Difference between revisions of "Talk:Michelle Obama"

Latest revision as of 17:46, October 17, 2023

A good balanced rational article, tho' it does need more information.

Second paragraph

As stands, it is

"Born and raised on the south side of Chicago, Michelle Obama's roots, has a complex path from Slavery: Fraser Robinson III (died in 1991) and his wife, Marian are the parents of Michelle; they got married in 1960; Melvinia Shields, the enslaved and illiterate young girl, and the unknown white man who impregnated her are the great-great-great-grandparents of Michelle Obama, the first lady... the more complete map of Mrs. Obama’s ancestors — including the slave mother, white father and their biracial son, Dolphus T. Shields — connects the first African-American first lady to the history of slavery, tracing their five-generation journey from bondage to a front-row seat to the presidency. [1] (Dolphus Shields was a very light skinned, church-going carpenter who could read, write and advance in an industrializing town.) Some of Michelle's relatives still reside in South Carolina."

To me this is confusing and gets in the way of the article. Can someone who understands exactly what this paragraph is saying create a more clear version? KingHanksley 17:51, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Court Ordered Inactive Status by a Disciplinary Agency

Was Michelle Obama disbarred? [1] Rob Smith 12:22, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

"Savior" in Bold

Why is the word "savior" in bold? It seems clear that the quote explicitly warns against viewing any one person (including Obama) as a savior. --Economist 22:37, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

Fashion Disaster?

Perhaps you might want to cite some of the "fashion disaster" claims, especially since her favorite designer has done quite well since Michelle became first lady. Also, if you're going to argue that she is a fashion disaster, then you might not want to do it next to a picture of her looking fashionable and stately! DanieleGiusto 13:44, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

You may think that Michelle looks fashionable and stately, most people disagree. Anyway, added refs and a new pic.--Jpatt 00:52, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

I don't have an opinion on her fashion either way, but this does seem opinion-driven, and I can't find all the claims in the refs. Could someone who does care about this cite them individually, or select phrases that were actually used in articles? I just think it takes away from the weight of the more substantial claims on the page if we have uncited opinions on her fashion KingHanksley 18:00, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Santeria

This "fact" was never proven by any reputable sources...seeing as it could be extremely libelous (and likely is) I removed it. DennyW66 00:10, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Staff

"American taxpayers are shelling out a staggering total of $1,591,200 annually for the First Lady’s 22 member personal staff." Why "staggering"? It's roughly in line with the amounts spent for the staffs of other recent First Ladies. BryanF 08:45, 28 December 2012 (EST)

Did most of the other First Ladies inveigle against "Whitey"? Were they proud of their country "Finally"? Or had they always been proud of their country? DanAP 10:11, 28 December 2012 (EST)

Hi, Dan! I'd be happy to buy you a dictionary so you could learn the meaning of the word "relevant". As a bonus, you could find out that "inveigle" is not a word at all. Good day, now! BryanF 10:33, 28 December 2012 (EST)

Marriage date

This article says the Obama's were married in 1992 while Barack article says 1982. Which is it? OscarO 23:25, 19 January 2013 (EST) 1992 Wschact 23:49, 19 January 2013 (EST)

Obscene doctored photo in the article

One of the photos in the article is doctored, and the source from which the photo comes even says so. This needs to be fixed.

Doctored photo

Actual photo

BPR article cited by this article which says that the version of the photo on the article is doctored.

--Geopolitician (talk) 16:21, January 12, 2022 (EST)

Ok, we'll get our crack team of reviewers on it right away. Should have the investigation complete in a couple years. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 16:32, January 13, 2022 (EST)

This is not a joke, RobS. We have an article which is using a doctored photo as "evidence" to push an absurd claim that a specific individual is secretly transgender. Not only that, that same article is even citing a source which both (1) blatantly states that the photo is doctored, and (2) provides hard evidence to prove its counterclaim.

I don't know about you, but that seems pretty hard to refute. Of course you can go ahead and try if you'd like. Please feel free to state why you think the version of the photo seen in the article is not doctored.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:10, January 13, 2022 (EST)

Don't worry. We got our man Bob Mueller & Peter Strzok on the job. They'll get to the bottom of it and establish facts. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 19:35, January 13, 2022 (EST)

Since you didn’t bother to refute the hard evidence that the photo is doctored, you have basically conceded that to be the case.--Geopolitician (talk) 19:45, January 13, 2022 (EST)

I'm sorry, I can't comment on a matter that is still under investigation. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 20:20, January 13, 2022 (EST)

This article is disgusting, especially the picture of "Michelle Obama in her evening wear". Are family values of any importance? --Jackin the box (talk) 10:31, March 24, 2022 (EDT)

According to the The New York Times in 2007, Schlafly wants edits to Conservapedia to 'be family friendly and without gossip or foul language ' (Shawn Zeller, March 5, 2007). --Jackin the box (talk) 11:42, March 24, 2022 (EDT)

The photograph in the green dress is not a rumor or gossip, or a deep fake. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 19:07, March 24, 2022 (EDT)

No, just obscene.--Jackin the box (talk) 12:23, March 26, 2022 (EDT)

This is clearly fake. I have checked other pictures, as anyone with an open, inquisitive mind can--Jackin the box (talk) 13:41, March 26, 2022 (EDT)

And what makes you so sure that ABC's picture isn't the fake one? ABC, after all, is in the tank for the Obamas. Northwest (talk) 14:35, March 26, 2022 (EDT)

Firstly, this isn't an ABC picture. Secondly, have you looked at the numerous other pictures? Thirdly, just google to find the fake source. Even if you could prove the validity of it, surely it is not appropriate to post it here, given Conservapedia's Commandments? At the very least this is crude, vulgar smut, as well unAmerican/anti-American.

Have you, Northwest, checked the footnotes to the picture of the Obamas?</ref>

So here we sit, on the eve of nuclear holocaust and WWIII, and our primary concern is somebody outing Michael Robinson as a man. Ok, that makes now. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 16:16, March 26, 2022 (EDT)

The fact that ABC used the picture you provided which you claim is the "original" (but was photoshopped by either ABC or by other liberal media outlets to provide cover for/protect the Obamas) changes nothing - and BTW, Jackin, calling criticism of the Obamas "un-American/anti-American" is ludicrous when the fact that they themselves are anti-American to the core is taken into account. Northwest (talk) 16:18, March 26, 2022 (EDT)

This is ridiculous How does Michelle feels about Ukrainian Nazis? It was her husband who brought them to power and they now are provoking WWIII and nuclear holocaust. Does she still support training and arms for Ukrainian Nazis? RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 16:38, March 26, 2022 (EDT)

Well at least the evidence that the photo is doctored hasn't been entirely suppressed. --Jackin the box (talk) 16:43, March 26, 2022 (EDT)

Doctored by a liberal media seeking to protect the Obamas and cover for them, that is. Northwest (talk) 16:52, March 26, 2022 (EDT)

I just don't see why transphobes have a problem with Michele in the green dress? RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 02:53, March 27, 2022 (EDT)

Agree, with all you say RobS.--Jackin the box (talk) 09:52, March 27, 2022 (EDT)

Sources of the rumour

"In summary, the argument that Michelle Obama is a man with Klinefelter’s syndrome that underwent gender reassignment is infinitely less plausible than Michelle Obama simply having a masculine, athletic phenotype which is commonly and publicly accepted as one of many female phenotypes."^[1]

Lady

OK I now understand: she acts like a "Lady", or uppercrust person, with her spending of public money. Thanks! --RobLeonardWoo (talk) 09:25, August 5, 2022 (EDT)

Lunacy

For the people wanting this article to reflect reality and not show Conservapedia as anything but a repository to make conservatives look foolish, I recommend they give it up. The craziness starts immediately with sowing doubts about whether Michelle Obama was born female. It goes off the deep end when the second paragraph touts substantial evidence for Obama being a transgender man then stating she used IVF treatments to conceive her children. If someone wanted to write something that made conservatives look completely stupid, all they have to do is look here and wonder how someone can claim IVF treatments could possibly make a biological man pregnant. The photoshopped pictures are the final nail in the coffin. By the way, pictures of the Obama’s infant children are here. [2] --LSimons (talk) 13:46, October 17, 2023 (EDT)

Refs