Jump to content

Talk:Michelle Obama: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 92: Line 92:
:Let me assure you that no sarcasm was intended against Mrs. Robinson. As to Mrs. Zereida James, please refer to [[WP:OTHERCRAP]]. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 09:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
:Let me assure you that no sarcasm was intended against Mrs. Robinson. As to Mrs. Zereida James, please refer to [[WP:OTHERCRAP]]. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 09:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


With all due respect, I found that "First Granny" identifier to smack of a tinge of dismissiveness; particularly in the United States, the idea of the extended family has gone increasingly out of vogue, where contributions made beyond those within the "nuclear" family are wrongly trivialized. I am fairly convinced that this was the implicit message intended when Ms. Robinson was addressed in that manner.
With all due respect, I found that "First Granny" identifier to smack of a tinge of dismissiveness; particularly in the United States, the idea of the extended family has gone increasingly out of vogue, where contributions made beyond those within the "nuclear" family are wrongly trivialized. I am fairly convinced that this was the implicit message intended when Ms. Robinson was referenced in that manner.


I read the materials you offered as background related to my introduction of the Zereida James profile in my commentary. It spoke of the fact that the inclusion of a particular profile would not necessarily "justify" a profile that seemed to bear a sameness of standard for inclusion subsequently being added (in short, two "wrongs" don't make a "right.") However, my initial opposition to merging Ms. Robinson's profile did not speak at all to Ms. James or anyone else who has already been included based upon what seems to clearly be a basis of "inherited notoriety." I argued that Ms. Robinson, like Elivera M. Doud who proceeded her, is a mother of the First Lady of the United States, unique in that she also lived in the White House for eight years unlike any others in the history of the United States, merits singular commentary. It cannot be underscored forcefully enough - the Obama Presidency may very well stand as an exceptionally unique chapter in American history for years to come, and extensive analysis of its legacy, to include all that factored into its story line, warrants archiving. My sole reticence at supporting the inclusion of profiles of the Obama children is their ages.It was only my response to the clearly inconsistently applied, express "inherited notoriety" argument that expounded on my objections to that position. Even post commentary, a newly submitted support for merging Ms. Robinson's profile suggests the "inherited notoriety" standard adopts a "too lenient" standard for inclusion in Wikepedia. This view begs the question: where is the divide that defines when two profiles, of essentially similar import (more so in the case of Ms. Robinson and Ms. Doud than either in comparison to Ms. James - et al) should be managed under different guidelines? What IS the litmus test?
I read the materials you offered as background related to my introduction of the Zereida James profile in my commentary. It spoke of the fact that the inclusion of a particular profile would not necessarily "justify" a profile that seemed to bear a sameness of standard for inclusion subsequently being added (in short, two "wrongs" don't make a "right.") However, my initial opposition to merging Ms. Robinson's profile did not speak at all to Ms. James or anyone else who has already been included based upon what seems to clearly be a basis of "inherited notoriety." I argued that Ms. Robinson, like Elivera M. Doud who proceeded her, is a mother of the First Lady of the United States, unique in that she also lived in the White House for eight years unlike any others in the history of the United States, merits singular commentary. It cannot be underscored forcefully enough - the Obama Presidency may very well stand as an exceptionally unique chapter in American history for years to come, and extensive analysis of its legacy, to include all that factored into its story line, warrants archiving. My sole reticence at supporting the inclusion of profiles of the Obama children is their ages.It was only my response to the clearly inconsistently applied, express "inherited notoriety" argument that expounded on my objections to that position. Even post commentary, a newly submitted support for merging Ms. Robinson's profile suggests the "inherited notoriety" standard adopts a "too lenient" standard for inclusion in Wikepedia. This view begs the question: where is the divide that defines when two profiles, of essentially similar import (more so in the case of Ms. Robinson and Ms. Doud than either in comparison to Ms. James - et al) should be managed under different guidelines? What IS the litmus test?

Revision as of 17:52, 12 August 2017

Template:Community article probation

Good articleMichelle Obama has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 11, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 9, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

OPINION

Surely the last sentence of the introductory paragraph is opinion rather than fact. Did she write it herself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.100.206 (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the relevant page about Michelle Obama in the White House website has changed to: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/first-ladies/michelleobama The old page (which the current link in the article refers to) is still available at the Archived site: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/first-lady-michelle-obama — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snufkinit (talk • contribs) 13:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal for Marian Shields Robinson

If her notability only "comes from her living in the White House", that's actually an argument for merging. A paragraph in Michelle Obama's article is largely sufficient to point out this factoid. — JFG talk 06:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what "significant role" she has played, other than happening to be the mother of the First Lady? — JFG talk 05:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not just "happened" to be mother of the FL - she lived in the White House which is of historical significance and has had sufficient RS coverage regarding her role already and will surely figure significantly in future biographies of the Obamas. Tvoz/talk 02:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, but we can agree to disagree. — JFG talk 06:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Someone saw fit to provide a narrative devoted exclusively to expounding on Robinson's eight year residence in the White House of the United States. That her residence in the White House occurred during the term(s) of a Presidency that so radically departed from a cultural climate that had been the very definition of the American Experience for the entirety of its previous history would suffice to offer a strong argument that future historians would regard valid a singular commentary regarding anyone so intimately intertwined into the fabric of the lives of others likewise seemingly representing such a stark sea change in this country's cultural and political climate. Whatever mechanism applied for vetting given profiles for a standard for contributions and imprint on cultural experiences, more than a few not paralleling Ms. Robinson's,has heretofore deemed justified the inclusion of such individuals' public profiles via Wikipedia archiving. That Ms. Robinson lived in the White House for eight consecutive and (most pertinently) unique and extraordinary years in intimate proximity of the First Family of the United States,regardless of (if not amplified by) the reason, is sufficiently unique to well exceed the litmus test that seems to have been and continues to be applied to determine a legitimate claim for inclusion of her historical profile in its own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80DD:2720:1945:EDCC:CD29:306E (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to make sense of this lengthy position, but the rationale can be summed up as "she lived in the White House for 8 years (and those were awesome years), therefore she deserves an article of her own." That is not the litmus test here on Wikipedia: Notability is not inherited. If she's only famous because she happened to live with the President and First Lady, that would be a case of inheriting notability from them. Per policy, she should be mentioned in their articles, and that's not enough have her own. — JFG talk 17:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the "lengthy position" cannot be dissected for "sense", how then did it seem rationale to endeavor to "sum up" it's implication? (And I did note what I ascertained to be a pretty strong whiff of sarcasm, if not condescension. "First Granny?"...might warrant at least being a bit more subtle about attempting a tinge of derision or scorn - simply a suggestion.) I wholeheartedly disagree that Wikipedia has heretofore held to some standard where other profiles have exceeded that of Ms. Robinson's in noteworthiness when determining whether or not such profile should be preserved. There are numerous examples of so-called ancillary profiles that are linked to that of a so-called primary subject, where those ancillary profiles DID survive Wikipedia's vetting process for inclusion. Exhibit A: Zerelda Amanda Mimms James. Who is this person? She was the cousin and wife of Jesse James. And how was this information obtained? By accessing HER Wikipedia page, NOT that of Jesse James. Seems to me a very specific case of "inherited notoriety" that is otherwise being argued as insufficient basis for consideration for a highlighted profile. Please explain how Zerelda James merits singular acknowledgement solely for her "accomplishment" of being related to a notorious outlaw, where the mother of the First Lady of the United States, residing for eight years in an indisputably landmark White House, does not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80DD:2720:1945:EDCC:CD29:306E (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me assure you that no sarcasm was intended against Mrs. Robinson. As to Mrs. Zereida James, please refer to WP:OTHERCRAP. — JFG talk 09:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I found that "First Granny" identifier to smack of a tinge of dismissiveness; particularly in the United States, the idea of the extended family has gone increasingly out of vogue, where contributions made beyond those within the "nuclear" family are wrongly trivialized. I am fairly convinced that this was the implicit message intended when Ms. Robinson was referenced in that manner.

I read the materials you offered as background related to my introduction of the Zereida James profile in my commentary. It spoke of the fact that the inclusion of a particular profile would not necessarily "justify" a profile that seemed to bear a sameness of standard for inclusion subsequently being added (in short, two "wrongs" don't make a "right.") However, my initial opposition to merging Ms. Robinson's profile did not speak at all to Ms. James or anyone else who has already been included based upon what seems to clearly be a basis of "inherited notoriety." I argued that Ms. Robinson, like Elivera M. Doud who proceeded her, is a mother of the First Lady of the United States, unique in that she also lived in the White House for eight years unlike any others in the history of the United States, merits singular commentary. It cannot be underscored forcefully enough - the Obama Presidency may very well stand as an exceptionally unique chapter in American history for years to come, and extensive analysis of its legacy, to include all that factored into its story line, warrants archiving. My sole reticence at supporting the inclusion of profiles of the Obama children is their ages.It was only my response to the clearly inconsistently applied, express "inherited notoriety" argument that expounded on my objections to that position. Even post commentary, a newly submitted support for merging Ms. Robinson's profile suggests the "inherited notoriety" standard adopts a "too lenient" standard for inclusion in Wikepedia. This view begs the question: where is the divide that defines when two profiles, of essentially similar import (more so in the case of Ms. Robinson and Ms. Doud than either in comparison to Ms. James - et al) should be managed under different guidelines? What IS the litmus test?

  • Oppose - There are reliable secondary sources, thus notable - WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- The subject of the article is not notable independently. As being unofficial first granny she didn't do anything notable. Whatever coverage she got from reliable source that is because of living in the White House. So, we can assume that the reason of her notibiliy is not she but WH. That's why not independenty notable. Ominictionary (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support even if mentioned in credible sources, it's for her connections with her son-in-law and/or daughter rather than anything of her own merit. Notability isn't inherited (as noted above), and it would be far too lenient to suggest she warrants a separate page just for being a First Lady's mother or a President's mother-in-law. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Easier for the reader to read about Marian Shields Robinson in a separate article. She can and should still be noted in the Michelle Obama article but the reader is afforded an option that they will (in my opinion) take if their interest is in learning about Marian Shields Robinson. No need to wade through the Michelle Obama article for material pertaining to the mother. Sources address the mother. The reader (in my opinion) wants an article with the sort of focus that is allowed for by the Marian Shields Robinson article. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Obama&oldid=795199186"