Talk:Barack Obama

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Thank you for everything you do[edit]

Articles like these give me such a laugh, primarily because I have to deal with a bat shit insane right-wing family. Unlike many of the want-to-be-professional-but-still-acting-childish editors over at Wikipedia that I deal with on a daily basis, you guys and gals are quite the breath of fresh, satire-filled air. Thanks again :).
- With love, from a wikipedian. — Unsigned, by: 00:01 / talk / contribs 5 July 2015‎


Should we add anything about how Netflix is going to be producing shows with the Obamas? — Unsigned, by: LuodiWang / talk / contribs


Worthy of Silver rating? I think so Corona (chat) 19:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Aye. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Nay, the first paragraph looks like absolute shit. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey @DuceMoosolini, we can get that paragraph removed if we let people know that the article is better off without it. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I have two conditions for trimming the opening paragraph. One, that someone write a funspace version of the article with the express purpose of making fun of the sheer number of conspiracy theories, and two, the stuff about him signing off on war crimes via drone strikes stays in this version of the article but is moved to "Human rights and civil liberties record" and incorporated into that section. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
The first one is already covered by fun:Barack HUSSEIN Obama, and I am fine with the second point. If Obama did something stupid, he deserves to be criticized for it. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Obama committing war crimes wasn’t “stupid”, he knew what he was doing. Christopher (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Not my own work, but...[edit]

...check this out. I'd like to include this image in the article as a visually effective way of dispelling the absurd conspiracy theory that Obama is a Muslim. What do you think? Could we not credit the originator? Field Dreamer (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

More stuff to add[edit]

Obama issued executive order 12333 before leaving the presidential office for the final time. This order lets the NSA share raw streams of internet data it collected with the DHS, DEA, and FBI. The NSA collects random info on American citizens with way less oversight than every other federal government project. The Elecronic Frontier Foundation, (a civil rights project for the internet-era) criticized the order as a way for organizations like the FBI to evade its own rules about protecting the privacy of American citizens.

Bob-smith (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That murder cat[edit]

I'm not defending Obama here, dropping bombs in the way that Obama dropped bombs is not morally defensible, buuuut... Does the murderers cat go here? Are we applying this cat consistently and correctly? Maybe we are, I just feel like we should talk about it to make sure on this one. SolPyre (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@ClimbTheStairs You added the cat, wanna talk about it? SolPyre (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Considering the description of Category:Murderers is "Category for people who have killed", and judging from the fact that people like Stalin and Trotsky are in there, the killing doesn't seem to have to be direct. Many people have also been executed, died in war, or killed some other way during Obama's administration (and also with most/every other presidents, such as Bush and Trump).
Is it applied consistently, however? Certainly not! Personally, I think the description makes it way too general, and the category would be much bigger if it were consistently applied, but currently, it's very small and quite disorganized. I think it would be better if the category were changed instead, since the description doesn't really match the intuitive understanding of "murderer".YXTQWFclimbTheStairs 22:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think if the cat is gonna be here we should mention murder in the article somewhere. To that end I've added a footnote. Its clumsy but its the only idea I had. SolPyre (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the less the Category:Murderers description makes sense, and I think it would be better to change it than to add hundreds more pages to that category.YXTQWFclimbTheStairs 03:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
"Murder" is a legal term and I honestly find the category itself, unless tightly defined and backed up with meticulous sources, a lot of trouble for what it is. We have Category:Convicted felons as an example of criminals, works better since it's so specific. Categorizing Obama as a "murderer" is just the end-of-page jab that isn't really meaningful commentary and I would strongly advise against it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
"Murder" is indeed a legal term and it should be used as such. Heads of state are associated with killings of various types in the course of their duties. Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Now Obama may be responsible for extra-judicial killings, but they were ostensibly not unlawful in the technical sense, assuming they were permissible under American law. There is no pending issue with the ICC regarding Obama's actions. The ICC has just issued an arrest warrant for President Putin. The proof that he is a murderer of defenseless people is manifestly demonstrated daily. Unless someone can provide a good argument that Obama is different from other Heads of state, I would think, Lefty, you should remove the murderer category.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Sure, murder is a legal term, but it is not only a legal term. I think it is better for us to apply the term murder without considering legal technicalities. Hypothetically, if a dictator wrote a law stating that any time they chose to shoot someone in the head it wasn't legally murder, we should still label the head-shooting murder. Similarly, if Obama ordered drone bombings with such disregard for civilian life that the drone-strikes amount to murder, we should call it murder regardless of the legal technicality. -- That said the word murder might not be the best descriptor to use here. Is there a category that better describes what we have here? -SolPyre (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Does Gandhi get the tag as well? Does Zelenskyy? Should they? I'm just trying to bracket the usage here: How far from direct culpability does our outrage extend? — Chbarts (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@Chbarts How far does our outrage extend? Idk, does our outrage matter? The extent of our outrage probably isn't measurably significant -- But our lust for categorization! The extend of our lust for categorization is immeasurably vast! As for Gandhi and Zelenskyy, have they directly ordered any deaths wrongfully? I'm not aware of them having done so, but if you've got something murderous that they've done let's go slap the cat on them too (after we work out exactly what the criteria to use are). SolPyre (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)