Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Barack Obama

2010-03-14T04:42:29Z

69.140.3.80: /* Juris doctor = "doctorate"? */

{{featured article review|Barack Obama/archive7}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan|type=content}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 68
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive <#>
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Historical diffs
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/weight
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/race
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{pp-move-indef}}

{{purge|page=Barack Obama|1=Click to manually purge the article's cache}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{Round In Circles|search=yes}}
{{Community article probation|main page=Barack Obama|BASEPAGENAME=Barack Obama|[[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation]] for full information and to review the decision}}
{{calm talk|#FFCCCC}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=FA|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|listas=Obama, Barack}}
{{USP-Article|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{Project Congress|class=FA|subject=person|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Illinois|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WPHawaii|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{Wikiproject Kansas|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{ChicagoWikiProject|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Columbia University|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WP Indonesia|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{AfricaProject|class=FA|importance=low|Kenya=yes|Kenya-importance=low}}
{{Project afro|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|class=FA}}
{{Talk Spoken Wikipedia|class=FA|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg}}
{{WPCD-People|class=FA}}
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack}}
{{pressmulti|collapsed=yes
| title = On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet
| author = Jose Antonio Vargas
| date = 2007-09-17
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html
| org = [[The Washington Post]]
| section = September
| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare
| author2 = [[Alison Stewart]], Rachel Martin
| date2 = 2008-04-03
| url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf
| org2 = [[The Bryant Park Project]], [[NPR]]
| title3 = Editors in Chief
| author3 = [[Brooke Gladstone]], [[Bob Garfield]]
| date3 = 2008-04-04
| url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02
| org3 = [[On The Media]], NPR
| title4 = Wiki Woman
| author4 = Eve Fairbanks
| date4 = 2008-04-09
| url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1
| org4 = [[The New Republic]]
| section4 = March
| title5= Hillary's Wiki Defender
| author5 = Jesse Brown
| date5= 2008-04-10
| url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html
| org5= [[Search Engine (radio show)|Search Engine]], [[CBC Radio One]]
| title6= Wikipedia Wars
| author6 = [[Tom Foreman]]
| date6= 2008-04-11
| url6= http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269
| org6= [[This Week...]], [[CNN]]
| title7= Liberal Web
| author7 = [[John J. Miller]]
| date7= 2008-04-21
| url7=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/print?tag=artBody;col1
| org7= [[National Review]]
| section7=April 2008
| title8= Clinton's entry in Wikipedia has a watchdog
| author8 = Kelly Heyboer
| date8= 2008-05-28
| url8= http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/05/hillary_clintons_wikipedia_wat.html
| org8= [[The Star-Ledger]]
| title9=NJ Man Appoints Himself Wikipedia Watchdog
| author9 = Paul Murnane
| date9= 2008-05-28
| url9=http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2400703
| org9= [[WCBS (AM)|WCBS Newsradio 880]]
| title10= Updating a Reference Site on the Fly
| author10= Noam Cohen
| date10= 2008-11-09
| url10= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html
| org10= [[The New York Times]]
| title11= Obama Wikipedia page under possible security attack
| author11= Adrian Bridgwater
| date11= January 22, 2009
| url11= http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10011960o-2000458459b,00.htm
| org11= [[ZDNet]]
| title12= Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
| author12= [[Aaron Klein]]
| date12= March 8, 2009
| url12= http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114
| org12= [[WorldNetDaily]]
| title13= Obama's Wikipedia Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers
| author13= Joshua Rhett Miller
| date13= March 9, 2009
| url13= http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html
| org13= [[Fox News Channel]]
| title14= Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Wikipedia', report claims
| author14= Mark Coleman
| date14= March 10, 2009
| url14= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Wikipedia-report-claims.html
| org14= [[The Daily Telegraph]]
| title15= Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos
| author15= Noam Cohen
| date15= July 19, 2009
| url15= http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
| org15= [[The New York Times]]
|author16=(none)
|date=August 17, 2009
|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html
|title=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008
|org=[[The Daily Telegraph]]
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=12 August 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama
|action1result=Promoted
|action1oldid=5174535

|action2=WPR
|action2date=18 August 2004
|action2link=Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 18, 2004
|action2result=Maindate
|action2oldid=5294576

|action3=FAR
|action3date=09:53, 23 January 2007
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1
|action3result=pass
|action3oldid=102622704

|action4=FAR
|action4date=22:24, July 26, 2007
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2
|action4result=pass
|action4oldid=147098144

|action5=FAR
|action5date=06:08, 15 April 2008
|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3
|action5result=kept
|action5oldid=205714008

|action6=FAR
|action6date=12:56, 16 September 2008
|action6link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4
|action6result=kept
|action6oldid=239534110

|action7=WPR
|action7date=4 November 2008
|action7link=Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008
|action7result=Maindate
|action7oldid=249529065

|action8=FAR
|action8date=17:30, 2 December 2008
|action8link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive5
|action8result=kept
|action8oldid=255411914

|action9=FAR
|action9date=03:36, 10 March 2009
|action9link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive6
|action9result=kept
|action9oldid=276168026

|maindate=November 4, 2008
|itndate=November 5, 2008
|currentstatus=FA
|small=yes}}
{{archives
|auto=yes
|search=yes
|bot=MiszaBot
|age=14
|index= /Archive index|
; Special discussion pages:
* [[/Article probation|Article probation]], [[/Article probation/Incidents|Incidents]]
* [[/Historical diffs|Historical diffs]], [[/weight|Weight]], [[/race|Race]]}}

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

The second paragraph of the section "University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney" lists Obama as a "professor" for twelve years, clarifying that he was a lecturer first and a "senior lecturer" later. The title of "lecturer" is distinct from that of "professor". I propose that the paragraph be modified to start, "For 12 years, Obama lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School." —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.151.71.18|128.151.71.18]] ([[User talk:128.151.71.18|talk]]) 15:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 
:This claim has been made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=professor&prefix=Talk:Barack+Obama&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search over and over], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_24#Professor debunked every time]. This(that Obama was a professor) has been confirmed by reliable sources and the claim that he was not has been debunked by [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html Factcheck.org] and [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp Snopes]. So it's a fact that [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] was a Constitutional Law Professor. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 15:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::Obama was never on tenure track at the University of Chicago as a quick phone call to the University has just proven. He was a lecturer for all his years there and he did it on a part-time basis. And the idea that someone who works hard to gain tenure track and earns the right to be called a professor, that somehow 'professor' is a pejorative term denoting 'old right wing meme' as DD2K stated in his edit summary, is offensive.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::You are misunderstanding the edit summary. The "old right wing meme" is the repeated claims that Obama was never a professor, despite statements from the university and reliable sources to the contrary. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::[[User:Malke_2010|Malke_2010]], you should follow the links I provided and try to understand that this has been discussed and proven false. Obama was considered a Constitutional Law Professor by the university, and that has been proven over and over. There is no doubt. In the links I provided are direct quotes from the University of Chicago, so pretending that a 'quick phone call' proves otherwise is disingenuous. At best. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Blogs are no substitute for the University itself. Obama was never on tenure tract. He was always a lecturer. He was never a Con Law scholar. Blogs are disingenuous as is any claim that they are accurate. Obama's listings in the Un Chicago directory was as a 'lecturer.' Blogs can't beat that.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Those aren't 'blogs', it was Factcheck.org and Snopes. Both respected institutions for debunking false accusations and urban legends that get mass emailed. And they quote the University of Chicago directly, and the quote has been repeated in just about every reliable sourced media outlet. Perhaps you should have actually read the links I provided before you made the claim that you called the university? I would say that claim you made, and the subsequent posts you are posting, makes clear that there no longer needs to be any [[WP:AGF]] with you here. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::The University of Chicago is the last word on this. Call them yourself. Factcheck.org is a blog, as is Snopes. These are not respected secondary sources like the New York Times or the Washington Post. I find it curious that you are using these blogs and not using the New York Times or the Washington Post to back up your claims of 'right wing meme.' You can call Obama a professor all you want, but he was never a professor. He never applied for tenure track. The University of Chicago's faculty directory proves that. In the last edition Obama was in, he was listed as a "Senior Lecturer." The directory is a bona fide source for a citation and can be used in correcting Obama's article. You are free to call the Un of Chicago yourself. And just because an editor disagrees with you, or presents sources that contradict your claims, doesn't mean that editor has an agenda or that other editors can't assume they have good faith. Please read the Wikipedia policy [[WP:PERSONAL ATTACK]]. You don't want to establish a [[WP:CHILL]] effect in what could appear to be an effort to drive away editors from making contributions to Obama's article. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::''"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. '''Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors''', although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times '''during his 12 years as a professor''' in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."'' ([http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media source]) - CASE CLOSED. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:Exactly. Not really a professor. But you can call him that. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Factcheck and Snopes are not blogs, but if it's the NYT you want, here's an article about his time as a professor, referring to him as professor throughout, including the headline. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html]. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::(after ec) This issue has been discussed before and resolved, if you search the talk page archives. It is correct that Obama was a professor, per the university and plenty of reliable sources. There is no question about his actual role; it is a definitional matter, and the definition of the word is not fixed. We could add a word or two or rephrase perhaps to eliminate the ambiguity but past proposals to do so have not gained consensus. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::In the proper usage of the title, he is not a professor. It's all right to make the distinction, because saying he was a lecturer doesn't take anything away from Obama, since he is the President of the United States. Don't see where any other Un Chicago profs have done that. This is from Slate which explains the difference. [http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/26/was-obama-a-law-professor.aspx] You guys get over the top here but that could be why the article is still in such good shape. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::So you are claiming that the University of Chicago is using the title improperly? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::No, I'm showing you why there's an argument about this stuff in the first place.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::There's no argument, only people who, for whatever reason, can't accept that the University of Chicago knows what it calls its own employees. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 22:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sweet mother of God, this again? Seriously? There is no objective criteria for what constitutes a professor. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that says you have to be on a tenure track to have the title professor. A university creates its own parameters for who is a professor or adjunct or some other title. University of Chicago refers to him as being a professor at their law school http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media. Having the title of "senior lecturer" has no effect whatsoever on whether or not he is a professor. If University of Chicago calls the Senior Lecturers who work at their law school "professors" then they are professors. He was a professor, period. End of story. ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 19:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

:Since this was discussed almost nine months ago in May 2009:
:# [[Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Academics]]
:# [[Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Lecturer and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law_School]]
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=289078054 15:31, 10 May 2009] [[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Newross|contribs]]) ''(→Early life and career: "was a professor of constitutional law" --> "served as a professor of constitutional law"; add "as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004")''
:two "minor edits" changed consensus wording:
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=322667387 03:02, 29 October 2009] [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/SMP0328.|contribs]]) '''m''' ''(→Early life and career: Wording tweak)''<blockquote>served as a professor of [[constitutional law]] → was a [[constitutional law]] professor</blockquote>
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=327669089 14:28, 24 November 2009] [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk:Afterwriting|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Afterwriting|contribs]]) ''(Minor style edits.)''<blockquote>Lecturer → lecturer Senior Lecturer → senior lecturer</blockquote>
:[[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]]) 18:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for that legwork - very helpful! - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

There is no other way around it.

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

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

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

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

:This claim has been made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=professor&prefix=Talk:Barack+Obama&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search over and over], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_24#Professor debunked every time]. This(that Obama was a professor) has been confirmed by reliable sources and the claim that he was not has been [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html Factcheck.org] and [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp Snopes]. So it's a fact that [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] was a Constitutional Law Professor. By the way, this is not a forum and it's getting pretty monotonus with the same posters coming in and making the same kind of claims over and over. I really think any 'litmus test' should be decided by a quick [[WP:SPI]] on a few of the posters in here. I definitely think there are some 'good hand-bad hand' games being played here. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 05:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::This is a personal attack. Don't like someone and call them a sock. Looking at the archives...same of behavior over and over...collapsing boxes, calling people sock. It is also an attack on Wikicup, of which I am a participant and beating many other editors so far, many of whom have zero points. Prove that you are not an Obama staffer. I am one of the most neutral people here, challenging extreme right wingers and left wing nuts. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::What this basically boils down to is trying to play up the confusion between Professor and professor. Professor is lying. professor is a weasel word and then it requires a long explanation about his position. Basically, he was a part time faculty member. Look up this http://www.missouriwestern.edu/eflj/faculty/ Is Meredith Katchen a professor of English? That would be stretching the facts and overselling. President Obama is a great leader, very articulate, very effective in his agenda (with one exception). He won the Nobel Peace Prize fair and square. He doesn't need to pad his resume calling him professor. By being realistic, the Wikipedia article gains credibility. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::::To assist in settling the matter, I've asked some editors who write the Professor article in Wikipedia and some Wikipedia administrators who are university faculty members. If they say that the general public understands the difference between Professor and professor, then the article is fine the way it is. If they say that the general public may not understand or may confuse the two, then that helps settle this question. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yea, well I consider your 'litmus test' a personal attack. And I don't remember accusing anyone on here of being a sockpuppet(before my most recent post). So that's another claim by you that is not true. Also, I think you should stop trying to insert [[WP:OR]] into the article and the talk page. Going around asking people to do your [[WP:OR]] and making posts(forum shopping) all over Wikipedia doesn't really fit within the guidelines. Try citing [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], like everyone else here has done to show you that Obama was considered a law professor. There are several citations, and direct quotes from the university itself, that back that up. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean anything. Not here, not ever. Reliable sources, [[WP:Consensus]] and [[WP:Weight]] do, and using those guidelines you are incorrect. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::It boils down to supporters of professor argue on a technicality, that any faculty member is a professor. They ignore that there is much confusion between Professor and professor. So either there has to be a lengthy explanation/disclaimer or there is none and people get fooled. This reliable source explains it. http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-04/2005-04-20-voa2.cfm The reader is confused between professor and other titles (lecturer is mentioned in the article). This also brings up the issue of prose. If you have prose that can lead to confusion, this is bad.

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

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

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

:::::::This issue is so easy and clear cut that if you oppose it (by wanting a deceptive version or by wanting a smear version), then the Wikipedia system is broken.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::You obviously do not understand what [[WP:OR]] states, or what a reliable source is. I suggest you go and read the guidelines, because you are doing nothing but making your own assumptions and trying to insert your own opinions based on definitions of titles or words. It's painfully obvious to anyone that the citations given(FactCheck.org, UofC, NYT) have put this issue to rest. There is no way to overrule those citations without violating [[WP:Undue Weight]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:OR]]. I do believe this discussion is over. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 15:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::The real litmus test should be this: either explain why the University of Chicago is unable to correctly identify its own employees or stop wasting everyone's time. What better source for the title of an employee than an employer? It's not about logic or arguments or partisanship. Wikipedia runs on sources, period. The best source, the source that employed him, says that he was a professor. Unless you can trump that, this is all just pointless chatter. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 18:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree that this particular sub-thread, and any long discussion, is a waste of time, even though I do hold the minority position that we should use more precise language and not simply call him a professor because his employer and the sources do. The sources, for example, may say it is "cold" in Moscow this week but that doesn't stop us from being more precise and reporting just ''how'' cold it is. It wouldn't kill us to add a short adjective clause like "non-tenure track", "adjunct", "part time", "visiting", "associate", or whatever it is. But I think I'm in the minority on this and not much chance of changing anyone's mind so I won't go off on how [insert favorite Wikipedia accusation] everyone here is for disagreeing with me. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

===Comparison===
Scjessey's version is above:

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

A more concise version:

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

This concise version has none of the disclaimers like the top version. There is no chance for misunderstanding. This is no chance of resume inflation. There is respect for the President. Because of this, both Obama staffers and right wing extremists probably hate these version. The staffers want resume inflation. The right wingers want to diminish his achievements. By being neutral and fair, this article gets credibility. With the neutral version, we can focus on this man's fine leadership, good achievements (with one possible failure or delay), a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize, etc. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:I think there has been a '''''huge''''' misunderstanding here. The text I quote in the section above is not from any article. It is from the [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media University of Chicago's statement] on the matter. It is the ''source''. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 13:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

===ANI===
I posted on ANI asking for administrators who are Ph.D.'s to clarify between a Professor and a professor. Whatever the consensus is among them, that will help resolve this discussion. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
: So you want them to discuss if the word should be upper or lower case 'P' ? Don't they have other things to do ?. If he is a professor according to an accredited university (thus making it a reliable source) then that's quite OK to add and if they spell the word with a capital 'P' then we use that. Seems simple to me. [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] ([[User talk:Ttiotsw|talk]]) 08:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::I was a British academic, not an American one, but the concise version above looks fine to me. I've looked at the University page and of course they use a small 'p', that's no surprise, just the way English works, see [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/dam/]. Dam was a professor with the title Professor Emeritus etc... There can be no doubt that we can say Obama was a professor. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

===Concerns with edits===
This editor is persisting in removing the word professor from the article. When I reverted one of his edits, which hid the removal among others and called it fixing the bad prose, he got hostile on my talk page, and reinstated his edit, but changed it to put professor in quotes and write up a disclaimer which made Obama look like a liar. Isn't the ARBCom and the page protection situation in place to eliminate this sort of politically motivated attacking? [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Then think of a way to not make him look like a liar but also not create confusion between Professor and professor. Think about solutions, not insist on a bad choice. If you don't like my idea, think of a better one and report it here! [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::::As far as hostility, it is you who are hostile, calling other people's edits "smokescreen". Please don't![[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
: I put a 3RR warning on his page, I'd suggest someone also give him the article probation notice for future reference. I agree that there's no consensus about the professor edit. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 07:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
*There is a definite problem with the user concerning [[WP:Consensus]] and [[WP:OR]]. Otherwise, he is purposely removing/adding text to the article that he knows is against consensus and using [[WP:OR|original research]]. And not only that, but is reverting other editors multiple times that are correcting him. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 08:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

<blockquote>In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the [[University of Chicago Law School]] to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching [[constitutional law]][http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html .][http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html .] </blockquote>

:Which are cited by reliable sources and indisputable. This should be a non-issue, and I am not going to comment further on it, considering the issue closed. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::The issue could be made closed with simple changes. The fact remains that there is confusion between professor and Professor (Professor is one of the most senior faculty ranks, just below Chairman). There is also a historical issue that causes fighting here. During the campaign, the Obama campaign released information that he was a law professor. Maybe they thought that the general public wouldn't know what a Lecturer was. In the very loosest sense, a professor is any university teacher. However, a teaching assisting saying "I was a professor" is considered dishonest. The Clinton campaign picked up and this and attacked Obama. Obama needed to save himself so he appealed to the University of Chicago. Not wanting to offend a future president, they issued a carefully worded statement.

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

::Given the animosity of the past discussion, this will undoubtedly close as unchanged without true consensus or the best wording used. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:::The importance you place upon the word "professor" may be your personal viewpoint or a U.S.-centric thing. Technical colleges around here call their staff Professors and they're not on any tenure or academic track. Same with the university I attended - if you were part of the faculty, your were called professor or associate professor. If the University of Chicago says Obama was a professor at the university then that's the wording we should use. --[[User:NeilN|'''NeilN''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|talk to me]]'' 06:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into this and now realize that there is an intense backstory to the professor issue. Initially the Hillary campaign suggested that Obama was inflating his resume. The Obama campaign cried "mommy!" but then asked the University of Chicago to help them in a bind so the University, not wanting to cross a future president, hedged. So some people could be playing a hyper-cheerleader and want to present the most pro-Obama stance. The really anti-Obama people probably want to quote the controversy. The neutral stance would be to not mention the controversy but to neutrally say that he was on the faculty or that he was a Senior Lecturer. Some blogs describe exactly what I say. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:Sigh. Ever hear of [[WP:NOR]] and that blogs are not [[WP:reliable sources]]? --[[User:NeilN|'''NeilN''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|talk to me]]'' 04:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::I never said I wanted to use blog material. I also didn't do any OR. We must all do OR to understand an issue otherwise we are not thinking.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::"I ... didn't do any OR. We must all do OR ... otherwise we are not thinking.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)"
:::Yep. That seems to pretty much sum up this discussion. [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 07:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:Wow. With that bit of bizarre grandstanding, you have pretty much torpedoed any chance of you ever being taken seriously on this page again, or any chance of other's giving your editing suggestions anything more than a polite dismissal. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::This is not bizarre grandstanding. Foreign politicians and a U.S. senator's office have been caught editing their own articles so we know that there has been manipulation. I never accused any specific editor of editing their own article. We also know can make a pretty good guess to how a militant supporter or militant opponent would decide on certain editorial questions. We assume good faith in not accusing others but to not assess the supporter's view and opponent's view and choose the neutral view is part of being a good editor.

::What I wrote has reliable sources about the Hillary campaign attacking Obama for resume inflation. One news organization (used by other editors in this article) confirms my summary...{{blockquote|The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not." We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.}}

::So the bottom line is that it that there was a Hillary-Obama dispute. Some editors might want to take the Hillary side or the Obama side but Wikipedia should be neutral. I don't even think we should mention the dispute but should be mindful to take the neutral standpoint and not take sides even if we don't mention the dispute. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::"''I don't even think we should mention the dispute''" So why have you just posted almost a page of text? Per [[WP:TALK]] and [[WP:NOTAFORUM]] (not to mention the [[WP:GS/BO|general sanctions]]) we should only be discussing how to improve the article. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Mentioning the dispute on this talk page helps understand the issue. So if we just report on the Obama campaign's response and their tactics to address the issue and not even report the controversy nor the other side, we are not being objective. Yet, there is a way to not mention the controversy by just stating in the most neutral terms what he was, namely a Senior Lecturer who was offered a position on the full time faculty. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::That is not what he was described as though according to reliable sources, including the university itself. [[WP:V|Verifiability, Not Truth]], remember. We aren't here to judge or to interpret how we thing things should be. As I said on that AN/I, even I would never address a non-tenure track person such as Obama as "professor", but that has no bearing on what we're talking about here. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 05:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

NBC News reports that there was an issue regarding the Obama campaign calling him Professor verbally or maybe professor (capital P sounds the same as little P). It says
<blockquote>
He is a senior lecturer and has cited that he is a constitutional law professor on the trail. That's something that has caused some criticism and allegations of exaggeration. It's something the Clinton campaign has pushed as well in conference calls with reporters in the past week.

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

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

:I agree with you 100%, but also note that we seem to be in the minority on this. It is technically correct to say that he was professor because the weight of the sources say so... but the term is ill defined and may give some people the wrong impression, so why not be more precise and say exactly what he was / did? Anyway, this seems to be: (a) a lost cause, and (b) not terribly important. The silly little controversy over the issue was, well, silly. It was a non-issue over a non-event. Opposition researchers briefly thought they could accuse Obama of resume fraud, and when they couldn't, they tried anyway. It got no traction. But still, we should be as straightforward and precise as we can here. Just my opinion of course. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 07:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
::Per Wikidemon, precision is better. This is crazy and dysfunctional - all this dispute over 1 little word. English has thousands of words, surely there's another one that is just as good, better, or more precise. [[User:Judith Merrick|Judith Merrick]] ([[User talk:Judith Merrick|talk]]) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I assume that everyone here is completely neutral. If one is biased and wants to write a promotional piece on Obama, then they should support the use of the word professor since it pads his resume. The neutral way is what Wikidemon said, it can give the wrong impression, so the use of the word "professor" should be removed. Wikidemon also says it is "a lost cause" which could mean that some people will insist on it. Why? It's not logical if they are not trying to write a promotional piece. Assuming good faith would then mean they are not trying to promote him, just not logical. Let' go with the neutral, logical wording, which is just to drop the word "professor". We aren't saying "Obama is not a professor" because that would be biased the other way. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I just really want to know where people got this idea that professor absolutely and at all times means tenured faculty or tenure-track. It is true that that is often how an institutions define "professor" but there's no objective universal standard for the term professor. There is absolutely no reason to assert that only one who has tenure or who is on a tenure track is a professor. It falls upon the institution to define what that positions means for that institution. University of Chicago does things differently. They call their Senior Lecturers professors. That's the end of it. There is no debate after that. It makes no difference that he didn't have tenure and it makes no difference that he wasn't on a tenure-track. UofC is very picky with its grant of tenure so that's not all that surprising. My point here has nothing to do with politics, it's just common sense. It's not "resume padding" it is an objective fact. UofC says that their Senior Lecturers are professors and that Obama was a professor, then he was a professor and that's it. Period. No debate, no controversy, no room for discussion. It's a dead issue. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jdlund|contribs]]) 20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 

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

:UT Professor, I don't know if you are actually a professor at UT (I am going to guess no) but you are full of it when it comes to U of C. I went to the U of C law school (though it was after Obama taught there). A number of their classes are taught by Senior Lecturers and they are all absolutely referred to as professors. Every last single one of them. And no you cannot compare a junior faculty member with Senior Lecturer, certainly not what U of C means by Senior Lecturer. The press release had nothing to do with politics. You may disagree with a Senior Lecturer being called a professor but that feeling is irrelevant. U of C defines their Senior Lecturers as professors (at least within the Law School) that's the end of this discussion. There is no debate after that. It's not about politics, this is an issue with one, and only one, clear right absolute answer. U of C called him a professor; he was a professor. Period. It doesn't matter if it is potentially "misleading." If people don't understand that there isn't a consistent universal meaning to the label "professor" (something that even the faux "professor" above me doesn't understand) then that's their fault. Wikipedia should be about verifiable facts and it is an absolute, incontrovertible fact that at the University of Chicago he was a professor.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 03:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
::Not to add another long rant, but I think of some of you are very much mistaken about what U of C means by Senior Lecturer. I don't know what that position means at any other school, but at U of C it is a very distinguished position in their law school. It usually is someone who is accomplished. For instance the three seventh circuit court judges who teach classes on occasion (Posner, Easterbrook, and Wood) are all Senior Lecturers. You better believe that if [[Richard Posner]] teaches a class every student in that room will call him Judge Posner or Professor Posner, and absolutely the school will refer to him the same. Just so you all know, because as a U of C grad watching this brandishing of ignorance about this issue has been really annoying, Senior Lecturer is not some trivial little position anywhere near akin to "junior instructor" or "associate faculty" or whatever. It is a serious and meaningful position and yes they are called professors.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 04:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I generally avoid these retreads, but given the sudden influx of professors here (he said drily), I'd be interested to know if you both (and whomever else feels the need to weigh in in a timely manner so this thread can finally draw to a close) would agree that we should change the link of the term professor from [[professor|the more general, historic, perspectives-around-the-world article]] to the more relevant [[Professors in the United States]]? Not unlike [[president]] versus [[President of the United States]] or [[senate]] versus [[United States Senate]], it's entirely irrelevant to its usage in this article what the general word means throughout the world, and that international variance is perhaps causing (enabling?) some of the confusion here. Those interested in etymology will know to push further; those interested in clarifying the specific context of the term here will find it sooner, and those interested in perpetuating this sort of argument at this late date will be reminded that the term is, after all, linked, to an article explaining the term in context, presumably with whatever caveats are appropriate to the depersonalized examination there. (I'm just employing logic and common sense, I have neither edited nor read either article.) [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Good idea. Since no objections, I have just made that change. The sixth word in [[Professors in the United States]] is the link [[professor]] so apart from the fact that the U.S. usage is the more appropriate, anyone wanting a more general discussion will be able to easily find it. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

== Religion needs changing ==

I have looked at all the presidents for the last 100 years. Obama's religion in the infobox near the top of the article is non-standard. All the other presidents say Roman Catholic, Baptist, etc.

Obama's should say ''"United Church of Christ (until 2008), non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)"'' This is because he used to be a member of the [[Trinity United Church of Christ]] until he chose Evergreen Chapel, Camp David. Evergreen Chapel is non-demoninational, though it is not Catholic.

Just saying "Christianity" is too vague. Most Christians are either Catholic or Protestant, with many Protestant demoninations. There are also some other Christians, like the Coptics in Egypt and others. But Obama is not a Coptic. Mormans are usually considered Christian, though some Christians think they are not Christian. Obama is certainly not a Mormon.

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

Even though there is a lot of hostility and opposition to change (no pun intended even though Obama is for change), please consider this change. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:Seriously, dude, if you're taking it upon yourself to edit article space in an encyclopedia — despite the request of a number of editors to discuss changes on the talk page first — you could at least take the two seconds to spell-check your text. The phrase is not "non-'''demon'''inational Christian", it's "non-denominational Christian". Yet the qualifier modifies the overall scope of the chapel, and not Obama's religion. We don't need to add two words to point out that we are not specifying a denomination of Christianity when the simple lack of a specific denomination suffices to make the same point in a more succinct way. The point of that church's non-denominationalism is to serve the greatest number of individuals, not to be "new-agey" or something like that. The actual current minister at that chapel is Baptist, if I recall, yet is similarly an erroneous data point when inserted into an infobox section about ''Obama's'' religion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

:United Church of Christ is more a loose affiliation of churches than other Protestant denominations and, as such, when he pulled out of Trinity he also pulled out of the UCC denomination. So listing UCC in the infobox is not accurate. At best he could be listed as non-denominational Protestant, but even then it's not clear. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] [[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]] 05:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::I have no argument with that. That is an improvement over just "Christianity". So "United Church of Christ (until 2008), non-denominational Protestant (2008-present)"? Or we could put "presumed non-denominational Protestant (2008-present) but I don't like that. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::How are denomination changes handled in other articles? I know another President has changed denominations, just drawing a blank on which one. I've checked a couple of other articles of people that changed denominations/religion and so far those don't even list a religion in the infobox. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] [[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]] 05:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::::If people want to list his current religion (non-denominational Protestant) or his current and recent one (add UCC), this is a legitimate discussion. Part of the Christianity debate in the news before was arguing whether he was Muslim or Christian. We know he's not Muslim. But the use of Christian is just an argument that he's not Muslim. We can do better than that and bring up this article to the standard that every president in the past century uses -- listing his denomination (if Protestant) or putting Catholic (like JFK). We are making progress (thanks, Bobblehead), please no arguments just to make drama. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

*There is no reason to change the listing, as it describes his religion as it is now understood. If you scroll over the text with your mouse you will see that his religion is cited by sources and when he left Trinity he dis-affiliated himself from UCC. It's listed and sourced right in the box. So until Obama declares what denomination he wants to be considered now, it's listed as [[Christian]]. There have been other Presidents with similar listings. [[Andrew Johnson]] is also listed as Christian, as is [[Rutherford B. Hayes]]. [[Abraham Lincoln]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]] have no religion listed and are directed to an explanation in the body. So until Obama declares otherwise, the correct listing is [[Christian]], which is sourced and declared by Obama himself. We can't change it to what we think it should be, it has to be sourced. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 05:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Factual error: None of the cited articles use "Christianity". Andrew Johnson's infobox says that he is no denomination stated. Abe and Thomas Jefferson says see below. Even Hayes is the closest but doesn't use the exact word Christianity. All presidents within the past 100 years say Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. Also those other article are not featured articles so they could be flawed. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::We are not Obama's campaign office. He is not Catholic. He is Protestant. He is appears to be non-denominational. Non-denominational Protestant or even non-denominational Christian is ok. But simple Christian and it looks like we are just trying to fight Muslim rumors, not present information. Not everything is sourced. Do you have a source that he is a man? DO you have a source that his official residence in the White House and his private residence is Chicago? Who's to say that his Chicago house is just un-rented investment property? We need to assume as little as possible but things like the Chicago house and he is non-denominational is clear.
::Also, are you trying to say that Obama has no religion, like Lincoln? No, this is not true.
::This source say he's picked a non-denominational church. http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/06/the-obamas-pick-nondenominational-camp-david-church.html For those that don't know, in the military, there are Catholic services and non-denominational Protestant services. They are not the same. Obama has picked the latter. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::No sooner does somebody suggest or declare or agree upon something than JB50000 dives in to the article with something completely counter to that. Many talk page posts of yours are in complete disregard of previous statements. Your first and only acknowledgement of me was a blunt threat on my talk page, for doing my editorial responsibility at a BLP, as more than one other editor acknowledged. You speak of not wanting to get into cans of worms, yet rather than participate in a discussion and staying on point, all you do is pour worms onto the page. If there is no reference for his being now or in the recent past a ''non-denominational'' Protestant, we are not to presume that he is. If you want something more specific than ''Christianity'', I've already indicated what reasonable word that would be: ''Protestant''. If you don't like that, it stays ''Christian'' until you find a really good reference for something else. (And you might contribute your reason why to the discussion.) In the meantime, the next time you're seized with the compulsion to quash something, post it at the talk page first, allow a few days for comment second, read and process that comment third, determine whether there are valid editorial points made fourth, and if there are no meaningful objections or better ideas, add it to the article fifth. This jumping in at step five, then going to step one, then ignoring people and either reverting or moving to the next topic, is not doing yourself, us, this article, or least of all this talk page, any good. Actually editing with the summary "this has no opposition" when I've clearly outlined my opposition to it above and you have made no response whatsoever is unacceptable. And this crap about we're not his campaign office is completely uncalled for on a simple semantic issue of how specific we get in describing his Christianity. ''You're'' the one that stated it was your goal to squash Muslim rumors, now you're writing that it looks like we're just trying to fight Muslim rumors. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith with you. Do we have a source that he is a man? No, no worms with you. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::::There is almost no way to [[WP:AGF]] with this user. His drama filled explanations are just absurd. Something is definitely up with this editor. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::What's up is that a reasonable change is suggested and just "no no no". Users should look at themselves for a change. '''Just ignore the explanation and here's a summary. The proposed entry was "Non-denominational Christian" or "Protestant" or "Non-denominational Protestant". Christianity is the worst of the 4 choices.''' [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::It's ridiculous to bring up any [[Muslim]] foolishness. Anyone that would look at the religion box, see [[Christian]], and think 'he's trying to hide he's a Muslim', isn't going to be 'fooled' because it says [[Protestant]]. Anyone that doesn't know that Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim by now, and would think what you are insinuating, don't want explanations. They want to bury their heads like an [[Ostrich]]. The footnotes explain the current situation well enough and the listing of [[Christian]] is sourced and from Obama himself also. And by the way, I'm not fooled by your Lincoln false shock/accusation either. Not fooled one bit. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::In summary, editors have advocated "Christianity", "Protestant", "non-denominational Protestant" (or "non-denominational Christian" - with references). There is no consensus for Christianity. There is a good reference for non-denominational Christian. So it seems like that is the front runner. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=341843363&oldid=341842048 | this] attempt to have the last word of an argument in article history is completely unacceptable. I'd say that's the last straw, but I'm logging off; if someone else wants to take that up somewhere, I'd be thrilled to see it, and support it, tomorrow. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

===No consensus===
First of all, if the consensus was that he is a Muslim, we need to disregard consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not remove this tag, let the bot do it. It is easy for those who want to end discussion to try to remove the tag. Unfortunately, that happens a lot here.
Currently, the infobox lists his religion as "Christianity" with a reference but there are newer references that use the term Non-denominational Christian. Other suggestions include Protestant, Non-denominational Protestant, United Church of Christ (until 2008)/Non-denominational (2009-present), etc. Thank you. 07:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:Yeah, we get it, you're not listening. You're free to stop the gratuitous use of the word "Muslim" — which you have used ten times in a thread that is not about that religion. Unless of course there's some reason for your doing so.

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

:You act like this is something we get to whip up ourselves. No, these things exist in the real world and, aided by Wikipedia guidelines, we distill what the sources direct us to acknowledge. Camp David is a military installation and the non-denominational chapel there was conceived in order to serve the broadest spectrum of Protestants without having to have fifteen different chapels and fifteen different ministers, choirs, organists, etc., all on one base. It was not conceived to strip worshippers of the denominations of their faith. And so, they currently have a Baptist minister but will shift to a minister of another Protestant denomination after three years, so as not to show favoritism. And there are plenty of references simply for "Christian", including two added this evening by another editor. To [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=341840526&oldid=341839692| your third of five tendentious edits tonight], "President of a North American country" isn't enough for an American. I daresay "Christian" is enough for Christ. The pattern at this page will not be to add excess verbiage when it does not clarify any point, or improve the writing, but simply satisfies the preconceived misconceptions of a single editor despite the best efforts of others to educate him on the subject. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
*Last night when I saw your edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341834332&oldid=341826621 here], I decided to do some research on the [[List of Presidents of the United States|lists of Presidents]] to see exactly what religion they were listed at. Which is when I found that most were in fact specific in what denomination of religion they belonged to, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839016&oldid=341838306 not all had specific denominations listed.] And in fact there were a couple who had almost the exact same listing as Obama. Still, I went about the research and was assuming [[WP:AGF]], until you started making bizarre edits,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341838306&oldid=341836932 1],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839563&oldid=341839016 2],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839811&oldid=341839563 3] and drama filled reasoning. Not to mention, you changing the listed religion without any consensus. And let me explain consensus to you, since you don't seem to understand what it means here. You need consensus to change an established fact in an article, not to keep that established fact. This has long been the listing of Obama's religion, since he [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-11-17-3420350785_x.htm left the UCC.] Your reasoning and drama filled edit summaries remind me of what's transpiring currently in some [http://mediamatters.org/research/201002030049 right-wing hysteria circles.] The fact is, Obama has not declared his [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303619.html current denomination], is listed as a [[Christian]] on [http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php his website] and inside the info box of the [http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/obama Miller Center of Public Affairs.] So that is the current consensus listing. [[Christian]]. There is no need or frantic reason to change that descriptor, it covers the cited sources and what Obama describes himself as. Now, that should be enough for anyone to just let things play out. We are not supposed to use [[WP:OR]] and decipher what a [[WP:BLP]] ''should''be called or what we ''want'' them to be called. We use sources and the descriptors that come from the [[WP:BLP]] themselves. So I put my vote as "Leave as Christian until other developments/sources indicate otherwise". [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:: Agree as above. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 17:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:: i agree that listing his religion as [[christian]] is sufficient. [[User:Theserialcomma|Theserialcomma]] ([[User talk:Theserialcomma|talk]])

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

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

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

:::Saying that the American President is a Christian is indeed like saying he is a human being. America has barely had a Catholic president, much less a non-Christian one. However, making fine distinctions among the various branches of Christianity seems beside the point. It does seem a little odd to list the religion of a president. With a few exceptions, presidents are expected to keep up with their religious observances and beliefs, but this is quite tangential to the life and times of a president. It reminds me, faintly, of the occasional Japanese practice of listing the blood type of pop culture figures. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 14:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::The argument that the "reference used for Christianity is an unreliable source" is incorrect. First, we all agree that the assertion is correct, so a gold-plated source is not required. Second, the reference is extremely adequate and easily satisfies [[WP:RS]]. The only question concerns whether a "better" (more precise) label should be found, and whether a sourced label is available. I favor precision, but our discussion on what is the correct term to describe Obama's religion of course is totally irrelevant per [[WP:OR]]: we need a source. For whatever reason (not relevant to this discussion), no one has found a good source with current information that gives a more precise label. Until that occurs, this discussion is just chat and violates [[WP:TALK]]. In reply to a suggestion above: since all Presidents have "religion" in the infobox, and since there are good sources for "Christian" the term should not be removed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]])
::::::No one has found? Just wait. I have some but would like a more complete response, not a piecemeal one. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::These editors are discussing things on a religion board but their analysis may be helpful. Note that they posted these comments on the religion board but they are talking about Obama. Note: These were removed from here by another user but GFDL allows Wikipedia text to be used elsewhere besides the original page.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments: all four are largely accurate, it just depends on how much detail we want to provide:
# Christianity is accurate, but there are so many varieties of Christian, I'd prefer more detail than this
# Protestant is better, although there's still many varieties of that
# I have mixed feelings about "Non-denominational". It's true that Obama no longer associates with a particular denomination. But it's still true he's more Protestant than say Catholic or Orthodox.
# Listing both UCC up to 2008 and non-denominational thereafter is the most accurate, but maybe too much detail for an infobox?
My two preferences:
# Non-denominational Protestant (better than Non-denominational Christian - he's closer to Protestant than anything else)
# United Church of Christ (until 2008), Non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)
--[[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't like Non-denominational for two reasons: (1) Just because a person worships in a nondenominational chapel doesn't mean that that person leaves their denominational identity behind - e.g. I could easily describe myself as a Baptist or a Methodist or whatever, and still worship in a nondenominational chapel; (2) there are a number of nondenominational churches out there that appear to have made a principled decision not to belong to a denomination or as a criticism of denominationalism - I don't think there's any suggestion that Obama has converted to that type of nondenominationalism. I think just plain Christian is too generic - he's clearly not a member of the Roman Catholic Church or any of the autocephalous Eastern churches. My vote would be for:
:Protestant
:(member of the United Church of Christ until 2008)
[[User:Adam sk|Adam_sk]] ([[User talk:Adam sk|talk]]) 21:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::I have just reverted — for the second time — an edit by [[User:JB50000]], with the edit summary "Don't revert this again, JB50000, discuss it on the talk page", and then while I was writing this post, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=342840694| it was reverted back ''in''] by [[User:GB fan]], with the edit summary "Ummmm."

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

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

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

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

*These actions should be reported to ANI. You can't copy and paste comments in a RFC as if they were posted there. Period. What should have been done is that a warning and a self-revert issued to [[User:JB50000|JB50000]], and if not reverted a report at ANI should have been made. This is just getting ridiculous. If other editors want to keep re-adding comments from other pages into a RFC, they should cite their reasons why such an extreme measure should be allowed. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 03:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:::And so it turns into a full-blown edit war, with [[User:Jojhutton]] reverting the abovementioned misleading posts devoid of context, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&curid=7777393&diff=342847124&oldid=342846448| with the edit summary "undoing a questionable reversion".] Why, then, not question it, Jojhutton? Why five minutes after I posted the above discussion of the issue would the response not be to engage in this discussion, rather than simply revert? This is not responsible editing, it is disingenuous posturing against editors here, and it is contentious edit warring. I fail to understand the urgency three editors see in restoring these out-of-context posts by editors uninvolved in this discussion. It is indicative of a complete lack of editorial collegiality that there is no talk page discussion whatsoever from any of these three, JB50000, GB fan, and Jojhutton; it also suggests a failure to embrace the spirit of an RfC. I've never before seen [[User:GB fan]] here — which itself is a problem, reverting the decision of an involved editor at a talk page, ironically in an RfC to which he makes no contribution of his own — but JB50000 has carved out a pattern of edit warring and ignoring salient editorial points.

:::As for Jojhutton, I was interested to know if this editor had moved on to other edits or was composing a response here, and noted several edits after this one. An edit summary two edits previous caught my eye, however; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=342844809| this revert] to [[George W. Bush]] contains the summary "Not notable for BLP. per unwritten rules set up at [[Talk:Barack Obama]]". What kind of justification is that? This goes beyond tag-team edit warring. It seems clear that there is some politically motivated personalization at play here, although one that seems to deem itself above discussion, and it is resulting in irresponsible editing on a scale that reaches beyond this page. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 04:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Please try to be civil. Another editor, gave me some pointers as far as being civil - if you want this editor to leave some tips on your user page, just ask. As far as tag teaming, there are far more cases of tag teaming from the liberal faction. My faction, the absolutely neutral, pro-article improvement whether it's a positive or negative piece of information is a very lonely faction with few people unfortunately.
::::Thanks for someone else's suggestion of the link which I'll do next time. It is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#RFC_for_religion_-_President_Obama That discussion was ONLY to get help defining what the different religions are and did NOT ask people to comment on Obama. I did let the people know that I copied their comments here and gave them the option to black out their names.
::::If people wait a few days, I am gathering reliable source references which could resolve this issue! Stay tuned. I have one good reference but want to get some more. The other possibility is to just wait out the RFC and save up comments over a few days.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:Actually, in response to those above criticising JB5000 for copying my statements from another page to here, I have no objection to his so have done. I think those who would criticise him for so doing are frankly just being petty and pedantic. --[[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 09:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::To be clear, I didn't criticize him in your defense, and my consideration was not what you would prefer. You're probably unclear on this, but JB50000 never mentioned to anybody here that in the middle of this discussion he had gone over and begun the thread he called an "RfC" (but did not link to this page or this actual RfC) to which you responded at the WikiProject Religion. Did you know that? This isn't about protocol for its own sake, it's a little about a collegial heads-up, it's a little about not going behind your colleagues backs, but it's largely about how you can't compile the opinions of random people elsewhere as if it's a fresh and specific and informed consensus here, while never giving us the context or the source. Even after posting your response — and reverting it back into the article some four or five times against the opposition of several editors and without talk page discussion, in violation of collegial requests and several bright-line policies — he did not indicate where your comment was from, or what, precisely, it was in response to. There are shadings of difference in how things are handled from one page to another at Wikipedia, much less in the wider blogosphere, and if you don't choose to weigh in on the issue ''here'', and are a non-notable person and have no refs to support your opinion, then your opinion is not clearly relevant to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Well, that all sounds reasonable and I would agree, except it's [[WP:OR]] and [[conjecture]]. Which would work if we were trying to decipher what religion some past historical figure should be listed as, but not with a [[WP:BLP]], imo. When the info box was changed(after Obama and his family resigned from the UCC), there was a discussion here numerous times about what to list in the Obama religion box. After much discussion it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_49#UCC.2C_Again agreed by consensus] to place the religious identifier as 'Christian' until a reliable source indicates otherwise. Nothing has changed, except more sources list 'Christian' as Obama's religion. Including his own websites. So while I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with changing the descriptor until a reliable source indicates just what denomination of [[Christianity]] Barack Obama identifies with. We have to remember this is about changing a consensus that has been reached already. I have no problems with changing the descriptor if we are not using [[WP:OR]] to decipher the listing and are using a reliable source and [[WP:Consensus|consensus]]. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 21:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

There was a lot of religious people coming here for a while but it stopped. It seems that there is support for being more specific than just Christianity. There's one suggestion (mine) that there is no source that says he left the UCC, just left the individual church. I read somewhere that the UCC didn't want him but unless I see that again, it's a bit too controversial to include anything like that. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:We had a furious discussion about this a few months ago; you might drag through the archives and check it out. I took essentially your position. He definitely quit Trinity, but there's so source but an unclear ''en passant'' mention in an AP article that he quit the UCC. For a long time, the infobox said, "[[Christian]], last associated with the [[United Church of Christ]]" which seemed fine to me. He's lately been hanging around with a lot of pastors from different sects, but if he's adopted a new one he doesn't seem to have made it public. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
* '''Reponse to the RFC''' - There really is no more reliable source than Obama's own website, which does indeed list him as simply "Christian." Unless Obama has at some point stated that he is anything more specific, that's what we should call him. Let's use a little [[WP:COMMON]] sense here people. There are all kinds of sources debating about his religion, so rather than join in the potentially libelous debate, let's just call him what he calls himself. [[User:AzureFury|'''AzureFury''']] ([[User talk:AzureFury|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/AzureFury|contribs]]) 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
* '''UCC''' Is there a RFC? If so, where is the lightbulb tag? References say UCC so that's what it is. Christian is imprecise. If it is on his website, it could be to strongly highlight that he is not Muslim because if you put UCC, people might not know what that is (University of Central Canada? Unified Command of the Central NATO? University Church of Communists? United Counties of Christians?). So it could be a campaign tactic. But we have good references to say that he's a United Church of Christ so that's what should be listed. Similar variations of UCC are so ok like Protestant (UCC) or UCC (Christian), etc. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 19:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
* '''Agree with Gaydenver''' From my perspective, UCC means [[Uniform Commercial Code]]. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::Good point, should spell out "United Church of Christ" and not use abbreviations. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

== Kenyan nationality ==

Should be noted in infobox, even though it is a former nationality. He was a dual citizen for the beginning of his life. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.13.223.188|71.13.223.188]] ([[User talk:71.13.223.188|talk]]) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 
:Do you have a reliable source stating that? --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] ([[User talk:OuroborosCobra|talk]]) 01:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
::http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Far from being birther nonsense, it's right; he would have automatic citizenship of the United Kingdom, and later, Kenya, until it being automatically renounced. I'm not sure if it would warrant mention in the article, though, as it's of minor import. If it was, I'd suggest the following wording:
:::{{blockquote|[[Jus sanguinis|By virtue of his father's citizenship]] of [[Kenya Colony]], Obama Jr. had automatic [[British subject|British]]—and later Kenyan—citizenship. He lost his dual-citizenship on his 23rd birthday because he did not affirm an allegiance to Kenya.}}
::: '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:::(ec)Earlier discussion has pointed out that Obama indeed had Kenyan citizenship, but it lapsed when he turned 21. The issue then is [[WP:WEIGHT]]: How and in what way did the citizenship affect him sufficiently to be notable in a summary-style article? Not enough for the infobox, to be sure, and probably not enough for the article at all. It's mentioned in one or more of the subarticles, and that's enough. Sceptre's suggestion isn't bad, though. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spectre's suggestion is 99% ok, but there's a little mistake. Better is to modify it and say "He lost any claim to dual-citizenship on his 23rd ....." This is because there is no source that says Kenya claimed him or that he claimed Kenya. Kenya doesn't know everyone that could be a citizen. Those people have to do something like apply for a passport after which Kenya says "ok, here's your passport" or "no, you are an illegal, no passport for you". [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:If Obama Sr. had Kenyan citizenship, then Obama Jr. would have it too, until his 23rd birthday. See the factcheck article that says that, while neither claimed each other, he still was a Kenyan citizen. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 16:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
::Thinking about it, I agree with the above. I can be convinced even stronger if I knew that Obama Sr. had a Kenyan passport. I think he did because he was not an American citizen. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

:: --''If Obama Sr. had Kenyan citizenship, then Obama Jr. would have it too''-- In a purely technical matter, that's correct. But it was never enacted upon and has no bearing in Obama's life. Right? What possible difference does having a ''possible'', ''technical'', citizenship status if it was never actually acted upon? Thus never even really happened. I'm sure the same could be said for many people based on their heritage. I've been told I could, or could have, claimed German citizenship because my grandfather was born there. Though I would not appreciate someone assigning me German citizenship status without my consent in some article. It's rather an obscure, technical matter that doesn't reflect any real purpose. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 20:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this seems perfectly reasonable. I don't think it deserves a great deal of elaboration, but some simple little mention of the fact that he had a default dual citizenship which dropped at the age of 23 because he never did anything with it is fine.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC). 
:Why? Why is it important? Please address the really obvious [[WP:WEIGHT]] issue. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== Physical Attributes ==

Shouldn't his physical attributes be posted as well (height and weight)? I found [http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/01/1506066/obama-still-using-nicotene-replacement.html?storylink=omni_popular this] article that says he's 179.9lbs and has a BMI of 23.7, which means he's about 6'1' ' if my calculations are correct. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.83.28.30|74.83.28.30]] ([[User talk:74.83.28.30|talk]]) 18:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 
:No. He's a politician, not a baseball player. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::That does not imply that his overall health (as BMI is an important tool for determining overall health for people within certain averages) is irrelevant. Especially since his health has been called into question by certain media organizations lately and health factors have limited and sometimes killed presidents of the past. [[Special:Contributions/76.2.235.75|76.2.235.75]] ([[User talk:76.2.235.75|talk]]) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::IMO, the President's health belongs in this article only if (1) he is hospitalized or (2) the [[Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-fifth Amendment]] is invoked. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 18:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

::: What 'media organizations' have called President Obama's health into question? His BMI was described as 'healthy' and the summary from the physician noted that Obama was in "excellent health"[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZrDjfR6gmuWCrw5kO1bjW_uc4oQD9E5B6AO1 .] There were a couple of things Obama should be doing better in, but absolutely nothing that raises any of the concerns you are citing. He is in 'excellent health'. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:::: I think that Fox News called into question his drinking habits [http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2010/03/02/conservatives-falsely-characterize-obama-health-report-to-suggest-he-drinks-too-much/#axzz0hbtNHsjz .] I guess the point that he is in good condition was the point, but if people should assume that it wasn't mentioned in the article implies that it has never been called into question that works. I just don't really know the rules to these things so I thought I should ask here first. Thanks! Cheers. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.83.28.30|74.83.28.30]] ([[User talk:74.83.28.30|talk]]) 18:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 

::::: That's not [[Fox News]], that's [[Alan Colmes]] complaining about [[Matt Drudge|Drudge]] linking to a [[tabloid]] paper(the [[Daily Mail]]). In other words, a bunch of tabloid fodder. There's no need to debunk that type of silliness. Especially from an outlet who has already [[Daily Mail#Libel_lawsuits|lost five libel suits]] the past 10 years. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When his health becomes a major part of his biography, this kind of information (weight, cholesterol) should be included. So far, it is not. This is the neutral way and the way that all articles should take. [[User:A UT professor|A UT professor]] ([[User talk:A UT professor|talk]]) 01:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

== No mention of Hawaii in lead? ==

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

:Why? [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 05:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
::It's a significant enough element of his biography to warrant it. The amount of coverage of his Hawaiian origins during his election campaign was remarkable for someone who made his political career in another state. A lot of it had to do with how race relations were different in Hawaii than on the mainland, and that that had shaped him as an individual. Typical examples: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17003563/ Obama had multiethnic existence in Hawaii], [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/world/americas/17iht-obama.1.html In Hawaii, clues from Barack Obama's origins]. Personally, I think it's fair to say he's more of an Illinoisan than a Hawaiian now, but it does seem to be a matter of debate - [http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Americas/2008/November/Is-Obama-Hawaiian-or-Illinoisan-.html Is Obama Hawaiian or Illinoisan?], [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1858759,00.html Hawaii vs. Illinois: Battling over a Favorite Son - TIME], [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081030/NEWS05/810300361/Obama%5C-s-more-Illinois-than-Hawaii--folks-in-Chicago-say Obama's more Illinois than Hawaii, folks in Chicago say]. I don't think it's entirely fair to mention in the lead where he got his undergraduate degree but not where he was born and (mostly) raised. This is something that could be done succinctly.[[Special:Contributions/82.120.177.181|82.120.177.181]] ([[User talk:82.120.177.181|talk]]) 09:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
::I'm the same person as 82. Since there are no objections, I'll make the change. [[User:Ucbear|Ucbear]] ([[User talk:Ucbear|talk]]) 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

== Juris doctor = "doctorate"? ==

Is it common practice in the english wikipedia to call JD "a doctorate in law", in light of it being first professional degree, unlike JSD (doctor of judicial science)? -anonymous —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.186.248.40|109.186.248.40]] ([[User talk:109.186.248.40|talk]]) 08:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 
:The English Wikipedia being an online encyclopedia, there actually ''are'' articles here where people confused by terms used in this article can find referenced explanations of the terminology and what it encompasses, including [[Juris doctor]]. It is at those articles and their talk pages that common practice for English Wikipedia usage is presented and may be discussed. Incidentally, the term is Doctor of Juridical Science. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 08:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not confused, I know full well the controversary regarding the designation of JD as "a doctorate", My question is whether it is common practice in the english wikipeida to pass judgement on that controversary in the way of using the term "a doctorate" in the article. If not, then this word should be removed from the article. If someone knows the answer to this question, I'll be happy if he responds. Otherwise I'll have to start checking myself the wikilinks to JD and see if in most of the articles it is regarded as "a doctorate".

::For comparison, one might read the artile about the italian [[Doctor_(title)#Italy|dottore]]. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.186.7.33|109.186.7.33]] ([[User talk:109.186.7.33|talk]]) 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 

Obama received a JD, though this stands for Juris Doctor in latin, it is not commonly referred to as a Doctorate of Law in English or by legal professionals (notwithstanding any 'controversy' around whether the degree has academic doctoral status or not). The connotation of the current phrasing more accurately refers to the qualification achieved under an SJD degree, which Harvard Law School also confers. It would be more accurate to say he earned his JD...Presently sounds awkward and inaccurate, and would be laughable to any legal professional. Wikipedia editors should have higher standards for something so basic- really hope someone can edit this silly error. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.140.3.80|69.140.3.80]] ([[User talk:69.140.3.80|talk]]) 04:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC) 

== More foolish trivia ==

Why isnt the fact that Obama stated he was the 44th single man to take the Presidential oath, when infact he was the 43rd because of Grover Cleveland taking presidency twice mentioned in this article? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mongbean|Mongbean]] ([[User talk:Mongbean|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mongbean|contribs]]) 18:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 
:Because it is useless trivia with no relevance or importance to a biography of Obama's entire life. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] ([[User talk:OuroborosCobra|talk]]) 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== Talk page too long. ==

I think I speak for everyone that some users might slow their computers down. We should archive this page. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Emo-tional being|Emo-tional being]] ([[User talk:Emo-tional being|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Emo-tional being|contribs]]) 17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 
:It's currently set to automatically archive any thread that isn't updated for 14 days. People tweak that from time to time and it's generally set somewhere between 7 and 14 days. At 189K right now, it's not any longer than it usually is. I don't see any harm in shortening that to 10. But overall I think this article is just harder to work on than most, for many reasons. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:: It may be that the pictures currently on the talk page are causing some users problems, but that can be solved by users with slower connections by disabling graphics. Of course, I am not opposed to shortening the archive time back to 10 days either. Though it seems, once again, that some articles that should be archived are getting caught up and are not auto-archived and may have to be put in manually. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 20:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I've just had a quick look through, and as the bot judges on the big sections it doesn't currently look like anything is getting stuck. I'm going to change it to 10 days as there are a couple of large threads dated the 28 February. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
::::OK its down to 127k now. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 10:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

== Occupation doesn't include President ==

Is there a reason for this? -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
:Because it is kinda redundant to list being "president" in a officeholder infobox. The field is meant to be used to their prior occupation. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 23:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama

2010-03-14T04:39:32Z

69.140.3.80: /* Juris doctor = "doctorate"? */

{{featured article review|Barack Obama/archive7}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan|type=content}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 68
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive <#>
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Historical diffs
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/weight
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/race
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{pp-move-indef}}

{{purge|page=Barack Obama|1=Click to manually purge the article's cache}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{Round In Circles|search=yes}}
{{Community article probation|main page=Barack Obama|BASEPAGENAME=Barack Obama|[[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation]] for full information and to review the decision}}
{{calm talk|#FFCCCC}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=FA|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|listas=Obama, Barack}}
{{USP-Article|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{Project Congress|class=FA|subject=person|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Illinois|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WPHawaii|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{Wikiproject Kansas|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{ChicagoWikiProject|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Columbia University|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WP Indonesia|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{AfricaProject|class=FA|importance=low|Kenya=yes|Kenya-importance=low}}
{{Project afro|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|class=FA}}
{{Talk Spoken Wikipedia|class=FA|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg}}
{{WPCD-People|class=FA}}
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack}}
{{pressmulti|collapsed=yes
| title = On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet
| author = Jose Antonio Vargas
| date = 2007-09-17
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html
| org = [[The Washington Post]]
| section = September
| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare
| author2 = [[Alison Stewart]], Rachel Martin
| date2 = 2008-04-03
| url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf
| org2 = [[The Bryant Park Project]], [[NPR]]
| title3 = Editors in Chief
| author3 = [[Brooke Gladstone]], [[Bob Garfield]]
| date3 = 2008-04-04
| url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02
| org3 = [[On The Media]], NPR
| title4 = Wiki Woman
| author4 = Eve Fairbanks
| date4 = 2008-04-09
| url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1
| org4 = [[The New Republic]]
| section4 = March
| title5= Hillary's Wiki Defender
| author5 = Jesse Brown
| date5= 2008-04-10
| url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html
| org5= [[Search Engine (radio show)|Search Engine]], [[CBC Radio One]]
| title6= Wikipedia Wars
| author6 = [[Tom Foreman]]
| date6= 2008-04-11
| url6= http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269
| org6= [[This Week...]], [[CNN]]
| title7= Liberal Web
| author7 = [[John J. Miller]]
| date7= 2008-04-21
| url7=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/print?tag=artBody;col1
| org7= [[National Review]]
| section7=April 2008
| title8= Clinton's entry in Wikipedia has a watchdog
| author8 = Kelly Heyboer
| date8= 2008-05-28
| url8= http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/05/hillary_clintons_wikipedia_wat.html
| org8= [[The Star-Ledger]]
| title9=NJ Man Appoints Himself Wikipedia Watchdog
| author9 = Paul Murnane
| date9= 2008-05-28
| url9=http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2400703
| org9= [[WCBS (AM)|WCBS Newsradio 880]]
| title10= Updating a Reference Site on the Fly
| author10= Noam Cohen
| date10= 2008-11-09
| url10= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html
| org10= [[The New York Times]]
| title11= Obama Wikipedia page under possible security attack
| author11= Adrian Bridgwater
| date11= January 22, 2009
| url11= http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10011960o-2000458459b,00.htm
| org11= [[ZDNet]]
| title12= Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
| author12= [[Aaron Klein]]
| date12= March 8, 2009
| url12= http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114
| org12= [[WorldNetDaily]]
| title13= Obama's Wikipedia Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers
| author13= Joshua Rhett Miller
| date13= March 9, 2009
| url13= http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html
| org13= [[Fox News Channel]]
| title14= Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Wikipedia', report claims
| author14= Mark Coleman
| date14= March 10, 2009
| url14= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Wikipedia-report-claims.html
| org14= [[The Daily Telegraph]]
| title15= Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos
| author15= Noam Cohen
| date15= July 19, 2009
| url15= http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
| org15= [[The New York Times]]
|author16=(none)
|date=August 17, 2009
|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html
|title=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008
|org=[[The Daily Telegraph]]
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=12 August 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama
|action1result=Promoted
|action1oldid=5174535

|action2=WPR
|action2date=18 August 2004
|action2link=Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 18, 2004
|action2result=Maindate
|action2oldid=5294576

|action3=FAR
|action3date=09:53, 23 January 2007
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1
|action3result=pass
|action3oldid=102622704

|action4=FAR
|action4date=22:24, July 26, 2007
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2
|action4result=pass
|action4oldid=147098144

|action5=FAR
|action5date=06:08, 15 April 2008
|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3
|action5result=kept
|action5oldid=205714008

|action6=FAR
|action6date=12:56, 16 September 2008
|action6link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4
|action6result=kept
|action6oldid=239534110

|action7=WPR
|action7date=4 November 2008
|action7link=Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008
|action7result=Maindate
|action7oldid=249529065

|action8=FAR
|action8date=17:30, 2 December 2008
|action8link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive5
|action8result=kept
|action8oldid=255411914

|action9=FAR
|action9date=03:36, 10 March 2009
|action9link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive6
|action9result=kept
|action9oldid=276168026

|maindate=November 4, 2008
|itndate=November 5, 2008
|currentstatus=FA
|small=yes}}
{{archives
|auto=yes
|search=yes
|bot=MiszaBot
|age=14
|index= /Archive index|
; Special discussion pages:
* [[/Article probation|Article probation]], [[/Article probation/Incidents|Incidents]]
* [[/Historical diffs|Historical diffs]], [[/weight|Weight]], [[/race|Race]]}}

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

The second paragraph of the section "University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney" lists Obama as a "professor" for twelve years, clarifying that he was a lecturer first and a "senior lecturer" later. The title of "lecturer" is distinct from that of "professor". I propose that the paragraph be modified to start, "For 12 years, Obama lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School." —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.151.71.18|128.151.71.18]] ([[User talk:128.151.71.18|talk]]) 15:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 
:This claim has been made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=professor&prefix=Talk:Barack+Obama&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search over and over], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_24#Professor debunked every time]. This(that Obama was a professor) has been confirmed by reliable sources and the claim that he was not has been debunked by [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html Factcheck.org] and [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp Snopes]. So it's a fact that [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] was a Constitutional Law Professor. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 15:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::Obama was never on tenure track at the University of Chicago as a quick phone call to the University has just proven. He was a lecturer for all his years there and he did it on a part-time basis. And the idea that someone who works hard to gain tenure track and earns the right to be called a professor, that somehow 'professor' is a pejorative term denoting 'old right wing meme' as DD2K stated in his edit summary, is offensive.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::You are misunderstanding the edit summary. The "old right wing meme" is the repeated claims that Obama was never a professor, despite statements from the university and reliable sources to the contrary. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::[[User:Malke_2010|Malke_2010]], you should follow the links I provided and try to understand that this has been discussed and proven false. Obama was considered a Constitutional Law Professor by the university, and that has been proven over and over. There is no doubt. In the links I provided are direct quotes from the University of Chicago, so pretending that a 'quick phone call' proves otherwise is disingenuous. At best. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Blogs are no substitute for the University itself. Obama was never on tenure tract. He was always a lecturer. He was never a Con Law scholar. Blogs are disingenuous as is any claim that they are accurate. Obama's listings in the Un Chicago directory was as a 'lecturer.' Blogs can't beat that.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Those aren't 'blogs', it was Factcheck.org and Snopes. Both respected institutions for debunking false accusations and urban legends that get mass emailed. And they quote the University of Chicago directly, and the quote has been repeated in just about every reliable sourced media outlet. Perhaps you should have actually read the links I provided before you made the claim that you called the university? I would say that claim you made, and the subsequent posts you are posting, makes clear that there no longer needs to be any [[WP:AGF]] with you here. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::The University of Chicago is the last word on this. Call them yourself. Factcheck.org is a blog, as is Snopes. These are not respected secondary sources like the New York Times or the Washington Post. I find it curious that you are using these blogs and not using the New York Times or the Washington Post to back up your claims of 'right wing meme.' You can call Obama a professor all you want, but he was never a professor. He never applied for tenure track. The University of Chicago's faculty directory proves that. In the last edition Obama was in, he was listed as a "Senior Lecturer." The directory is a bona fide source for a citation and can be used in correcting Obama's article. You are free to call the Un of Chicago yourself. And just because an editor disagrees with you, or presents sources that contradict your claims, doesn't mean that editor has an agenda or that other editors can't assume they have good faith. Please read the Wikipedia policy [[WP:PERSONAL ATTACK]]. You don't want to establish a [[WP:CHILL]] effect in what could appear to be an effort to drive away editors from making contributions to Obama's article. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::''"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. '''Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors''', although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times '''during his 12 years as a professor''' in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."'' ([http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media source]) - CASE CLOSED. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:Exactly. Not really a professor. But you can call him that. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Factcheck and Snopes are not blogs, but if it's the NYT you want, here's an article about his time as a professor, referring to him as professor throughout, including the headline. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html]. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::(after ec) This issue has been discussed before and resolved, if you search the talk page archives. It is correct that Obama was a professor, per the university and plenty of reliable sources. There is no question about his actual role; it is a definitional matter, and the definition of the word is not fixed. We could add a word or two or rephrase perhaps to eliminate the ambiguity but past proposals to do so have not gained consensus. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::In the proper usage of the title, he is not a professor. It's all right to make the distinction, because saying he was a lecturer doesn't take anything away from Obama, since he is the President of the United States. Don't see where any other Un Chicago profs have done that. This is from Slate which explains the difference. [http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/26/was-obama-a-law-professor.aspx] You guys get over the top here but that could be why the article is still in such good shape. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::So you are claiming that the University of Chicago is using the title improperly? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::No, I'm showing you why there's an argument about this stuff in the first place.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::There's no argument, only people who, for whatever reason, can't accept that the University of Chicago knows what it calls its own employees. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 22:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sweet mother of God, this again? Seriously? There is no objective criteria for what constitutes a professor. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that says you have to be on a tenure track to have the title professor. A university creates its own parameters for who is a professor or adjunct or some other title. University of Chicago refers to him as being a professor at their law school http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media. Having the title of "senior lecturer" has no effect whatsoever on whether or not he is a professor. If University of Chicago calls the Senior Lecturers who work at their law school "professors" then they are professors. He was a professor, period. End of story. ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 19:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

:Since this was discussed almost nine months ago in May 2009:
:# [[Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Academics]]
:# [[Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Lecturer and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law_School]]
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=289078054 15:31, 10 May 2009] [[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Newross|contribs]]) ''(→Early life and career: "was a professor of constitutional law" --> "served as a professor of constitutional law"; add "as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004")''
:two "minor edits" changed consensus wording:
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=322667387 03:02, 29 October 2009] [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/SMP0328.|contribs]]) '''m''' ''(→Early life and career: Wording tweak)''<blockquote>served as a professor of [[constitutional law]] → was a [[constitutional law]] professor</blockquote>
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=327669089 14:28, 24 November 2009] [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk:Afterwriting|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Afterwriting|contribs]]) ''(Minor style edits.)''<blockquote>Lecturer → lecturer Senior Lecturer → senior lecturer</blockquote>
:[[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]]) 18:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for that legwork - very helpful! - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

There is no other way around it.

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

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

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

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

:This claim has been made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=professor&prefix=Talk:Barack+Obama&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search over and over], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_24#Professor debunked every time]. This(that Obama was a professor) has been confirmed by reliable sources and the claim that he was not has been [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html Factcheck.org] and [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp Snopes]. So it's a fact that [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] was a Constitutional Law Professor. By the way, this is not a forum and it's getting pretty monotonus with the same posters coming in and making the same kind of claims over and over. I really think any 'litmus test' should be decided by a quick [[WP:SPI]] on a few of the posters in here. I definitely think there are some 'good hand-bad hand' games being played here. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 05:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::This is a personal attack. Don't like someone and call them a sock. Looking at the archives...same of behavior over and over...collapsing boxes, calling people sock. It is also an attack on Wikicup, of which I am a participant and beating many other editors so far, many of whom have zero points. Prove that you are not an Obama staffer. I am one of the most neutral people here, challenging extreme right wingers and left wing nuts. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::What this basically boils down to is trying to play up the confusion between Professor and professor. Professor is lying. professor is a weasel word and then it requires a long explanation about his position. Basically, he was a part time faculty member. Look up this http://www.missouriwestern.edu/eflj/faculty/ Is Meredith Katchen a professor of English? That would be stretching the facts and overselling. President Obama is a great leader, very articulate, very effective in his agenda (with one exception). He won the Nobel Peace Prize fair and square. He doesn't need to pad his resume calling him professor. By being realistic, the Wikipedia article gains credibility. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::::To assist in settling the matter, I've asked some editors who write the Professor article in Wikipedia and some Wikipedia administrators who are university faculty members. If they say that the general public understands the difference between Professor and professor, then the article is fine the way it is. If they say that the general public may not understand or may confuse the two, then that helps settle this question. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yea, well I consider your 'litmus test' a personal attack. And I don't remember accusing anyone on here of being a sockpuppet(before my most recent post). So that's another claim by you that is not true. Also, I think you should stop trying to insert [[WP:OR]] into the article and the talk page. Going around asking people to do your [[WP:OR]] and making posts(forum shopping) all over Wikipedia doesn't really fit within the guidelines. Try citing [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], like everyone else here has done to show you that Obama was considered a law professor. There are several citations, and direct quotes from the university itself, that back that up. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean anything. Not here, not ever. Reliable sources, [[WP:Consensus]] and [[WP:Weight]] do, and using those guidelines you are incorrect. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::It boils down to supporters of professor argue on a technicality, that any faculty member is a professor. They ignore that there is much confusion between Professor and professor. So either there has to be a lengthy explanation/disclaimer or there is none and people get fooled. This reliable source explains it. http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-04/2005-04-20-voa2.cfm The reader is confused between professor and other titles (lecturer is mentioned in the article). This also brings up the issue of prose. If you have prose that can lead to confusion, this is bad.

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

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

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

:::::::This issue is so easy and clear cut that if you oppose it (by wanting a deceptive version or by wanting a smear version), then the Wikipedia system is broken.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::You obviously do not understand what [[WP:OR]] states, or what a reliable source is. I suggest you go and read the guidelines, because you are doing nothing but making your own assumptions and trying to insert your own opinions based on definitions of titles or words. It's painfully obvious to anyone that the citations given(FactCheck.org, UofC, NYT) have put this issue to rest. There is no way to overrule those citations without violating [[WP:Undue Weight]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:OR]]. I do believe this discussion is over. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 15:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::The real litmus test should be this: either explain why the University of Chicago is unable to correctly identify its own employees or stop wasting everyone's time. What better source for the title of an employee than an employer? It's not about logic or arguments or partisanship. Wikipedia runs on sources, period. The best source, the source that employed him, says that he was a professor. Unless you can trump that, this is all just pointless chatter. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 18:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree that this particular sub-thread, and any long discussion, is a waste of time, even though I do hold the minority position that we should use more precise language and not simply call him a professor because his employer and the sources do. The sources, for example, may say it is "cold" in Moscow this week but that doesn't stop us from being more precise and reporting just ''how'' cold it is. It wouldn't kill us to add a short adjective clause like "non-tenure track", "adjunct", "part time", "visiting", "associate", or whatever it is. But I think I'm in the minority on this and not much chance of changing anyone's mind so I won't go off on how [insert favorite Wikipedia accusation] everyone here is for disagreeing with me. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

===Comparison===
Scjessey's version is above:

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

A more concise version:

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

This concise version has none of the disclaimers like the top version. There is no chance for misunderstanding. This is no chance of resume inflation. There is respect for the President. Because of this, both Obama staffers and right wing extremists probably hate these version. The staffers want resume inflation. The right wingers want to diminish his achievements. By being neutral and fair, this article gets credibility. With the neutral version, we can focus on this man's fine leadership, good achievements (with one possible failure or delay), a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize, etc. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:I think there has been a '''''huge''''' misunderstanding here. The text I quote in the section above is not from any article. It is from the [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media University of Chicago's statement] on the matter. It is the ''source''. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 13:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

===ANI===
I posted on ANI asking for administrators who are Ph.D.'s to clarify between a Professor and a professor. Whatever the consensus is among them, that will help resolve this discussion. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
: So you want them to discuss if the word should be upper or lower case 'P' ? Don't they have other things to do ?. If he is a professor according to an accredited university (thus making it a reliable source) then that's quite OK to add and if they spell the word with a capital 'P' then we use that. Seems simple to me. [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] ([[User talk:Ttiotsw|talk]]) 08:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::I was a British academic, not an American one, but the concise version above looks fine to me. I've looked at the University page and of course they use a small 'p', that's no surprise, just the way English works, see [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/dam/]. Dam was a professor with the title Professor Emeritus etc... There can be no doubt that we can say Obama was a professor. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

===Concerns with edits===
This editor is persisting in removing the word professor from the article. When I reverted one of his edits, which hid the removal among others and called it fixing the bad prose, he got hostile on my talk page, and reinstated his edit, but changed it to put professor in quotes and write up a disclaimer which made Obama look like a liar. Isn't the ARBCom and the page protection situation in place to eliminate this sort of politically motivated attacking? [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Then think of a way to not make him look like a liar but also not create confusion between Professor and professor. Think about solutions, not insist on a bad choice. If you don't like my idea, think of a better one and report it here! [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::::As far as hostility, it is you who are hostile, calling other people's edits "smokescreen". Please don't![[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
: I put a 3RR warning on his page, I'd suggest someone also give him the article probation notice for future reference. I agree that there's no consensus about the professor edit. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 07:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
*There is a definite problem with the user concerning [[WP:Consensus]] and [[WP:OR]]. Otherwise, he is purposely removing/adding text to the article that he knows is against consensus and using [[WP:OR|original research]]. And not only that, but is reverting other editors multiple times that are correcting him. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 08:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

<blockquote>In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the [[University of Chicago Law School]] to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching [[constitutional law]][http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html .][http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html .] </blockquote>

:Which are cited by reliable sources and indisputable. This should be a non-issue, and I am not going to comment further on it, considering the issue closed. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::The issue could be made closed with simple changes. The fact remains that there is confusion between professor and Professor (Professor is one of the most senior faculty ranks, just below Chairman). There is also a historical issue that causes fighting here. During the campaign, the Obama campaign released information that he was a law professor. Maybe they thought that the general public wouldn't know what a Lecturer was. In the very loosest sense, a professor is any university teacher. However, a teaching assisting saying "I was a professor" is considered dishonest. The Clinton campaign picked up and this and attacked Obama. Obama needed to save himself so he appealed to the University of Chicago. Not wanting to offend a future president, they issued a carefully worded statement.

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

::Given the animosity of the past discussion, this will undoubtedly close as unchanged without true consensus or the best wording used. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:::The importance you place upon the word "professor" may be your personal viewpoint or a U.S.-centric thing. Technical colleges around here call their staff Professors and they're not on any tenure or academic track. Same with the university I attended - if you were part of the faculty, your were called professor or associate professor. If the University of Chicago says Obama was a professor at the university then that's the wording we should use. --[[User:NeilN|'''NeilN''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|talk to me]]'' 06:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into this and now realize that there is an intense backstory to the professor issue. Initially the Hillary campaign suggested that Obama was inflating his resume. The Obama campaign cried "mommy!" but then asked the University of Chicago to help them in a bind so the University, not wanting to cross a future president, hedged. So some people could be playing a hyper-cheerleader and want to present the most pro-Obama stance. The really anti-Obama people probably want to quote the controversy. The neutral stance would be to not mention the controversy but to neutrally say that he was on the faculty or that he was a Senior Lecturer. Some blogs describe exactly what I say. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:Sigh. Ever hear of [[WP:NOR]] and that blogs are not [[WP:reliable sources]]? --[[User:NeilN|'''NeilN''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|talk to me]]'' 04:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::I never said I wanted to use blog material. I also didn't do any OR. We must all do OR to understand an issue otherwise we are not thinking.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::"I ... didn't do any OR. We must all do OR ... otherwise we are not thinking.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)"
:::Yep. That seems to pretty much sum up this discussion. [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 07:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:Wow. With that bit of bizarre grandstanding, you have pretty much torpedoed any chance of you ever being taken seriously on this page again, or any chance of other's giving your editing suggestions anything more than a polite dismissal. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::This is not bizarre grandstanding. Foreign politicians and a U.S. senator's office have been caught editing their own articles so we know that there has been manipulation. I never accused any specific editor of editing their own article. We also know can make a pretty good guess to how a militant supporter or militant opponent would decide on certain editorial questions. We assume good faith in not accusing others but to not assess the supporter's view and opponent's view and choose the neutral view is part of being a good editor.

::What I wrote has reliable sources about the Hillary campaign attacking Obama for resume inflation. One news organization (used by other editors in this article) confirms my summary...{{blockquote|The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not." We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.}}

::So the bottom line is that it that there was a Hillary-Obama dispute. Some editors might want to take the Hillary side or the Obama side but Wikipedia should be neutral. I don't even think we should mention the dispute but should be mindful to take the neutral standpoint and not take sides even if we don't mention the dispute. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::"''I don't even think we should mention the dispute''" So why have you just posted almost a page of text? Per [[WP:TALK]] and [[WP:NOTAFORUM]] (not to mention the [[WP:GS/BO|general sanctions]]) we should only be discussing how to improve the article. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Mentioning the dispute on this talk page helps understand the issue. So if we just report on the Obama campaign's response and their tactics to address the issue and not even report the controversy nor the other side, we are not being objective. Yet, there is a way to not mention the controversy by just stating in the most neutral terms what he was, namely a Senior Lecturer who was offered a position on the full time faculty. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::That is not what he was described as though according to reliable sources, including the university itself. [[WP:V|Verifiability, Not Truth]], remember. We aren't here to judge or to interpret how we thing things should be. As I said on that AN/I, even I would never address a non-tenure track person such as Obama as "professor", but that has no bearing on what we're talking about here. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 05:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

NBC News reports that there was an issue regarding the Obama campaign calling him Professor verbally or maybe professor (capital P sounds the same as little P). It says
<blockquote>
He is a senior lecturer and has cited that he is a constitutional law professor on the trail. That's something that has caused some criticism and allegations of exaggeration. It's something the Clinton campaign has pushed as well in conference calls with reporters in the past week.

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

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

:I agree with you 100%, but also note that we seem to be in the minority on this. It is technically correct to say that he was professor because the weight of the sources say so... but the term is ill defined and may give some people the wrong impression, so why not be more precise and say exactly what he was / did? Anyway, this seems to be: (a) a lost cause, and (b) not terribly important. The silly little controversy over the issue was, well, silly. It was a non-issue over a non-event. Opposition researchers briefly thought they could accuse Obama of resume fraud, and when they couldn't, they tried anyway. It got no traction. But still, we should be as straightforward and precise as we can here. Just my opinion of course. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 07:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
::Per Wikidemon, precision is better. This is crazy and dysfunctional - all this dispute over 1 little word. English has thousands of words, surely there's another one that is just as good, better, or more precise. [[User:Judith Merrick|Judith Merrick]] ([[User talk:Judith Merrick|talk]]) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I assume that everyone here is completely neutral. If one is biased and wants to write a promotional piece on Obama, then they should support the use of the word professor since it pads his resume. The neutral way is what Wikidemon said, it can give the wrong impression, so the use of the word "professor" should be removed. Wikidemon also says it is "a lost cause" which could mean that some people will insist on it. Why? It's not logical if they are not trying to write a promotional piece. Assuming good faith would then mean they are not trying to promote him, just not logical. Let' go with the neutral, logical wording, which is just to drop the word "professor". We aren't saying "Obama is not a professor" because that would be biased the other way. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I just really want to know where people got this idea that professor absolutely and at all times means tenured faculty or tenure-track. It is true that that is often how an institutions define "professor" but there's no objective universal standard for the term professor. There is absolutely no reason to assert that only one who has tenure or who is on a tenure track is a professor. It falls upon the institution to define what that positions means for that institution. University of Chicago does things differently. They call their Senior Lecturers professors. That's the end of it. There is no debate after that. It makes no difference that he didn't have tenure and it makes no difference that he wasn't on a tenure-track. UofC is very picky with its grant of tenure so that's not all that surprising. My point here has nothing to do with politics, it's just common sense. It's not "resume padding" it is an objective fact. UofC says that their Senior Lecturers are professors and that Obama was a professor, then he was a professor and that's it. Period. No debate, no controversy, no room for discussion. It's a dead issue. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jdlund|contribs]]) 20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 

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

:UT Professor, I don't know if you are actually a professor at UT (I am going to guess no) but you are full of it when it comes to U of C. I went to the U of C law school (though it was after Obama taught there). A number of their classes are taught by Senior Lecturers and they are all absolutely referred to as professors. Every last single one of them. And no you cannot compare a junior faculty member with Senior Lecturer, certainly not what U of C means by Senior Lecturer. The press release had nothing to do with politics. You may disagree with a Senior Lecturer being called a professor but that feeling is irrelevant. U of C defines their Senior Lecturers as professors (at least within the Law School) that's the end of this discussion. There is no debate after that. It's not about politics, this is an issue with one, and only one, clear right absolute answer. U of C called him a professor; he was a professor. Period. It doesn't matter if it is potentially "misleading." If people don't understand that there isn't a consistent universal meaning to the label "professor" (something that even the faux "professor" above me doesn't understand) then that's their fault. Wikipedia should be about verifiable facts and it is an absolute, incontrovertible fact that at the University of Chicago he was a professor.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 03:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
::Not to add another long rant, but I think of some of you are very much mistaken about what U of C means by Senior Lecturer. I don't know what that position means at any other school, but at U of C it is a very distinguished position in their law school. It usually is someone who is accomplished. For instance the three seventh circuit court judges who teach classes on occasion (Posner, Easterbrook, and Wood) are all Senior Lecturers. You better believe that if [[Richard Posner]] teaches a class every student in that room will call him Judge Posner or Professor Posner, and absolutely the school will refer to him the same. Just so you all know, because as a U of C grad watching this brandishing of ignorance about this issue has been really annoying, Senior Lecturer is not some trivial little position anywhere near akin to "junior instructor" or "associate faculty" or whatever. It is a serious and meaningful position and yes they are called professors.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 04:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I generally avoid these retreads, but given the sudden influx of professors here (he said drily), I'd be interested to know if you both (and whomever else feels the need to weigh in in a timely manner so this thread can finally draw to a close) would agree that we should change the link of the term professor from [[professor|the more general, historic, perspectives-around-the-world article]] to the more relevant [[Professors in the United States]]? Not unlike [[president]] versus [[President of the United States]] or [[senate]] versus [[United States Senate]], it's entirely irrelevant to its usage in this article what the general word means throughout the world, and that international variance is perhaps causing (enabling?) some of the confusion here. Those interested in etymology will know to push further; those interested in clarifying the specific context of the term here will find it sooner, and those interested in perpetuating this sort of argument at this late date will be reminded that the term is, after all, linked, to an article explaining the term in context, presumably with whatever caveats are appropriate to the depersonalized examination there. (I'm just employing logic and common sense, I have neither edited nor read either article.) [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Good idea. Since no objections, I have just made that change. The sixth word in [[Professors in the United States]] is the link [[professor]] so apart from the fact that the U.S. usage is the more appropriate, anyone wanting a more general discussion will be able to easily find it. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

== Religion needs changing ==

I have looked at all the presidents for the last 100 years. Obama's religion in the infobox near the top of the article is non-standard. All the other presidents say Roman Catholic, Baptist, etc.

Obama's should say ''"United Church of Christ (until 2008), non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)"'' This is because he used to be a member of the [[Trinity United Church of Christ]] until he chose Evergreen Chapel, Camp David. Evergreen Chapel is non-demoninational, though it is not Catholic.

Just saying "Christianity" is too vague. Most Christians are either Catholic or Protestant, with many Protestant demoninations. There are also some other Christians, like the Coptics in Egypt and others. But Obama is not a Coptic. Mormans are usually considered Christian, though some Christians think they are not Christian. Obama is certainly not a Mormon.

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

Even though there is a lot of hostility and opposition to change (no pun intended even though Obama is for change), please consider this change. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:Seriously, dude, if you're taking it upon yourself to edit article space in an encyclopedia — despite the request of a number of editors to discuss changes on the talk page first — you could at least take the two seconds to spell-check your text. The phrase is not "non-'''demon'''inational Christian", it's "non-denominational Christian". Yet the qualifier modifies the overall scope of the chapel, and not Obama's religion. We don't need to add two words to point out that we are not specifying a denomination of Christianity when the simple lack of a specific denomination suffices to make the same point in a more succinct way. The point of that church's non-denominationalism is to serve the greatest number of individuals, not to be "new-agey" or something like that. The actual current minister at that chapel is Baptist, if I recall, yet is similarly an erroneous data point when inserted into an infobox section about ''Obama's'' religion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

:United Church of Christ is more a loose affiliation of churches than other Protestant denominations and, as such, when he pulled out of Trinity he also pulled out of the UCC denomination. So listing UCC in the infobox is not accurate. At best he could be listed as non-denominational Protestant, but even then it's not clear. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] [[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]] 05:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::I have no argument with that. That is an improvement over just "Christianity". So "United Church of Christ (until 2008), non-denominational Protestant (2008-present)"? Or we could put "presumed non-denominational Protestant (2008-present) but I don't like that. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::How are denomination changes handled in other articles? I know another President has changed denominations, just drawing a blank on which one. I've checked a couple of other articles of people that changed denominations/religion and so far those don't even list a religion in the infobox. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] [[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]] 05:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::::If people want to list his current religion (non-denominational Protestant) or his current and recent one (add UCC), this is a legitimate discussion. Part of the Christianity debate in the news before was arguing whether he was Muslim or Christian. We know he's not Muslim. But the use of Christian is just an argument that he's not Muslim. We can do better than that and bring up this article to the standard that every president in the past century uses -- listing his denomination (if Protestant) or putting Catholic (like JFK). We are making progress (thanks, Bobblehead), please no arguments just to make drama. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

*There is no reason to change the listing, as it describes his religion as it is now understood. If you scroll over the text with your mouse you will see that his religion is cited by sources and when he left Trinity he dis-affiliated himself from UCC. It's listed and sourced right in the box. So until Obama declares what denomination he wants to be considered now, it's listed as [[Christian]]. There have been other Presidents with similar listings. [[Andrew Johnson]] is also listed as Christian, as is [[Rutherford B. Hayes]]. [[Abraham Lincoln]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]] have no religion listed and are directed to an explanation in the body. So until Obama declares otherwise, the correct listing is [[Christian]], which is sourced and declared by Obama himself. We can't change it to what we think it should be, it has to be sourced. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 05:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Factual error: None of the cited articles use "Christianity". Andrew Johnson's infobox says that he is no denomination stated. Abe and Thomas Jefferson says see below. Even Hayes is the closest but doesn't use the exact word Christianity. All presidents within the past 100 years say Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. Also those other article are not featured articles so they could be flawed. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::We are not Obama's campaign office. He is not Catholic. He is Protestant. He is appears to be non-denominational. Non-denominational Protestant or even non-denominational Christian is ok. But simple Christian and it looks like we are just trying to fight Muslim rumors, not present information. Not everything is sourced. Do you have a source that he is a man? DO you have a source that his official residence in the White House and his private residence is Chicago? Who's to say that his Chicago house is just un-rented investment property? We need to assume as little as possible but things like the Chicago house and he is non-denominational is clear.
::Also, are you trying to say that Obama has no religion, like Lincoln? No, this is not true.
::This source say he's picked a non-denominational church. http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/06/the-obamas-pick-nondenominational-camp-david-church.html For those that don't know, in the military, there are Catholic services and non-denominational Protestant services. They are not the same. Obama has picked the latter. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::No sooner does somebody suggest or declare or agree upon something than JB50000 dives in to the article with something completely counter to that. Many talk page posts of yours are in complete disregard of previous statements. Your first and only acknowledgement of me was a blunt threat on my talk page, for doing my editorial responsibility at a BLP, as more than one other editor acknowledged. You speak of not wanting to get into cans of worms, yet rather than participate in a discussion and staying on point, all you do is pour worms onto the page. If there is no reference for his being now or in the recent past a ''non-denominational'' Protestant, we are not to presume that he is. If you want something more specific than ''Christianity'', I've already indicated what reasonable word that would be: ''Protestant''. If you don't like that, it stays ''Christian'' until you find a really good reference for something else. (And you might contribute your reason why to the discussion.) In the meantime, the next time you're seized with the compulsion to quash something, post it at the talk page first, allow a few days for comment second, read and process that comment third, determine whether there are valid editorial points made fourth, and if there are no meaningful objections or better ideas, add it to the article fifth. This jumping in at step five, then going to step one, then ignoring people and either reverting or moving to the next topic, is not doing yourself, us, this article, or least of all this talk page, any good. Actually editing with the summary "this has no opposition" when I've clearly outlined my opposition to it above and you have made no response whatsoever is unacceptable. And this crap about we're not his campaign office is completely uncalled for on a simple semantic issue of how specific we get in describing his Christianity. ''You're'' the one that stated it was your goal to squash Muslim rumors, now you're writing that it looks like we're just trying to fight Muslim rumors. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith with you. Do we have a source that he is a man? No, no worms with you. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::::There is almost no way to [[WP:AGF]] with this user. His drama filled explanations are just absurd. Something is definitely up with this editor. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::What's up is that a reasonable change is suggested and just "no no no". Users should look at themselves for a change. '''Just ignore the explanation and here's a summary. The proposed entry was "Non-denominational Christian" or "Protestant" or "Non-denominational Protestant". Christianity is the worst of the 4 choices.''' [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::It's ridiculous to bring up any [[Muslim]] foolishness. Anyone that would look at the religion box, see [[Christian]], and think 'he's trying to hide he's a Muslim', isn't going to be 'fooled' because it says [[Protestant]]. Anyone that doesn't know that Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim by now, and would think what you are insinuating, don't want explanations. They want to bury their heads like an [[Ostrich]]. The footnotes explain the current situation well enough and the listing of [[Christian]] is sourced and from Obama himself also. And by the way, I'm not fooled by your Lincoln false shock/accusation either. Not fooled one bit. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::In summary, editors have advocated "Christianity", "Protestant", "non-denominational Protestant" (or "non-denominational Christian" - with references). There is no consensus for Christianity. There is a good reference for non-denominational Christian. So it seems like that is the front runner. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=341843363&oldid=341842048 | this] attempt to have the last word of an argument in article history is completely unacceptable. I'd say that's the last straw, but I'm logging off; if someone else wants to take that up somewhere, I'd be thrilled to see it, and support it, tomorrow. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

===No consensus===
First of all, if the consensus was that he is a Muslim, we need to disregard consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not remove this tag, let the bot do it. It is easy for those who want to end discussion to try to remove the tag. Unfortunately, that happens a lot here.
Currently, the infobox lists his religion as "Christianity" with a reference but there are newer references that use the term Non-denominational Christian. Other suggestions include Protestant, Non-denominational Protestant, United Church of Christ (until 2008)/Non-denominational (2009-present), etc. Thank you. 07:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:Yeah, we get it, you're not listening. You're free to stop the gratuitous use of the word "Muslim" — which you have used ten times in a thread that is not about that religion. Unless of course there's some reason for your doing so.

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

:You act like this is something we get to whip up ourselves. No, these things exist in the real world and, aided by Wikipedia guidelines, we distill what the sources direct us to acknowledge. Camp David is a military installation and the non-denominational chapel there was conceived in order to serve the broadest spectrum of Protestants without having to have fifteen different chapels and fifteen different ministers, choirs, organists, etc., all on one base. It was not conceived to strip worshippers of the denominations of their faith. And so, they currently have a Baptist minister but will shift to a minister of another Protestant denomination after three years, so as not to show favoritism. And there are plenty of references simply for "Christian", including two added this evening by another editor. To [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=341840526&oldid=341839692| your third of five tendentious edits tonight], "President of a North American country" isn't enough for an American. I daresay "Christian" is enough for Christ. The pattern at this page will not be to add excess verbiage when it does not clarify any point, or improve the writing, but simply satisfies the preconceived misconceptions of a single editor despite the best efforts of others to educate him on the subject. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
*Last night when I saw your edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341834332&oldid=341826621 here], I decided to do some research on the [[List of Presidents of the United States|lists of Presidents]] to see exactly what religion they were listed at. Which is when I found that most were in fact specific in what denomination of religion they belonged to, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839016&oldid=341838306 not all had specific denominations listed.] And in fact there were a couple who had almost the exact same listing as Obama. Still, I went about the research and was assuming [[WP:AGF]], until you started making bizarre edits,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341838306&oldid=341836932 1],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839563&oldid=341839016 2],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839811&oldid=341839563 3] and drama filled reasoning. Not to mention, you changing the listed religion without any consensus. And let me explain consensus to you, since you don't seem to understand what it means here. You need consensus to change an established fact in an article, not to keep that established fact. This has long been the listing of Obama's religion, since he [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-11-17-3420350785_x.htm left the UCC.] Your reasoning and drama filled edit summaries remind me of what's transpiring currently in some [http://mediamatters.org/research/201002030049 right-wing hysteria circles.] The fact is, Obama has not declared his [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303619.html current denomination], is listed as a [[Christian]] on [http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php his website] and inside the info box of the [http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/obama Miller Center of Public Affairs.] So that is the current consensus listing. [[Christian]]. There is no need or frantic reason to change that descriptor, it covers the cited sources and what Obama describes himself as. Now, that should be enough for anyone to just let things play out. We are not supposed to use [[WP:OR]] and decipher what a [[WP:BLP]] ''should''be called or what we ''want'' them to be called. We use sources and the descriptors that come from the [[WP:BLP]] themselves. So I put my vote as "Leave as Christian until other developments/sources indicate otherwise". [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:: Agree as above. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 17:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:: i agree that listing his religion as [[christian]] is sufficient. [[User:Theserialcomma|Theserialcomma]] ([[User talk:Theserialcomma|talk]])

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

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

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

:::Saying that the American President is a Christian is indeed like saying he is a human being. America has barely had a Catholic president, much less a non-Christian one. However, making fine distinctions among the various branches of Christianity seems beside the point. It does seem a little odd to list the religion of a president. With a few exceptions, presidents are expected to keep up with their religious observances and beliefs, but this is quite tangential to the life and times of a president. It reminds me, faintly, of the occasional Japanese practice of listing the blood type of pop culture figures. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 14:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::The argument that the "reference used for Christianity is an unreliable source" is incorrect. First, we all agree that the assertion is correct, so a gold-plated source is not required. Second, the reference is extremely adequate and easily satisfies [[WP:RS]]. The only question concerns whether a "better" (more precise) label should be found, and whether a sourced label is available. I favor precision, but our discussion on what is the correct term to describe Obama's religion of course is totally irrelevant per [[WP:OR]]: we need a source. For whatever reason (not relevant to this discussion), no one has found a good source with current information that gives a more precise label. Until that occurs, this discussion is just chat and violates [[WP:TALK]]. In reply to a suggestion above: since all Presidents have "religion" in the infobox, and since there are good sources for "Christian" the term should not be removed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]])
::::::No one has found? Just wait. I have some but would like a more complete response, not a piecemeal one. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::These editors are discussing things on a religion board but their analysis may be helpful. Note that they posted these comments on the religion board but they are talking about Obama. Note: These were removed from here by another user but GFDL allows Wikipedia text to be used elsewhere besides the original page.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments: all four are largely accurate, it just depends on how much detail we want to provide:
# Christianity is accurate, but there are so many varieties of Christian, I'd prefer more detail than this
# Protestant is better, although there's still many varieties of that
# I have mixed feelings about "Non-denominational". It's true that Obama no longer associates with a particular denomination. But it's still true he's more Protestant than say Catholic or Orthodox.
# Listing both UCC up to 2008 and non-denominational thereafter is the most accurate, but maybe too much detail for an infobox?
My two preferences:
# Non-denominational Protestant (better than Non-denominational Christian - he's closer to Protestant than anything else)
# United Church of Christ (until 2008), Non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)
--[[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't like Non-denominational for two reasons: (1) Just because a person worships in a nondenominational chapel doesn't mean that that person leaves their denominational identity behind - e.g. I could easily describe myself as a Baptist or a Methodist or whatever, and still worship in a nondenominational chapel; (2) there are a number of nondenominational churches out there that appear to have made a principled decision not to belong to a denomination or as a criticism of denominationalism - I don't think there's any suggestion that Obama has converted to that type of nondenominationalism. I think just plain Christian is too generic - he's clearly not a member of the Roman Catholic Church or any of the autocephalous Eastern churches. My vote would be for:
:Protestant
:(member of the United Church of Christ until 2008)
[[User:Adam sk|Adam_sk]] ([[User talk:Adam sk|talk]]) 21:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::I have just reverted — for the second time — an edit by [[User:JB50000]], with the edit summary "Don't revert this again, JB50000, discuss it on the talk page", and then while I was writing this post, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=342840694| it was reverted back ''in''] by [[User:GB fan]], with the edit summary "Ummmm."

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

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

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

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

*These actions should be reported to ANI. You can't copy and paste comments in a RFC as if they were posted there. Period. What should have been done is that a warning and a self-revert issued to [[User:JB50000|JB50000]], and if not reverted a report at ANI should have been made. This is just getting ridiculous. If other editors want to keep re-adding comments from other pages into a RFC, they should cite their reasons why such an extreme measure should be allowed. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 03:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:::And so it turns into a full-blown edit war, with [[User:Jojhutton]] reverting the abovementioned misleading posts devoid of context, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&curid=7777393&diff=342847124&oldid=342846448| with the edit summary "undoing a questionable reversion".] Why, then, not question it, Jojhutton? Why five minutes after I posted the above discussion of the issue would the response not be to engage in this discussion, rather than simply revert? This is not responsible editing, it is disingenuous posturing against editors here, and it is contentious edit warring. I fail to understand the urgency three editors see in restoring these out-of-context posts by editors uninvolved in this discussion. It is indicative of a complete lack of editorial collegiality that there is no talk page discussion whatsoever from any of these three, JB50000, GB fan, and Jojhutton; it also suggests a failure to embrace the spirit of an RfC. I've never before seen [[User:GB fan]] here — which itself is a problem, reverting the decision of an involved editor at a talk page, ironically in an RfC to which he makes no contribution of his own — but JB50000 has carved out a pattern of edit warring and ignoring salient editorial points.

:::As for Jojhutton, I was interested to know if this editor had moved on to other edits or was composing a response here, and noted several edits after this one. An edit summary two edits previous caught my eye, however; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=342844809| this revert] to [[George W. Bush]] contains the summary "Not notable for BLP. per unwritten rules set up at [[Talk:Barack Obama]]". What kind of justification is that? This goes beyond tag-team edit warring. It seems clear that there is some politically motivated personalization at play here, although one that seems to deem itself above discussion, and it is resulting in irresponsible editing on a scale that reaches beyond this page. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 04:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Please try to be civil. Another editor, gave me some pointers as far as being civil - if you want this editor to leave some tips on your user page, just ask. As far as tag teaming, there are far more cases of tag teaming from the liberal faction. My faction, the absolutely neutral, pro-article improvement whether it's a positive or negative piece of information is a very lonely faction with few people unfortunately.
::::Thanks for someone else's suggestion of the link which I'll do next time. It is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#RFC_for_religion_-_President_Obama That discussion was ONLY to get help defining what the different religions are and did NOT ask people to comment on Obama. I did let the people know that I copied their comments here and gave them the option to black out their names.
::::If people wait a few days, I am gathering reliable source references which could resolve this issue! Stay tuned. I have one good reference but want to get some more. The other possibility is to just wait out the RFC and save up comments over a few days.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:Actually, in response to those above criticising JB5000 for copying my statements from another page to here, I have no objection to his so have done. I think those who would criticise him for so doing are frankly just being petty and pedantic. --[[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 09:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::To be clear, I didn't criticize him in your defense, and my consideration was not what you would prefer. You're probably unclear on this, but JB50000 never mentioned to anybody here that in the middle of this discussion he had gone over and begun the thread he called an "RfC" (but did not link to this page or this actual RfC) to which you responded at the WikiProject Religion. Did you know that? This isn't about protocol for its own sake, it's a little about a collegial heads-up, it's a little about not going behind your colleagues backs, but it's largely about how you can't compile the opinions of random people elsewhere as if it's a fresh and specific and informed consensus here, while never giving us the context or the source. Even after posting your response — and reverting it back into the article some four or five times against the opposition of several editors and without talk page discussion, in violation of collegial requests and several bright-line policies — he did not indicate where your comment was from, or what, precisely, it was in response to. There are shadings of difference in how things are handled from one page to another at Wikipedia, much less in the wider blogosphere, and if you don't choose to weigh in on the issue ''here'', and are a non-notable person and have no refs to support your opinion, then your opinion is not clearly relevant to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Well, that all sounds reasonable and I would agree, except it's [[WP:OR]] and [[conjecture]]. Which would work if we were trying to decipher what religion some past historical figure should be listed as, but not with a [[WP:BLP]], imo. When the info box was changed(after Obama and his family resigned from the UCC), there was a discussion here numerous times about what to list in the Obama religion box. After much discussion it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_49#UCC.2C_Again agreed by consensus] to place the religious identifier as 'Christian' until a reliable source indicates otherwise. Nothing has changed, except more sources list 'Christian' as Obama's religion. Including his own websites. So while I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with changing the descriptor until a reliable source indicates just what denomination of [[Christianity]] Barack Obama identifies with. We have to remember this is about changing a consensus that has been reached already. I have no problems with changing the descriptor if we are not using [[WP:OR]] to decipher the listing and are using a reliable source and [[WP:Consensus|consensus]]. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 21:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

There was a lot of religious people coming here for a while but it stopped. It seems that there is support for being more specific than just Christianity. There's one suggestion (mine) that there is no source that says he left the UCC, just left the individual church. I read somewhere that the UCC didn't want him but unless I see that again, it's a bit too controversial to include anything like that. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:We had a furious discussion about this a few months ago; you might drag through the archives and check it out. I took essentially your position. He definitely quit Trinity, but there's so source but an unclear ''en passant'' mention in an AP article that he quit the UCC. For a long time, the infobox said, "[[Christian]], last associated with the [[United Church of Christ]]" which seemed fine to me. He's lately been hanging around with a lot of pastors from different sects, but if he's adopted a new one he doesn't seem to have made it public. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
* '''Reponse to the RFC''' - There really is no more reliable source than Obama's own website, which does indeed list him as simply "Christian." Unless Obama has at some point stated that he is anything more specific, that's what we should call him. Let's use a little [[WP:COMMON]] sense here people. There are all kinds of sources debating about his religion, so rather than join in the potentially libelous debate, let's just call him what he calls himself. [[User:AzureFury|'''AzureFury''']] ([[User talk:AzureFury|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/AzureFury|contribs]]) 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
* '''UCC''' Is there a RFC? If so, where is the lightbulb tag? References say UCC so that's what it is. Christian is imprecise. If it is on his website, it could be to strongly highlight that he is not Muslim because if you put UCC, people might not know what that is (University of Central Canada? Unified Command of the Central NATO? University Church of Communists? United Counties of Christians?). So it could be a campaign tactic. But we have good references to say that he's a United Church of Christ so that's what should be listed. Similar variations of UCC are so ok like Protestant (UCC) or UCC (Christian), etc. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 19:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
* '''Agree with Gaydenver''' From my perspective, UCC means [[Uniform Commercial Code]]. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::Good point, should spell out "United Church of Christ" and not use abbreviations. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

== Kenyan nationality ==

Should be noted in infobox, even though it is a former nationality. He was a dual citizen for the beginning of his life. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.13.223.188|71.13.223.188]] ([[User talk:71.13.223.188|talk]]) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 
:Do you have a reliable source stating that? --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] ([[User talk:OuroborosCobra|talk]]) 01:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
::http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Far from being birther nonsense, it's right; he would have automatic citizenship of the United Kingdom, and later, Kenya, until it being automatically renounced. I'm not sure if it would warrant mention in the article, though, as it's of minor import. If it was, I'd suggest the following wording:
:::{{blockquote|[[Jus sanguinis|By virtue of his father's citizenship]] of [[Kenya Colony]], Obama Jr. had automatic [[British subject|British]]—and later Kenyan—citizenship. He lost his dual-citizenship on his 23rd birthday because he did not affirm an allegiance to Kenya.}}
::: '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:::(ec)Earlier discussion has pointed out that Obama indeed had Kenyan citizenship, but it lapsed when he turned 21. The issue then is [[WP:WEIGHT]]: How and in what way did the citizenship affect him sufficiently to be notable in a summary-style article? Not enough for the infobox, to be sure, and probably not enough for the article at all. It's mentioned in one or more of the subarticles, and that's enough. Sceptre's suggestion isn't bad, though. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spectre's suggestion is 99% ok, but there's a little mistake. Better is to modify it and say "He lost any claim to dual-citizenship on his 23rd ....." This is because there is no source that says Kenya claimed him or that he claimed Kenya. Kenya doesn't know everyone that could be a citizen. Those people have to do something like apply for a passport after which Kenya says "ok, here's your passport" or "no, you are an illegal, no passport for you". [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:If Obama Sr. had Kenyan citizenship, then Obama Jr. would have it too, until his 23rd birthday. See the factcheck article that says that, while neither claimed each other, he still was a Kenyan citizen. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 16:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
::Thinking about it, I agree with the above. I can be convinced even stronger if I knew that Obama Sr. had a Kenyan passport. I think he did because he was not an American citizen. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

:: --''If Obama Sr. had Kenyan citizenship, then Obama Jr. would have it too''-- In a purely technical matter, that's correct. But it was never enacted upon and has no bearing in Obama's life. Right? What possible difference does having a ''possible'', ''technical'', citizenship status if it was never actually acted upon? Thus never even really happened. I'm sure the same could be said for many people based on their heritage. I've been told I could, or could have, claimed German citizenship because my grandfather was born there. Though I would not appreciate someone assigning me German citizenship status without my consent in some article. It's rather an obscure, technical matter that doesn't reflect any real purpose. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 20:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this seems perfectly reasonable. I don't think it deserves a great deal of elaboration, but some simple little mention of the fact that he had a default dual citizenship which dropped at the age of 23 because he never did anything with it is fine.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC). 
:Why? Why is it important? Please address the really obvious [[WP:WEIGHT]] issue. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== Physical Attributes ==

Shouldn't his physical attributes be posted as well (height and weight)? I found [http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/01/1506066/obama-still-using-nicotene-replacement.html?storylink=omni_popular this] article that says he's 179.9lbs and has a BMI of 23.7, which means he's about 6'1' ' if my calculations are correct. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.83.28.30|74.83.28.30]] ([[User talk:74.83.28.30|talk]]) 18:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 
:No. He's a politician, not a baseball player. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::That does not imply that his overall health (as BMI is an important tool for determining overall health for people within certain averages) is irrelevant. Especially since his health has been called into question by certain media organizations lately and health factors have limited and sometimes killed presidents of the past. [[Special:Contributions/76.2.235.75|76.2.235.75]] ([[User talk:76.2.235.75|talk]]) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::IMO, the President's health belongs in this article only if (1) he is hospitalized or (2) the [[Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-fifth Amendment]] is invoked. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 18:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

::: What 'media organizations' have called President Obama's health into question? His BMI was described as 'healthy' and the summary from the physician noted that Obama was in "excellent health"[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZrDjfR6gmuWCrw5kO1bjW_uc4oQD9E5B6AO1 .] There were a couple of things Obama should be doing better in, but absolutely nothing that raises any of the concerns you are citing. He is in 'excellent health'. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:::: I think that Fox News called into question his drinking habits [http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2010/03/02/conservatives-falsely-characterize-obama-health-report-to-suggest-he-drinks-too-much/#axzz0hbtNHsjz .] I guess the point that he is in good condition was the point, but if people should assume that it wasn't mentioned in the article implies that it has never been called into question that works. I just don't really know the rules to these things so I thought I should ask here first. Thanks! Cheers. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.83.28.30|74.83.28.30]] ([[User talk:74.83.28.30|talk]]) 18:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 

::::: That's not [[Fox News]], that's [[Alan Colmes]] complaining about [[Matt Drudge|Drudge]] linking to a [[tabloid]] paper(the [[Daily Mail]]). In other words, a bunch of tabloid fodder. There's no need to debunk that type of silliness. Especially from an outlet who has already [[Daily Mail#Libel_lawsuits|lost five libel suits]] the past 10 years. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When his health becomes a major part of his biography, this kind of information (weight, cholesterol) should be included. So far, it is not. This is the neutral way and the way that all articles should take. [[User:A UT professor|A UT professor]] ([[User talk:A UT professor|talk]]) 01:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

== No mention of Hawaii in lead? ==

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

:Why? [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 05:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
::It's a significant enough element of his biography to warrant it. The amount of coverage of his Hawaiian origins during his election campaign was remarkable for someone who made his political career in another state. A lot of it had to do with how race relations were different in Hawaii than on the mainland, and that that had shaped him as an individual. Typical examples: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17003563/ Obama had multiethnic existence in Hawaii], [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/world/americas/17iht-obama.1.html In Hawaii, clues from Barack Obama's origins]. Personally, I think it's fair to say he's more of an Illinoisan than a Hawaiian now, but it does seem to be a matter of debate - [http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Americas/2008/November/Is-Obama-Hawaiian-or-Illinoisan-.html Is Obama Hawaiian or Illinoisan?], [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1858759,00.html Hawaii vs. Illinois: Battling over a Favorite Son - TIME], [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081030/NEWS05/810300361/Obama%5C-s-more-Illinois-than-Hawaii--folks-in-Chicago-say Obama's more Illinois than Hawaii, folks in Chicago say]. I don't think it's entirely fair to mention in the lead where he got his undergraduate degree but not where he was born and (mostly) raised. This is something that could be done succinctly.[[Special:Contributions/82.120.177.181|82.120.177.181]] ([[User talk:82.120.177.181|talk]]) 09:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
::I'm the same person as 82. Since there are no objections, I'll make the change. [[User:Ucbear|Ucbear]] ([[User talk:Ucbear|talk]]) 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

== Juris doctor = "doctorate"? ==

Is it common practice in the english wikipedia to call JD "a doctorate in law", in light of it being first professional degree, unlike JSD (doctor of judicial science)? -anonymous —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.186.248.40|109.186.248.40]] ([[User talk:109.186.248.40|talk]]) 08:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 
:The English Wikipedia being an online encyclopedia, there actually ''are'' articles here where people confused by terms used in this article can find referenced explanations of the terminology and what it encompasses, including [[Juris doctor]]. It is at those articles and their talk pages that common practice for English Wikipedia usage is presented and may be discussed. Incidentally, the term is Doctor of Juridical Science. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 08:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not confused, I know full well the controversary regarding the designation of JD as "a doctorate", My question is whether it is common practice in the english wikipeida to pass judgement on that controversary in the way of using the term "a doctorate" in the article. If not, then this word should be removed from the article. If someone knows the answer to this question, I'll be happy if he responds. Otherwise I'll have to start checking myself the wikilinks to JD and see if in most of the articles it is regarded as "a doctorate".

::For comparison, one might read the artile about the italian [[Doctor_(title)#Italy|dottore]]. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.186.7.33|109.186.7.33]] ([[User talk:109.186.7.33|talk]]) 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 

Obama received a JD, though this stands for Juris Doctor in latin, it is not commonly referred to as a Doctorate of Law in English or by legal professionals (notwithstanding any 'controversy' around whether the degree has academic doctoral status or not). The connotation of the current phrasing more accurately refers to the qualification achieved under an LLD degree, which Harvard Law School also confers. It would be more accurate to say he earned his JD...Presently sounds awkward and inaccurate, and would be laughable to any legal professional. Wikipedia editors should have higher standards for something so basic- really hope someone can edit this silly error.

== More foolish trivia ==

Why isnt the fact that Obama stated he was the 44th single man to take the Presidential oath, when infact he was the 43rd because of Grover Cleveland taking presidency twice mentioned in this article? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mongbean|Mongbean]] ([[User talk:Mongbean|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mongbean|contribs]]) 18:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 
:Because it is useless trivia with no relevance or importance to a biography of Obama's entire life. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] ([[User talk:OuroborosCobra|talk]]) 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== Talk page too long. ==

I think I speak for everyone that some users might slow their computers down. We should archive this page. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Emo-tional being|Emo-tional being]] ([[User talk:Emo-tional being|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Emo-tional being|contribs]]) 17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 
:It's currently set to automatically archive any thread that isn't updated for 14 days. People tweak that from time to time and it's generally set somewhere between 7 and 14 days. At 189K right now, it's not any longer than it usually is. I don't see any harm in shortening that to 10. But overall I think this article is just harder to work on than most, for many reasons. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:: It may be that the pictures currently on the talk page are causing some users problems, but that can be solved by users with slower connections by disabling graphics. Of course, I am not opposed to shortening the archive time back to 10 days either. Though it seems, once again, that some articles that should be archived are getting caught up and are not auto-archived and may have to be put in manually. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 20:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I've just had a quick look through, and as the bot judges on the big sections it doesn't currently look like anything is getting stuck. I'm going to change it to 10 days as there are a couple of large threads dated the 28 February. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
::::OK its down to 127k now. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 10:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

== Occupation doesn't include President ==

Is there a reason for this? -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
:Because it is kinda redundant to list being "president" in a officeholder infobox. The field is meant to be used to their prior occupation. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 23:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama

2010-03-14T04:36:35Z

69.140.3.80: /* Doctorate in law */

{{featured article review|Barack Obama/archive7}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan|type=content}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 68
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive <#>
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Historical diffs
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/weight
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/race
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{pp-move-indef}}

{{purge|page=Barack Obama|1=Click to manually purge the article's cache}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{Round In Circles|search=yes}}
{{Community article probation|main page=Barack Obama|BASEPAGENAME=Barack Obama|[[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation]] for full information and to review the decision}}
{{calm talk|#FFCCCC}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=FA|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|listas=Obama, Barack}}
{{USP-Article|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{Project Congress|class=FA|subject=person|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Illinois|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WPHawaii|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{Wikiproject Kansas|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{ChicagoWikiProject|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Columbia University|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WP Indonesia|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{AfricaProject|class=FA|importance=low|Kenya=yes|Kenya-importance=low}}
{{Project afro|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|class=FA}}
{{Talk Spoken Wikipedia|class=FA|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg}}
{{WPCD-People|class=FA}}
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack}}
{{pressmulti|collapsed=yes
| title = On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet
| author = Jose Antonio Vargas
| date = 2007-09-17
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html
| org = [[The Washington Post]]
| section = September
| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare
| author2 = [[Alison Stewart]], Rachel Martin
| date2 = 2008-04-03
| url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf
| org2 = [[The Bryant Park Project]], [[NPR]]
| title3 = Editors in Chief
| author3 = [[Brooke Gladstone]], [[Bob Garfield]]
| date3 = 2008-04-04
| url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02
| org3 = [[On The Media]], NPR
| title4 = Wiki Woman
| author4 = Eve Fairbanks
| date4 = 2008-04-09
| url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1
| org4 = [[The New Republic]]
| section4 = March
| title5= Hillary's Wiki Defender
| author5 = Jesse Brown
| date5= 2008-04-10
| url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html
| org5= [[Search Engine (radio show)|Search Engine]], [[CBC Radio One]]
| title6= Wikipedia Wars
| author6 = [[Tom Foreman]]
| date6= 2008-04-11
| url6= http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269
| org6= [[This Week...]], [[CNN]]
| title7= Liberal Web
| author7 = [[John J. Miller]]
| date7= 2008-04-21
| url7=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/print?tag=artBody;col1
| org7= [[National Review]]
| section7=April 2008
| title8= Clinton's entry in Wikipedia has a watchdog
| author8 = Kelly Heyboer
| date8= 2008-05-28
| url8= http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/05/hillary_clintons_wikipedia_wat.html
| org8= [[The Star-Ledger]]
| title9=NJ Man Appoints Himself Wikipedia Watchdog
| author9 = Paul Murnane
| date9= 2008-05-28
| url9=http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2400703
| org9= [[WCBS (AM)|WCBS Newsradio 880]]
| title10= Updating a Reference Site on the Fly
| author10= Noam Cohen
| date10= 2008-11-09
| url10= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html
| org10= [[The New York Times]]
| title11= Obama Wikipedia page under possible security attack
| author11= Adrian Bridgwater
| date11= January 22, 2009
| url11= http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10011960o-2000458459b,00.htm
| org11= [[ZDNet]]
| title12= Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
| author12= [[Aaron Klein]]
| date12= March 8, 2009
| url12= http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114
| org12= [[WorldNetDaily]]
| title13= Obama's Wikipedia Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers
| author13= Joshua Rhett Miller
| date13= March 9, 2009
| url13= http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html
| org13= [[Fox News Channel]]
| title14= Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Wikipedia', report claims
| author14= Mark Coleman
| date14= March 10, 2009
| url14= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Wikipedia-report-claims.html
| org14= [[The Daily Telegraph]]
| title15= Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos
| author15= Noam Cohen
| date15= July 19, 2009
| url15= http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
| org15= [[The New York Times]]
|author16=(none)
|date=August 17, 2009
|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html
|title=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008
|org=[[The Daily Telegraph]]
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=12 August 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama
|action1result=Promoted
|action1oldid=5174535

|action2=WPR
|action2date=18 August 2004
|action2link=Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 18, 2004
|action2result=Maindate
|action2oldid=5294576

|action3=FAR
|action3date=09:53, 23 January 2007
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1
|action3result=pass
|action3oldid=102622704

|action4=FAR
|action4date=22:24, July 26, 2007
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2
|action4result=pass
|action4oldid=147098144

|action5=FAR
|action5date=06:08, 15 April 2008
|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3
|action5result=kept
|action5oldid=205714008

|action6=FAR
|action6date=12:56, 16 September 2008
|action6link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4
|action6result=kept
|action6oldid=239534110

|action7=WPR
|action7date=4 November 2008
|action7link=Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008
|action7result=Maindate
|action7oldid=249529065

|action8=FAR
|action8date=17:30, 2 December 2008
|action8link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive5
|action8result=kept
|action8oldid=255411914

|action9=FAR
|action9date=03:36, 10 March 2009
|action9link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive6
|action9result=kept
|action9oldid=276168026

|maindate=November 4, 2008
|itndate=November 5, 2008
|currentstatus=FA
|small=yes}}
{{archives
|auto=yes
|search=yes
|bot=MiszaBot
|age=14
|index= /Archive index|
; Special discussion pages:
* [[/Article probation|Article probation]], [[/Article probation/Incidents|Incidents]]
* [[/Historical diffs|Historical diffs]], [[/weight|Weight]], [[/race|Race]]}}

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

The second paragraph of the section "University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney" lists Obama as a "professor" for twelve years, clarifying that he was a lecturer first and a "senior lecturer" later. The title of "lecturer" is distinct from that of "professor". I propose that the paragraph be modified to start, "For 12 years, Obama lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School." —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.151.71.18|128.151.71.18]] ([[User talk:128.151.71.18|talk]]) 15:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 
:This claim has been made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=professor&prefix=Talk:Barack+Obama&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search over and over], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_24#Professor debunked every time]. This(that Obama was a professor) has been confirmed by reliable sources and the claim that he was not has been debunked by [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html Factcheck.org] and [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp Snopes]. So it's a fact that [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] was a Constitutional Law Professor. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 15:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::Obama was never on tenure track at the University of Chicago as a quick phone call to the University has just proven. He was a lecturer for all his years there and he did it on a part-time basis. And the idea that someone who works hard to gain tenure track and earns the right to be called a professor, that somehow 'professor' is a pejorative term denoting 'old right wing meme' as DD2K stated in his edit summary, is offensive.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::You are misunderstanding the edit summary. The "old right wing meme" is the repeated claims that Obama was never a professor, despite statements from the university and reliable sources to the contrary. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::[[User:Malke_2010|Malke_2010]], you should follow the links I provided and try to understand that this has been discussed and proven false. Obama was considered a Constitutional Law Professor by the university, and that has been proven over and over. There is no doubt. In the links I provided are direct quotes from the University of Chicago, so pretending that a 'quick phone call' proves otherwise is disingenuous. At best. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Blogs are no substitute for the University itself. Obama was never on tenure tract. He was always a lecturer. He was never a Con Law scholar. Blogs are disingenuous as is any claim that they are accurate. Obama's listings in the Un Chicago directory was as a 'lecturer.' Blogs can't beat that.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Those aren't 'blogs', it was Factcheck.org and Snopes. Both respected institutions for debunking false accusations and urban legends that get mass emailed. And they quote the University of Chicago directly, and the quote has been repeated in just about every reliable sourced media outlet. Perhaps you should have actually read the links I provided before you made the claim that you called the university? I would say that claim you made, and the subsequent posts you are posting, makes clear that there no longer needs to be any [[WP:AGF]] with you here. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::The University of Chicago is the last word on this. Call them yourself. Factcheck.org is a blog, as is Snopes. These are not respected secondary sources like the New York Times or the Washington Post. I find it curious that you are using these blogs and not using the New York Times or the Washington Post to back up your claims of 'right wing meme.' You can call Obama a professor all you want, but he was never a professor. He never applied for tenure track. The University of Chicago's faculty directory proves that. In the last edition Obama was in, he was listed as a "Senior Lecturer." The directory is a bona fide source for a citation and can be used in correcting Obama's article. You are free to call the Un of Chicago yourself. And just because an editor disagrees with you, or presents sources that contradict your claims, doesn't mean that editor has an agenda or that other editors can't assume they have good faith. Please read the Wikipedia policy [[WP:PERSONAL ATTACK]]. You don't want to establish a [[WP:CHILL]] effect in what could appear to be an effort to drive away editors from making contributions to Obama's article. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::''"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. '''Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors''', although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times '''during his 12 years as a professor''' in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."'' ([http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media source]) - CASE CLOSED. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:Exactly. Not really a professor. But you can call him that. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Factcheck and Snopes are not blogs, but if it's the NYT you want, here's an article about his time as a professor, referring to him as professor throughout, including the headline. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html]. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::(after ec) This issue has been discussed before and resolved, if you search the talk page archives. It is correct that Obama was a professor, per the university and plenty of reliable sources. There is no question about his actual role; it is a definitional matter, and the definition of the word is not fixed. We could add a word or two or rephrase perhaps to eliminate the ambiguity but past proposals to do so have not gained consensus. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::In the proper usage of the title, he is not a professor. It's all right to make the distinction, because saying he was a lecturer doesn't take anything away from Obama, since he is the President of the United States. Don't see where any other Un Chicago profs have done that. This is from Slate which explains the difference. [http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/26/was-obama-a-law-professor.aspx] You guys get over the top here but that could be why the article is still in such good shape. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::So you are claiming that the University of Chicago is using the title improperly? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::No, I'm showing you why there's an argument about this stuff in the first place.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::There's no argument, only people who, for whatever reason, can't accept that the University of Chicago knows what it calls its own employees. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 22:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sweet mother of God, this again? Seriously? There is no objective criteria for what constitutes a professor. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that says you have to be on a tenure track to have the title professor. A university creates its own parameters for who is a professor or adjunct or some other title. University of Chicago refers to him as being a professor at their law school http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media. Having the title of "senior lecturer" has no effect whatsoever on whether or not he is a professor. If University of Chicago calls the Senior Lecturers who work at their law school "professors" then they are professors. He was a professor, period. End of story. ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 19:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

:Since this was discussed almost nine months ago in May 2009:
:# [[Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Academics]]
:# [[Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Lecturer and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law_School]]
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=289078054 15:31, 10 May 2009] [[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Newross|contribs]]) ''(→Early life and career: "was a professor of constitutional law" --> "served as a professor of constitutional law"; add "as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004")''
:two "minor edits" changed consensus wording:
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=322667387 03:02, 29 October 2009] [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/SMP0328.|contribs]]) '''m''' ''(→Early life and career: Wording tweak)''<blockquote>served as a professor of [[constitutional law]] → was a [[constitutional law]] professor</blockquote>
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=327669089 14:28, 24 November 2009] [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk:Afterwriting|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Afterwriting|contribs]]) ''(Minor style edits.)''<blockquote>Lecturer → lecturer Senior Lecturer → senior lecturer</blockquote>
:[[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]]) 18:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for that legwork - very helpful! - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

There is no other way around it.

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

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

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

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

:This claim has been made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=professor&prefix=Talk:Barack+Obama&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search over and over], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_24#Professor debunked every time]. This(that Obama was a professor) has been confirmed by reliable sources and the claim that he was not has been [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html Factcheck.org] and [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp Snopes]. So it's a fact that [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] was a Constitutional Law Professor. By the way, this is not a forum and it's getting pretty monotonus with the same posters coming in and making the same kind of claims over and over. I really think any 'litmus test' should be decided by a quick [[WP:SPI]] on a few of the posters in here. I definitely think there are some 'good hand-bad hand' games being played here. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 05:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::This is a personal attack. Don't like someone and call them a sock. Looking at the archives...same of behavior over and over...collapsing boxes, calling people sock. It is also an attack on Wikicup, of which I am a participant and beating many other editors so far, many of whom have zero points. Prove that you are not an Obama staffer. I am one of the most neutral people here, challenging extreme right wingers and left wing nuts. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::What this basically boils down to is trying to play up the confusion between Professor and professor. Professor is lying. professor is a weasel word and then it requires a long explanation about his position. Basically, he was a part time faculty member. Look up this http://www.missouriwestern.edu/eflj/faculty/ Is Meredith Katchen a professor of English? That would be stretching the facts and overselling. President Obama is a great leader, very articulate, very effective in his agenda (with one exception). He won the Nobel Peace Prize fair and square. He doesn't need to pad his resume calling him professor. By being realistic, the Wikipedia article gains credibility. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::::To assist in settling the matter, I've asked some editors who write the Professor article in Wikipedia and some Wikipedia administrators who are university faculty members. If they say that the general public understands the difference between Professor and professor, then the article is fine the way it is. If they say that the general public may not understand or may confuse the two, then that helps settle this question. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yea, well I consider your 'litmus test' a personal attack. And I don't remember accusing anyone on here of being a sockpuppet(before my most recent post). So that's another claim by you that is not true. Also, I think you should stop trying to insert [[WP:OR]] into the article and the talk page. Going around asking people to do your [[WP:OR]] and making posts(forum shopping) all over Wikipedia doesn't really fit within the guidelines. Try citing [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], like everyone else here has done to show you that Obama was considered a law professor. There are several citations, and direct quotes from the university itself, that back that up. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean anything. Not here, not ever. Reliable sources, [[WP:Consensus]] and [[WP:Weight]] do, and using those guidelines you are incorrect. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::It boils down to supporters of professor argue on a technicality, that any faculty member is a professor. They ignore that there is much confusion between Professor and professor. So either there has to be a lengthy explanation/disclaimer or there is none and people get fooled. This reliable source explains it. http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-04/2005-04-20-voa2.cfm The reader is confused between professor and other titles (lecturer is mentioned in the article). This also brings up the issue of prose. If you have prose that can lead to confusion, this is bad.

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

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

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

:::::::This issue is so easy and clear cut that if you oppose it (by wanting a deceptive version or by wanting a smear version), then the Wikipedia system is broken.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::You obviously do not understand what [[WP:OR]] states, or what a reliable source is. I suggest you go and read the guidelines, because you are doing nothing but making your own assumptions and trying to insert your own opinions based on definitions of titles or words. It's painfully obvious to anyone that the citations given(FactCheck.org, UofC, NYT) have put this issue to rest. There is no way to overrule those citations without violating [[WP:Undue Weight]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:OR]]. I do believe this discussion is over. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 15:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::The real litmus test should be this: either explain why the University of Chicago is unable to correctly identify its own employees or stop wasting everyone's time. What better source for the title of an employee than an employer? It's not about logic or arguments or partisanship. Wikipedia runs on sources, period. The best source, the source that employed him, says that he was a professor. Unless you can trump that, this is all just pointless chatter. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 18:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree that this particular sub-thread, and any long discussion, is a waste of time, even though I do hold the minority position that we should use more precise language and not simply call him a professor because his employer and the sources do. The sources, for example, may say it is "cold" in Moscow this week but that doesn't stop us from being more precise and reporting just ''how'' cold it is. It wouldn't kill us to add a short adjective clause like "non-tenure track", "adjunct", "part time", "visiting", "associate", or whatever it is. But I think I'm in the minority on this and not much chance of changing anyone's mind so I won't go off on how [insert favorite Wikipedia accusation] everyone here is for disagreeing with me. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

===Comparison===
Scjessey's version is above:

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

A more concise version:

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

This concise version has none of the disclaimers like the top version. There is no chance for misunderstanding. This is no chance of resume inflation. There is respect for the President. Because of this, both Obama staffers and right wing extremists probably hate these version. The staffers want resume inflation. The right wingers want to diminish his achievements. By being neutral and fair, this article gets credibility. With the neutral version, we can focus on this man's fine leadership, good achievements (with one possible failure or delay), a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize, etc. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:I think there has been a '''''huge''''' misunderstanding here. The text I quote in the section above is not from any article. It is from the [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media University of Chicago's statement] on the matter. It is the ''source''. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 13:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

===ANI===
I posted on ANI asking for administrators who are Ph.D.'s to clarify between a Professor and a professor. Whatever the consensus is among them, that will help resolve this discussion. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
: So you want them to discuss if the word should be upper or lower case 'P' ? Don't they have other things to do ?. If he is a professor according to an accredited university (thus making it a reliable source) then that's quite OK to add and if they spell the word with a capital 'P' then we use that. Seems simple to me. [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] ([[User talk:Ttiotsw|talk]]) 08:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::I was a British academic, not an American one, but the concise version above looks fine to me. I've looked at the University page and of course they use a small 'p', that's no surprise, just the way English works, see [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/dam/]. Dam was a professor with the title Professor Emeritus etc... There can be no doubt that we can say Obama was a professor. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

===Concerns with edits===
This editor is persisting in removing the word professor from the article. When I reverted one of his edits, which hid the removal among others and called it fixing the bad prose, he got hostile on my talk page, and reinstated his edit, but changed it to put professor in quotes and write up a disclaimer which made Obama look like a liar. Isn't the ARBCom and the page protection situation in place to eliminate this sort of politically motivated attacking? [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Then think of a way to not make him look like a liar but also not create confusion between Professor and professor. Think about solutions, not insist on a bad choice. If you don't like my idea, think of a better one and report it here! [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::::As far as hostility, it is you who are hostile, calling other people's edits "smokescreen". Please don't![[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
: I put a 3RR warning on his page, I'd suggest someone also give him the article probation notice for future reference. I agree that there's no consensus about the professor edit. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 07:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
*There is a definite problem with the user concerning [[WP:Consensus]] and [[WP:OR]]. Otherwise, he is purposely removing/adding text to the article that he knows is against consensus and using [[WP:OR|original research]]. And not only that, but is reverting other editors multiple times that are correcting him. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 08:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

<blockquote>In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the [[University of Chicago Law School]] to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching [[constitutional law]][http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html .][http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html .] </blockquote>

:Which are cited by reliable sources and indisputable. This should be a non-issue, and I am not going to comment further on it, considering the issue closed. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::The issue could be made closed with simple changes. The fact remains that there is confusion between professor and Professor (Professor is one of the most senior faculty ranks, just below Chairman). There is also a historical issue that causes fighting here. During the campaign, the Obama campaign released information that he was a law professor. Maybe they thought that the general public wouldn't know what a Lecturer was. In the very loosest sense, a professor is any university teacher. However, a teaching assisting saying "I was a professor" is considered dishonest. The Clinton campaign picked up and this and attacked Obama. Obama needed to save himself so he appealed to the University of Chicago. Not wanting to offend a future president, they issued a carefully worded statement.

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

::Given the animosity of the past discussion, this will undoubtedly close as unchanged without true consensus or the best wording used. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:::The importance you place upon the word "professor" may be your personal viewpoint or a U.S.-centric thing. Technical colleges around here call their staff Professors and they're not on any tenure or academic track. Same with the university I attended - if you were part of the faculty, your were called professor or associate professor. If the University of Chicago says Obama was a professor at the university then that's the wording we should use. --[[User:NeilN|'''NeilN''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|talk to me]]'' 06:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into this and now realize that there is an intense backstory to the professor issue. Initially the Hillary campaign suggested that Obama was inflating his resume. The Obama campaign cried "mommy!" but then asked the University of Chicago to help them in a bind so the University, not wanting to cross a future president, hedged. So some people could be playing a hyper-cheerleader and want to present the most pro-Obama stance. The really anti-Obama people probably want to quote the controversy. The neutral stance would be to not mention the controversy but to neutrally say that he was on the faculty or that he was a Senior Lecturer. Some blogs describe exactly what I say. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:Sigh. Ever hear of [[WP:NOR]] and that blogs are not [[WP:reliable sources]]? --[[User:NeilN|'''NeilN''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|talk to me]]'' 04:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::I never said I wanted to use blog material. I also didn't do any OR. We must all do OR to understand an issue otherwise we are not thinking.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::"I ... didn't do any OR. We must all do OR ... otherwise we are not thinking.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)"
:::Yep. That seems to pretty much sum up this discussion. [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 07:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:Wow. With that bit of bizarre grandstanding, you have pretty much torpedoed any chance of you ever being taken seriously on this page again, or any chance of other's giving your editing suggestions anything more than a polite dismissal. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::This is not bizarre grandstanding. Foreign politicians and a U.S. senator's office have been caught editing their own articles so we know that there has been manipulation. I never accused any specific editor of editing their own article. We also know can make a pretty good guess to how a militant supporter or militant opponent would decide on certain editorial questions. We assume good faith in not accusing others but to not assess the supporter's view and opponent's view and choose the neutral view is part of being a good editor.

::What I wrote has reliable sources about the Hillary campaign attacking Obama for resume inflation. One news organization (used by other editors in this article) confirms my summary...{{blockquote|The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not." We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.}}

::So the bottom line is that it that there was a Hillary-Obama dispute. Some editors might want to take the Hillary side or the Obama side but Wikipedia should be neutral. I don't even think we should mention the dispute but should be mindful to take the neutral standpoint and not take sides even if we don't mention the dispute. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::"''I don't even think we should mention the dispute''" So why have you just posted almost a page of text? Per [[WP:TALK]] and [[WP:NOTAFORUM]] (not to mention the [[WP:GS/BO|general sanctions]]) we should only be discussing how to improve the article. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Mentioning the dispute on this talk page helps understand the issue. So if we just report on the Obama campaign's response and their tactics to address the issue and not even report the controversy nor the other side, we are not being objective. Yet, there is a way to not mention the controversy by just stating in the most neutral terms what he was, namely a Senior Lecturer who was offered a position on the full time faculty. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::That is not what he was described as though according to reliable sources, including the university itself. [[WP:V|Verifiability, Not Truth]], remember. We aren't here to judge or to interpret how we thing things should be. As I said on that AN/I, even I would never address a non-tenure track person such as Obama as "professor", but that has no bearing on what we're talking about here. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 05:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

NBC News reports that there was an issue regarding the Obama campaign calling him Professor verbally or maybe professor (capital P sounds the same as little P). It says
<blockquote>
He is a senior lecturer and has cited that he is a constitutional law professor on the trail. That's something that has caused some criticism and allegations of exaggeration. It's something the Clinton campaign has pushed as well in conference calls with reporters in the past week.

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

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

:I agree with you 100%, but also note that we seem to be in the minority on this. It is technically correct to say that he was professor because the weight of the sources say so... but the term is ill defined and may give some people the wrong impression, so why not be more precise and say exactly what he was / did? Anyway, this seems to be: (a) a lost cause, and (b) not terribly important. The silly little controversy over the issue was, well, silly. It was a non-issue over a non-event. Opposition researchers briefly thought they could accuse Obama of resume fraud, and when they couldn't, they tried anyway. It got no traction. But still, we should be as straightforward and precise as we can here. Just my opinion of course. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 07:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
::Per Wikidemon, precision is better. This is crazy and dysfunctional - all this dispute over 1 little word. English has thousands of words, surely there's another one that is just as good, better, or more precise. [[User:Judith Merrick|Judith Merrick]] ([[User talk:Judith Merrick|talk]]) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I assume that everyone here is completely neutral. If one is biased and wants to write a promotional piece on Obama, then they should support the use of the word professor since it pads his resume. The neutral way is what Wikidemon said, it can give the wrong impression, so the use of the word "professor" should be removed. Wikidemon also says it is "a lost cause" which could mean that some people will insist on it. Why? It's not logical if they are not trying to write a promotional piece. Assuming good faith would then mean they are not trying to promote him, just not logical. Let' go with the neutral, logical wording, which is just to drop the word "professor". We aren't saying "Obama is not a professor" because that would be biased the other way. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I just really want to know where people got this idea that professor absolutely and at all times means tenured faculty or tenure-track. It is true that that is often how an institutions define "professor" but there's no objective universal standard for the term professor. There is absolutely no reason to assert that only one who has tenure or who is on a tenure track is a professor. It falls upon the institution to define what that positions means for that institution. University of Chicago does things differently. They call their Senior Lecturers professors. That's the end of it. There is no debate after that. It makes no difference that he didn't have tenure and it makes no difference that he wasn't on a tenure-track. UofC is very picky with its grant of tenure so that's not all that surprising. My point here has nothing to do with politics, it's just common sense. It's not "resume padding" it is an objective fact. UofC says that their Senior Lecturers are professors and that Obama was a professor, then he was a professor and that's it. Period. No debate, no controversy, no room for discussion. It's a dead issue. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jdlund|contribs]]) 20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 

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

:UT Professor, I don't know if you are actually a professor at UT (I am going to guess no) but you are full of it when it comes to U of C. I went to the U of C law school (though it was after Obama taught there). A number of their classes are taught by Senior Lecturers and they are all absolutely referred to as professors. Every last single one of them. And no you cannot compare a junior faculty member with Senior Lecturer, certainly not what U of C means by Senior Lecturer. The press release had nothing to do with politics. You may disagree with a Senior Lecturer being called a professor but that feeling is irrelevant. U of C defines their Senior Lecturers as professors (at least within the Law School) that's the end of this discussion. There is no debate after that. It's not about politics, this is an issue with one, and only one, clear right absolute answer. U of C called him a professor; he was a professor. Period. It doesn't matter if it is potentially "misleading." If people don't understand that there isn't a consistent universal meaning to the label "professor" (something that even the faux "professor" above me doesn't understand) then that's their fault. Wikipedia should be about verifiable facts and it is an absolute, incontrovertible fact that at the University of Chicago he was a professor.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 03:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
::Not to add another long rant, but I think of some of you are very much mistaken about what U of C means by Senior Lecturer. I don't know what that position means at any other school, but at U of C it is a very distinguished position in their law school. It usually is someone who is accomplished. For instance the three seventh circuit court judges who teach classes on occasion (Posner, Easterbrook, and Wood) are all Senior Lecturers. You better believe that if [[Richard Posner]] teaches a class every student in that room will call him Judge Posner or Professor Posner, and absolutely the school will refer to him the same. Just so you all know, because as a U of C grad watching this brandishing of ignorance about this issue has been really annoying, Senior Lecturer is not some trivial little position anywhere near akin to "junior instructor" or "associate faculty" or whatever. It is a serious and meaningful position and yes they are called professors.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 04:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I generally avoid these retreads, but given the sudden influx of professors here (he said drily), I'd be interested to know if you both (and whomever else feels the need to weigh in in a timely manner so this thread can finally draw to a close) would agree that we should change the link of the term professor from [[professor|the more general, historic, perspectives-around-the-world article]] to the more relevant [[Professors in the United States]]? Not unlike [[president]] versus [[President of the United States]] or [[senate]] versus [[United States Senate]], it's entirely irrelevant to its usage in this article what the general word means throughout the world, and that international variance is perhaps causing (enabling?) some of the confusion here. Those interested in etymology will know to push further; those interested in clarifying the specific context of the term here will find it sooner, and those interested in perpetuating this sort of argument at this late date will be reminded that the term is, after all, linked, to an article explaining the term in context, presumably with whatever caveats are appropriate to the depersonalized examination there. (I'm just employing logic and common sense, I have neither edited nor read either article.) [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Good idea. Since no objections, I have just made that change. The sixth word in [[Professors in the United States]] is the link [[professor]] so apart from the fact that the U.S. usage is the more appropriate, anyone wanting a more general discussion will be able to easily find it. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

== Religion needs changing ==

I have looked at all the presidents for the last 100 years. Obama's religion in the infobox near the top of the article is non-standard. All the other presidents say Roman Catholic, Baptist, etc.

Obama's should say ''"United Church of Christ (until 2008), non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)"'' This is because he used to be a member of the [[Trinity United Church of Christ]] until he chose Evergreen Chapel, Camp David. Evergreen Chapel is non-demoninational, though it is not Catholic.

Just saying "Christianity" is too vague. Most Christians are either Catholic or Protestant, with many Protestant demoninations. There are also some other Christians, like the Coptics in Egypt and others. But Obama is not a Coptic. Mormans are usually considered Christian, though some Christians think they are not Christian. Obama is certainly not a Mormon.

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

Even though there is a lot of hostility and opposition to change (no pun intended even though Obama is for change), please consider this change. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:Seriously, dude, if you're taking it upon yourself to edit article space in an encyclopedia — despite the request of a number of editors to discuss changes on the talk page first — you could at least take the two seconds to spell-check your text. The phrase is not "non-'''demon'''inational Christian", it's "non-denominational Christian". Yet the qualifier modifies the overall scope of the chapel, and not Obama's religion. We don't need to add two words to point out that we are not specifying a denomination of Christianity when the simple lack of a specific denomination suffices to make the same point in a more succinct way. The point of that church's non-denominationalism is to serve the greatest number of individuals, not to be "new-agey" or something like that. The actual current minister at that chapel is Baptist, if I recall, yet is similarly an erroneous data point when inserted into an infobox section about ''Obama's'' religion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

:United Church of Christ is more a loose affiliation of churches than other Protestant denominations and, as such, when he pulled out of Trinity he also pulled out of the UCC denomination. So listing UCC in the infobox is not accurate. At best he could be listed as non-denominational Protestant, but even then it's not clear. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] [[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]] 05:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::I have no argument with that. That is an improvement over just "Christianity". So "United Church of Christ (until 2008), non-denominational Protestant (2008-present)"? Or we could put "presumed non-denominational Protestant (2008-present) but I don't like that. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::How are denomination changes handled in other articles? I know another President has changed denominations, just drawing a blank on which one. I've checked a couple of other articles of people that changed denominations/religion and so far those don't even list a religion in the infobox. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] [[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]] 05:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::::If people want to list his current religion (non-denominational Protestant) or his current and recent one (add UCC), this is a legitimate discussion. Part of the Christianity debate in the news before was arguing whether he was Muslim or Christian. We know he's not Muslim. But the use of Christian is just an argument that he's not Muslim. We can do better than that and bring up this article to the standard that every president in the past century uses -- listing his denomination (if Protestant) or putting Catholic (like JFK). We are making progress (thanks, Bobblehead), please no arguments just to make drama. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

*There is no reason to change the listing, as it describes his religion as it is now understood. If you scroll over the text with your mouse you will see that his religion is cited by sources and when he left Trinity he dis-affiliated himself from UCC. It's listed and sourced right in the box. So until Obama declares what denomination he wants to be considered now, it's listed as [[Christian]]. There have been other Presidents with similar listings. [[Andrew Johnson]] is also listed as Christian, as is [[Rutherford B. Hayes]]. [[Abraham Lincoln]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]] have no religion listed and are directed to an explanation in the body. So until Obama declares otherwise, the correct listing is [[Christian]], which is sourced and declared by Obama himself. We can't change it to what we think it should be, it has to be sourced. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 05:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Factual error: None of the cited articles use "Christianity". Andrew Johnson's infobox says that he is no denomination stated. Abe and Thomas Jefferson says see below. Even Hayes is the closest but doesn't use the exact word Christianity. All presidents within the past 100 years say Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. Also those other article are not featured articles so they could be flawed. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::We are not Obama's campaign office. He is not Catholic. He is Protestant. He is appears to be non-denominational. Non-denominational Protestant or even non-denominational Christian is ok. But simple Christian and it looks like we are just trying to fight Muslim rumors, not present information. Not everything is sourced. Do you have a source that he is a man? DO you have a source that his official residence in the White House and his private residence is Chicago? Who's to say that his Chicago house is just un-rented investment property? We need to assume as little as possible but things like the Chicago house and he is non-denominational is clear.
::Also, are you trying to say that Obama has no religion, like Lincoln? No, this is not true.
::This source say he's picked a non-denominational church. http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/06/the-obamas-pick-nondenominational-camp-david-church.html For those that don't know, in the military, there are Catholic services and non-denominational Protestant services. They are not the same. Obama has picked the latter. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::No sooner does somebody suggest or declare or agree upon something than JB50000 dives in to the article with something completely counter to that. Many talk page posts of yours are in complete disregard of previous statements. Your first and only acknowledgement of me was a blunt threat on my talk page, for doing my editorial responsibility at a BLP, as more than one other editor acknowledged. You speak of not wanting to get into cans of worms, yet rather than participate in a discussion and staying on point, all you do is pour worms onto the page. If there is no reference for his being now or in the recent past a ''non-denominational'' Protestant, we are not to presume that he is. If you want something more specific than ''Christianity'', I've already indicated what reasonable word that would be: ''Protestant''. If you don't like that, it stays ''Christian'' until you find a really good reference for something else. (And you might contribute your reason why to the discussion.) In the meantime, the next time you're seized with the compulsion to quash something, post it at the talk page first, allow a few days for comment second, read and process that comment third, determine whether there are valid editorial points made fourth, and if there are no meaningful objections or better ideas, add it to the article fifth. This jumping in at step five, then going to step one, then ignoring people and either reverting or moving to the next topic, is not doing yourself, us, this article, or least of all this talk page, any good. Actually editing with the summary "this has no opposition" when I've clearly outlined my opposition to it above and you have made no response whatsoever is unacceptable. And this crap about we're not his campaign office is completely uncalled for on a simple semantic issue of how specific we get in describing his Christianity. ''You're'' the one that stated it was your goal to squash Muslim rumors, now you're writing that it looks like we're just trying to fight Muslim rumors. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith with you. Do we have a source that he is a man? No, no worms with you. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::::There is almost no way to [[WP:AGF]] with this user. His drama filled explanations are just absurd. Something is definitely up with this editor. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::What's up is that a reasonable change is suggested and just "no no no". Users should look at themselves for a change. '''Just ignore the explanation and here's a summary. The proposed entry was "Non-denominational Christian" or "Protestant" or "Non-denominational Protestant". Christianity is the worst of the 4 choices.''' [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::It's ridiculous to bring up any [[Muslim]] foolishness. Anyone that would look at the religion box, see [[Christian]], and think 'he's trying to hide he's a Muslim', isn't going to be 'fooled' because it says [[Protestant]]. Anyone that doesn't know that Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim by now, and would think what you are insinuating, don't want explanations. They want to bury their heads like an [[Ostrich]]. The footnotes explain the current situation well enough and the listing of [[Christian]] is sourced and from Obama himself also. And by the way, I'm not fooled by your Lincoln false shock/accusation either. Not fooled one bit. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::In summary, editors have advocated "Christianity", "Protestant", "non-denominational Protestant" (or "non-denominational Christian" - with references). There is no consensus for Christianity. There is a good reference for non-denominational Christian. So it seems like that is the front runner. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=341843363&oldid=341842048 | this] attempt to have the last word of an argument in article history is completely unacceptable. I'd say that's the last straw, but I'm logging off; if someone else wants to take that up somewhere, I'd be thrilled to see it, and support it, tomorrow. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

===No consensus===
First of all, if the consensus was that he is a Muslim, we need to disregard consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not remove this tag, let the bot do it. It is easy for those who want to end discussion to try to remove the tag. Unfortunately, that happens a lot here.
Currently, the infobox lists his religion as "Christianity" with a reference but there are newer references that use the term Non-denominational Christian. Other suggestions include Protestant, Non-denominational Protestant, United Church of Christ (until 2008)/Non-denominational (2009-present), etc. Thank you. 07:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:Yeah, we get it, you're not listening. You're free to stop the gratuitous use of the word "Muslim" — which you have used ten times in a thread that is not about that religion. Unless of course there's some reason for your doing so.

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

:You act like this is something we get to whip up ourselves. No, these things exist in the real world and, aided by Wikipedia guidelines, we distill what the sources direct us to acknowledge. Camp David is a military installation and the non-denominational chapel there was conceived in order to serve the broadest spectrum of Protestants without having to have fifteen different chapels and fifteen different ministers, choirs, organists, etc., all on one base. It was not conceived to strip worshippers of the denominations of their faith. And so, they currently have a Baptist minister but will shift to a minister of another Protestant denomination after three years, so as not to show favoritism. And there are plenty of references simply for "Christian", including two added this evening by another editor. To [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=341840526&oldid=341839692| your third of five tendentious edits tonight], "President of a North American country" isn't enough for an American. I daresay "Christian" is enough for Christ. The pattern at this page will not be to add excess verbiage when it does not clarify any point, or improve the writing, but simply satisfies the preconceived misconceptions of a single editor despite the best efforts of others to educate him on the subject. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
*Last night when I saw your edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341834332&oldid=341826621 here], I decided to do some research on the [[List of Presidents of the United States|lists of Presidents]] to see exactly what religion they were listed at. Which is when I found that most were in fact specific in what denomination of religion they belonged to, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839016&oldid=341838306 not all had specific denominations listed.] And in fact there were a couple who had almost the exact same listing as Obama. Still, I went about the research and was assuming [[WP:AGF]], until you started making bizarre edits,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341838306&oldid=341836932 1],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839563&oldid=341839016 2],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839811&oldid=341839563 3] and drama filled reasoning. Not to mention, you changing the listed religion without any consensus. And let me explain consensus to you, since you don't seem to understand what it means here. You need consensus to change an established fact in an article, not to keep that established fact. This has long been the listing of Obama's religion, since he [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-11-17-3420350785_x.htm left the UCC.] Your reasoning and drama filled edit summaries remind me of what's transpiring currently in some [http://mediamatters.org/research/201002030049 right-wing hysteria circles.] The fact is, Obama has not declared his [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303619.html current denomination], is listed as a [[Christian]] on [http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php his website] and inside the info box of the [http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/obama Miller Center of Public Affairs.] So that is the current consensus listing. [[Christian]]. There is no need or frantic reason to change that descriptor, it covers the cited sources and what Obama describes himself as. Now, that should be enough for anyone to just let things play out. We are not supposed to use [[WP:OR]] and decipher what a [[WP:BLP]] ''should''be called or what we ''want'' them to be called. We use sources and the descriptors that come from the [[WP:BLP]] themselves. So I put my vote as "Leave as Christian until other developments/sources indicate otherwise". [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:: Agree as above. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 17:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:: i agree that listing his religion as [[christian]] is sufficient. [[User:Theserialcomma|Theserialcomma]] ([[User talk:Theserialcomma|talk]])

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

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

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

:::Saying that the American President is a Christian is indeed like saying he is a human being. America has barely had a Catholic president, much less a non-Christian one. However, making fine distinctions among the various branches of Christianity seems beside the point. It does seem a little odd to list the religion of a president. With a few exceptions, presidents are expected to keep up with their religious observances and beliefs, but this is quite tangential to the life and times of a president. It reminds me, faintly, of the occasional Japanese practice of listing the blood type of pop culture figures. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 14:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::The argument that the "reference used for Christianity is an unreliable source" is incorrect. First, we all agree that the assertion is correct, so a gold-plated source is not required. Second, the reference is extremely adequate and easily satisfies [[WP:RS]]. The only question concerns whether a "better" (more precise) label should be found, and whether a sourced label is available. I favor precision, but our discussion on what is the correct term to describe Obama's religion of course is totally irrelevant per [[WP:OR]]: we need a source. For whatever reason (not relevant to this discussion), no one has found a good source with current information that gives a more precise label. Until that occurs, this discussion is just chat and violates [[WP:TALK]]. In reply to a suggestion above: since all Presidents have "religion" in the infobox, and since there are good sources for "Christian" the term should not be removed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]])
::::::No one has found? Just wait. I have some but would like a more complete response, not a piecemeal one. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::These editors are discussing things on a religion board but their analysis may be helpful. Note that they posted these comments on the religion board but they are talking about Obama. Note: These were removed from here by another user but GFDL allows Wikipedia text to be used elsewhere besides the original page.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments: all four are largely accurate, it just depends on how much detail we want to provide:
# Christianity is accurate, but there are so many varieties of Christian, I'd prefer more detail than this
# Protestant is better, although there's still many varieties of that
# I have mixed feelings about "Non-denominational". It's true that Obama no longer associates with a particular denomination. But it's still true he's more Protestant than say Catholic or Orthodox.
# Listing both UCC up to 2008 and non-denominational thereafter is the most accurate, but maybe too much detail for an infobox?
My two preferences:
# Non-denominational Protestant (better than Non-denominational Christian - he's closer to Protestant than anything else)
# United Church of Christ (until 2008), Non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)
--[[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't like Non-denominational for two reasons: (1) Just because a person worships in a nondenominational chapel doesn't mean that that person leaves their denominational identity behind - e.g. I could easily describe myself as a Baptist or a Methodist or whatever, and still worship in a nondenominational chapel; (2) there are a number of nondenominational churches out there that appear to have made a principled decision not to belong to a denomination or as a criticism of denominationalism - I don't think there's any suggestion that Obama has converted to that type of nondenominationalism. I think just plain Christian is too generic - he's clearly not a member of the Roman Catholic Church or any of the autocephalous Eastern churches. My vote would be for:
:Protestant
:(member of the United Church of Christ until 2008)
[[User:Adam sk|Adam_sk]] ([[User talk:Adam sk|talk]]) 21:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::I have just reverted — for the second time — an edit by [[User:JB50000]], with the edit summary "Don't revert this again, JB50000, discuss it on the talk page", and then while I was writing this post, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=342840694| it was reverted back ''in''] by [[User:GB fan]], with the edit summary "Ummmm."

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

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

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

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

*These actions should be reported to ANI. You can't copy and paste comments in a RFC as if they were posted there. Period. What should have been done is that a warning and a self-revert issued to [[User:JB50000|JB50000]], and if not reverted a report at ANI should have been made. This is just getting ridiculous. If other editors want to keep re-adding comments from other pages into a RFC, they should cite their reasons why such an extreme measure should be allowed. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 03:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:::And so it turns into a full-blown edit war, with [[User:Jojhutton]] reverting the abovementioned misleading posts devoid of context, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&curid=7777393&diff=342847124&oldid=342846448| with the edit summary "undoing a questionable reversion".] Why, then, not question it, Jojhutton? Why five minutes after I posted the above discussion of the issue would the response not be to engage in this discussion, rather than simply revert? This is not responsible editing, it is disingenuous posturing against editors here, and it is contentious edit warring. I fail to understand the urgency three editors see in restoring these out-of-context posts by editors uninvolved in this discussion. It is indicative of a complete lack of editorial collegiality that there is no talk page discussion whatsoever from any of these three, JB50000, GB fan, and Jojhutton; it also suggests a failure to embrace the spirit of an RfC. I've never before seen [[User:GB fan]] here — which itself is a problem, reverting the decision of an involved editor at a talk page, ironically in an RfC to which he makes no contribution of his own — but JB50000 has carved out a pattern of edit warring and ignoring salient editorial points.

:::As for Jojhutton, I was interested to know if this editor had moved on to other edits or was composing a response here, and noted several edits after this one. An edit summary two edits previous caught my eye, however; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=342844809| this revert] to [[George W. Bush]] contains the summary "Not notable for BLP. per unwritten rules set up at [[Talk:Barack Obama]]". What kind of justification is that? This goes beyond tag-team edit warring. It seems clear that there is some politically motivated personalization at play here, although one that seems to deem itself above discussion, and it is resulting in irresponsible editing on a scale that reaches beyond this page. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 04:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Please try to be civil. Another editor, gave me some pointers as far as being civil - if you want this editor to leave some tips on your user page, just ask. As far as tag teaming, there are far more cases of tag teaming from the liberal faction. My faction, the absolutely neutral, pro-article improvement whether it's a positive or negative piece of information is a very lonely faction with few people unfortunately.
::::Thanks for someone else's suggestion of the link which I'll do next time. It is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#RFC_for_religion_-_President_Obama That discussion was ONLY to get help defining what the different religions are and did NOT ask people to comment on Obama. I did let the people know that I copied their comments here and gave them the option to black out their names.
::::If people wait a few days, I am gathering reliable source references which could resolve this issue! Stay tuned. I have one good reference but want to get some more. The other possibility is to just wait out the RFC and save up comments over a few days.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:Actually, in response to those above criticising JB5000 for copying my statements from another page to here, I have no objection to his so have done. I think those who would criticise him for so doing are frankly just being petty and pedantic. --[[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 09:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::To be clear, I didn't criticize him in your defense, and my consideration was not what you would prefer. You're probably unclear on this, but JB50000 never mentioned to anybody here that in the middle of this discussion he had gone over and begun the thread he called an "RfC" (but did not link to this page or this actual RfC) to which you responded at the WikiProject Religion. Did you know that? This isn't about protocol for its own sake, it's a little about a collegial heads-up, it's a little about not going behind your colleagues backs, but it's largely about how you can't compile the opinions of random people elsewhere as if it's a fresh and specific and informed consensus here, while never giving us the context or the source. Even after posting your response — and reverting it back into the article some four or five times against the opposition of several editors and without talk page discussion, in violation of collegial requests and several bright-line policies — he did not indicate where your comment was from, or what, precisely, it was in response to. There are shadings of difference in how things are handled from one page to another at Wikipedia, much less in the wider blogosphere, and if you don't choose to weigh in on the issue ''here'', and are a non-notable person and have no refs to support your opinion, then your opinion is not clearly relevant to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Well, that all sounds reasonable and I would agree, except it's [[WP:OR]] and [[conjecture]]. Which would work if we were trying to decipher what religion some past historical figure should be listed as, but not with a [[WP:BLP]], imo. When the info box was changed(after Obama and his family resigned from the UCC), there was a discussion here numerous times about what to list in the Obama religion box. After much discussion it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_49#UCC.2C_Again agreed by consensus] to place the religious identifier as 'Christian' until a reliable source indicates otherwise. Nothing has changed, except more sources list 'Christian' as Obama's religion. Including his own websites. So while I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with changing the descriptor until a reliable source indicates just what denomination of [[Christianity]] Barack Obama identifies with. We have to remember this is about changing a consensus that has been reached already. I have no problems with changing the descriptor if we are not using [[WP:OR]] to decipher the listing and are using a reliable source and [[WP:Consensus|consensus]]. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 21:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

There was a lot of religious people coming here for a while but it stopped. It seems that there is support for being more specific than just Christianity. There's one suggestion (mine) that there is no source that says he left the UCC, just left the individual church. I read somewhere that the UCC didn't want him but unless I see that again, it's a bit too controversial to include anything like that. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:We had a furious discussion about this a few months ago; you might drag through the archives and check it out. I took essentially your position. He definitely quit Trinity, but there's so source but an unclear ''en passant'' mention in an AP article that he quit the UCC. For a long time, the infobox said, "[[Christian]], last associated with the [[United Church of Christ]]" which seemed fine to me. He's lately been hanging around with a lot of pastors from different sects, but if he's adopted a new one he doesn't seem to have made it public. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
* '''Reponse to the RFC''' - There really is no more reliable source than Obama's own website, which does indeed list him as simply "Christian." Unless Obama has at some point stated that he is anything more specific, that's what we should call him. Let's use a little [[WP:COMMON]] sense here people. There are all kinds of sources debating about his religion, so rather than join in the potentially libelous debate, let's just call him what he calls himself. [[User:AzureFury|'''AzureFury''']] ([[User talk:AzureFury|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/AzureFury|contribs]]) 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
* '''UCC''' Is there a RFC? If so, where is the lightbulb tag? References say UCC so that's what it is. Christian is imprecise. If it is on his website, it could be to strongly highlight that he is not Muslim because if you put UCC, people might not know what that is (University of Central Canada? Unified Command of the Central NATO? University Church of Communists? United Counties of Christians?). So it could be a campaign tactic. But we have good references to say that he's a United Church of Christ so that's what should be listed. Similar variations of UCC are so ok like Protestant (UCC) or UCC (Christian), etc. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 19:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
* '''Agree with Gaydenver''' From my perspective, UCC means [[Uniform Commercial Code]]. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::Good point, should spell out "United Church of Christ" and not use abbreviations. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

== Kenyan nationality ==

Should be noted in infobox, even though it is a former nationality. He was a dual citizen for the beginning of his life. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.13.223.188|71.13.223.188]] ([[User talk:71.13.223.188|talk]]) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 
:Do you have a reliable source stating that? --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] ([[User talk:OuroborosCobra|talk]]) 01:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
::http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Far from being birther nonsense, it's right; he would have automatic citizenship of the United Kingdom, and later, Kenya, until it being automatically renounced. I'm not sure if it would warrant mention in the article, though, as it's of minor import. If it was, I'd suggest the following wording:
:::{{blockquote|[[Jus sanguinis|By virtue of his father's citizenship]] of [[Kenya Colony]], Obama Jr. had automatic [[British subject|British]]—and later Kenyan—citizenship. He lost his dual-citizenship on his 23rd birthday because he did not affirm an allegiance to Kenya.}}
::: '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:::(ec)Earlier discussion has pointed out that Obama indeed had Kenyan citizenship, but it lapsed when he turned 21. The issue then is [[WP:WEIGHT]]: How and in what way did the citizenship affect him sufficiently to be notable in a summary-style article? Not enough for the infobox, to be sure, and probably not enough for the article at all. It's mentioned in one or more of the subarticles, and that's enough. Sceptre's suggestion isn't bad, though. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spectre's suggestion is 99% ok, but there's a little mistake. Better is to modify it and say "He lost any claim to dual-citizenship on his 23rd ....." This is because there is no source that says Kenya claimed him or that he claimed Kenya. Kenya doesn't know everyone that could be a citizen. Those people have to do something like apply for a passport after which Kenya says "ok, here's your passport" or "no, you are an illegal, no passport for you". [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:If Obama Sr. had Kenyan citizenship, then Obama Jr. would have it too, until his 23rd birthday. See the factcheck article that says that, while neither claimed each other, he still was a Kenyan citizen. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 16:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
::Thinking about it, I agree with the above. I can be convinced even stronger if I knew that Obama Sr. had a Kenyan passport. I think he did because he was not an American citizen. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

:: --''If Obama Sr. had Kenyan citizenship, then Obama Jr. would have it too''-- In a purely technical matter, that's correct. But it was never enacted upon and has no bearing in Obama's life. Right? What possible difference does having a ''possible'', ''technical'', citizenship status if it was never actually acted upon? Thus never even really happened. I'm sure the same could be said for many people based on their heritage. I've been told I could, or could have, claimed German citizenship because my grandfather was born there. Though I would not appreciate someone assigning me German citizenship status without my consent in some article. It's rather an obscure, technical matter that doesn't reflect any real purpose. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 20:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this seems perfectly reasonable. I don't think it deserves a great deal of elaboration, but some simple little mention of the fact that he had a default dual citizenship which dropped at the age of 23 because he never did anything with it is fine.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC). 
:Why? Why is it important? Please address the really obvious [[WP:WEIGHT]] issue. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== Physical Attributes ==

Shouldn't his physical attributes be posted as well (height and weight)? I found [http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/01/1506066/obama-still-using-nicotene-replacement.html?storylink=omni_popular this] article that says he's 179.9lbs and has a BMI of 23.7, which means he's about 6'1' ' if my calculations are correct. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.83.28.30|74.83.28.30]] ([[User talk:74.83.28.30|talk]]) 18:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 
:No. He's a politician, not a baseball player. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::That does not imply that his overall health (as BMI is an important tool for determining overall health for people within certain averages) is irrelevant. Especially since his health has been called into question by certain media organizations lately and health factors have limited and sometimes killed presidents of the past. [[Special:Contributions/76.2.235.75|76.2.235.75]] ([[User talk:76.2.235.75|talk]]) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::IMO, the President's health belongs in this article only if (1) he is hospitalized or (2) the [[Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-fifth Amendment]] is invoked. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 18:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

::: What 'media organizations' have called President Obama's health into question? His BMI was described as 'healthy' and the summary from the physician noted that Obama was in "excellent health"[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZrDjfR6gmuWCrw5kO1bjW_uc4oQD9E5B6AO1 .] There were a couple of things Obama should be doing better in, but absolutely nothing that raises any of the concerns you are citing. He is in 'excellent health'. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:::: I think that Fox News called into question his drinking habits [http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2010/03/02/conservatives-falsely-characterize-obama-health-report-to-suggest-he-drinks-too-much/#axzz0hbtNHsjz .] I guess the point that he is in good condition was the point, but if people should assume that it wasn't mentioned in the article implies that it has never been called into question that works. I just don't really know the rules to these things so I thought I should ask here first. Thanks! Cheers. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.83.28.30|74.83.28.30]] ([[User talk:74.83.28.30|talk]]) 18:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 

::::: That's not [[Fox News]], that's [[Alan Colmes]] complaining about [[Matt Drudge|Drudge]] linking to a [[tabloid]] paper(the [[Daily Mail]]). In other words, a bunch of tabloid fodder. There's no need to debunk that type of silliness. Especially from an outlet who has already [[Daily Mail#Libel_lawsuits|lost five libel suits]] the past 10 years. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When his health becomes a major part of his biography, this kind of information (weight, cholesterol) should be included. So far, it is not. This is the neutral way and the way that all articles should take. [[User:A UT professor|A UT professor]] ([[User talk:A UT professor|talk]]) 01:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

== No mention of Hawaii in lead? ==

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

:Why? [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 05:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
::It's a significant enough element of his biography to warrant it. The amount of coverage of his Hawaiian origins during his election campaign was remarkable for someone who made his political career in another state. A lot of it had to do with how race relations were different in Hawaii than on the mainland, and that that had shaped him as an individual. Typical examples: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17003563/ Obama had multiethnic existence in Hawaii], [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/world/americas/17iht-obama.1.html In Hawaii, clues from Barack Obama's origins]. Personally, I think it's fair to say he's more of an Illinoisan than a Hawaiian now, but it does seem to be a matter of debate - [http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Americas/2008/November/Is-Obama-Hawaiian-or-Illinoisan-.html Is Obama Hawaiian or Illinoisan?], [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1858759,00.html Hawaii vs. Illinois: Battling over a Favorite Son - TIME], [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081030/NEWS05/810300361/Obama%5C-s-more-Illinois-than-Hawaii--folks-in-Chicago-say Obama's more Illinois than Hawaii, folks in Chicago say]. I don't think it's entirely fair to mention in the lead where he got his undergraduate degree but not where he was born and (mostly) raised. This is something that could be done succinctly.[[Special:Contributions/82.120.177.181|82.120.177.181]] ([[User talk:82.120.177.181|talk]]) 09:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
::I'm the same person as 82. Since there are no objections, I'll make the change. [[User:Ucbear|Ucbear]] ([[User talk:Ucbear|talk]]) 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

== Juris doctor = "doctorate"? ==

Is it common practice in the english wikipedia to call JD "a doctorate in law", in light of it being first professional degree, unlike JSD (doctor of judicial science)? -anonymous —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.186.248.40|109.186.248.40]] ([[User talk:109.186.248.40|talk]]) 08:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 
:The English Wikipedia being an online encyclopedia, there actually ''are'' articles here where people confused by terms used in this article can find referenced explanations of the terminology and what it encompasses, including [[Juris doctor]]. It is at those articles and their talk pages that common practice for English Wikipedia usage is presented and may be discussed. Incidentally, the term is Doctor of Juridical Science. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 08:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not confused, I know full well the controversary regarding the designation of JD as "a doctorate", My question is whether it is common practice in the english wikipeida to pass judgement on that controversary in the way of using the term "a doctorate" in the article. If not, then this word should be removed from the article. If someone knows the answer to this question, I'll be happy if he responds. Otherwise I'll have to start checking myself the wikilinks to JD and see if in most of the articles it is regarded as "a doctorate".

::For comparison, one might read the artile about the italian [[Doctor_(title)#Italy|dottore]]. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.186.7.33|109.186.7.33]] ([[User talk:109.186.7.33|talk]]) 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 

== More foolish trivia ==

Why isnt the fact that Obama stated he was the 44th single man to take the Presidential oath, when infact he was the 43rd because of Grover Cleveland taking presidency twice mentioned in this article? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mongbean|Mongbean]] ([[User talk:Mongbean|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mongbean|contribs]]) 18:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 
:Because it is useless trivia with no relevance or importance to a biography of Obama's entire life. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] ([[User talk:OuroborosCobra|talk]]) 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== Talk page too long. ==

I think I speak for everyone that some users might slow their computers down. We should archive this page. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Emo-tional being|Emo-tional being]] ([[User talk:Emo-tional being|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Emo-tional being|contribs]]) 17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 
:It's currently set to automatically archive any thread that isn't updated for 14 days. People tweak that from time to time and it's generally set somewhere between 7 and 14 days. At 189K right now, it's not any longer than it usually is. I don't see any harm in shortening that to 10. But overall I think this article is just harder to work on than most, for many reasons. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:: It may be that the pictures currently on the talk page are causing some users problems, but that can be solved by users with slower connections by disabling graphics. Of course, I am not opposed to shortening the archive time back to 10 days either. Though it seems, once again, that some articles that should be archived are getting caught up and are not auto-archived and may have to be put in manually. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 20:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I've just had a quick look through, and as the bot judges on the big sections it doesn't currently look like anything is getting stuck. I'm going to change it to 10 days as there are a couple of large threads dated the 28 February. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
::::OK its down to 127k now. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 10:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

== Occupation doesn't include President ==

Is there a reason for this? -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
:Because it is kinda redundant to list being "president" in a officeholder infobox. The field is meant to be used to their prior occupation. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 23:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama

2010-03-14T04:35:12Z

69.140.3.80: /* Doctorate in law */ new section

{{featured article review|Barack Obama/archive7}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan|type=content}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 68
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive <#>
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Historical diffs
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/weight
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/race
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{pp-move-indef}}

{{purge|page=Barack Obama|1=Click to manually purge the article's cache}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{Round In Circles|search=yes}}
{{Community article probation|main page=Barack Obama|BASEPAGENAME=Barack Obama|[[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation]] for full information and to review the decision}}
{{calm talk|#FFCCCC}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=FA|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|listas=Obama, Barack}}
{{USP-Article|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{Project Congress|class=FA|subject=person|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Illinois|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WPHawaii|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{Wikiproject Kansas|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{ChicagoWikiProject|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Columbia University|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WP Indonesia|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{AfricaProject|class=FA|importance=low|Kenya=yes|Kenya-importance=low}}
{{Project afro|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|class=FA}}
{{Talk Spoken Wikipedia|class=FA|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg}}
{{WPCD-People|class=FA}}
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack}}
{{pressmulti|collapsed=yes
| title = On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet
| author = Jose Antonio Vargas
| date = 2007-09-17
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html
| org = [[The Washington Post]]
| section = September
| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare
| author2 = [[Alison Stewart]], Rachel Martin
| date2 = 2008-04-03
| url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf
| org2 = [[The Bryant Park Project]], [[NPR]]
| title3 = Editors in Chief
| author3 = [[Brooke Gladstone]], [[Bob Garfield]]
| date3 = 2008-04-04
| url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02
| org3 = [[On The Media]], NPR
| title4 = Wiki Woman
| author4 = Eve Fairbanks
| date4 = 2008-04-09
| url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1
| org4 = [[The New Republic]]
| section4 = March
| title5= Hillary's Wiki Defender
| author5 = Jesse Brown
| date5= 2008-04-10
| url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html
| org5= [[Search Engine (radio show)|Search Engine]], [[CBC Radio One]]
| title6= Wikipedia Wars
| author6 = [[Tom Foreman]]
| date6= 2008-04-11
| url6= http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269
| org6= [[This Week...]], [[CNN]]
| title7= Liberal Web
| author7 = [[John J. Miller]]
| date7= 2008-04-21
| url7=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/print?tag=artBody;col1
| org7= [[National Review]]
| section7=April 2008
| title8= Clinton's entry in Wikipedia has a watchdog
| author8 = Kelly Heyboer
| date8= 2008-05-28
| url8= http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/05/hillary_clintons_wikipedia_wat.html
| org8= [[The Star-Ledger]]
| title9=NJ Man Appoints Himself Wikipedia Watchdog
| author9 = Paul Murnane
| date9= 2008-05-28
| url9=http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2400703
| org9= [[WCBS (AM)|WCBS Newsradio 880]]
| title10= Updating a Reference Site on the Fly
| author10= Noam Cohen
| date10= 2008-11-09
| url10= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html
| org10= [[The New York Times]]
| title11= Obama Wikipedia page under possible security attack
| author11= Adrian Bridgwater
| date11= January 22, 2009
| url11= http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10011960o-2000458459b,00.htm
| org11= [[ZDNet]]
| title12= Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
| author12= [[Aaron Klein]]
| date12= March 8, 2009
| url12= http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114
| org12= [[WorldNetDaily]]
| title13= Obama's Wikipedia Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers
| author13= Joshua Rhett Miller
| date13= March 9, 2009
| url13= http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html
| org13= [[Fox News Channel]]
| title14= Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Wikipedia', report claims
| author14= Mark Coleman
| date14= March 10, 2009
| url14= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Wikipedia-report-claims.html
| org14= [[The Daily Telegraph]]
| title15= Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos
| author15= Noam Cohen
| date15= July 19, 2009
| url15= http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
| org15= [[The New York Times]]
|author16=(none)
|date=August 17, 2009
|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html
|title=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008
|org=[[The Daily Telegraph]]
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=12 August 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama
|action1result=Promoted
|action1oldid=5174535

|action2=WPR
|action2date=18 August 2004
|action2link=Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 18, 2004
|action2result=Maindate
|action2oldid=5294576

|action3=FAR
|action3date=09:53, 23 January 2007
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1
|action3result=pass
|action3oldid=102622704

|action4=FAR
|action4date=22:24, July 26, 2007
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2
|action4result=pass
|action4oldid=147098144

|action5=FAR
|action5date=06:08, 15 April 2008
|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3
|action5result=kept
|action5oldid=205714008

|action6=FAR
|action6date=12:56, 16 September 2008
|action6link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4
|action6result=kept
|action6oldid=239534110

|action7=WPR
|action7date=4 November 2008
|action7link=Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008
|action7result=Maindate
|action7oldid=249529065

|action8=FAR
|action8date=17:30, 2 December 2008
|action8link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive5
|action8result=kept
|action8oldid=255411914

|action9=FAR
|action9date=03:36, 10 March 2009
|action9link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive6
|action9result=kept
|action9oldid=276168026

|maindate=November 4, 2008
|itndate=November 5, 2008
|currentstatus=FA
|small=yes}}
{{archives
|auto=yes
|search=yes
|bot=MiszaBot
|age=14
|index= /Archive index|
; Special discussion pages:
* [[/Article probation|Article probation]], [[/Article probation/Incidents|Incidents]]
* [[/Historical diffs|Historical diffs]], [[/weight|Weight]], [[/race|Race]]}}

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

The second paragraph of the section "University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney" lists Obama as a "professor" for twelve years, clarifying that he was a lecturer first and a "senior lecturer" later. The title of "lecturer" is distinct from that of "professor". I propose that the paragraph be modified to start, "For 12 years, Obama lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School." —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.151.71.18|128.151.71.18]] ([[User talk:128.151.71.18|talk]]) 15:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 
:This claim has been made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=professor&prefix=Talk:Barack+Obama&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search over and over], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_24#Professor debunked every time]. This(that Obama was a professor) has been confirmed by reliable sources and the claim that he was not has been debunked by [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html Factcheck.org] and [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp Snopes]. So it's a fact that [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] was a Constitutional Law Professor. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 15:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::Obama was never on tenure track at the University of Chicago as a quick phone call to the University has just proven. He was a lecturer for all his years there and he did it on a part-time basis. And the idea that someone who works hard to gain tenure track and earns the right to be called a professor, that somehow 'professor' is a pejorative term denoting 'old right wing meme' as DD2K stated in his edit summary, is offensive.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::You are misunderstanding the edit summary. The "old right wing meme" is the repeated claims that Obama was never a professor, despite statements from the university and reliable sources to the contrary. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::[[User:Malke_2010|Malke_2010]], you should follow the links I provided and try to understand that this has been discussed and proven false. Obama was considered a Constitutional Law Professor by the university, and that has been proven over and over. There is no doubt. In the links I provided are direct quotes from the University of Chicago, so pretending that a 'quick phone call' proves otherwise is disingenuous. At best. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Blogs are no substitute for the University itself. Obama was never on tenure tract. He was always a lecturer. He was never a Con Law scholar. Blogs are disingenuous as is any claim that they are accurate. Obama's listings in the Un Chicago directory was as a 'lecturer.' Blogs can't beat that.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Those aren't 'blogs', it was Factcheck.org and Snopes. Both respected institutions for debunking false accusations and urban legends that get mass emailed. And they quote the University of Chicago directly, and the quote has been repeated in just about every reliable sourced media outlet. Perhaps you should have actually read the links I provided before you made the claim that you called the university? I would say that claim you made, and the subsequent posts you are posting, makes clear that there no longer needs to be any [[WP:AGF]] with you here. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::The University of Chicago is the last word on this. Call them yourself. Factcheck.org is a blog, as is Snopes. These are not respected secondary sources like the New York Times or the Washington Post. I find it curious that you are using these blogs and not using the New York Times or the Washington Post to back up your claims of 'right wing meme.' You can call Obama a professor all you want, but he was never a professor. He never applied for tenure track. The University of Chicago's faculty directory proves that. In the last edition Obama was in, he was listed as a "Senior Lecturer." The directory is a bona fide source for a citation and can be used in correcting Obama's article. You are free to call the Un of Chicago yourself. And just because an editor disagrees with you, or presents sources that contradict your claims, doesn't mean that editor has an agenda or that other editors can't assume they have good faith. Please read the Wikipedia policy [[WP:PERSONAL ATTACK]]. You don't want to establish a [[WP:CHILL]] effect in what could appear to be an effort to drive away editors from making contributions to Obama's article. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::''"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. '''Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors''', although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times '''during his 12 years as a professor''' in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."'' ([http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media source]) - CASE CLOSED. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:Exactly. Not really a professor. But you can call him that. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Factcheck and Snopes are not blogs, but if it's the NYT you want, here's an article about his time as a professor, referring to him as professor throughout, including the headline. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html]. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::(after ec) This issue has been discussed before and resolved, if you search the talk page archives. It is correct that Obama was a professor, per the university and plenty of reliable sources. There is no question about his actual role; it is a definitional matter, and the definition of the word is not fixed. We could add a word or two or rephrase perhaps to eliminate the ambiguity but past proposals to do so have not gained consensus. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::In the proper usage of the title, he is not a professor. It's all right to make the distinction, because saying he was a lecturer doesn't take anything away from Obama, since he is the President of the United States. Don't see where any other Un Chicago profs have done that. This is from Slate which explains the difference. [http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/26/was-obama-a-law-professor.aspx] You guys get over the top here but that could be why the article is still in such good shape. [[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::So you are claiming that the University of Chicago is using the title improperly? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::No, I'm showing you why there's an argument about this stuff in the first place.[[User talk:Malke 2010|Malke]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|2010]] 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::There's no argument, only people who, for whatever reason, can't accept that the University of Chicago knows what it calls its own employees. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 22:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sweet mother of God, this again? Seriously? There is no objective criteria for what constitutes a professor. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that says you have to be on a tenure track to have the title professor. A university creates its own parameters for who is a professor or adjunct or some other title. University of Chicago refers to him as being a professor at their law school http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media. Having the title of "senior lecturer" has no effect whatsoever on whether or not he is a professor. If University of Chicago calls the Senior Lecturers who work at their law school "professors" then they are professors. He was a professor, period. End of story. ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 19:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

:Since this was discussed almost nine months ago in May 2009:
:# [[Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Academics]]
:# [[Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 59#Lecturer and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law_School]]
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=289078054 15:31, 10 May 2009] [[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Newross|contribs]]) ''(→Early life and career: "was a professor of constitutional law" --> "served as a professor of constitutional law"; add "as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004")''
:two "minor edits" changed consensus wording:
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=322667387 03:02, 29 October 2009] [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/SMP0328.|contribs]]) '''m''' ''(→Early life and career: Wording tweak)''<blockquote>served as a professor of [[constitutional law]] → was a [[constitutional law]] professor</blockquote>
:# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=327669089 14:28, 24 November 2009] [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk:Afterwriting|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Afterwriting|contribs]]) ''(Minor style edits.)''<blockquote>Lecturer → lecturer Senior Lecturer → senior lecturer</blockquote>
:[[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]]) 18:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for that legwork - very helpful! - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

There is no other way around it.

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

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

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

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

:This claim has been made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=professor&prefix=Talk:Barack+Obama&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search over and over], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_24#Professor debunked every time]. This(that Obama was a professor) has been confirmed by reliable sources and the claim that he was not has been [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html Factcheck.org] and [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp Snopes]. So it's a fact that [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] was a Constitutional Law Professor. By the way, this is not a forum and it's getting pretty monotonus with the same posters coming in and making the same kind of claims over and over. I really think any 'litmus test' should be decided by a quick [[WP:SPI]] on a few of the posters in here. I definitely think there are some 'good hand-bad hand' games being played here. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 05:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::This is a personal attack. Don't like someone and call them a sock. Looking at the archives...same of behavior over and over...collapsing boxes, calling people sock. It is also an attack on Wikicup, of which I am a participant and beating many other editors so far, many of whom have zero points. Prove that you are not an Obama staffer. I am one of the most neutral people here, challenging extreme right wingers and left wing nuts. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::What this basically boils down to is trying to play up the confusion between Professor and professor. Professor is lying. professor is a weasel word and then it requires a long explanation about his position. Basically, he was a part time faculty member. Look up this http://www.missouriwestern.edu/eflj/faculty/ Is Meredith Katchen a professor of English? That would be stretching the facts and overselling. President Obama is a great leader, very articulate, very effective in his agenda (with one exception). He won the Nobel Peace Prize fair and square. He doesn't need to pad his resume calling him professor. By being realistic, the Wikipedia article gains credibility. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::::To assist in settling the matter, I've asked some editors who write the Professor article in Wikipedia and some Wikipedia administrators who are university faculty members. If they say that the general public understands the difference between Professor and professor, then the article is fine the way it is. If they say that the general public may not understand or may confuse the two, then that helps settle this question. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yea, well I consider your 'litmus test' a personal attack. And I don't remember accusing anyone on here of being a sockpuppet(before my most recent post). So that's another claim by you that is not true. Also, I think you should stop trying to insert [[WP:OR]] into the article and the talk page. Going around asking people to do your [[WP:OR]] and making posts(forum shopping) all over Wikipedia doesn't really fit within the guidelines. Try citing [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], like everyone else here has done to show you that Obama was considered a law professor. There are several citations, and direct quotes from the university itself, that back that up. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean anything. Not here, not ever. Reliable sources, [[WP:Consensus]] and [[WP:Weight]] do, and using those guidelines you are incorrect. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::It boils down to supporters of professor argue on a technicality, that any faculty member is a professor. They ignore that there is much confusion between Professor and professor. So either there has to be a lengthy explanation/disclaimer or there is none and people get fooled. This reliable source explains it. http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-04/2005-04-20-voa2.cfm The reader is confused between professor and other titles (lecturer is mentioned in the article). This also brings up the issue of prose. If you have prose that can lead to confusion, this is bad.

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

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

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

:::::::This issue is so easy and clear cut that if you oppose it (by wanting a deceptive version or by wanting a smear version), then the Wikipedia system is broken.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::You obviously do not understand what [[WP:OR]] states, or what a reliable source is. I suggest you go and read the guidelines, because you are doing nothing but making your own assumptions and trying to insert your own opinions based on definitions of titles or words. It's painfully obvious to anyone that the citations given(FactCheck.org, UofC, NYT) have put this issue to rest. There is no way to overrule those citations without violating [[WP:Undue Weight]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:OR]]. I do believe this discussion is over. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 15:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::The real litmus test should be this: either explain why the University of Chicago is unable to correctly identify its own employees or stop wasting everyone's time. What better source for the title of an employee than an employer? It's not about logic or arguments or partisanship. Wikipedia runs on sources, period. The best source, the source that employed him, says that he was a professor. Unless you can trump that, this is all just pointless chatter. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] ([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]]) 18:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree that this particular sub-thread, and any long discussion, is a waste of time, even though I do hold the minority position that we should use more precise language and not simply call him a professor because his employer and the sources do. The sources, for example, may say it is "cold" in Moscow this week but that doesn't stop us from being more precise and reporting just ''how'' cold it is. It wouldn't kill us to add a short adjective clause like "non-tenure track", "adjunct", "part time", "visiting", "associate", or whatever it is. But I think I'm in the minority on this and not much chance of changing anyone's mind so I won't go off on how [insert favorite Wikipedia accusation] everyone here is for disagreeing with me. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

===Comparison===
Scjessey's version is above:

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

A more concise version:

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

This concise version has none of the disclaimers like the top version. There is no chance for misunderstanding. This is no chance of resume inflation. There is respect for the President. Because of this, both Obama staffers and right wing extremists probably hate these version. The staffers want resume inflation. The right wingers want to diminish his achievements. By being neutral and fair, this article gets credibility. With the neutral version, we can focus on this man's fine leadership, good achievements (with one possible failure or delay), a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize, etc. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:I think there has been a '''''huge''''' misunderstanding here. The text I quote in the section above is not from any article. It is from the [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media University of Chicago's statement] on the matter. It is the ''source''. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 13:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

===ANI===
I posted on ANI asking for administrators who are Ph.D.'s to clarify between a Professor and a professor. Whatever the consensus is among them, that will help resolve this discussion. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
: So you want them to discuss if the word should be upper or lower case 'P' ? Don't they have other things to do ?. If he is a professor according to an accredited university (thus making it a reliable source) then that's quite OK to add and if they spell the word with a capital 'P' then we use that. Seems simple to me. [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] ([[User talk:Ttiotsw|talk]]) 08:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::I was a British academic, not an American one, but the concise version above looks fine to me. I've looked at the University page and of course they use a small 'p', that's no surprise, just the way English works, see [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/dam/]. Dam was a professor with the title Professor Emeritus etc... There can be no doubt that we can say Obama was a professor. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

===Concerns with edits===
This editor is persisting in removing the word professor from the article. When I reverted one of his edits, which hid the removal among others and called it fixing the bad prose, he got hostile on my talk page, and reinstated his edit, but changed it to put professor in quotes and write up a disclaimer which made Obama look like a liar. Isn't the ARBCom and the page protection situation in place to eliminate this sort of politically motivated attacking? [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Then think of a way to not make him look like a liar but also not create confusion between Professor and professor. Think about solutions, not insist on a bad choice. If you don't like my idea, think of a better one and report it here! [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::::As far as hostility, it is you who are hostile, calling other people's edits "smokescreen". Please don't![[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
: I put a 3RR warning on his page, I'd suggest someone also give him the article probation notice for future reference. I agree that there's no consensus about the professor edit. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 07:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
*There is a definite problem with the user concerning [[WP:Consensus]] and [[WP:OR]]. Otherwise, he is purposely removing/adding text to the article that he knows is against consensus and using [[WP:OR|original research]]. And not only that, but is reverting other editors multiple times that are correcting him. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 08:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

<blockquote>In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the [[University of Chicago Law School]] to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching [[constitutional law]][http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html .][http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html .] </blockquote>

:Which are cited by reliable sources and indisputable. This should be a non-issue, and I am not going to comment further on it, considering the issue closed. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::The issue could be made closed with simple changes. The fact remains that there is confusion between professor and Professor (Professor is one of the most senior faculty ranks, just below Chairman). There is also a historical issue that causes fighting here. During the campaign, the Obama campaign released information that he was a law professor. Maybe they thought that the general public wouldn't know what a Lecturer was. In the very loosest sense, a professor is any university teacher. However, a teaching assisting saying "I was a professor" is considered dishonest. The Clinton campaign picked up and this and attacked Obama. Obama needed to save himself so he appealed to the University of Chicago. Not wanting to offend a future president, they issued a carefully worded statement.

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

::Given the animosity of the past discussion, this will undoubtedly close as unchanged without true consensus or the best wording used. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:::The importance you place upon the word "professor" may be your personal viewpoint or a U.S.-centric thing. Technical colleges around here call their staff Professors and they're not on any tenure or academic track. Same with the university I attended - if you were part of the faculty, your were called professor or associate professor. If the University of Chicago says Obama was a professor at the university then that's the wording we should use. --[[User:NeilN|'''NeilN''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|talk to me]]'' 06:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into this and now realize that there is an intense backstory to the professor issue. Initially the Hillary campaign suggested that Obama was inflating his resume. The Obama campaign cried "mommy!" but then asked the University of Chicago to help them in a bind so the University, not wanting to cross a future president, hedged. So some people could be playing a hyper-cheerleader and want to present the most pro-Obama stance. The really anti-Obama people probably want to quote the controversy. The neutral stance would be to not mention the controversy but to neutrally say that he was on the faculty or that he was a Senior Lecturer. Some blogs describe exactly what I say. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:Sigh. Ever hear of [[WP:NOR]] and that blogs are not [[WP:reliable sources]]? --[[User:NeilN|'''NeilN''']] ''[[User talk:NeilN|talk to me]]'' 04:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::I never said I wanted to use blog material. I also didn't do any OR. We must all do OR to understand an issue otherwise we are not thinking.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::"I ... didn't do any OR. We must all do OR ... otherwise we are not thinking.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)"
:::Yep. That seems to pretty much sum up this discussion. [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 07:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:Wow. With that bit of bizarre grandstanding, you have pretty much torpedoed any chance of you ever being taken seriously on this page again, or any chance of other's giving your editing suggestions anything more than a polite dismissal. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::This is not bizarre grandstanding. Foreign politicians and a U.S. senator's office have been caught editing their own articles so we know that there has been manipulation. I never accused any specific editor of editing their own article. We also know can make a pretty good guess to how a militant supporter or militant opponent would decide on certain editorial questions. We assume good faith in not accusing others but to not assess the supporter's view and opponent's view and choose the neutral view is part of being a good editor.

::What I wrote has reliable sources about the Hillary campaign attacking Obama for resume inflation. One news organization (used by other editors in this article) confirms my summary...{{blockquote|The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not." We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.}}

::So the bottom line is that it that there was a Hillary-Obama dispute. Some editors might want to take the Hillary side or the Obama side but Wikipedia should be neutral. I don't even think we should mention the dispute but should be mindful to take the neutral standpoint and not take sides even if we don't mention the dispute. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::"''I don't even think we should mention the dispute''" So why have you just posted almost a page of text? Per [[WP:TALK]] and [[WP:NOTAFORUM]] (not to mention the [[WP:GS/BO|general sanctions]]) we should only be discussing how to improve the article. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Mentioning the dispute on this talk page helps understand the issue. So if we just report on the Obama campaign's response and their tactics to address the issue and not even report the controversy nor the other side, we are not being objective. Yet, there is a way to not mention the controversy by just stating in the most neutral terms what he was, namely a Senior Lecturer who was offered a position on the full time faculty. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::That is not what he was described as though according to reliable sources, including the university itself. [[WP:V|Verifiability, Not Truth]], remember. We aren't here to judge or to interpret how we thing things should be. As I said on that AN/I, even I would never address a non-tenure track person such as Obama as "professor", but that has no bearing on what we're talking about here. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 05:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

NBC News reports that there was an issue regarding the Obama campaign calling him Professor verbally or maybe professor (capital P sounds the same as little P). It says
<blockquote>
He is a senior lecturer and has cited that he is a constitutional law professor on the trail. That's something that has caused some criticism and allegations of exaggeration. It's something the Clinton campaign has pushed as well in conference calls with reporters in the past week.

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

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

:I agree with you 100%, but also note that we seem to be in the minority on this. It is technically correct to say that he was professor because the weight of the sources say so... but the term is ill defined and may give some people the wrong impression, so why not be more precise and say exactly what he was / did? Anyway, this seems to be: (a) a lost cause, and (b) not terribly important. The silly little controversy over the issue was, well, silly. It was a non-issue over a non-event. Opposition researchers briefly thought they could accuse Obama of resume fraud, and when they couldn't, they tried anyway. It got no traction. But still, we should be as straightforward and precise as we can here. Just my opinion of course. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 07:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
::Per Wikidemon, precision is better. This is crazy and dysfunctional - all this dispute over 1 little word. English has thousands of words, surely there's another one that is just as good, better, or more precise. [[User:Judith Merrick|Judith Merrick]] ([[User talk:Judith Merrick|talk]]) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I assume that everyone here is completely neutral. If one is biased and wants to write a promotional piece on Obama, then they should support the use of the word professor since it pads his resume. The neutral way is what Wikidemon said, it can give the wrong impression, so the use of the word "professor" should be removed. Wikidemon also says it is "a lost cause" which could mean that some people will insist on it. Why? It's not logical if they are not trying to write a promotional piece. Assuming good faith would then mean they are not trying to promote him, just not logical. Let' go with the neutral, logical wording, which is just to drop the word "professor". We aren't saying "Obama is not a professor" because that would be biased the other way. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I just really want to know where people got this idea that professor absolutely and at all times means tenured faculty or tenure-track. It is true that that is often how an institutions define "professor" but there's no objective universal standard for the term professor. There is absolutely no reason to assert that only one who has tenure or who is on a tenure track is a professor. It falls upon the institution to define what that positions means for that institution. University of Chicago does things differently. They call their Senior Lecturers professors. That's the end of it. There is no debate after that. It makes no difference that he didn't have tenure and it makes no difference that he wasn't on a tenure-track. UofC is very picky with its grant of tenure so that's not all that surprising. My point here has nothing to do with politics, it's just common sense. It's not "resume padding" it is an objective fact. UofC says that their Senior Lecturers are professors and that Obama was a professor, then he was a professor and that's it. Period. No debate, no controversy, no room for discussion. It's a dead issue. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jdlund|contribs]]) 20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 

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

:UT Professor, I don't know if you are actually a professor at UT (I am going to guess no) but you are full of it when it comes to U of C. I went to the U of C law school (though it was after Obama taught there). A number of their classes are taught by Senior Lecturers and they are all absolutely referred to as professors. Every last single one of them. And no you cannot compare a junior faculty member with Senior Lecturer, certainly not what U of C means by Senior Lecturer. The press release had nothing to do with politics. You may disagree with a Senior Lecturer being called a professor but that feeling is irrelevant. U of C defines their Senior Lecturers as professors (at least within the Law School) that's the end of this discussion. There is no debate after that. It's not about politics, this is an issue with one, and only one, clear right absolute answer. U of C called him a professor; he was a professor. Period. It doesn't matter if it is potentially "misleading." If people don't understand that there isn't a consistent universal meaning to the label "professor" (something that even the faux "professor" above me doesn't understand) then that's their fault. Wikipedia should be about verifiable facts and it is an absolute, incontrovertible fact that at the University of Chicago he was a professor.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 03:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
::Not to add another long rant, but I think of some of you are very much mistaken about what U of C means by Senior Lecturer. I don't know what that position means at any other school, but at U of C it is a very distinguished position in their law school. It usually is someone who is accomplished. For instance the three seventh circuit court judges who teach classes on occasion (Posner, Easterbrook, and Wood) are all Senior Lecturers. You better believe that if [[Richard Posner]] teaches a class every student in that room will call him Judge Posner or Professor Posner, and absolutely the school will refer to him the same. Just so you all know, because as a U of C grad watching this brandishing of ignorance about this issue has been really annoying, Senior Lecturer is not some trivial little position anywhere near akin to "junior instructor" or "associate faculty" or whatever. It is a serious and meaningful position and yes they are called professors.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) 04:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I generally avoid these retreads, but given the sudden influx of professors here (he said drily), I'd be interested to know if you both (and whomever else feels the need to weigh in in a timely manner so this thread can finally draw to a close) would agree that we should change the link of the term professor from [[professor|the more general, historic, perspectives-around-the-world article]] to the more relevant [[Professors in the United States]]? Not unlike [[president]] versus [[President of the United States]] or [[senate]] versus [[United States Senate]], it's entirely irrelevant to its usage in this article what the general word means throughout the world, and that international variance is perhaps causing (enabling?) some of the confusion here. Those interested in etymology will know to push further; those interested in clarifying the specific context of the term here will find it sooner, and those interested in perpetuating this sort of argument at this late date will be reminded that the term is, after all, linked, to an article explaining the term in context, presumably with whatever caveats are appropriate to the depersonalized examination there. (I'm just employing logic and common sense, I have neither edited nor read either article.) [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Good idea. Since no objections, I have just made that change. The sixth word in [[Professors in the United States]] is the link [[professor]] so apart from the fact that the U.S. usage is the more appropriate, anyone wanting a more general discussion will be able to easily find it. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

== Religion needs changing ==

I have looked at all the presidents for the last 100 years. Obama's religion in the infobox near the top of the article is non-standard. All the other presidents say Roman Catholic, Baptist, etc.

Obama's should say ''"United Church of Christ (until 2008), non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)"'' This is because he used to be a member of the [[Trinity United Church of Christ]] until he chose Evergreen Chapel, Camp David. Evergreen Chapel is non-demoninational, though it is not Catholic.

Just saying "Christianity" is too vague. Most Christians are either Catholic or Protestant, with many Protestant demoninations. There are also some other Christians, like the Coptics in Egypt and others. But Obama is not a Coptic. Mormans are usually considered Christian, though some Christians think they are not Christian. Obama is certainly not a Mormon.

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

Even though there is a lot of hostility and opposition to change (no pun intended even though Obama is for change), please consider this change. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 08:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:Seriously, dude, if you're taking it upon yourself to edit article space in an encyclopedia — despite the request of a number of editors to discuss changes on the talk page first — you could at least take the two seconds to spell-check your text. The phrase is not "non-'''demon'''inational Christian", it's "non-denominational Christian". Yet the qualifier modifies the overall scope of the chapel, and not Obama's religion. We don't need to add two words to point out that we are not specifying a denomination of Christianity when the simple lack of a specific denomination suffices to make the same point in a more succinct way. The point of that church's non-denominationalism is to serve the greatest number of individuals, not to be "new-agey" or something like that. The actual current minister at that chapel is Baptist, if I recall, yet is similarly an erroneous data point when inserted into an infobox section about ''Obama's'' religion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

:United Church of Christ is more a loose affiliation of churches than other Protestant denominations and, as such, when he pulled out of Trinity he also pulled out of the UCC denomination. So listing UCC in the infobox is not accurate. At best he could be listed as non-denominational Protestant, but even then it's not clear. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] [[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]] 05:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::I have no argument with that. That is an improvement over just "Christianity". So "United Church of Christ (until 2008), non-denominational Protestant (2008-present)"? Or we could put "presumed non-denominational Protestant (2008-present) but I don't like that. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::How are denomination changes handled in other articles? I know another President has changed denominations, just drawing a blank on which one. I've checked a couple of other articles of people that changed denominations/religion and so far those don't even list a religion in the infobox. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] [[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]] 05:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::::If people want to list his current religion (non-denominational Protestant) or his current and recent one (add UCC), this is a legitimate discussion. Part of the Christianity debate in the news before was arguing whether he was Muslim or Christian. We know he's not Muslim. But the use of Christian is just an argument that he's not Muslim. We can do better than that and bring up this article to the standard that every president in the past century uses -- listing his denomination (if Protestant) or putting Catholic (like JFK). We are making progress (thanks, Bobblehead), please no arguments just to make drama. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

*There is no reason to change the listing, as it describes his religion as it is now understood. If you scroll over the text with your mouse you will see that his religion is cited by sources and when he left Trinity he dis-affiliated himself from UCC. It's listed and sourced right in the box. So until Obama declares what denomination he wants to be considered now, it's listed as [[Christian]]. There have been other Presidents with similar listings. [[Andrew Johnson]] is also listed as Christian, as is [[Rutherford B. Hayes]]. [[Abraham Lincoln]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]] have no religion listed and are directed to an explanation in the body. So until Obama declares otherwise, the correct listing is [[Christian]], which is sourced and declared by Obama himself. We can't change it to what we think it should be, it has to be sourced. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 05:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Factual error: None of the cited articles use "Christianity". Andrew Johnson's infobox says that he is no denomination stated. Abe and Thomas Jefferson says see below. Even Hayes is the closest but doesn't use the exact word Christianity. All presidents within the past 100 years say Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. Also those other article are not featured articles so they could be flawed. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::We are not Obama's campaign office. He is not Catholic. He is Protestant. He is appears to be non-denominational. Non-denominational Protestant or even non-denominational Christian is ok. But simple Christian and it looks like we are just trying to fight Muslim rumors, not present information. Not everything is sourced. Do you have a source that he is a man? DO you have a source that his official residence in the White House and his private residence is Chicago? Who's to say that his Chicago house is just un-rented investment property? We need to assume as little as possible but things like the Chicago house and he is non-denominational is clear.
::Also, are you trying to say that Obama has no religion, like Lincoln? No, this is not true.
::This source say he's picked a non-denominational church. http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/06/the-obamas-pick-nondenominational-camp-david-church.html For those that don't know, in the military, there are Catholic services and non-denominational Protestant services. They are not the same. Obama has picked the latter. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::No sooner does somebody suggest or declare or agree upon something than JB50000 dives in to the article with something completely counter to that. Many talk page posts of yours are in complete disregard of previous statements. Your first and only acknowledgement of me was a blunt threat on my talk page, for doing my editorial responsibility at a BLP, as more than one other editor acknowledged. You speak of not wanting to get into cans of worms, yet rather than participate in a discussion and staying on point, all you do is pour worms onto the page. If there is no reference for his being now or in the recent past a ''non-denominational'' Protestant, we are not to presume that he is. If you want something more specific than ''Christianity'', I've already indicated what reasonable word that would be: ''Protestant''. If you don't like that, it stays ''Christian'' until you find a really good reference for something else. (And you might contribute your reason why to the discussion.) In the meantime, the next time you're seized with the compulsion to quash something, post it at the talk page first, allow a few days for comment second, read and process that comment third, determine whether there are valid editorial points made fourth, and if there are no meaningful objections or better ideas, add it to the article fifth. This jumping in at step five, then going to step one, then ignoring people and either reverting or moving to the next topic, is not doing yourself, us, this article, or least of all this talk page, any good. Actually editing with the summary "this has no opposition" when I've clearly outlined my opposition to it above and you have made no response whatsoever is unacceptable. And this crap about we're not his campaign office is completely uncalled for on a simple semantic issue of how specific we get in describing his Christianity. ''You're'' the one that stated it was your goal to squash Muslim rumors, now you're writing that it looks like we're just trying to fight Muslim rumors. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith with you. Do we have a source that he is a man? No, no worms with you. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::::There is almost no way to [[WP:AGF]] with this user. His drama filled explanations are just absurd. Something is definitely up with this editor. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::What's up is that a reasonable change is suggested and just "no no no". Users should look at themselves for a change. '''Just ignore the explanation and here's a summary. The proposed entry was "Non-denominational Christian" or "Protestant" or "Non-denominational Protestant". Christianity is the worst of the 4 choices.''' [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::It's ridiculous to bring up any [[Muslim]] foolishness. Anyone that would look at the religion box, see [[Christian]], and think 'he's trying to hide he's a Muslim', isn't going to be 'fooled' because it says [[Protestant]]. Anyone that doesn't know that Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim by now, and would think what you are insinuating, don't want explanations. They want to bury their heads like an [[Ostrich]]. The footnotes explain the current situation well enough and the listing of [[Christian]] is sourced and from Obama himself also. And by the way, I'm not fooled by your Lincoln false shock/accusation either. Not fooled one bit. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::In summary, editors have advocated "Christianity", "Protestant", "non-denominational Protestant" (or "non-denominational Christian" - with references). There is no consensus for Christianity. There is a good reference for non-denominational Christian. So it seems like that is the front runner. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=341843363&oldid=341842048 | this] attempt to have the last word of an argument in article history is completely unacceptable. I'd say that's the last straw, but I'm logging off; if someone else wants to take that up somewhere, I'd be thrilled to see it, and support it, tomorrow. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

===No consensus===
First of all, if the consensus was that he is a Muslim, we need to disregard consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not remove this tag, let the bot do it. It is easy for those who want to end discussion to try to remove the tag. Unfortunately, that happens a lot here.
Currently, the infobox lists his religion as "Christianity" with a reference but there are newer references that use the term Non-denominational Christian. Other suggestions include Protestant, Non-denominational Protestant, United Church of Christ (until 2008)/Non-denominational (2009-present), etc. Thank you. 07:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:Yeah, we get it, you're not listening. You're free to stop the gratuitous use of the word "Muslim" — which you have used ten times in a thread that is not about that religion. Unless of course there's some reason for your doing so.

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

:You act like this is something we get to whip up ourselves. No, these things exist in the real world and, aided by Wikipedia guidelines, we distill what the sources direct us to acknowledge. Camp David is a military installation and the non-denominational chapel there was conceived in order to serve the broadest spectrum of Protestants without having to have fifteen different chapels and fifteen different ministers, choirs, organists, etc., all on one base. It was not conceived to strip worshippers of the denominations of their faith. And so, they currently have a Baptist minister but will shift to a minister of another Protestant denomination after three years, so as not to show favoritism. And there are plenty of references simply for "Christian", including two added this evening by another editor. To [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=341840526&oldid=341839692| your third of five tendentious edits tonight], "President of a North American country" isn't enough for an American. I daresay "Christian" is enough for Christ. The pattern at this page will not be to add excess verbiage when it does not clarify any point, or improve the writing, but simply satisfies the preconceived misconceptions of a single editor despite the best efforts of others to educate him on the subject. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
*Last night when I saw your edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341834332&oldid=341826621 here], I decided to do some research on the [[List of Presidents of the United States|lists of Presidents]] to see exactly what religion they were listed at. Which is when I found that most were in fact specific in what denomination of religion they belonged to, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839016&oldid=341838306 not all had specific denominations listed.] And in fact there were a couple who had almost the exact same listing as Obama. Still, I went about the research and was assuming [[WP:AGF]], until you started making bizarre edits,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341838306&oldid=341836932 1],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839563&oldid=341839016 2],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=341839811&oldid=341839563 3] and drama filled reasoning. Not to mention, you changing the listed religion without any consensus. And let me explain consensus to you, since you don't seem to understand what it means here. You need consensus to change an established fact in an article, not to keep that established fact. This has long been the listing of Obama's religion, since he [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-11-17-3420350785_x.htm left the UCC.] Your reasoning and drama filled edit summaries remind me of what's transpiring currently in some [http://mediamatters.org/research/201002030049 right-wing hysteria circles.] The fact is, Obama has not declared his [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303619.html current denomination], is listed as a [[Christian]] on [http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php his website] and inside the info box of the [http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/obama Miller Center of Public Affairs.] So that is the current consensus listing. [[Christian]]. There is no need or frantic reason to change that descriptor, it covers the cited sources and what Obama describes himself as. Now, that should be enough for anyone to just let things play out. We are not supposed to use [[WP:OR]] and decipher what a [[WP:BLP]] ''should''be called or what we ''want'' them to be called. We use sources and the descriptors that come from the [[WP:BLP]] themselves. So I put my vote as "Leave as Christian until other developments/sources indicate otherwise". [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 16:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:: Agree as above. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 17:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:: i agree that listing his religion as [[christian]] is sufficient. [[User:Theserialcomma|Theserialcomma]] ([[User talk:Theserialcomma|talk]])

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

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

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

:::Saying that the American President is a Christian is indeed like saying he is a human being. America has barely had a Catholic president, much less a non-Christian one. However, making fine distinctions among the various branches of Christianity seems beside the point. It does seem a little odd to list the religion of a president. With a few exceptions, presidents are expected to keep up with their religious observances and beliefs, but this is quite tangential to the life and times of a president. It reminds me, faintly, of the occasional Japanese practice of listing the blood type of pop culture figures. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 14:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::The argument that the "reference used for Christianity is an unreliable source" is incorrect. First, we all agree that the assertion is correct, so a gold-plated source is not required. Second, the reference is extremely adequate and easily satisfies [[WP:RS]]. The only question concerns whether a "better" (more precise) label should be found, and whether a sourced label is available. I favor precision, but our discussion on what is the correct term to describe Obama's religion of course is totally irrelevant per [[WP:OR]]: we need a source. For whatever reason (not relevant to this discussion), no one has found a good source with current information that gives a more precise label. Until that occurs, this discussion is just chat and violates [[WP:TALK]]. In reply to a suggestion above: since all Presidents have "religion" in the infobox, and since there are good sources for "Christian" the term should not be removed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]])
::::::No one has found? Just wait. I have some but would like a more complete response, not a piecemeal one. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::These editors are discussing things on a religion board but their analysis may be helpful. Note that they posted these comments on the religion board but they are talking about Obama. Note: These were removed from here by another user but GFDL allows Wikipedia text to be used elsewhere besides the original page.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments: all four are largely accurate, it just depends on how much detail we want to provide:
# Christianity is accurate, but there are so many varieties of Christian, I'd prefer more detail than this
# Protestant is better, although there's still many varieties of that
# I have mixed feelings about "Non-denominational". It's true that Obama no longer associates with a particular denomination. But it's still true he's more Protestant than say Catholic or Orthodox.
# Listing both UCC up to 2008 and non-denominational thereafter is the most accurate, but maybe too much detail for an infobox?
My two preferences:
# Non-denominational Protestant (better than Non-denominational Christian - he's closer to Protestant than anything else)
# United Church of Christ (until 2008), Non-denominational Protestant (2009-present)
--[[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't like Non-denominational for two reasons: (1) Just because a person worships in a nondenominational chapel doesn't mean that that person leaves their denominational identity behind - e.g. I could easily describe myself as a Baptist or a Methodist or whatever, and still worship in a nondenominational chapel; (2) there are a number of nondenominational churches out there that appear to have made a principled decision not to belong to a denomination or as a criticism of denominationalism - I don't think there's any suggestion that Obama has converted to that type of nondenominationalism. I think just plain Christian is too generic - he's clearly not a member of the Roman Catholic Church or any of the autocephalous Eastern churches. My vote would be for:
:Protestant
:(member of the United Church of Christ until 2008)
[[User:Adam sk|Adam_sk]] ([[User talk:Adam sk|talk]]) 21:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::I have just reverted — for the second time — an edit by [[User:JB50000]], with the edit summary "Don't revert this again, JB50000, discuss it on the talk page", and then while I was writing this post, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=342840694| it was reverted back ''in''] by [[User:GB fan]], with the edit summary "Ummmm."

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

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

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

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

*These actions should be reported to ANI. You can't copy and paste comments in a RFC as if they were posted there. Period. What should have been done is that a warning and a self-revert issued to [[User:JB50000|JB50000]], and if not reverted a report at ANI should have been made. This is just getting ridiculous. If other editors want to keep re-adding comments from other pages into a RFC, they should cite their reasons why such an extreme measure should be allowed. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 03:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:::And so it turns into a full-blown edit war, with [[User:Jojhutton]] reverting the abovementioned misleading posts devoid of context, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&curid=7777393&diff=342847124&oldid=342846448| with the edit summary "undoing a questionable reversion".] Why, then, not question it, Jojhutton? Why five minutes after I posted the above discussion of the issue would the response not be to engage in this discussion, rather than simply revert? This is not responsible editing, it is disingenuous posturing against editors here, and it is contentious edit warring. I fail to understand the urgency three editors see in restoring these out-of-context posts by editors uninvolved in this discussion. It is indicative of a complete lack of editorial collegiality that there is no talk page discussion whatsoever from any of these three, JB50000, GB fan, and Jojhutton; it also suggests a failure to embrace the spirit of an RfC. I've never before seen [[User:GB fan]] here — which itself is a problem, reverting the decision of an involved editor at a talk page, ironically in an RfC to which he makes no contribution of his own — but JB50000 has carved out a pattern of edit warring and ignoring salient editorial points.

:::As for Jojhutton, I was interested to know if this editor had moved on to other edits or was composing a response here, and noted several edits after this one. An edit summary two edits previous caught my eye, however; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=342844809| this revert] to [[George W. Bush]] contains the summary "Not notable for BLP. per unwritten rules set up at [[Talk:Barack Obama]]". What kind of justification is that? This goes beyond tag-team edit warring. It seems clear that there is some politically motivated personalization at play here, although one that seems to deem itself above discussion, and it is resulting in irresponsible editing on a scale that reaches beyond this page. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 04:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Please try to be civil. Another editor, gave me some pointers as far as being civil - if you want this editor to leave some tips on your user page, just ask. As far as tag teaming, there are far more cases of tag teaming from the liberal faction. My faction, the absolutely neutral, pro-article improvement whether it's a positive or negative piece of information is a very lonely faction with few people unfortunately.
::::Thanks for someone else's suggestion of the link which I'll do next time. It is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#RFC_for_religion_-_President_Obama That discussion was ONLY to get help defining what the different religions are and did NOT ask people to comment on Obama. I did let the people know that I copied their comments here and gave them the option to black out their names.
::::If people wait a few days, I am gathering reliable source references which could resolve this issue! Stay tuned. I have one good reference but want to get some more. The other possibility is to just wait out the RFC and save up comments over a few days.[[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 06:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:Actually, in response to those above criticising JB5000 for copying my statements from another page to here, I have no objection to his so have done. I think those who would criticise him for so doing are frankly just being petty and pedantic. --[[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 09:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::To be clear, I didn't criticize him in your defense, and my consideration was not what you would prefer. You're probably unclear on this, but JB50000 never mentioned to anybody here that in the middle of this discussion he had gone over and begun the thread he called an "RfC" (but did not link to this page or this actual RfC) to which you responded at the WikiProject Religion. Did you know that? This isn't about protocol for its own sake, it's a little about a collegial heads-up, it's a little about not going behind your colleagues backs, but it's largely about how you can't compile the opinions of random people elsewhere as if it's a fresh and specific and informed consensus here, while never giving us the context or the source. Even after posting your response — and reverting it back into the article some four or five times against the opposition of several editors and without talk page discussion, in violation of collegial requests and several bright-line policies — he did not indicate where your comment was from, or what, precisely, it was in response to. There are shadings of difference in how things are handled from one page to another at Wikipedia, much less in the wider blogosphere, and if you don't choose to weigh in on the issue ''here'', and are a non-notable person and have no refs to support your opinion, then your opinion is not clearly relevant to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Well, that all sounds reasonable and I would agree, except it's [[WP:OR]] and [[conjecture]]. Which would work if we were trying to decipher what religion some past historical figure should be listed as, but not with a [[WP:BLP]], imo. When the info box was changed(after Obama and his family resigned from the UCC), there was a discussion here numerous times about what to list in the Obama religion box. After much discussion it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_49#UCC.2C_Again agreed by consensus] to place the religious identifier as 'Christian' until a reliable source indicates otherwise. Nothing has changed, except more sources list 'Christian' as Obama's religion. Including his own websites. So while I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with changing the descriptor until a reliable source indicates just what denomination of [[Christianity]] Barack Obama identifies with. We have to remember this is about changing a consensus that has been reached already. I have no problems with changing the descriptor if we are not using [[WP:OR]] to decipher the listing and are using a reliable source and [[WP:Consensus|consensus]]. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 21:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

There was a lot of religious people coming here for a while but it stopped. It seems that there is support for being more specific than just Christianity. There's one suggestion (mine) that there is no source that says he left the UCC, just left the individual church. I read somewhere that the UCC didn't want him but unless I see that again, it's a bit too controversial to include anything like that. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:We had a furious discussion about this a few months ago; you might drag through the archives and check it out. I took essentially your position. He definitely quit Trinity, but there's so source but an unclear ''en passant'' mention in an AP article that he quit the UCC. For a long time, the infobox said, "[[Christian]], last associated with the [[United Church of Christ]]" which seemed fine to me. He's lately been hanging around with a lot of pastors from different sects, but if he's adopted a new one he doesn't seem to have made it public. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
* '''Reponse to the RFC''' - There really is no more reliable source than Obama's own website, which does indeed list him as simply "Christian." Unless Obama has at some point stated that he is anything more specific, that's what we should call him. Let's use a little [[WP:COMMON]] sense here people. There are all kinds of sources debating about his religion, so rather than join in the potentially libelous debate, let's just call him what he calls himself. [[User:AzureFury|'''AzureFury''']] ([[User talk:AzureFury|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/AzureFury|contribs]]) 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
* '''UCC''' Is there a RFC? If so, where is the lightbulb tag? References say UCC so that's what it is. Christian is imprecise. If it is on his website, it could be to strongly highlight that he is not Muslim because if you put UCC, people might not know what that is (University of Central Canada? Unified Command of the Central NATO? University Church of Communists? United Counties of Christians?). So it could be a campaign tactic. But we have good references to say that he's a United Church of Christ so that's what should be listed. Similar variations of UCC are so ok like Protestant (UCC) or UCC (Christian), etc. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 19:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
* '''Agree with Gaydenver''' From my perspective, UCC means [[Uniform Commercial Code]]. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::Good point, should spell out "United Church of Christ" and not use abbreviations. [[User:Gaydenver|Gaydenver]] ([[User talk:Gaydenver|talk]]) 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

== Kenyan nationality ==

Should be noted in infobox, even though it is a former nationality. He was a dual citizen for the beginning of his life. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.13.223.188|71.13.223.188]] ([[User talk:71.13.223.188|talk]]) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 
:Do you have a reliable source stating that? --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] ([[User talk:OuroborosCobra|talk]]) 01:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
::http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Far from being birther nonsense, it's right; he would have automatic citizenship of the United Kingdom, and later, Kenya, until it being automatically renounced. I'm not sure if it would warrant mention in the article, though, as it's of minor import. If it was, I'd suggest the following wording:
:::{{blockquote|[[Jus sanguinis|By virtue of his father's citizenship]] of [[Kenya Colony]], Obama Jr. had automatic [[British subject|British]]—and later Kenyan—citizenship. He lost his dual-citizenship on his 23rd birthday because he did not affirm an allegiance to Kenya.}}
::: '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:::(ec)Earlier discussion has pointed out that Obama indeed had Kenyan citizenship, but it lapsed when he turned 21. The issue then is [[WP:WEIGHT]]: How and in what way did the citizenship affect him sufficiently to be notable in a summary-style article? Not enough for the infobox, to be sure, and probably not enough for the article at all. It's mentioned in one or more of the subarticles, and that's enough. Sceptre's suggestion isn't bad, though. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spectre's suggestion is 99% ok, but there's a little mistake. Better is to modify it and say "He lost any claim to dual-citizenship on his 23rd ....." This is because there is no source that says Kenya claimed him or that he claimed Kenya. Kenya doesn't know everyone that could be a citizen. Those people have to do something like apply for a passport after which Kenya says "ok, here's your passport" or "no, you are an illegal, no passport for you". [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:If Obama Sr. had Kenyan citizenship, then Obama Jr. would have it too, until his 23rd birthday. See the factcheck article that says that, while neither claimed each other, he still was a Kenyan citizen. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 16:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
::Thinking about it, I agree with the above. I can be convinced even stronger if I knew that Obama Sr. had a Kenyan passport. I think he did because he was not an American citizen. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

:: --''If Obama Sr. had Kenyan citizenship, then Obama Jr. would have it too''-- In a purely technical matter, that's correct. But it was never enacted upon and has no bearing in Obama's life. Right? What possible difference does having a ''possible'', ''technical'', citizenship status if it was never actually acted upon? Thus never even really happened. I'm sure the same could be said for many people based on their heritage. I've been told I could, or could have, claimed German citizenship because my grandfather was born there. Though I would not appreciate someone assigning me German citizenship status without my consent in some article. It's rather an obscure, technical matter that doesn't reflect any real purpose. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 20:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this seems perfectly reasonable. I don't think it deserves a great deal of elaboration, but some simple little mention of the fact that he had a default dual citizenship which dropped at the age of 23 because he never did anything with it is fine.[[User:Jdlund|Jdlund]] ([[User talk:Jdlund|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC). 
:Why? Why is it important? Please address the really obvious [[WP:WEIGHT]] issue. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== Physical Attributes ==

Shouldn't his physical attributes be posted as well (height and weight)? I found [http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/01/1506066/obama-still-using-nicotene-replacement.html?storylink=omni_popular this] article that says he's 179.9lbs and has a BMI of 23.7, which means he's about 6'1' ' if my calculations are correct. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.83.28.30|74.83.28.30]] ([[User talk:74.83.28.30|talk]]) 18:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 
:No. He's a politician, not a baseball player. [[User:PhGustaf|PhGustaf]] ([[User talk:PhGustaf|talk]]) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::That does not imply that his overall health (as BMI is an important tool for determining overall health for people within certain averages) is irrelevant. Especially since his health has been called into question by certain media organizations lately and health factors have limited and sometimes killed presidents of the past. [[Special:Contributions/76.2.235.75|76.2.235.75]] ([[User talk:76.2.235.75|talk]]) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::IMO, the President's health belongs in this article only if (1) he is hospitalized or (2) the [[Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-fifth Amendment]] is invoked. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 18:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

::: What 'media organizations' have called President Obama's health into question? His BMI was described as 'healthy' and the summary from the physician noted that Obama was in "excellent health"[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZrDjfR6gmuWCrw5kO1bjW_uc4oQD9E5B6AO1 .] There were a couple of things Obama should be doing better in, but absolutely nothing that raises any of the concerns you are citing. He is in 'excellent health'. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:::: I think that Fox News called into question his drinking habits [http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2010/03/02/conservatives-falsely-characterize-obama-health-report-to-suggest-he-drinks-too-much/#axzz0hbtNHsjz .] I guess the point that he is in good condition was the point, but if people should assume that it wasn't mentioned in the article implies that it has never been called into question that works. I just don't really know the rules to these things so I thought I should ask here first. Thanks! Cheers. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.83.28.30|74.83.28.30]] ([[User talk:74.83.28.30|talk]]) 18:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 

::::: That's not [[Fox News]], that's [[Alan Colmes]] complaining about [[Matt Drudge|Drudge]] linking to a [[tabloid]] paper(the [[Daily Mail]]). In other words, a bunch of tabloid fodder. There's no need to debunk that type of silliness. Especially from an outlet who has already [[Daily Mail#Libel_lawsuits|lost five libel suits]] the past 10 years. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When his health becomes a major part of his biography, this kind of information (weight, cholesterol) should be included. So far, it is not. This is the neutral way and the way that all articles should take. [[User:A UT professor|A UT professor]] ([[User talk:A UT professor|talk]]) 01:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

== No mention of Hawaii in lead? ==

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

:Why? [[User:Fat&Happy|Fat&Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&Happy|talk]]) 05:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
::It's a significant enough element of his biography to warrant it. The amount of coverage of his Hawaiian origins during his election campaign was remarkable for someone who made his political career in another state. A lot of it had to do with how race relations were different in Hawaii than on the mainland, and that that had shaped him as an individual. Typical examples: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17003563/ Obama had multiethnic existence in Hawaii], [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/world/americas/17iht-obama.1.html In Hawaii, clues from Barack Obama's origins]. Personally, I think it's fair to say he's more of an Illinoisan than a Hawaiian now, but it does seem to be a matter of debate - [http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Americas/2008/November/Is-Obama-Hawaiian-or-Illinoisan-.html Is Obama Hawaiian or Illinoisan?], [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1858759,00.html Hawaii vs. Illinois: Battling over a Favorite Son - TIME], [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081030/NEWS05/810300361/Obama%5C-s-more-Illinois-than-Hawaii--folks-in-Chicago-say Obama's more Illinois than Hawaii, folks in Chicago say]. I don't think it's entirely fair to mention in the lead where he got his undergraduate degree but not where he was born and (mostly) raised. This is something that could be done succinctly.[[Special:Contributions/82.120.177.181|82.120.177.181]] ([[User talk:82.120.177.181|talk]]) 09:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
::I'm the same person as 82. Since there are no objections, I'll make the change. [[User:Ucbear|Ucbear]] ([[User talk:Ucbear|talk]]) 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

== Juris doctor = "doctorate"? ==

Is it common practice in the english wikipedia to call JD "a doctorate in law", in light of it being first professional degree, unlike JSD (doctor of judicial science)? -anonymous —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.186.248.40|109.186.248.40]] ([[User talk:109.186.248.40|talk]]) 08:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 
:The English Wikipedia being an online encyclopedia, there actually ''are'' articles here where people confused by terms used in this article can find referenced explanations of the terminology and what it encompasses, including [[Juris doctor]]. It is at those articles and their talk pages that common practice for English Wikipedia usage is presented and may be discussed. Incidentally, the term is Doctor of Juridical Science. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 08:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not confused, I know full well the controversary regarding the designation of JD as "a doctorate", My question is whether it is common practice in the english wikipeida to pass judgement on that controversary in the way of using the term "a doctorate" in the article. If not, then this word should be removed from the article. If someone knows the answer to this question, I'll be happy if he responds. Otherwise I'll have to start checking myself the wikilinks to JD and see if in most of the articles it is regarded as "a doctorate".

::For comparison, one might read the artile about the italian [[Doctor_(title)#Italy|dottore]]. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.186.7.33|109.186.7.33]] ([[User talk:109.186.7.33|talk]]) 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 

== More foolish trivia ==

Why isnt the fact that Obama stated he was the 44th single man to take the Presidential oath, when infact he was the 43rd because of Grover Cleveland taking presidency twice mentioned in this article? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mongbean|Mongbean]] ([[User talk:Mongbean|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mongbean|contribs]]) 18:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 
:Because it is useless trivia with no relevance or importance to a biography of Obama's entire life. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] ([[User talk:OuroborosCobra|talk]]) 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== Talk page too long. ==

I think I speak for everyone that some users might slow their computers down. We should archive this page. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Emo-tional being|Emo-tional being]] ([[User talk:Emo-tional being|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Emo-tional being|contribs]]) 17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 
:It's currently set to automatically archive any thread that isn't updated for 14 days. People tweak that from time to time and it's generally set somewhere between 7 and 14 days. At 189K right now, it's not any longer than it usually is. I don't see any harm in shortening that to 10. But overall I think this article is just harder to work on than most, for many reasons. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:: It may be that the pictures currently on the talk page are causing some users problems, but that can be solved by users with slower connections by disabling graphics. Of course, I am not opposed to shortening the archive time back to 10 days either. Though it seems, once again, that some articles that should be archived are getting caught up and are not auto-archived and may have to be put in manually. [[User:DD2K|DD2K]] ([[User talk:DD2K|talk]]) 20:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I've just had a quick look through, and as the bot judges on the big sections it doesn't currently look like anything is getting stuck. I'm going to change it to 10 days as there are a couple of large threads dated the 28 February. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
::::OK its down to 127k now. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 10:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

== Occupation doesn't include President ==

Is there a reason for this? -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
:Because it is kinda redundant to list being "president" in a officeholder infobox. The field is meant to be used to their prior occupation. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 23:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

== Doctorate in law ==

Obama received a JD, though this stands for Juris Doctor in latin, it is not commonly referred to as a Doctorate of Law in English, as this connotation more accurately refers to the qualification achieved under an LLD degree. It would be more accurate to say he earned his JD...Presently sounds awkward and inaccurate.
i.

Shafique Virani

2010-02-26T04:00:24Z

69.140.3.80: Page was hagiography and inordinate to the actual profile of the individual

[[Category:University of Toronto faculty]]

Shafique Virani

2010-02-26T03:58:31Z

69.140.3.80: /* Outside academia */

Shafique Virani

2010-02-26T03:58:13Z

69.140.3.80: /* Research and publications */

Shafique Virani

2010-02-26T03:57:48Z

69.140.3.80: /* Teaching */

{{Orphan|date=February 2009}}
Professor '''Shafique N. Virani''' is a scholar of [[Islamic Studies]] at the [[University of Toronto]]. He was previously on the faculty of [[Harvard University]] in the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies and head of World Humanities at [[Zayed University]] in the [[United Arab Emirates]].

== Research and publications==

Shafique Virani received his BA in [[Religious Studies]] and MA in [[Islamic Studies]] in 1992 and 1995 respectively, from [[McGill University]] in [[Montreal]]. He received his PhD from [[Harvard University]] in 2001, where he presented his doctoral thesis, "Seekers of Union: The Ismailis from the Mongol Debacle to the Eve of the Safavid Revolution" to much acclaim, winning the prize for "Best Dissertation of the Year"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www1.utm.utoronto.ca/shafiquevirani/pdfs/virani_bestdissertation.pdf|title= Best Dissertation of the Year awarded by the Foundation for Iranian Studies}}</ref> from the Foundation for Iranian Studies. He also earned the Ilse Lichtenstadter Memorial Publication Prize, and lauded the Malcolm Kerr Dissertation Award as “a path-breaking work of Islamic history.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www1.utm.utoronto.ca/shafiquevirani/pdfs/virani_malcolmhkerr.pdf|title=
Malcolm H. Kerr Dissertation Award of the Middle East Studies Association}}</ref> It was also named International Book of the Year<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www1.utm.utoronto.ca/shafiquevirani/pdfs/virani_bookoftheyear.pdf|title= International Book of the Year awarded by the government of Iran}}</ref> by the [[government of Iran]], which invited him to [[Tehran]] as an official guest of state for the awards ceremony.

He has published extensively on topics related to Islamic history and culture, with a focus on [[Islamic philosophy]], [[Sufism]], Twelver and Ismaili Shiism, and Arabic, Persian, and South Asian literatures. His articles have appeared in the Journal of the [[American Oriental Society]], the Encyclopedia of Religion, and the Annual of Urdu Studies. He has also served on the board of editors for the Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review. In 2007, his largest work “The Ismailis in the Middle Ages: A History of Survival, A Search for Salvation” was published by the [[Oxford University Press]]. The book examines the spiritual and intellectual legacy of [[Ismaili]] communities during the [[Middle Ages]], especially as they endured the [[Mongol]] invasions of the [[13th century]].

== Outside academia ==

Shafique Virani has pursued several volunteer initiatives outside of his academic career, including founding a summer camp for Syrian youth in the al-Khawabi Mountains of [[Syria]] and participating in the Madrasa Resource Centre, an [[East African]] charity.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www1.utm.utoronto.ca/shafiquevirani/pdfs/virani_volunteerstoimprove.pdf|title= Shafique Virani Volunteers to Improve Childhood Education in East Africa}}</ref>

His other interests include acting and drama. He was a co-author and actor in the [[Gujarati language|Gujarati]] comedy “Sui Gayo Hashe” (સુઈ ગયો હશે or He Must Have Fallen Asleep), which was performed in [[Vancouver]], [[Edmonton]] and the Jubilee Auditorium in [[Calgary]].

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www1.utm.utoronto.ca/shafiquevirani/english/index.php Shafique Virani Official Website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Virani, Shafique}}
[[Category:McGill University alumni]]
[[Category:Harvard University alumni]]
[[Category:Harvard University faculty]]
[[Category:University of Toronto faculty]]