Talk:Family of Barack Obama

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)

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy vs. Malia Obama

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.[1]

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)

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)

It would have no impact at all. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 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)

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 wasn't saying that I necessarily agreed with the inherent notability of minor Royalty, but that would appear to be the general consensus Wiki-wise. Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2011 (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)

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)

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)

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)