Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Middle name in article title?)
Line 64: Line 64:
  
 
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--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 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--[[User:DerikJ|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.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Revision as of 11:35, 27 February 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.
Archives:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10
For article guidelines please see the Commandments and Guidelines


Rense

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)

Middle name in article title?

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)

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)

:D
--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)