now that about.com has been updated, I think there is more weight to the position that "formerly UCC" might be used, although we still need consensus. And I'm with you that anyone can discuss using "formerly UCC", but currently there is no consensus. I've never felt that "formerly UCC" was an erroneous statement per se; I just wanted it decided by consensus. I really don't think you and I had any new differences of opinion until you made the statement that a personal email is not OR. That's really the only point where I had a serious problem. But as long as you don't push the issue of the email as not OR, I think we are OK. Sorry if I overreacted, but it was more in defense of policy than anything personal about an editor. I do sincerely believe you did a superb job getting the email, and it convinced me that we should just use "Christian" unless another consensus emerges. Ward3001 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my intemperate language and my abiguous statements. I should have said that the email should allow us to evaluate the other sources. We cannot quote it directly in any article; however, I think that common sense would allow us to have it in our minds. I am half tempted to contact that Hill source and ask them to run a correction. It would seem that it was more likely that that gentleman made the offhand remark than the AP reporter. Again, I apologize for my attitude.Die4Dixie (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems this forum is being "Baled" (...'though I don't know which of us arguers is Christian Bale.) ↜Just me, here, now … 04:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

D4D → Sms your usr nam should b Di4Dixi.<wink> ↜Just me, here, now … 03:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

New laptop.Spell check is in Spanish and I am a lousy typer. We used pencils when I was a kid.;).Die4Dixie (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

<laughs>

Re BHO/Protestantism (being "O.R," etc....): I think it'd be totally cool if he started attending an Eastern Rite church! :^) ↜Just me, here, now … 03:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that the email, although a primary source, since it's not published, would make for a problematic citation.
• ^Y Nonetheless I boldly implemented my subsection-opening proposal, which is adaquately supported by an agreement among current, reliable sources. ↜Just me, here, now … 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of men serving as President

Some weeks ago, someone was making a thing over Obama saying that 44 men had taken the oath of office. It occurs to me that while Cleveland counts as 2 Presidents but only as 1 man (even though he was big enough for 2 - n'yuk, n'yuk) that Obama may have been right, even if for the wrong reason. Cheney served as acting President a couple of times during Dubya's administration, and presumably he would have taken the Presidential oath of office. Voila. 44 men. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Except the same could be applied to Bush Sr following the assassination attempt on Reagan. Technically, Secretary of State Alexander Haig at one point claimed he was in charge while Bush Sr. was in transit. In which case, Obama was still wrong because if you count "Acting Presidents", there have been 45 or 46 men. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that Bush Sr eventually became President anyway. And I do recall Haig saying he was "in charge", but I don't think he was ever constitutionally the Acting President, since there was no declaration of disability by Reagan or Bush Sr at that time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I never thought of that. When Younger Bush went under the knife, did Cheney actually take the oath? What about when Reagan and Older Bush, and Clinton and Gore, and anyone that came before? I usually know all this Presidential trivia, but I have no idea on this one... rootology (C)(T) 01:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Vice President takes his own oath of office when he is sworn in, so I don't think he needs to take the Presidential oath of office before serving as "Acting President"... his Vice Presidential oath of office would suffice. I think he only needs to take Presidential Oath (which is different than the VP one) in the event that he becomes the actual President... I could be wrong on this, but I don't think so. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out for sure. Not that it matters much. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If a person is Acting President, it means he has the Presidential powers without occupying the office of President. The numbering is based on how many times the office has changed hands (that's why Grover Cleveland counts twice). Neither time Dick Cheney was Acting President did he enter the office of President, so he doesn't count towards the numbering of Presidents. As for Al Haig, he was a usurper. SMP0328. (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's 44 with an asterisk, then. :) As for Al Haig, he was called other things that were less polite. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not "Acting Prez" for Haig, since not even in his twisted fantasy were the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tem of the Senate also disabled. There aren't many polite words to accurately describe Haig. LotLE×talk 07:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Aw, poor Al. He was just trying to help even though it did sound a bit like a coup . Tvoz/talk 07:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe people are trying to defend Obama's misstatement. He (and probably his speechwriter) simply got a little confused by parroting the official count. I doubt it had anything to do with some sneaky, technically correct definition that only some political junkies would be aware of. marbeh raglaim (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Defending" is a little strong. As I said at the time someone brought it up and was trying to make a big deal out of it, it's entirely possible they said it the way they did just to keep things simple and not divert the inaugural address into a classroom lecture about the two Cleveland administrations. When I was reminded of the "acting President" situation, it occurred to me they might have been right after all, but just for the wrong reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the famous JFK statement, "Ich bin ein Berliner," and how, by his not-quite grammatical statement, he was literally comparing himself to a pastry. I asked a German colleague about that once, and he said, "We knew what he meant." The meaning can be more important than the pedestrian details. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that the JFK story is an urban legend (see Snopes for the details), but I get the point. Being a political junkie myself, I noticed the error as soon as Obama said it, but I knew that if I heard anyone point it out, my reaction would be to roll my eyes and say, "Whatever." marbeh raglaim (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, VP Cheney in 2002, 2007 & VP Bush in 1985 did not take any oath to assume (under the 25th Amendment) the Presidential powers & duties. During those incidents both men continued as Vice President. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what Snopes says but "ein berliner" is a pastry in Germany. The grammar of his statement was akin to saying "I am a German" vs. "I am German". But, as Bugs friend pointed out everybody knew what he meant. Same as in English when a person says "I am hungry" no one actually thinks the person has turned into the embodiment of hunger. As for the "44 men" thing, what I understood he was referring to is the recitation of the oath of office. Since it's done every time, re-election or not, VP promotion notwithstanding, it's been given 44 times now (his being the 44th). Right? Padillah (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Listed occupation or profession

(I.) Should we take off "Community Organizer"? (II.) "Politician"?

This is not something to be placed on the greater scale of someone who ranks as high as the President of United States. --96.232.61.149 (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, scratch that part of his resume. Let's try instead that he was a war hero. No? OK, how about hot-shot plaintiff's lawyer? ...A television evangelist? A business tycoon? </sarcasm> ↜Just me, here, now … 06:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does not seem to be a significant part of his professional development, more like an occasional duty at some of the political positions he held.Wikidemon (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep it. If only to encourage other Community Organizers who might be President some day. Come on, it's an important part of his career. PhGustaf (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep it. His role as a community organizer turned out to be pivotal, as it was where he honed his skills for politicking, public speaking and mobilizing people. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama is also on record saying that he views the Presidency as a large-scale community organisation project. It is an important part of his background. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

" former community organizer"? BTW, WIkipedia does not exist to offer career encouragement for would be organizers.Die4Dixie (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Ronald Reagan's acting career and Gerald Ford, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Grover Cleveland's law careers, to name the other presidential FAs, ended long before their ascension to Presidency. That space in the infobox is specifically to list previous notable professions, and Obama's pre-political career is without question defined by community organising. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds right, even if gustafs reasoning was specious.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

← And it was just removed yet again, despite this discussion, by an editor who seems to think that consensus doesn't apply to him. I personally don't care if it's in or out at this point, but I do care if it keeps getting changed. So are we in agreement that his profession should read Community organizer, Attorney, Politician? I am going to temporarily revert to that if it hasn't been done already, pending the outcome of this conversation for the 9,999th time. Tvoz/talk 01:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Ah - I see Gustaf beat me to it. Tvoz/talk 02:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Politician could be left out, as I was swayed by the Ronnie Reagan article´s use of actor. I think politician is redundant.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed politician, but Tvoz assume a bit of good faith please. There is no indication that the user had read the talk page, regardless of whether it was good practice to have not done. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this editor is not at all new, and as I mentioned on his talk page, he also made a similar edit without regard to consensus regarding the religion field in the infobox. On that, he has already been around the "Protestant Christian" block - so to just go ahead and make the edit again now without acknowledging an awareness of the talk discussions and the fact that he himself was reverted on it previously seems disingenuous to me. If he doesn't read talk, then I guess he won't be bothered by my lack of AGF on this. And if he does read talk, then why does he make the same edit that he was reverted on in November without comment? Not really a big deal, but it's hard enough going over the same ground with new editors - having to go over it with editors who've been editing this article on and off for many months is irritating. Tvoz/talk 06:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(III.) Lecturer/professor status

The article states that Obama was a "professor" for 12 years at the University of Chicago. It then goes on to tell that he worked as a Lecturer for the first 4, and then as a Senior Lecturer for the last 8. The rationale behind calling him professor is that Senior Lecturer (but not just Lecturer) is included in what University of Chicago defines as "professor"-category positions. However, very different interpretations exist on the word professor, some (for example French speakers) wrongly interpret it in English as almost any kind of teacher position including below university level, but many English speakers will interpret the word professor as being a tenured, full time professor, and Obama's job was never tenured.

Senior Lecturers at Chicago are part time university teachers who have the right to call themselves professors by that university, but it would be wrong to confuse the position with a full time, tenured professor position which a lot of people would associate the term "professor" with.

I propose changing "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."

to

"Obama served as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 at the University of Chicago Law School, teaching Constitutional Law. University of Chicago recognizes these positions as professor positions by the strength of their senior status and faculty membership, although they are not tenured or full time professor positions."Baggrbag (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Been there. Done that. Several times. Ward3001 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Baggrbag: IMO re "professor" versus "lecturer" an encyclopedic case could be made either way. ↜Just me, here, now … 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lecturer not needed, every prominent attorney as well as politician gives lectures, this is nothing out of the ordinary. Nar Matteru (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate efforts to bring an advanced understanding of legal biography to Wiki-editing decisions yet I remain unconvinced that your argument overcomes the simple fact that whereas many presidents have been lawyers, but a select few have lectured. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(IV.) Literary career as a memoirist

• Note: I've added law school lecturer and mention of BHO's phenomenally incredible occupational success as a memoirist in this blank: which latter occupation's success eclipses that of many notable American memoirists who've documented their upbringings and early careers and this success also occured essentially in tandem with BHO's reaching notability as a politician. ↜Just me, here, now … 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1. According to The New Yorker Obama was paid by his publisher and also granted a sabbatical to write about law/politics but instead concentrated on his memoir, putting all his time and effort into his writing for an extended period of time, without the services of a ghost writer. ↜Just me, here, now … 17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Quote: "Senator Barack Obama released his 2007 tax return on Wednesday evening, reporting a household income of $4.2 million due to a sharp increase in the sales of his books..." (see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17obama.html ). ↜Just me, here, now … 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Everybody writes books these days, it's not a profession to write one or two memoirs/autobiographies. Grsz¹¹ 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Everybody writes books these days" is a non-argument re notability of someone famous as an author. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm for a very weak keeping of author as he wrote them before his presidency, as I said tho, this is a very weak support. All the rest of the stuff you added though, right out of the window. Its expected that he give lectures. And nice subtle changing of religion after it already got reverted with the explanation why. 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nar Matteru (talk • contribs)

The religion section is above. I don't understand your argument in this regard (or rather you didn't give one. Nor for that matter a signature!... Some people's kids.) ↜Just me, here, now … 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC) And as for "It's expected that prominent lawyers lecture" I hope upon reflection you'll admit this undocumented line of attack is a bit bizarre! ↜Just me, here, now … 18:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt was an author - he wrote 35 books. The Clintons, Stephen Colbert, Barack Obama - not authors by profession. Grsz¹¹ 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up these examples! Yes, certainly, Teddy and Barack are both indeed memoirists by occupation. (Barack has a number out and will eventually no doubt produce something comparable to TR's career-long output.) As was Winston Churchill an author of note. The Clintons less so. And Colbert's infobox includes certainly includes, as it ought, the medium of books. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I did my 4 tildes, it just got cut off somehow. Or did you fail to notice the "y. 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)" at the end of my last post? Furthurmore, signatures are not required on talk pages, they are a courtesy. I could very easily choose not to give that courtesy and not deserve scrutiny for that choice.

The infobox is supposed to be concise. Not list everything he has done. Theres plenty of mention in the article of his books. Furthermore look at other presidents articles that have written books and it is not listed.

As for the "some peoples kids" comment, that's funny considering you accused me of violating WP:OR after deleting your addition of unsourced content. You are the one with the bizarre thinking, not me. Nar Matteru (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Some people's kids" was a lame attempt at humor since I didn't know who I was responding to, since they -- now I know you -- hadn't signed, that's all. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Various editors would edit variously. Speaking to redundancy, to my eye, noting only "Attorney" below a politician's name seems fairly close to something akin to it. But, filling in "law professor"/"memoirist," to my eye, provides concise encyclopedic coverage to what it is that is notable about the pre-political career of this particular law school grad in the person of Obama. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton just has "Attorney" as his previous profession, And I guarantee you he has given lectures and written a book. Considering he wasn't born into wealth, he probably worked in a grocery store in his youth too, should we go ahead and put sales clerk too if we find a source for it? Hell, lets go international and add "lecturer" to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's page for giving his lecture at Colombia. Do you know see what I mean about infoboxes being a concise overview? Nar Matteru (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and not that you're a troll, Nar Matteru. IAC I'd suggest you follow the link to Wiki article lecturer and see, of course, that in our context the term refers to a "non-tenured professor"! ↜Just me, here, now … 02:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Also please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. ↜Just me, here, now … 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

columbia graduation, new york to chicago dates

from wiki:

Obama graduated with a B.A. from Columbia in 1983. He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation[24][25] and then at the New York Public Interest Research Group.[26][27]

After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago, where he was hired as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side. He worked there for three years from June 1985 to May 1988.[26][28]

dates don't add up 1983 graduation 4 years in NYC but worked in Chicago South Side from 1995 to 1998?? four years in NYC is 1987... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.66.10 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he wasn´t there 1461 days exactly ( added for leap year), but it is close enough for government work. Do you really want articles to reflect the number of days a persons has done x y or z?Die4Dixie (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a gap in his life history. Where was he?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he hitched a ride with Jim Morrison and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who were on their way to Elvis' private retreat. They needed a 4th for bridge. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Elvis was a poker player.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this talkpage's religion section [above] IMO seems to reflect a new consensus of Obama's being formerly UCC

and since few contributors have argued that once this became known it would still not deserve mention, the infobox is presently edited to reflect this interpretation of consensus. ↜Just me, here, now … 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont object to the edit that you made. The main part of the article in his early life section should have a passing mention of his resignation and a simple link to the Wright controversy with in the confines of the appropriate weight. A simple see link would do it and interested readers would be directed for more info. A consesnsu of wording should be sought.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There already is long-standing consensus regarding Rev. Wright. Tvoz/talk 04:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, which is why I suggested a search for a new consensus rather than unilaterally edit.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you said that, but nothing has changed since that consensus was reached - this former membership in the UCC is hardly news. I think that it needs to be explicit that this is not really about the precision of the infobox at all, but rather about Wright, again. Tvoz/talk 05:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. My post was explicily different than his.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with D4D that some reference to Wright would seem reasonable in any complete biography of Obama, even a very concise one, the fact of the matter is that I personally could not care less if Wright gets mentioned or not. In fact, if I've ever left the impression that I've any kind of axe to grind concerning Wright whatsoever, let me say this: The controversy concerning him was used as a coded issue in order to stoke White counter-resentment. The need for Obama to distance himself from the Rev. Wright, IMO resulted in Wright's getting a bum deal. So he preaches in a particular African American style -- so what. And, in addition, I believe that to forcefully remember and speak out against historical American inequality remains more than justified! ↜Just me, here, now … 07:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)