Talk:Family of Barack Obama

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) 

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nor I. john k (talk) 01:45, 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)

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)

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)