From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Berliner article was unprotected on April 12 by Ed Poor (talk)

"Ich bin ein Berliner"

It is a common misconception that it was this type of donut that was famously referred to by John F. Kennedy when he said "ich bin ein Berliner" in a speech that he made in West Berlin on June 26, 1963. However, citizens of Berlin do not refer to jelly donuts as "berliners." Kennedy's famous words, (adopting the grammer and coloquialisms of the sector of the population which Kennedy addressed) therefore, were correct.

Are you guys sure that that's a common misconception? Do people really think that Kennedy said "I am a jelly-filled donut"?

Sure. The story is so amusing that it spread quickly. The way it's been explained to me is that it is as if someone from Denmark said in a speech "I am a Danish." You can deliberately misunderstand this, but it's not a ludicrous error and very few people would even notice it in the context of a live speech. It might have been a mild knock on Kennedy's slight pretentiousness; he liked to project an image of intellectuality. Dpbsmith 07:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

And the "grammer and coloquialisms of the sector of the population which Kennedy addressed" bit confuses me a bit. "Berliner" is the common German word for "citizen of Berlin", just like "Hamburger" or "Kölner" (or in the US: "New Yorker"). And the rest of the sentence is just "I am a...". So unless the above line is just a long way of saying "German", I'm confused. (Disclaimer: I'm from Germany, but not a specialist of donuts, Berlin or Kennedy). --Sid 3050 13:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it's the article "ein" that caused the confusion here -- ordinarily, when speaking about people (one's self or others) one does not use an article; the normal German way of saying "I am a Berliner" would be simply "Ich bin Berliner." The "ein" article is used with things, and when used with "Berliner" would tend to imply the pastry rather than the man. "Ein" is also "one," though, so you might scan JFK's statement as "I am one Berliner". I think he just had poor translation advice; he didn' speak German and was reading from a phonetic transcript prepared for him. Russell Potter 09:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

grammer and coloquialisms

With spelling like this, I do not think you should be lecturing anybody on the niceties of language, let alone correcting factually coherent reference articles. --Jeremiah4-22 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Typical Wikipedia silliness

I had to delete the same stuff at Wikipedia 3 years ago, with anti-Americans (and pro-Communists) insisting that Kennedy's literal translation of I am a Berliner was misunderstood by the audience of his speech. This is on a level with Anderson supporters telling people that Reagan thinks most air pollution comes from trees, and don't even get me started on Bushisms. --Ed Poor 05:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

...air pollution from trees? That's a new one (to me), but I'm glad that the JFK bit is gone. Might be the best solution. --Sid 3050 05:17, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Reagan was talking about SO4 (or some chemical like that), and had pointed out that trees exude it. --Ed Poor 05:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Sounds a bit like the "Dihydrogen Monoxide" gig to me right now, but I'll check it out further once I come back from my courses... O_o --Sid 3050 05:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
  • According to a study by the University of Helsinki, coniferous forests--that is to say, those composed of trees such as pines--release nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere that combine with other pollutants to form smog. [1]
  • No time now, but while I agree with you about the Berliner thing, my recollection the last time I looked into this was that Reagan really did say something about trees and pollution in which he misspoke or used badly chosen language such that the actual words he used really did say something stupid. I.e. he knew better but did say something dumb. Just as he undoubtedly knew better when he made some crack into a mike he didn't know was open about nuking Moscow or something. Will check later. Not that it matters. Dpbsmith 07:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Ah. Still haven't pinned it down, but the issue was whether Reagan said that trees cause 80% of all pollution (ludicrous), that trees cause more pollution than automobiles (ludicrous) or whether trees cause certain kinds of pollution (true and never disputed). See . The Reagan defenders tend to say things like "Reagan was right: trees do cause pollution," but that's silly, because that was never in dispute. (I believe I've read--probably in a Nevil Shute novel, but, hey--that in Australia under some conditions one can see visible plumes of flammable fumes coming from eucalyptus trees). But the whole thing is stupid, because assuming that Reagan had done his homework, did not misspeak, and was not misquoted, it was still a tendentious and somewhat dishonest thing to say. It's a phony argument to say that because X is not the only source of pollution, we shouldn't try to control pollution from X. And if, as I suspect Reagan simply misspoke slightly (or forgot a qualification to the statement that he had meant to include) then it was phony and dishonest to portray it as a patently stupid remark. Dpbsmith 09:54, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
  • It is astonishing how searches for things like "reagan trees pollution" fail to turn up any really clear description of exactly when and where he said exactly what. One version is in the Concise Columbia Dictionary of Quotations: "Eighty percent of pollution is caused by plant and trees." But it doesn't say when or where! Dpbsmith 10:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
  • This sounds like it's probably right: It is a New York Times review of a On Reagan, The Man And His Presidency, by Ronnie Duggan. The review is by David E. Rosenbaum and appeared January 8, 1984, p. BR16. He suggests that the book is a hatchet job and that Duggan has pulled together everything that can be used to show Reagan as a "dogged right-wing ideologue." However, he says that Duggan "found a heretofore unpublished treasure. He obtained the transcripts of more than 500 five-minute radio commentaries Mr. Reagan wrote before and broadcast" while governor of California. In particular, "'Eighty percent of air pollution comes not from chimneys and auto exhaust pipes but from plants and trees,' Mr. Reagan declared on the radio in 1979." So if the reviewer is quoting the book properly and if the (biased) book is quoting the transcript properly and if the transcript is accurate, then Reagan did say something stupid. Most likely some important qualification, was left out. (I'm guessing someone told him that 80% of all volatile foithboindered organic tricycloalphatretramidglobulase gammatane pollution comes from trees and plants and he was keeping it short and punchy...) Dpbsmith 11:12, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because a true understanding of events is lacking, does not mean that they did not take place. Kennedy's reference to the Berliner (whether real or imagined) is, without any doubt, the most important Berliner-related event in history. For all mention of it to be removed makes a mockery of this article. A short factual (and ideally non-speculative) summary of his remark, at the very least, is absolutely required here. --Jeremiah4-22 08:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

His statement was in German, "Ich bin ein Berliner" and meant that he (1) felt like a resident of that city and (2) sympathized with their plight. At the time, the Soviet Union was doing things like isolating Berlin from the rest of the world (see also Berlin Wall). To belittle his statement by claiming he misspoke is ... well, let's just not do it. --Ed Poor 08:54, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
The most important Berliner-related event was Emile Berliner's invention of the disc phonograph. Without Berliner, vinylite biscuits would not have any jelly in them. Dpbsmith 09:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

A German Wikipedian explained the whole thing here. --Ed Poor 09:38, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not belittling anything; I'm just unhappy that all mention of the most significant world event ever (for the "Berliner" at least) is being censored. The only US-president-baked-product-interaction of equivalent historical importance (that I can think of) was President Bush's recent pretzel encounter (which is also not mentioned on Conservapedia, I note). (Whereas the entry for Alfred the Great mentions his cakes incident, even though this happened over a thousand years ago, if indeed it ever took place at all.) --Jeremiah4-22 09:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Was the article created because someone genuinely thought we needed an article on German pastry, or was it a "coatrack article" whose only purpose was to bring in the Kennedy story? Dpbsmith 09:56, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
When first I saw it, the article made no mention of the Kennedy speech, nor do I presume to guess what the creator had in mind when they made the page. But any 'Berliner' article that omits this event is necessarily a hopelessly flawed and incomplete article. One short paragraph detailing the facts of the incident would suffice (in my opinion) to set things straight here; denying such a paragraph, on debatable grounds of 'silliness', seems just the wrong thing to do. --Jeremiah4-22 10:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Removed "may be considered a donut"

I removed the sentence "It may be considered a donut, although it lacks a hole," since the definition of a doughnut is:

"A small ring-shaped cake made of rich, light dough that is fried in deep fat." AHD
"a small usually ring-shaped cake fried in fat" [2]

It may be considered a donut, I suppose, but that's vacuously true. There is nothing to stop anyone from considering it to be a Sachertorte, a bagel, or a smoked kipper. Who "considers" it a donut? It reminds me of the old saw about "how many legs would a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" Answer: four, because calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one. Dpbsmith 10:03, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Merriam-Webster definition here says they are usually ring shaped. And do you mean to suggest, Dpbsmith, that filled donuts are not donuts at all? --Hojimachongtalk 10:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I think you've wandered off into an irrelevancy. --Ed Poor 12:06, 12 April 2007 (EDT)