Talk:Family of Barack Obama/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
George Obama arrest
As one can tell from some recent edits, Barack Obama's half brother George was recently arrested in his home on charges (which he denies) of possessing marijuana. He was also accused of resisting arrest. In general we do not cover arrests of non-notable people, for WP:BLP reasons. Claims of resisting arrest, if not proven, are particularly unreliable. Overall, a high proportion of the world population has an arrest record for one thing or another. We don't cover every arrest of every person in their bio, it has to actually be relevant to something. This is an extremely minor criminal incident that would have no notability except that the person involved is an estranged overseas relative of a U.S. President, so covering it here is a bit tabloid-ish. Newspapers cover it because it is news. But we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. For a number of reasons I believe it is premature, unencyclopedic, and a BLP violation, to mention that in this article. I am therefore deleting the section. We can discuss here and explore the matter more fully. In the next few days, weeks, and months, we might learn if this truly becomes an issue that attracts a lot of coverage, or it is simply the minor news of the day. Wikidemon (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- If he starts to become a regular in the news, that would be a different story. Think Billy Carter. Think "George Obama Beer". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
What, exactly, is your justification for deleting this verifiable and newsworthy information, other than your subjective opinion that it is "tabloid-ish" and an "extremely minor" offense? If George Obama is important enough to be listed in this article -- complete with biographical background and personal information about his living conditions, then I can think of no persuasive reason for why this shouldn't be included, either. It is debatable whether George is a NPF (I would maintain that his blood relation to the President of the United States, combined with both the spate of public interviews he has granted, his appearance in President Obama's best-selling autobiography, and a high-profile, pre-election CNN piece about him, precludes that designation). Regardless, even assuming arguendo that George could be classified an NPF, there would still be no reason to exclude the fact of his arrest, as it is relevant to his notability (i.e., he's notable because he's the President's brother, and it's notable when the President's brother gets arrested...ergo, it's notable that George Obama was arrested).-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've listed this question at the BLP noticeboard ↜Just me, here, now … 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC) (archived here). ↜Just me, here, now … 06:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Malia & Sasha's ages & birthdates
I added Malia & Sasha's ages & birthdates, and "Baseball Bugs" removed them, citing that there had been both a discussion about it and that a consensus decision was reached to not include their ages and birthdates. I can find no such discussion nor evidence of any consensus decision about it. All I could find was a conversation about which year Malia was born. Is there any reason their dates of birth should not be included? The president & his wife have freely discussed with the press celebrating their daughters' birthdays on multiple occasions. Ajlipp (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's probably on the main Obama page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here: [2] Feel free to weigh in at that section. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the discussion - it has been archived, so any further discussion would be on Talk: Barack Obama, but consensus was as BB said - for privacy reasons we shouldn't be including the exact dates of the children. Tvoz/talk 19:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
tropes
This article is surreal. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Missing Brother of Obama, Sr.
In this news article, it mentions that Barack Obama, Sr. was the second born son of his father's eight sons and this news article mentions that Obama, Sr. had an elder brother named Joseph that left school in 1951. Yet Joseph is omitted completely from Dreams from My Father. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
the text part:
- Fraser Robinson, Jr.
- Michelle Obama's grandfather was born on August 24, 1912 in Georgetown, South Carolina, and died on November 9, 1996, aged 84. He was a good student and orator, but moved from South Carolina to Chicago to find better work than he could find at home, eventually becoming a worker for the United States Postal Service. He was married to LaVaughn Johnson. When he retired, they moved back to South Carolina.[1]
should be placed before the text part:
- Fraser C. Robinson III
- Michelle Obama's father, born 1935, died 1991, married Michelle's mother, Marian Shields, in 1960.[2][3] Robinson was a pump worker at the City of Chicago water plant.[1]#
then theere will be the correct order :
grand grand-grandfather, grand-grandfather, grandfather, father
Axelwa (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Unidentified woman in picture
About this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Barack_Obama%27s_Kenyan_relatives.jpg It was probably taken on Barack's first trip to Kenya. The taking of the picture is mentioned in the Epilogue of Dreams from My Father. The 'unidentified woman' embracing Abongo (Roy) Obama may very well be his then girlfriend, Amy. She is introduced in Chapter 17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frollo (talk • contribs) 07:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Charles T. Payne interview
- Spiegel staff (2009-05-26). "I Was Horrified by Lengths Men Will Go to Mistreat Other Men". Spiegel Online. SPIEGELnet. – interview with Obama's great uncle, on Obama's visit to Buchenwald. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Youngest since Kennedys
"They will be the youngest residents of the White House since Amy Carter arrived at age nine in 1977." That's a silly statement since Natasha is 7 years old. She should be the youngest since a Kennedy I think.--Appraiser (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Corrected. Sasha is indeed the youngest since John F. Kennedy, Jr. lived at the white house 48 years ago.--Appraiser (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is right - and it is enough to say just that. The addition about Patrick Bouvier Kennedy who died 2 days after birth does not add anything of significance to this article and is confusing unless one knows the circumstances of his birth and death - which are not relevant to this article. The distinction between being the youngest child to live in the White House and the youngest child of a President is extremely minor since we';re talking about the same president and the same timeframe. She's the youngest child since the Kennedys. And the source that was given does not talk about Sasha Obama - it is synthesis to use it. The point is adequately covered by saying she is the youngest child to live in the WH since JFK Jr. Tvoz/talk 07:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- You could say Patrick was the youngest to be born at the White House. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- But that is irrelevant here, Bugs. She is the youngest child to live in the White House since JFK Jr - this is not the place to go off on a tangent about the fact that another child was born to the Kennedys two years later who died. That doesn't add anything to the statement about Sasha - what is being talked about is that she's the youngest child living there since the Kennedys, not the technicality of another child who, sadly, died before he could live there. And I say again, the almanac source does not belong in this article - it is not speaking about Sasha, or even saying tht JFK Jr or Patrick was the youngest child at that time - we need a source that identifies Sasha as such. There are lots - I'll look for an appropriate one. Tvoz/talk 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Sasha is the youngest to be living (or at least living for more than 2 days) since JFK Jr. Maybe "residing" would be a better term than the somewhat-ambiguous "living". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- She is the youngest since JFK, Jr., living either more or less than 2 days, since JFK, Jr. on November 22 1963 was still younger than Sasha Obama. Patrick B. Kennedy had not lived there since August 9, 1963. She is not the youngest since Patrick B. Kennedy, because JFK Jr. was younger than her, and continued living in the white house after his younger brother's death. john k (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Sasha is the youngest to be living (or at least living for more than 2 days) since JFK Jr. Maybe "residing" would be a better term than the somewhat-ambiguous "living". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- But that is irrelevant here, Bugs. She is the youngest child to live in the White House since JFK Jr - this is not the place to go off on a tangent about the fact that another child was born to the Kennedys two years later who died. That doesn't add anything to the statement about Sasha - what is being talked about is that she's the youngest child living there since the Kennedys, not the technicality of another child who, sadly, died before he could live there. And I say again, the almanac source does not belong in this article - it is not speaking about Sasha, or even saying tht JFK Jr or Patrick was the youngest child at that time - we need a source that identifies Sasha as such. There are lots - I'll look for an appropriate one. Tvoz/talk 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- You could say Patrick was the youngest to be born at the White House. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- That is right - and it is enough to say just that. The addition about Patrick Bouvier Kennedy who died 2 days after birth does not add anything of significance to this article and is confusing unless one knows the circumstances of his birth and death - which are not relevant to this article. The distinction between being the youngest child to live in the White House and the youngest child of a President is extremely minor since we';re talking about the same president and the same timeframe. She's the youngest child since the Kennedys. And the source that was given does not talk about Sasha Obama - it is synthesis to use it. The point is adequately covered by saying she is the youngest child to live in the WH since JFK Jr. Tvoz/talk 07:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Malia page
In light of john k's extensive research, and apparent assent to his arguments, I've added a separate Malia Ann Obama page. I think a Sasha Obama page would be called for as well. Binarybits (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
← Sorry, but you don't have consensus for this change - perhaps you want to bring up an RFC for more opinions, but I'm reverting based on the comments above. Tvoz/talk 03:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- There's no consensus against it either, and the last few comments have all been supportive. If you don't agree, let's hear the argument, or do an RFC yourself. Binarybits (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- The last few comments by you and JohnK, yes - and I'm not at all saying others might not agree with you. I am saying there is no consensus for this here and I see a number of editors weighing in against it for a variety of reasons. So without a clear consensus to create the article - and, significantly, this idea has been raised here before more than once and consistently rejected - I think the proper approach is to leave things as they have been and ask for other editors' input, as I suggested above. Just because people stop commenting doesn't mean that they have assented to arguments - if you spend any time on the Obama articles you'll find that out pretty quickly. Although I don't see it noted - and I'll add it now - I believe this article would fall under the Obama article probation scheme, and as such if there's major disagreement with changes as seen here, we're supposed to wait for true consensus.Tvoz/talk 17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Gallery of distant relationships and chart of Obama's relationship to the House of Windsor
On one hand such distant genealogical relationships, as supported by WP:RS, have received no small amount of news coverage and commentary. On the other, the chart, for example, delineating the relationship between Obama and Queen Elizabeth II (actually, Prince Charles, making the number of generations shown on each side equal) could be composed for a substantial portion of the population of the United States (pending the proper research involved being done first, of course). What does everyone think? ↜Just M E here , now 00:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to have seen the removal handled with a little more aplomb, but I don't think the information is right for this "Family of" article, and it's unlikely to be worthwhile anywhere in the encyclopedia. Sure, it is sourced and there is no small amount of interest in this. But so are sports scores, trainspotting, and lots of information that just isn't right for the encyclopedia. I think the history is that some of this information got root here after it was removed from the main Obama article, and editors there have pointed people here when they tried ot add it there. If we were to play the six-degrees game with every famous person the encyclopedia would be full of this. Better leave it to geni.com or some other sites that are better equipped to handle genealogical data. At most it might make sense to include a sentence (if sourceable) to the effect that Obama has been the subject of genealogical interest, and various connections have been made between him and, among other people, John McCain, Elvis Presley, the Queen of England, etc. We could then cite it to a place that houses the info. Regarding WP:PRESERVE that's a great argument for porting it over to some other wiki. And I'm still not sure where that comment would belong because it is not really about his family. Perhaps the "public image of" article? Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is essentially trivia. I'd also note that the Mormon genealogy database is essentially open-sourced. Unless it's changed, anyone can add information without review. It's fine to say that Obama is (purportedly) distantly related to Prince Charles, but there's really no value in charting the exact lineage. Will Beback talk 01:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) I was thinking it might be OK as a standalone article; it's not of great general interest, but it's not exactly an anorak topic either. But it's just distracting in this article. Do find some place for it; it's an impressive piece of work. PhGustaf (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Some of this stuff (like the relationship to prince Charles) might be worth keeping, proportional to the amount of coverage it has received. What we do keep should probably be written as prose, and not go into so much detail. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Remember, we have a source explaining that relationships beyond a certain distance are "genetically meaningless". Go back far enough and we all have one mother and one father. DS (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Some of this stuff (like the relationship to prince Charles) might be worth keeping, proportional to the amount of coverage it has received. What we do keep should probably be written as prose, and not go into so much detail. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) I was thinking it might be OK as a standalone article; it's not of great general interest, but it's not exactly an anorak topic either. But it's just distracting in this article. Do find some place for it; it's an impressive piece of work. PhGustaf (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is essentially trivia. I'd also note that the Mormon genealogy database is essentially open-sourced. Unless it's changed, anyone can add information without review. It's fine to say that Obama is (purportedly) distantly related to Prince Charles, but there's really no value in charting the exact lineage. Will Beback talk 01:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- The term genetically meaningless essentially says between any two people who are 4th cousin or more distant will have the same genetic combinations of any two random people from the same ethnic backgrounds. While I agree that being 17th cousins from Prince Charles is not all that rare, there is a lot of general interest in shared pedigrees among the rich and powerful. I see no reason to fill Wikipedia with bloodlines, but the relation between the POTUS and the British monarch has held a lot of fascination over the last two centuries. I don't see this small table as a waste of space (obviously I put it in here).Pacomartin (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Question Would anyone, especially from among the above commenters, like to step in and produce a better summary or formatting of some of the info currently included in this section of the article under discussion?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 08:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was the editor that put the table into the article. Logically any two people in the world have a common ancestor and a table like this could theoretically be developed for any two people in the world. But the emphasis is on theoretically. It takes a lot of research to produce such a table. Furthermore there is a unique table where the couple on the top is the most recent common ancestor(MRCA). I considered putting a table in that went to King Edward I who is the most recent common regal ancestor. I opted for MRCA. While logically I agree that the table essentially means that Barack is part English, and he has a traceable ancestry. However, the interest in his background, and the requests to honor his Scottish heritage (to aid in tourism) means a lot of people are curious about this. The friendship that has developed between Michelle and the Queen is of general interest. Personally, I don't think the table takes up to many bytes, and it is an interesting addition to the article. But we could just put the Queen's picture with a notation that the closest researched family relationship is 16th cousin once removed.Pacomartin (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ahmed Zaoui
Could someone familiar with the family of Barack Obama, and preferably with the book Dreams from my Father, please confirm or correct my suspicion that this edit is incorrect.-gadfium 01:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the ancestry of First Lady Michelle
Impactplayer contributed
Michelle's earliest known relative is her maternal side is her great-great-great grandfather Peter Jumper, born in the 1700s with a family line that would extend from rural Georgia, to Birmingham, Alabama. On her paternal side its Jim Robinson who was an American slave on the Friendfield plantation in South Carolina. The family believes that after the Civil War he remained a Friendfield plantation sharecropper for the rest of his life and that he was buried there in an unmarked grave. (Referenced to NYTimes article)
-- which was reverted. I am posting it here in hopes something from it can possibly be salvaged.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just, I agree that Michelle's maternal line should be included, but the problem is that what Impactplayer wrote has no connection to what has been reported. The Times article makes no mention of a Peter Jumper, or any maternal ancestor from the 1700s. The Times article talks about Michelle's great-great-great grandmother Melvinia, with a document dating back to 1850. That should be included as I did in Michelle's article last week, referenced to the Times piece. I have no idea what Impactplayer is talking about. Too late tonight for me to add the correct info competently. Tvoz/talk 07:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here is an article. --> link↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Caption of File:Family_of_Fraser_and_Marian_Robinson.jpg
The photo couldn't possibly have been dated 1960. Michelle Obama is an infant in the photo. She was born in January 1964. The photo was almost certainly taken in 1964, based on the apparent age of baby Michelle (less than one year old). I'm changing it, but posting here in case anyone cares to discuss. Erielhonan 18:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- My bad. It was late. (Maybe I had "1960s" on my mind?)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 19:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Malia Obama article
I recently created a seperate article for Malia Obama, but it was steadfastly reverted due to and based on a deletion discussion that was dated as May 2008. So, I wanted to get your guys' opinion on whether or not an article for Malia, or both Malia and Sasha would be appropriate now that their father has been elected, rather than just a candidate for the party's nomination when the first deletion of the article was discussed. Thanks. Gage (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure about the "steadfastly" part, but yes, I did reinstate the redirect, essentially based on the speedy delete discussion and decision here. I'm glad to discuss this of course. The speedy delete resulted in a redirect to Barack Obama, which was appropriate at that time. A couple of months later (July 08) that was switched to a redirect to what ended up as this article Family of Barack Obama, which is where it has remained and been expanded to what it is currently. It seems to me that although their father is now President, these young children are still not notable on their own, and the section in this Family article is more than sufficient. I note that not much if anything was added in terms of content when the separate article was created - and nothing has surfaced yet as far as I know that couldn't be accommodated here if it was deemed notable - and the section in this article is well-sourced with the same citations as were moved to the separate article. Notability is not inherited, and when it comes to young children I believe our BLP and other policies need to be carefully observed. I see no reason at present for the separate article, nor any reason why Malia is more notable than Sasha, and so I conclude that the consensus developed in the speedy delete discussion should stand. I do think, of course, that a redirect to this Family article continues to be appropriate and necessary for both Malia Obama and Sasha Obama so that anyone searching for them would be brought directly here. Tvoz/talk 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Tvoz. These are little kids, who are nothing special by virtue of their birth (that is, we sometimes have royalty articles on small kids, these kids are not royalty) and who have done nothing notable. If having the family article is working well, and I haven't heard anything to suggest it isn't, I see no reason to change things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- First the Obama children are not notable enough by themselves to warrant a separate article, and second there isn't enough to write about to warrant a separate article.Everything that was on the now deleted article page is in the family of section.Until these kids do something of their own which will be for a long while and until that day, we shouldn't have a separate article for them.Durga Dido (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Of course Bo Obama is notable enough to warrant his own article! Grundle2600 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- It would be pretty funny if Mayara Tavares got her own article before Malia and Sasha each got their own article. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, she's 18 so not so much of a BLP problem. It is funny about the presidential pets getting their own articles but not kids, but until we have a [[biography of living dogs]] policy that's how it is. Anyway, what about these two famous photos? http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/assets_c/2008/08/Bush%20Beijing%20with%20good%20left%20hand%20placement%20small-thumb-425x447.jpg, http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/16/zombie.jpg - Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The first one, we would need to know her name to create the article. The second one should be the lead picture in the John McCain article. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, she's 18 so not so much of a BLP problem. It is funny about the presidential pets getting their own articles but not kids, but until we have a [[biography of living dogs]] policy that's how it is. Anyway, what about these two famous photos? http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/assets_c/2008/08/Bush%20Beijing%20with%20good%20left%20hand%20placement%20small-thumb-425x447.jpg, http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/16/zombie.jpg - Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- First the Obama children are not notable enough by themselves to warrant a separate article, and second there isn't enough to write about to warrant a separate article.Everything that was on the now deleted article page is in the family of section.Until these kids do something of their own which will be for a long while and until that day, we shouldn't have a separate article for them.Durga Dido (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Tvoz. These are little kids, who are nothing special by virtue of their birth (that is, we sometimes have royalty articles on small kids, these kids are not royalty) and who have done nothing notable. If having the family article is working well, and I haven't heard anything to suggest it isn't, I see no reason to change things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The kids gave an interview to reporters then Obama said he shouldn't have allowed it. There are quite a few news stories about the kids. Whether you want a report in Wikipedia is really the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoRightTurn (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that Sasha and Malia are both clearly notable. Here's WP:BIO: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This seems to be pretty clearly fulfilled. Here's WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The gloss on "significant coverage" is "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. GNG also seems to be clearly fulfilled in this case - there is a significant amount of media coverage of the Obama girls. The opposition to them having a page seems to be based on the idea that notability has to be earned through having legitimate accomplishments. This seems clearly wrong to me, and certainly isn't what any of our actual guidelines say. Notability is acquired by there being enough reliable information about a person to justify an article. This is clearly fulfilled in the case of the Obama girls, and so they should have their own articles. john k (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- It may seem so to you, but consensus above seems to me to be that there is nothing inherently and independently notable at this time about these two children, and nothing at all demonstrated about Malia being more notable than Sasha - and consensus seemed to confirm the original delete action, but with the redirect to this article in place. I see no new content added to what we have here in the Family article in your separate article. It seems to me to be an unneeded duplication, and I see nothing that justifies it not being merely a redirect to the section in this article. You're free to discuss this more, of course, but at this time I don't see where you have consensus to overrule the previous decision, confirmed above, so I'm reinstating the redirect. Tvoz/talk 20:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I ever said that she was more notable than Sasha. I think they are both notable enough to have their own articles. It's just that there was a Malia article in existence, and there was not a Sasha article, as far as I know, and I had no interest in writing one. The discussion above suggests no consensus. Furthermore, I restored the article a week ago, and you are the first person to object, so it seems to me that feelings on this issue are, at best, not particularly strong. If there is duplication, that is obviously an issue, but it is also something to be expected for a newly created article. The question of whether there should be a separate article should be based on whether it is possible to have an article with more information than the current discussion in this article contains, not whether the article currently is so detailed - otherwise it would be very difficult to create articles ever. And I have no idea what "nothing inherently and independently notable" means. Our notability guidelines state that someone is notable if they are the subject of "significant coverage" in reliable sources. "Significant coverage" means "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I think the two Obama daughters clearly meet that criteria. I don't know what it means to be "inherently notable", and there is absolutely not a requirement that someone be "independently notable." I also see no consensus at all that this should be a redirect - what I see is considerable disagreement, which strikes me as "lack of consensus." john k (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- It may seem so to you, but consensus above seems to me to be that there is nothing inherently and independently notable at this time about these two children, and nothing at all demonstrated about Malia being more notable than Sasha - and consensus seemed to confirm the original delete action, but with the redirect to this article in place. I see no new content added to what we have here in the Family article in your separate article. It seems to me to be an unneeded duplication, and I see nothing that justifies it not being merely a redirect to the section in this article. You're free to discuss this more, of course, but at this time I don't see where you have consensus to overrule the previous decision, confirmed above, so I'm reinstating the redirect. Tvoz/talk 20:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Short comments
- No, not for now. I believe they would be notable on general criteria, for the same reason certain other Obama family members are. They have been subject of prolonged, intense, independent coverage over time. However, they are children, and their lives private. I'm not sure how to formally mix in the WP:BLP concerns, article organization, notability, and encyclopedic content, but on balance the desire to treat them with some degree of decorum, and the fact that they are mainly known as Obama's family members rather than for their independent personal lives, on balance I strongly favor keeping the section as it is in this article for now. Likely, as they grow older each of them will eventually have their own article. I do not know when that will be though. Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Obama's daughters are clearly, unambiguously, absolutely noteworthy. The only reason they don't have an article is the same reason most noteworthy topics don't have a Wikipedia article: they're noteworthy, but they're noteworthy for simple reasons, and thus there's very little noteworthy data about them to report on. At least, noteworthy for an encyclopedia's standards, rather than a news agency's standards. As such, like most short articles, they're best covered by a more general article; daughter articles (no pun intended) can always be created in the future, if they establish enough noteworthy details independently to warrant a full article or two (which I'd be very surprised if they didn't, sometime in the next 4-8 years). The atomic weight of carbon is noteworthy too, but there's so little to say about it that it can be covered just fine in Carbon. -Silence (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- This seems like a reasonable argument. But the same argument could actually apply to a lot of biographical subjects who have their own articles. The atomic number of Carbon is 6. That is not an encyclopedic topic, it is a fact. A person is always potentially an encyclopedic topic, and is certainly never a fact. I suppose if the only information we had on the Obama daughters was that they were Obama's daughters, that might be one thing. But there is considerably more information available. Not enough for long articles, as yet. But enough for short articles. And I don't fully understand how BLP issues are particularly relevant to deciding whether someone should have their own paragraph long biographical article vs. having a paragraph about them in a group biography article. john k (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Short articles are less useful than short sections in larger articles. They function the same way, they're just closer to other relevant information as a section. And if we don't have articles on 'facts' (by which I assume you mean something like 'obvious truths'), then what on earth's going on over at law of identity and figure of the Earth? :) -Silence (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Those look like articles on "concepts" to me, not "single pieces of information on which it is impossible to elaborate further." I'm not sure that short articles are less useful than short sections in larger articles - it depends on the specifics, at least. I'm also not certain what policy or guidelines encourages section in large articles rather than separate articles. john k (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Short articles are less useful than short sections in larger articles. They function the same way, they're just closer to other relevant information as a section. And if we don't have articles on 'facts' (by which I assume you mean something like 'obvious truths'), then what on earth's going on over at law of identity and figure of the Earth? :) -Silence (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me this isn't even a close case. As Wikipedia:Notability (people) says:
"That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being their spouse, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)"
The "unless" here indisputably applies. There are dozens and dozens of articles focusing specifically on the president's children. There's more coverage of them than many many other people who are the subject of Wikipedia articles. The fact that they haven't accomplished anything independently of their father is totally irrelevant; notability isn't a reward for merit. The point is that they're the subject of intense public interest and widespread media coverage. It's absurd that there's not an article about them.
The opposition here seems to be based on squeamishness due to the idea that writing an article about them would violate their privacy. But I don't see how this has anything to do with notability. If it violates their privacy to have a short article about them, then it violates their privacy to have five paragraphs about them in a longer article. And frankly, it's hard to see how kids who've had dozens of articles written about them will be harmed by being the subject of a short Wikipedia article. Binarybits (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- They would not be notable outside of their famous family member. This is not even a close case. UnitAnode 00:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- What part of "unless significant coverage can be found on A" do you not understand? Binarybits (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, by this standard there shouldn't be articles about the children of any president, yet most of them do have articles. Binarybits (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- David Eisenhower, Caroline Kennedy. and Chelsea Clinton all have their own articles. But each of them has done something more notable than just being whelped by a President. Not that it didn't help. PhGustaf (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- What has Chelsea done that's independently notable? Campaigning for her mother doesn't count. Binarybits (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, if the children of presidents don't get articles until they've done something notable, then how do you explain Patrick Bouvier Kennedy? Binarybits (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Recentism and cultural bias, along with Kennedyolatry. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well OK, those are arguments for deleting the Patrick Bouvier Kennedy page. But clearly Obama's kids are more notable than he was. Binarybits (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just for the record: Jenna Bush, Barbara Pierce Bush, Chelsea Clinton, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Neil Bush, Marvin P. Bush, Dorothy Bush Koch, Maureen Reagan, Michael Reagan, Patti Davis, Ron Reagan, Amy Carter, Michael Gerald Ford, John Gardner Ford, Steven Ford, Susan Ford, Tricia Nixon Cox, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, Luci Baines Johnson, Caroline Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Jr., Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, John Eisenhower, Margaret Truman, Anna Roosevelt Halsted, James Roosevelt, Elliott Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr., John Aspinwall Roosevelt. That's every presidential child since FDR. Hoover's sons do not have articles, but many earlier presidential children do. They include John Coolidge, Calvin Coolidge, Jr., Marshall Eugene DeWolfe, Margaret Woodrow Wilson, Eleanor Wilson McAdoo, Robert Taft, Helen Taft Manning, Charles Phelps Taft II, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., Kermit Roosevelt, Ethel Roosevelt Derby, Archibald Roosevelt, Quentin Roosevelt, Ruth Cleveland, Esther Cleveland. Harry Augustus Garfield, James Rudolph Garfield, Webb Hayes, Jesse Grant, Ulysses S. Grant, Jr., Nellie Grant, Frederick Dent Grant, Robert Todd Lincoln, Edward Baker Lincoln, William Wallace Lincoln, Tad Lincoln, Frank Robert Pierce, Benjamin Pierce, Millard Powers Fillmore, Mary Abigail Fillmore, Sarah Knox Taylor, Mary Elizabeth Bliss, Richard Taylor, Elizabeth Tyler, David Gardiner Tyler, Lyon Gardiner Tyler, John Scott Harrison, Abraham Van Buren, John Van Buren, George Washington Adams, Charles Francis Adams, Martha Jefferson Randolph, Mary Jefferson Eppes, Abigail Adams Smith, John Quincy Adams, Susanna Adams, Charles Adams, Thomas Boylston Adams, John Parke Custis. In the nineteenth century, it's worth noting, there's a fairly substantial number who do not have articles, but there are also articles about presidential children who died in childhood. john k (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's an impressive list. The crux of the matter seems to be that a lot of editors believe the notability bar should be higher for minors. But I'm not aware of any such policy actually existing. Binarybits (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
← Well, that makes two of you, but that doesn't make consensus. Tvoz/talk 03:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- In Favor of Separate Article: For what its worth, I'm also in favor of a separate article along the reasoning of john k's comments. I'm not trying to change consensus, just exploring what it is. --Milowent (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. This is complete nonsense. It's been hashed, rehashed, and rerehashed. Consensus is that the children are minors, are not notable outside of their "inheritance" from their father's notability, and as such, no separate article is necessary or even allowable. UA 16:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I dissected in detail here, I don't see any such clear consensus, despite repeated claims of "consensus! consensus!", so, for whatever its worth, I added my opinion. I don't see why an article would never even be "allowable"; if two day old presidential kids can have articles, I see no prohibition. Its just a discussion I wanted to contribute to. Others may agree or disagree and life goes on.--Milowent (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- But no new information has been presented that might be persuasive to the majority who have repeatedly agreed that separate articles aren't called for here. "Consensus" doesn't require 100% agreement, but for it to change one should be raising new arguments or introducing new information or a new perspective that persuades editors to look at a topic in a different way. The consensus over time has been to leave this as a redirect until such a time as the facts demand something else. The editors at other articles might see things differently, apparently, and so be it. This is here and now, that is not relevant. By the way - for a little historical perspective on this article, at one time the Obama children articles were set up as a redirect to their father's article - the establishment of this family article itself, and Malia and Sasha in it, was a result of compromise and consensus-building. Tvoz/talk 19:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tvoz, I don't have new arguments or new information, nor the inclination to push to change things, honestly. I just observed that I didn't see a past strong consensus. When there is no consensus divined however, the status quo should remain unless it is divined.--Milowent (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Tvoz/talk 20:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just to keep track, I noticed that another article for Malia was created and then deleted yesterday in just over an hour. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_25#Malia_Obama_.282009.29. --Milowent (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Tvoz/talk 20:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tvoz, I don't have new arguments or new information, nor the inclination to push to change things, honestly. I just observed that I didn't see a past strong consensus. When there is no consensus divined however, the status quo should remain unless it is divined.--Milowent (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- But no new information has been presented that might be persuasive to the majority who have repeatedly agreed that separate articles aren't called for here. "Consensus" doesn't require 100% agreement, but for it to change one should be raising new arguments or introducing new information or a new perspective that persuades editors to look at a topic in a different way. The consensus over time has been to leave this as a redirect until such a time as the facts demand something else. The editors at other articles might see things differently, apparently, and so be it. This is here and now, that is not relevant. By the way - for a little historical perspective on this article, at one time the Obama children articles were set up as a redirect to their father's article - the establishment of this family article itself, and Malia and Sasha in it, was a result of compromise and consensus-building. Tvoz/talk 19:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I dissected in detail here, I don't see any such clear consensus, despite repeated claims of "consensus! consensus!", so, for whatever its worth, I added my opinion. I don't see why an article would never even be "allowable"; if two day old presidential kids can have articles, I see no prohibition. Its just a discussion I wanted to contribute to. Others may agree or disagree and life goes on.--Milowent (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Despite the sense of the editors on this page and at Talk: Malia Obama, once again this has been brought to yet another forum. Comments requested at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Malia Obama. Tvoz/talk 09:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Merged discussion
Part of Talk:Malia Obama was copied here, and there was a reply. I merged the reply back to a more-or-less appropriate place. Please do not randomly move parts of discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Distant relations: Cheney?
Hello, I was wondering why Cheney isn't in the distant relatives section. I mean, Obama even talked about that when he was running for President.--Dark Charles (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it used to be there, and someone zapped it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Cheney has a blue link but no portrait there. (It got mention in the MSM due to an early comment by Cheney's wife during an early part of Obama's primary candidacy; but Obama is just as minimally related to a number of actual US presidents, not just Cheney.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Distant relations: Lyndon Baines Johnson - unrelated
There is no direct blood relationship between LBJ and Obama; it is only by marriage and very distantly. LBJ's great-grandfather was George Washington Baines, whose brother was Joseph Benjamin Baines, whose son, Wilburn McCoy Baines ( known as McCoy or Coy Baines / Bains ) MARRIED Stella M. Bunch, whose great-grandfather was Nathaniel Bunch, Sr. born April 23, 1793, who was the great-great-great-great-great grandfather of Obama. Reference: pgs 133-134, A Family Album, by Rebekah Baines Johnson and Carroll County Arkansas Marriage Records Eastern District Brides Index 1869 - 1930:
(Book/Page - Groom - Age - Bride - Age - Date ) D-268 BAINS W.M. 39 BUNCH STELLA 17 11/12/1891
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.252.163 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
W/r to "clean-up gallery" tag
Per WP:IG:
[...T]he use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750-1795 in fashion for an example of a good use of galleries.
IMO, the gallery currently in use illustrates stuff talked about in the article. To wit:
- - (a) the article talks about the family's getting their dog, Bo, after their arrival at the White House, and an image shows the family out walking this dog;
- - (b) the article talks about the family arrangements while Obama ran for president, and an image shows Obama's wife and daughters at the political convention where he was nominated for the ballot to run for the US Presidency;
- - (c) the article speaks about the family's move to the White House, and an image shows the family all together in a casual setting within the White House; and
- - (d) since the pic in shot c has Michelle's face obscured, it is only fitting to include a shot of the new First Lady, dancing at a ball celebrating the Inauguration of her husband to the US Presidency, an occasion relatively few families experience.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Mark Ndesandjo
On CNN, Mark says that he's Jewish... 76.66.197.2 (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Obama's paternal grandmother problems
Hi, I am not qualified to edit this article, but somebody needs to take a look at the following issues. Her name seems ambiguous and not well linked:
- Entering the title name from this article Habiba Akumu Obama brings up a search page: Did you mean: Habiba Akuma Obama
- In Dreams_from_My_Father#Book_cover, her name is listed as Habiba Akumu Hussein
- If Habiba Akumu Hussein is correct, it needs a redirect to the family article
BTW, I haven't looked at history, but I imagine that there were lots of ugly deletion fights about this data. This article seems well-conceived and very nicely executed. Kudos to all you who worked on it.Jarhed (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Listen everybody Habiba Akumu Obama is alive and her birth year is wrong. She was born in 1921.
Liu Xuehua
With regard to Mark's wife, I think that the article could be stronger in correcting the alternately used name "Liu Zue Hua". Zue is not a word in Mandarin Pinyin as shown at zhongwen.com or more specifically (but slightly less usefully than manually searching)[4]. Any Mandarin speaker knows this of course but the website given is a reputable online source. My own experience with the language (am a student rather than a native speaker) and dictionaries at hand agree with this[5]. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what's up with my citations but the URLs are there in the source. The first is a specific reference to zuan-zui in the pinyin dictionary at zhongwen.com and the second is to the google books listing for my dictionary which is ISBN 7100039339 (http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=7100039339).58.96.94.12 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth relation
Hi there, I was not the one who created this 'theory' of relation, but I would like to point out that if Obama is related to McCain through a 13th century English king, that would mean he is related to all British royalty in one way or another, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.231.230 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if you check back far enough, you'll find everyone is related to all British royalty (and to everyone else) in one way or another -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
'Soetoro'
Why does that redirect to this page? I found this 'Soetoro' thing when I was given a link to a youtube video which says he is 'Barry Soetoro', some sort of Anti-Christ apocalyptic figure. Why does it not direct to the step father? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.133.91.75 (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, it seems to be referring to President Obama's step-father Lolo Soetoro so I have redirected the Soetoro page there. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Children's birthdates
I find it odd that the Obama daughters' birth dates are nowhere to be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.219.43 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- This has been discussed several times (see, for example, Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_49#Ages_of_children). There are privacy issues, they are minors, and they are not independently notable. Although this is not secret information, we've taken the position that Wikipedia should not disseminate the childrens' specific birth dates for these reasons. Tvoz/talk 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- What are the "privacy issues?" They're not likely to be victims of identity theft, and in any event there are multiple news stories about their birthdays so removing them from WP isn't going to stop anyone who wants to impersonate them.Binarybits (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Stanley Armour Dunham tag under his grandma picture
Why is the tag under Obama Grandma saying :"Stanley Armour Dunham". it may be a prank or it may be a mistake. either way is not correct. so please fix it 71.99.92.124 (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 173.2.38.122, 9 March 2011
{{edit semi-protected}} There is a small problem in the ancestry charts. You have Obama's Mother as Stanley Ann Dunham instead of just Ann Dunham. Stanley is his Grandfather
173.2.38.122 (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- That was her full name. She normally went by Ann Dunham, but her real first name was Stanley. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Her legal first name was indeed Stanley. It's a wonder her father didn't also have a boy named Sue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
John McCain
The article gives one reference that lists McCain as Obama's 22nd cousin, twice removed, and another that lists him as his 24th cousin, six times removed. Is there a discrepancy as to which one is correct, or is President Obama related to Senator McCain in both of these ways? 2tuntony (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
actually both are true im a 4th cousin ob barack obama and i know that sometimes in-breeding does happin there is some inbreeding in my own family but not enough to make my a deformed mutant or anything my parents had less than 1% related to each other in the kelly family which was a family that lived in colonial america in the early 1700's. but finding a exact linage pointing to a relation to my mother or father was never found so theres only this very micro amount of shared blood because my mothers heritage only goes back to the mid 1800's so the idea of micro-scopic amounts of inbreeding in varius people is not really taboo any more. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Ph.D.
Why are we specifying "Ph.D." on several people in this article? I thought WP doesn't use honorifics unless that's how the name is most commonly known. - dcljr (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Is the physical appearance of a child appropriate for this BLP? I don't think so.
Yes, she has gotten taller - hardly notable that a teenager has had a growth spurt. But I haven't seen any argument to convince me that we should include anything about this child's physical appearance in a biography which certainly should be covered by the standards we apply to BLPs. Specifically - making the point about the so-called norm for teenage girls, based on the CDC reference, is clearly OR/synth, as it has no direct connection to Malia. The only thing we have are some very weak sources for an amorphous point - saying her height has been "reported" to be between 5'9 and 5'11 suggests there actually were reports, but all there really is is her father off-handedly saying she's 5'9. I suppose an argument could be made to include just that - her father's comment - if we had a decent source for it which the Daily Mail tabloid is the only one even close to, but I'm not advocating that and would argue against it. And I certainly do not consider some gossip columnist's estimate of her height, based solely on looking at a random photo of her with her mother, to be a report or anything reliable or citeable. And finally, the Guardian piece is basically some random teens saying "here's how I handled being a tall teenager". Not the stuff to source a biography. As for the section being about a dog, as was said in edit summary, I think that is a gross exaggeration, and if you have a problem with the dog being included, deal with that, don't load in gossip and the private matters of a teenager using the dog as an excuse. Tvoz/talk 20:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Quite so. There ought to be a semblance of respect for privacy wrt to the children of notable people. It would be a sad day indeed if your local paper was reporting on the local 7th grade students as "Meanwhile down at Bletch Junior High Jimmy Jones seems to have grown a couple of inches, and Sam Davis has put on a few pounds, meanwhile Sally Oofar is getting breasts, and Janey Fitch seems to be anorexic ..." and if you don't think that local news should be doing that to local kids why would one think that WP should be doing it to the children of celebs? John lilburne (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The physical appearance is not the point nor is her physical appearance alone notable. The media coverage of her physical appearance is what's notable. The point I tried to make, and that I tried to cite well is that even though the Obama children had been off limits to the media, all of a sudden in the summer of 2010, one child got a lot of media attention because of her abnormal height. I believe it is notable that the mainstream media broke their self-imposed ban on covering the minor children of U.S. presidents at this time. I can provide better coverage than the Guardian piece if you want. I think there is video of Pres. Obama speaking on the issue which is a rare moment of him speaking about this children. --Crunch (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then raise it in a article devoted to prying, privacy invading, tabloid journalism make sure you have a RS for that. John lilburne (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Whether the tabloid-fueled media covers something or not, we still have editorial discretion as to what is newsworthy or notable enough to add to a person's...or a family's in this case...biography. I hate to dredge up old Grundle26000-era favorites, but the media at various times has devoted some coverage to teleprompter usage, Michelle Obama's arms, and Obama swatting a fly during a interview. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
his ansestral heritage is not complete
he also has german heritage on his white mothers side of the family in addition to the colonial english and colonial irish. and theres possibility he has native american as well as the white appalchians usally married the native americans native to appalachia. also plus its possible his wife michelle also has native american heritage. we cannot exclude his german and native american origins. im a 4th cousin of barack obama and im displessed with how my cousins heritage is not including these groups. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- We need reliable sources to support such claims. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not know much about the Presidents of the United States and their families, but is it true that Kennedy's two-day-old son who died in 1963 is more notable than the living 12-year-old daughter of the current President of the United States? The former has an article of his own, while the latter has a redirect. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know about that other article and didn't even known that he had a son who died (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). But anyway, the reason Obama's daughters don't have their own article is out of respect for their privacy as children. When they get older they will have their own articles. I think it's been discussed, and articles about them were deleted. Wikipedia has a policy called "biographies of living people" that basically says we try not to harm people who are living with our articles. We're more careful than most other encyclopedias in that way, certainly more careful than the news media. So many things they cover, we don't. The policy does not extend to respecting the memory of people who died, just respecting people who are alive. Kennedy's son is, sadly, dead. Therefore the policy doesn't apply to him. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say there's precedent to delete or redirect this Kennedy page, established by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabella Kennedy (2nd nomination). I'll start an AfD in a bit. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, the Patrick Bouvier Kennedy article has survived two previous AfD's, one less than a year ago. In the one last year it was more than 2-1 to Keep, and the reason given by several people has to do with the disease from which he died. Personally I think it is borderline, but I do not think the existence of that article provides any sort of justification for a separate article on President Obama's daughter. Neutron (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- When, exactly, has "repect for their privacy as children" been a criterion for the existence of wikipedia articles? If somebody is notable, we should have an article on them. It should be based on reliable sources, like any other article. If the Washington Post and New York Times (or whatever other mainstream media source) is reporting things about the Obama daughters, it's pretty absurd to think that wikipedia is violating their privacy by reporting what such sources have already reported. Your reference to BLP is completely irrelevant - there is nothing in BLP which says we have different standards for children than we do for adults. Just like with any BLP, articles on the Obama daughters ought to hew closely to what reliable sources have already reported. But reporting things already reported in the media is not about "harming people who are living." And there's very little in the national and international news media that doesn't make it to wikipedia. john k (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- The concern over small children has been there as long as I've been aware of the issue. I was mentioning the reasons why the articles aren't there, not necessarily trying to justify them. Many things that are printed in national media are not seen fit for Wikipedia articles, and BLP is one reason often given. Another given in this case is WP:NOTINHERITED. Here is one deletion discussion - you can draw your own conclusions if you wish.[3]
- Firstly, that delete discussion occurred over two years ago, and many of the deleters indicated that they would reconsider if her father became president and she was the subject of more coverage in the future, which has obviously happened. Secondly, whether or not there has been a concern over small children, there is nothing in BLP to indicate that children are treated any differently from anybody else; the word "children" does not even appear on that page. As for WP:NOTINHERITED, it is not even a guideline; it is merely an essay, and a controversial one at that. I completely agree that someone is not notable simply because their parents are notable. What makes Malia Obama notable is that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That coverage has been a result of the fact that she is the president's daughter, but the statement that to be notable a relative of a famous person has to "have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative," is ridiculous and completely out of line with every other inclusion guideline in existence. A strict application of those standards would seem to suggest that Prince William does not merit an article. john k (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I am not trying to justify the reasons, just laying them out. NOTINHERITED has wide acceptance, as does much of that essay. I agree that it does not apply when a subject has its own sources, but others say that they don't count if those sources do nothing more than discuss a person's being a family member of someone notable. Prince William isn't a close parallel - he's 18, very public, has his own life and exploits, and is in the line of succession to a major monarchy. Prince Michael Jackson I might be a better example, or Lourdes Leon Ciccone, Suri cruise, or Laura and Alba Zapatero. In practice, people do cite BLP and its admonition to do no harm as a reason to avoid articles about children notable mainly for being the offspring of famous people. In this case the parents do protect them from public scrutiny, but of course they can't help it. We can. Like it or not, having a Wikipedia article about a person raises their prominence and the ready availability the public of details about their life. Given my browser and cookies at least, typing in either of the children's names already calls up this article as the first result. Here we can put things in context and watch over them a little better. Stand-alone articles are somewhat more prone to vandalism, and much of the vandalism of Obama articles is racist and trolling in nature. Also, one common principle here is that not everything notable deserves its own article - notability is a filter, not a mandate. The Obama daughters are notable almost entirely for being part of the Obama family. An article about the whole family that has a section on them puts the information in context better. Anyway, if you're adamant that they should have their own article, you might want to make a formal proposal to see how that flies. I won't guess the odds right now, but sooner or later they will likely have their own articles. There's no hard rule. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I of course agree that Prince William isn't a close parallel to Malia Obama. But the sentence that someone must "have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative" is incredibly broad. What has Prince William done that is significant and notable in its own right, as opposed to being significant and notable as a result of him being Elizabeth II's grandson? He has gone to school and university, attended some state functions, had gotten together, broken up with, and gotten back together with a girlfriend, and served without any particular distinction in the military. The current wording may not be intended to exclude someone like him, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that it might consider him non-notable. A year ago, there was some discussion of this very sentence, along with what seemed to be a rough consensus to replace it with material saying that relatives of famous people became notable by meeting the GNG themselves. This seems to have never actually happened, but I think it's wrong to say that that particular sentence has much consensus behind it, and that is the only sentence in "not inherited" which would really justify not having articles on the Obama children. As far as vandalism, semi-protection would seem like the best solution, and I don't see why two small articles on the Obama children would be so difficult to police. Are there any other examples of otherwise notable people who are covered only in articles about a larger group of people? john k (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Straying on a tangent slightly, but the problem is that there are many fiefdoms within the Wikipedia, and what makes sense in one realm can be completely ignored in another. An up-and-coming indie band's article will get deleted because it has only received scant coverage in some local newspapers, but a baseball player who hits one fly ball to center then never gets called up to the majors again is immortalized here forever. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Tarc, in case you think you are exaggerating, you may be interested to know that there is an article, Moonlight Graham, about a baseball player who had no at-bats, played one inning in the field and apparently never touched the ball. (Evidently, the reason this article exists, and I never knew it did until I went looking around for actual baseball players that came close to meeting your description, is that Graham's real-life (and otherwise non-notable) story was dramatized in the movie Field of Dreams, in which he is a semi-major character played by Burt Lancaster. I can almost see having an article about the semi-fictional character, but it is kind of mind-boggling that we have an article about the actual baseball player. None of which, of course, resolves any of the issues being discussed here, one way or the other.) Neutron (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Straying on a tangent slightly, but the problem is that there are many fiefdoms within the Wikipedia, and what makes sense in one realm can be completely ignored in another. An up-and-coming indie band's article will get deleted because it has only received scant coverage in some local newspapers, but a baseball player who hits one fly ball to center then never gets called up to the majors again is immortalized here forever. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I of course agree that Prince William isn't a close parallel to Malia Obama. But the sentence that someone must "have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative" is incredibly broad. What has Prince William done that is significant and notable in its own right, as opposed to being significant and notable as a result of him being Elizabeth II's grandson? He has gone to school and university, attended some state functions, had gotten together, broken up with, and gotten back together with a girlfriend, and served without any particular distinction in the military. The current wording may not be intended to exclude someone like him, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that it might consider him non-notable. A year ago, there was some discussion of this very sentence, along with what seemed to be a rough consensus to replace it with material saying that relatives of famous people became notable by meeting the GNG themselves. This seems to have never actually happened, but I think it's wrong to say that that particular sentence has much consensus behind it, and that is the only sentence in "not inherited" which would really justify not having articles on the Obama children. As far as vandalism, semi-protection would seem like the best solution, and I don't see why two small articles on the Obama children would be so difficult to police. Are there any other examples of otherwise notable people who are covered only in articles about a larger group of people? john k (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I am not trying to justify the reasons, just laying them out. NOTINHERITED has wide acceptance, as does much of that essay. I agree that it does not apply when a subject has its own sources, but others say that they don't count if those sources do nothing more than discuss a person's being a family member of someone notable. Prince William isn't a close parallel - he's 18, very public, has his own life and exploits, and is in the line of succession to a major monarchy. Prince Michael Jackson I might be a better example, or Lourdes Leon Ciccone, Suri cruise, or Laura and Alba Zapatero. In practice, people do cite BLP and its admonition to do no harm as a reason to avoid articles about children notable mainly for being the offspring of famous people. In this case the parents do protect them from public scrutiny, but of course they can't help it. We can. Like it or not, having a Wikipedia article about a person raises their prominence and the ready availability the public of details about their life. Given my browser and cookies at least, typing in either of the children's names already calls up this article as the first result. Here we can put things in context and watch over them a little better. Stand-alone articles are somewhat more prone to vandalism, and much of the vandalism of Obama articles is racist and trolling in nature. Also, one common principle here is that not everything notable deserves its own article - notability is a filter, not a mandate. The Obama daughters are notable almost entirely for being part of the Obama family. An article about the whole family that has a section on them puts the information in context better. Anyway, if you're adamant that they should have their own article, you might want to make a formal proposal to see how that flies. I won't guess the odds right now, but sooner or later they will likely have their own articles. There's no hard rule. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, that delete discussion occurred over two years ago, and many of the deleters indicated that they would reconsider if her father became president and she was the subject of more coverage in the future, which has obviously happened. Secondly, whether or not there has been a concern over small children, there is nothing in BLP to indicate that children are treated any differently from anybody else; the word "children" does not even appear on that page. As for WP:NOTINHERITED, it is not even a guideline; it is merely an essay, and a controversial one at that. I completely agree that someone is not notable simply because their parents are notable. What makes Malia Obama notable is that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That coverage has been a result of the fact that she is the president's daughter, but the statement that to be notable a relative of a famous person has to "have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative," is ridiculous and completely out of line with every other inclusion guideline in existence. A strict application of those standards would seem to suggest that Prince William does not merit an article. john k (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- The concern over small children has been there as long as I've been aware of the issue. I was mentioning the reasons why the articles aren't there, not necessarily trying to justify them. Many things that are printed in national media are not seen fit for Wikipedia articles, and BLP is one reason often given. Another given in this case is WP:NOTINHERITED. Here is one deletion discussion - you can draw your own conclusions if you wish.[3]
- I'd say there's precedent to delete or redirect this Kennedy page, established by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabella Kennedy (2nd nomination). I'll start an AfD in a bit. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with John K. I cannot say anything for certain, but I highly doubt that Kennedy's two-day-old son who died in 1963 deserves an article more than Obama's daughter. I also can't understand the "living child" argument - what qualifies as a child? We have many articles about persons under 18 years of age (actors, princes, etc). I am not saying that the article(s) about his daughters should exist; I am saying that the article about a two-day-old baby who died 57 years ago should not exist. But if that article is not going to be deleted, then Obama's daughters certainly deserve their own article(s). The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note for example Cassius Taylor. I am fairly sure that Malia Obama has received far, far more independent coverage in reliable sources than Mr. Taylor has, and she is not much less likely to ever succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom. john k (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, no, we do not decide to keep or delete articles based on "If A, then also B" arguments. It is unfortunate that the last Bouvier got smothered by incluisionists and Kennedy family fanboys, but since then we have been able to prevent articles on kids who fly in balloons, pensioners who get slurred on live mics, and large-breasted women fired from their job. Perhaps saner heads will prevail in a 3rd round. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- So, should the Kennedy baby article be deleted? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reply to Tarc: But assuming for the moment that your AfD for Patrick B. Kennedy results in a keep or no-consensus/keep (which I think is likely), what impact does that have on this article (or non-article as the case may be)? It shouldn't matter one way or the other, right? Neutron (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- So, should the Kennedy baby article be deleted? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
To some of the discussion above, I would say this: There is little point in trying to find consistency on Wikipedia in terms of who is notable enough for an article. As mentioned above, it is not valid to say that because A has an article (or doesn't), B must (or must not) have an article. It would be nice if there could be some consistency, but without some sort of Board of Consistency imposing order on the situation, it isn't going to happen. With deletion of articles left to the messy AfD process, and policies or guidelines like "otherstuffexists", it isn't going to happen. I'd also say that there is especially no point in trying to compare the notability requirements for an article on a member of the British Royal Family with the requirements applicable to (almost) anyone else -- maybe members of some other royal families, but most of them are intertwined with the British Royal Family anyway. Forget about Prince William, he actually is notable. But take a look at Line of succession to the British throne and see all the blue links. We have articles on dozens and dozens of people for no other reason than that they are descended from King George V or his father, Edward VII, or others up the family tree. Even Prince Harry is notable, in my opinion, if for no other reason than he is third in line to the throne. But what about his two-year-old first cousin, James, Viscount Severn, eighth in line, and James' six-year-old sister, Lady Louise Windsor? Why do they have articles? Moreover, what do you think would happen if you did an AfD for them? In my estimation, all heck would break loose. And why? Because for them, like it or not, "notability" apparently is inherited. If someone wants to test the limits of how far this goes, I would suggest (but I will not actually nominate, myself) Lady Alexandra Etherington for an AfD. She is a 51-year-old woman who is apparently 61st in line for the throne. She is apparently a third cousin of the aforementioned William, Harry, James and Louise. The only thing mentioned in her article that she's ever done in her entire life is that she was a godmother for Lady Louise. So, if anyone wants to mess with the British Royal Family articles, be my guest. I'll be sitting on the sidelines watching the show and eating popcorn. Neutron (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Oh and I just wanted to mention one more: Lady Cosima Windsor, who is three months old and is not even a grandchild of the Queen. (She seems to be a grandchild of one of the Queen's cousins.) One might assume that at three months, she has yet to do anything notable other than to simply be born, and be 21st in line for the throne. And yet she has an article, consisting of three sentences, all of which mention her family members. Sounds like inherited notability to me. Neutron (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Neutron - I brought up Prince William not because he is not notable, but because he is obviously notable, and yet, without much stretching, one could easily interpret WP:NOTINHERITED as saying that he's not notable. Beyond that, you get into matters of judgment. My opinion would be that any of them who've gotten significant press coverage for some topic other than their birth are probably notable. Prince Harry, the Phillipses and the York princesses are definitely notable; they get covered in the press all the time. Lady Louise and her brother are more borderline; at this point, they could probably be covered in the articles on their parents, but, like their other first cousins, will probably become notable as they grow older. Beyond that, it's hard to say. I'd say that, in general, the children in the more distant lines probably aren't notable. The fact that those articles exist isn't a good reason to have articles on the Obama daughters. The fact that the Obama daughters clearly pass GNG is a reason to have articles on them. What the existence of Cassius Taylor and Lady Cosima Windsor demonstrates, on the other hand, is that this isn't really about BLP concerns, or any special interest wikipedia has in protecting children. Obviously we ought not have articles on children of famous people who are not themselves notable. But that is not the situation here. Obama's children are notable. They haven't done anything noteworthy, but a silly sentence in NOTINHERITED aside, that is not what notability means. In fact, it is their very notability that makes people not want to have articles on them. Because Cassius Taylor is basically a non-notable teenager who happens to be the great-great grandson of King George V, nobody gives a fig about him, and thus nobody is going to vandalize his article. The likelihood of vandalism is a symptom of notability, not the reverse. john k (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your statement that the existence of articles on children far down the line of royal succession "demonstrates" anything that is relevant to the issue of whether there should be articles on President Obama's daughters. All I think it demonstrates is that the extended royal families seem to be governed by their own rules on Wikipedia, so that articles on children and even newborns far down the line of succession are considered acceptable without regard to notability -- or maybe royalty automatically equals notability -- or maybe nobody has ever tested the issue by doing AfD's on any of these people. As for the President's daughters, I think this discussion has about run itself out. If anyone decides to create (or re-create) an article on either, it can all be hashed out then in an AfD. Of course, the problem then is that the decision on whether concerns over privacy, vandalism, people using the article on the daughter to attack the father, etc., outweigh whatever notability these two children may have, comes down to what one administrator decides when closing the AfD. What a system. Neutron (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't demonstrate that Obama's daughters are notable or that they should have articles; Cassius Taylor, et al, are obviously not notable, and shouldn't have articles. It demonstrates that the privacy of children issue is not a general one, and only gets brought up selectively. Cassius Taylor has just as much to privacy as Malia Obama, I should think, and yet nobody has ever, ever, seemed to care about that one way or the other. That is all. I agree this discussion is going nowhere. john k (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- There are a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments above. Generally, Royalty are inherently notable. Unfortunately for the United States, they have not had a King since 1776, when the declared independance from Great Britain. Therefore Obama and his family are not Royalty. Per a discussion at WP:ANI today, the redirects for Malia Ann Obama and Sasha Obama are now fully protected to prevent them being turned into articles. As I stated at ANI, these people may become Wikinotable at some time in the future. The talk pages of the redirects remain open and discussion of the notability or otherwise of either of them may be made there. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't demonstrate that Obama's daughters are notable or that they should have articles; Cassius Taylor, et al, are obviously not notable, and shouldn't have articles. It demonstrates that the privacy of children issue is not a general one, and only gets brought up selectively. Cassius Taylor has just as much to privacy as Malia Obama, I should think, and yet nobody has ever, ever, seemed to care about that one way or the other. That is all. I agree this discussion is going nowhere. john k (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your statement that the existence of articles on children far down the line of royal succession "demonstrates" anything that is relevant to the issue of whether there should be articles on President Obama's daughters. All I think it demonstrates is that the extended royal families seem to be governed by their own rules on Wikipedia, so that articles on children and even newborns far down the line of succession are considered acceptable without regard to notability -- or maybe royalty automatically equals notability -- or maybe nobody has ever tested the issue by doing AfD's on any of these people. As for the President's daughters, I think this discussion has about run itself out. If anyone decides to create (or re-create) an article on either, it can all be hashed out then in an AfD. Of course, the problem then is that the decision on whether concerns over privacy, vandalism, people using the article on the daughter to attack the father, etc., outweigh whatever notability these two children may have, comes down to what one administrator decides when closing the AfD. What a system. Neutron (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- The kids should be afforded privacy. The problem with WP policies is that there aren't any, or at least they are more likely seen in the breech than in the execution. As far as AFDs are concerned it all depends on who turns up at the time, policy be damned. In the case of the 'royals' there is a putrid interest in them, and I dare say with the lives of all celebrities and their offspring. If there wasn't there wouldn't be all those magazines and newspapers vying for photos and stories about them. For the kids of royalty is there is always going to be a sickening 'Aw a little Ladyship/Lordship" cult that may edge out good taste. John lilburne (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I believe a good example and role model would be the Chelsea Clinton article. Her parents protected Chelsea's privacy while Bill Clinton was in office. A Wikipedia page was not created until early 2003 when Chelsea was 23 years old. I personally would not have created an article for her at that point as she was not yet notable on her own. In December 2007 she started campaigning publicly for Hillary Clinton and IIRC, she she was out on the campaign trail on her own on behalf of Hillary, and making public speeches in early 2008 (at age 28). At that point she was notable and clearly no longer being shielded from the media and public attention by her parents. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
David Ndesandjo
There is a link here that lists the year of his Barack Obama's half brother David as 1967 and his death in 1987, worth putting up. http://www.geditcom.com/samples/Obamas/INDIs/II89.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarheal (talk • contribs) 23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Step relations
There should be a separate section on Soetoro and his family, since he did raise Obama, and was a stepfather, if there's enough information to build it. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Mark Okoth Obama Ndesandjo D.O.B?
Why no D.O.B. or even a birth year for Mark Okoth Obama Ndesandjo ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.96.106 (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Granny Sarah South Sudan
I think its worth mentioning that Granny Sarah attended the independence celebrations of South Sudan - "11.45 am – President Omar al-Bashir has landed at the Juba International Airport and so has President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya. President Obama’s grandmother, Mama Sarah Obama has also arrived at the airport." (See: http://www.goss.org) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.40.1 (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Onyango Obama arrested for drunk driving
link 71.182.241.200 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- The story appears legitimate. The mere fact that a relative of a famous person is arrested for drunk driving is not notable, and reporting on the unresolved or even finished petty crime cases of people who are not notable probably violates WP:BLP policy. What's probably more germane is the fact that he was in the US (presumably) illegally in the first place and is facing deportation. In that context it could be reasonable to mention that he faced deportation on an ICE hold after being arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. Of course, when his case is resolved one way or another the article should be up to date. Let's see what anyone else thinks. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
This story about Onyango Obama IS legitimate and in Greater Boston is widely reported on television (and radio), with photographs and analysis.
If Onyango Obama's sister Zeituni Obama has her own page her brother, Onyango Obama, should have a page written about him, also, since a number of the same issues apply (re: immigration laws (and additional issues in his case of being a 'threat to the public' from drunk driving, etc.). http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread746170/pg1 At least DISAMBIGUATION should appear because of http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Onyango_Obama_(1895-1979) http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1362299&srvc=home&position=emailed
MaynardClark (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
"Onyango+Obama"+Uncle&qe=V2lraXBlZGlhICJPbnlhbmdvIE9iYW1hIiBVbmNsZQ&qesig=jbSTBS8wyNJ-RN-u7ueXxQ&pkc=AFgZ2tn1DN7k4jSG-JFBtWPc10FnlWnchFezhw0Y061whq3goUAvVXBo0eDbtANfhJY3OOl2ymBdFMFJJQN1OHZ5qpA6l1sClA&pq="onyango+obama"+uncle&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=active&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS434US434&nord=1&site=webhp&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Wikipedia+"Onyango+Obama"+Uncle&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&fp=1&ion=1&biw=1600&bih=732&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&cad=b| Google Search for - Wikipedia "Onyango Obama" uncle MaynardClark12:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I would favor also a page for Margaret W. Wong, the immigration attorney representing Onyango Obama, who has quite a practice in Cleveland and who had successfully represented Zeituni Obama in her extended case. MaynardClark (talk)
- Could you kindly fix that google link it doesn't include all the inside-the-plex stuff? If so, feel free to delete my comment too. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- If Wong is notable in her own right, sure. If she's notable solely for those related cases it might make more sense to include her in the article(s) about her clients. A disambiguation makes sense. I'm not sure that an article about an otherwise unnotable person could stand on its own two feet if the only reason they're well known is the combination of an arrest / incident / scandal / etc., and their being a relative of the President. That's one of the reasons this article exists, as a place to hold information about different people that don't have their own article. Also, to have it all in one place. My reading of the article is that he's being deported on a prior order, not because of the (as yet unresolved) DUI arrest. If ICE is now making deportation decisions based on DUIs that might be a change in policy but in any event is probably an issue that relates to illegal / undocumented immigrants and deportations more broadly. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think we may be approaching a part where Omar is notable on his own. Yes of course only because he is related to Obama, but still, numerous articles. although it does risk recentism. In any case, soon there will be enough details about him to make his section in this main page unwieldy - and difficult to provide details and such without taking over the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Michelle Obama's European ancestry
Michelle Obama's maternal great-great-great grandmother, Melvinia Shields, became pregnant by a white man named Charles Marion Shields who is of English and Irish descent and is believed to be related to Barack Obama's mother considering as Barack and Michelle Obama are distant relatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.171.184 (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
first first family of African heritage
Guys, I am appalled that the Obamas are listed as the first first family of African heritage. Clearly, the Jeffersons, descended from Thomas Jefferson, were the first. That Thomas Jefferson did not marry his slave mistress does not negate the fact that he had children by her, and I imagine there were a number of other presidents who did the same. I say this not to take away from the Obamas but to avoid glossing over the moral travesties of United States history. If we idealize the founders of the country, we do a disservice to them and to students of history.
24.254.85.2 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's fairly clear that you don't understand the concept. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
distant relation
can anyone add that hhe is realted to sarah palin and rush limbaugh plz hare are the link from legit websites
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guslb12 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Country of origin?
On this page, under a section titled "The Obama Family", it lists the Place of Origin as "Honolulu, Hawaii". I think this should be changed, considering the Obama's met in Chicago, IL. All the children were born and only Barack Obama has been a resident of Hawaii. It seems appropriate to call Barack Obama's place of origin, Hawaii. It doesn't seem correct to call his family's place of origin that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.186.21 (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Onyango - British
Book by David Maraniss metioned in the London Telegraph--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes the supposed torturing of him is in dispute and possibly made up by Obama to fit a narrative that he was trying to make, much like many of the other things in Obama's book that he was not completely truthful about. Arzel (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Homeland book
The George Obama book is out, here is the page with description and price !
http://books.simonandschuster.com/Homeland/George-Obama/9781439176184 Simon and Schuster Homeland An Extraordinary Story of Hope and Survival, By George Obama, with: Damien Lewis, with description, Price: $15.99, also available in Digital ebook
Stop this edit war and saying the book is not out. Telecine Guy 18:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- So the book is out. big deal. wikipedia is most certainly NOT the place to post advertisements about such. Is the book a reliable source for any suitably encyclopedic content? or is is a gossip rag? and WTF do we care that Dinesh D'souza is pimping the book pre-release?-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- You have not even read the ref. Dinesh did not write a book or going to write a book.
Damien Lewis wrote the book about George Obama . So your claim is not correct. Telecine Guy 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your repeated mentioning of the book, complete with price, publisher and availability as an e-book, strikes several of us as more of an advertisement than anything else. The fact that D'Souza, notoriously a hard-core hater, has mentioned the book, does not in and of itself make the book notable in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Hard-core hater"? Sounds more like you just hate D'Souza. I think a book by a member of Obama'a family published by Simon and Schuster makes it notable enough. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- George Obama having published a book with Simon & Schuster is notable and should be included in his Wikipedia section (which is why I added it in the first place). D'Souza's claim that George Obama was seeking help with his son's medical expenses is less notable, but I think notable enough to remain if we also include D'Souza's ideological dichotomy against George's famous brother (which I have now done). --→gab 24dot grab← 04:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's a BLP matter and the source is not reliable: a first person account (primary source), published as a Fox News editorial, by a rather odd duck of a political commentator... a triple strike on the reliability front. I think we can trust D'Sousa's claim that Geoge Obama in fact wrote a book, but we should be very careful about any potentially contentious material beyond that. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- George Obama having published a book with Simon & Schuster is notable and should be included in his Wikipedia section (which is why I added it in the first place). D'Souza's claim that George Obama was seeking help with his son's medical expenses is less notable, but I think notable enough to remain if we also include D'Souza's ideological dichotomy against George's famous brother (which I have now done). --→gab 24dot grab← 04:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Merger proposal
Someone created a separate page for Leona Belle McCurry; it has been up for more than a week and I don't see it ever being more than a stub as this person is only really notable as an ancestor of Barack Obama. I wish to merge Leona Belle McCurry back here with Family of Barack Obama. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- there being zero reliably sourced content to merge, this discussion seems moot. I have just redirected it here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Alright. I just wanted to do it properly. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
ethnicity
With regard to ethnicity, I do not think it is correct that Barack Obama is African American. His accurate ethnicity should be Kenyan American, since his father was very clearly Kenyan while his mother was American. African American is a term which is reserved for a different concept of ethnicity, and comparatively, I'm not even sure what English American even means. The two terms are also not hierarchically analogous, when taken literally, since African American names a continent and then a country, while English American presumably names a subdivision of the UK and then a country. Kenyan, the father's ethnicity and American, the mother's ethnicity, are much more accurate and correct. Alternatively, Luo American is possible, but seem to be a bit hierarchically incompatible. — Preceding unsigned comment added byTyfrazier (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- (New sections go at the bottom of the talk page.). This is a complex issue that could be argued endlessly, but the most salient point is that Obama himself identifies as African-American. In the absence of any unequivocal solution to the issue (which does not exist), the default is how he self identifies. Trust me, this type of issue has been argued ad nauseam on Wikipedia, and you will do nothing but waste a lot of time trying to thrust your personal opinion into the article. You can continue arguing your point here, but don't change it in the article without consensus, which I can confidently predict will never happen. Cresix (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Cresix for your well-made points. I agree completely. To add to your points, I agree that it will never happen for Barack Obama to be characterised any other way than "African American" in any article on Wikipedia. This point has been made so many times that it has been enshrined at FAQ in Talk:Barack Obama: Quote:
Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial," "mixed," "Kenyan-American," "mulatto," "quadroon", etc.)?
- And the answer is:
A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa," a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.
- So instead of arguing here the editor who opened this thread should just consult FAQ #2 at Talk:Barack Obama. Hopefully this is going to be the end of this story. Alternatively the same editor may want to open a thread at Talk:Barack Obama with his proposal but I strongly advise him against such a move. It will be hatted in no time. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for moving the discussion to the bottom of the page. As for the discussion, perhaps we can explore this thread a bit more first here, and attempt to arrive at some consensus prior to expanding into other areas. As for the question at hand, "what is ethnicity" needs to be answered, and as for my understanding, it has nothing to do with how Barack Obama Jr. identifies himself. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't ethnicity derive explicitly from the bloodline of the mother and the father. I don't think it is really a matter of interpretation or debate, other than to determine what was the ethnicity of the biological mother and biological father. So, comparatively, if I had a daughter (or two daughters for that matter of fact: Wafari and Muthoni Tyfrazier (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)) with a Kenyan woman, and my ethnicity is American, wouldn't my daughter's also be considered Kenyan-American OR American-Kenya regardless of whether they grew up in Germany, Kenya or any other place in the world. I do not believe this is subject to my daughters personal experience or their later interpretation, their ethnicity is explicitly what their mother and myself have given to them. Now I am guessing, the counter-argment to this will be that since Barack's father had very little direct influence on his son's upbringing, then as a result, culturally, none of the Kenyan ethnicity had passed to his son, in the same manner as would have occurred with a typical Luo, Kikuyu, Asante, Fante or one of the many other tribal affiliations from across the African continent. Alternatively, Barack then identified himself as an African-American within the context of the African-American cultural group. I have to ask the question, what if Barack Sr. had been unknown to some date in time after Barack Jr. had been born, and then later he went in search of his son, in order to establish his biological paternity of his son. Once a court took DNA from the mother and father and the son, and then determined his ethnicity, what do you think it would be recorded as? Kenyan-American or alternatively American-Kenyan. Tyfrazier (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
and additionally, I do not see any support for use of the term English-American, since Obama's mother was simply American Tyfrazier (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- We go by sourcing, and sources call him African-American. And by the way, he has some black ancestry on his mother's side, too, so he's more than 50 percent black. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
black is not an ethnicity, you're entirely missing the point Tyfrazier (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're making logical arguments, but that's insufficient. The sources are what we go by. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I see no support anywhere, that a person is able to define their own ethnicity. Tyfrazier (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- The support that I see at FAQ#2 as I explained above is good enough for me. Therefore I will not debate this point further because it would be an utter waste of time. Sorry, but you do not have consensus for any changes in the article. So Barack Obama's designation as "African-American" will have to remain unchanged. Let us not waste time over this. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you check at the living persons noticeboard, you will find the community's consensus again and again and again is that the community has determined that self identification is the basis for article content on ethnicity and religious affiliation and sexual orientation etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Would you please provide a more explicit the link to FAQ #2, I follow the link you provided but cannot find your reference. I would agree with you both regarding religious affiliation and sexual orientation both being self ascribed, but I do not believe ethnicity to be the same. It would likely be a matter of debate, which I assume could be resolved by an expert, perhaps someone who has a doctorate in ethnography or a similar type of cultural or social science. Community consensus on the matter could very well be incorrect, due to whatever political winds are blowing on that given day. I still find it hard to believe that the ethnicity of a person could change throughout the course of their life. Tyfrazier (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is in the FAQ box there, but the page is [4]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to FAQ#2. In the FAQ#2, there is a link to race, when in fact I believe it should reference ethnicity. And we have indeed beaten a dead horse, but I would suggest this debate move to the wiki page for the term ethnicity, and a census considered by experts in that area to arrive at a definitive answer. Tyfrazier (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
soilwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
radaronline.comwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: Dowling Family Genealogy". Wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com. Retrieved 2009-01-31.
- ^ http://zhongwen.com/s/v398.htm
- ^ http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=7100039339