Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Birth Name is False Information: new section)
m (Reverted edits by DenaChem (Talk) to last revision by TK)
Line 152: Line 152:
Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]!  Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]!  Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
== Birth Name is False Information ==
His father's last name is OBAMA. His mother didn't meet his stepfather with the last name of Soetoro until he was at least two.
If you want to be taken seriously, putting blatant misinformation designed to defame is not the way to do it. The more little "gems" like this that people find, the more unreliable you all will look.
Don't pretend to be trustworthy if you aren't. This is only a tiny example of the fallacies in this article, but I thought I would start with one.

Revision as of 20:47, 17 May 2010

This Talk Page is for Discussion Focused on the Improvement of the Corresponding Article
  • Your post should not deviate from the aforementioned purpose; this is not a page for debate on the topic.
  • Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~).
  • Please place new text under old text; click here to add a new section.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
For article guidelines please see the Commandments and Guidelines


Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? Rob Smith 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

Terror Attacks

I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined. Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --MichaelJB 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

More liberal poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)
A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [1] [2] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --MichaelJB 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)
The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.
As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia project. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)
TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.
Gunman killed two people in a church. [3]
Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [4]
Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [5]
--MichaelJB 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v

So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. Amy Bishop conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... Rob Smith 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Middle name in article title?

Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the list of all the U.S. presidents, it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? Kayvan 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. JacobB 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
What about Ronald Wilson Reagan? DMorris 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--Jpatt 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([6] and [7]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. Kayvan 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)
I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".
We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --Maquissar 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. Kayvan 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)
I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --Maquissar 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)
Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --Maquissar 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that fact. In addition you should note the Reagan article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, Ronald Wilson Reagan which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

But why call attention to that fact in the title of the article? The fact is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the fact if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. Kayvan 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as Milhous by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling Hussein presents a host of other problems. The Heshamite Dynasty of Hussein bin Ali had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama is bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? Rob Smith 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. JacobB 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

On the question of "all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? "
You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). Rob Smith 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

--ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--DerikJ 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. Rob Smith 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) Kayvan 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. Rob Smith 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I can agree with that. But why "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. Kayvan 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Call it the price of progress. Rob Smith 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. Kayvan 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. Kayvan 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [8] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. Rob Smith 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.Solarguy17 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. JacobB 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????Solarguy17 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this? Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. StevenS 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? DanielPulido 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. Karajou 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. Vidihawk 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."

I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see Ronald Wilson Reagan to see how silly your argument is. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - Vidihawk 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as my adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. conservative 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. DerekE 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)
As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. Rob Smith 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)


"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --Ben Talk 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

pronunciation of "Pakistan"

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard Mark Levin use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (so tow my OR rather than so tow MY er), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. Golgaronok 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since no one else in the public sphere pronounces it in the muslim way but Obama. DouglasA 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

David Petraeus does [9]. Golgaronok 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT) And numerous other languages use a pronunciation closer to the native form. Golgaronok 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, here, for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. DanielPulido 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. Golgaronok 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". Karajou 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

Barry Soetoro = birth name?

This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says "Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro...", however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name.
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. Hsmom 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

Remove name repetition?

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:

Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and Barack Obama's liberal elitism is consistent with Obama being a narcissist which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an evolutionist. Barack Obama told the York Daily Record that "I believe in evolution...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of social darwinistic thinking. In addition to American liberals giving less to charity, it is also true that American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution.

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, Tyler Zoran Talk 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)


Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

We believe in the truth here, and the fact that liberals like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your deceit! Sign your comments with ~~~~ next time. Godspeed! Tyler Zoran Talk 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)