Talk:Michelle Obama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article Michelle Obama has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:



Her brother Craig was the fourth leading scorer in Princeton University's men's basketball history, and is now Brown University's men's basketball coach.[11][12]

Earlier in the Wiki, it states that he is the Oregon State University coach, which is correct. He did once coach for Brown, but does no longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.5.126 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Harvard Thesis

I believe this should be noted in the main article, especially in light of commentary about only now being proud of her country. It is important the voter is made aware of these sorts of things.

from the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120269904120358135.html

article also available http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23219825-5013948,00.html

In her senior thesis in 1985, Mrs. Obama wrote that her college experience "made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' " than ever before, adding, "I will always be Black first and a student second" on campus. At Harvard Law, Mrs. Obama, involved in the Black Law Students Association, pushed hard to improve the low numbers of African-American faculty and students.

"We got into big debates on the condition of black folks in America," says Harvard classmate Verna Williams. "She's got a temper." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. jones999 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would put the link to her thesis on the main page but I can't because the page is semi-protected and I have not made my 10 edit minimum. But I do think a direct link to the thesis is important so someone else will have to do it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2305083/PrincetonEducated-Blacks-and-the-Black-Community Icemaniceman1111 (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, you'll be able to edit the article in a few days. It would appear this link is a copyright violation and linking to it would be a violation of that copyright per WP:COPY. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you've edited your comment in apparent response to mine..[1] We can not use the link that you have provided. It is a copyright violation and can not be linked to. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Please excuse me as I am relatively new. I did notice that the footnote 9 references this link

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html which has pdf links to the thesis. Will this have to be removed too? Icemaniceman1111 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working class?

That seems like kind of an old fashioned expression to me. Almost all of us work now days. :-) Steve Dufour 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be accurate enough however. Steve Dufour 14:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I also put back "African American" to describe her family. This information is often given in articles on Americans and is something people would want to know. Steve Dufour 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Steve, I disagree completely with your comment about the term "working class" being old fashioned. The term is used to discribe those of us who work, usually in a physically demanding environment, and make very little money to show for it. There are acctual criteria that people can meet to fit the term "working class". Working class is simply a financial class in the United States and elsewhere, and is used to differentiate between those of the middle class and the upper class.

What else are we supposed to be called? Respectfully, --Solutus 04:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I also changed the part where it refers to her neighborhood as "South Chicago" to "Chicago's South Side", because here in Chicago we call it the South Side. South Chicago sounds weird.DelloJello 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, I added more specific information rather than blanket "working class". I listed the parents' actual occupation and added quite a few details, yet the article is still very short. I also clarified her titles at the Univ. of Chicago using Univ. of Chicago sources (so they are usually correct about the exact title). Nothing I added seems controversial.

I have never called myself working class, although the job I have probably does not pay as much as Mrs. Obama's dad's. I'm sure he worked hard, however I think most Americans would say a city employee was middle class. Steve Dufour 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Colloquially, "working class" refers to "working poor" up to "lower middle-class" individuals and families. The reference in the expression to working is outdated, but in our modern, first world society - where class boundaries have been blurred - the expression lives on nonetheless. Eliptek (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bar membership

Someone claimed that Michelle Obama is not a member of the Illinois bar. I don't know whether that is true, but the source listed (www.illinoislawyerfinder.com) did not answer that question. Lawyers can choose whether or not to be listed on that site, so if she's not there, it may just mean that she chose not to be. Dce7 17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Obama's bar registration can be found at iardc.org (Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission). It supplies the following [1]:

Full Licensed Name:Michelle Obama; Full Former name(s):Michelle Lavaughn Robinson; Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court:May 12, 1989; Registered Business Address: Not available online; Registered Business Phone: Not available online; Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law - Last Registered Year: 1993 M30339 (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why not say African American?

Why shouldn't the article mention her ethnic background? Many WP articles about lawyers and politicians do. Steve Dufour 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you have to be from Africa and then become an American citizen to become an "African American". She's from Chicago!

If you come to America from any country and become a citizen then you can become.... African American. Chinese American. Mexican American. Italian American.

If your born here, your an American with "blah blah blah" decent. Jeff "an American" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.97.174 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that the expression "African American" is used for people whose ancestors came from Africa a long time ago. Recent immigrants from Africa are sometimes not granted that ID. This, in fact, has been an source of contention on Senator Obama's article. Anyway, now that the article has a picture of Mrs. O. this is not such an issue for me. I was concerned that people would be left wondering about her race with no info given. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In my experience "African-American" is used in place of "black" - no litmus test aabout how long ago one's ancestors came from Africa. Tvoz |talk 16:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Where I live (California) there are quite a few black people from Africa living. In general nobody calls them "African Americans", although the word "black" is used for them and black Americans both. To me Mrs. O. is a perfect African American and Senator O., certainly 100% an American and "black" to American eyes, could be called one by reasonable people. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the expression "African-American" is ridiculous and inaccurate. Case and point: you would never refer to a white person originally from the country of South Africa as being "African-American". Ergo, the expression is NOT used as a reference to the individual's heritage - it's just a way of saying "black" using more syllables. As such, I see the expression as an artifact from a more racist generation that didn't feel comfortable calling a black man in the Americas simply "American". Worded differently, the expression implies that the only way you can be simply "American" is if you're white.

Adding to the misnomer, "African-American" implies that the individual in question hails from both the continent of Africa (from some non-specific country therein) and from the US. This does not bode well for black people who come from neither - black people from the UK for instance. As I hinted above, being called "African-American" could also be seen as insulting to any individual who's family has been in the US for several generations. Personally, I would never refer to myself as an "Anglo-Scottish-Franco-Norwegian-Canadian". More simply, I am Canadian.

Finally, unless you've forgotten, most all of your families immigrated here from somewhere else. The only people on American soil who can truly call themselves simply "American" are descendants of the original wave of natives who migrated across the ancient ice bridge which once spanned the Balkan Sea. Eliptek (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of all that Eliptek, the fact remains that a very large number of blacks born in the United States - including many who have been here for generations - routinely refer to themselves and other black folks as African-Americans. "African American" and "black" are often used interchangeably. If a large percentage of black (African American?) folks born in the United States constantly (as in all the time) employ the term today than it is probably not "an artifact from a more racist generation." Indeed it isn't, because it is black Americans themselves who first began consciously calling themselves African Americans during the decolonization of Africa and the subsequent Black Power movements.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that Eliptek is repeating a misconception that has often prevailed in the "African-American" - "black" discourse, which is that they mean precisely the same thing. They do not mean precisely the same thing. They are describing different peoples. "Black" people inhabit the Earth, whereas African Americans are black Americans. So there is far more precision, in talking about people of color in the USA, in the phrase "African Americans", than mere "black people". What's more, Italian Americans and German Americans and Korean Americans are not referred to by their skin tones, rather by the historical narratives they associate with their ancestry. (And the problem of the word "black", well, let's not even get started with that.) DBaba (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to challenge both DBada and Bigtimepeace to test the reaction they'd get if they started referring to all Egyptians living in America as being African-American. The same applies to any white person who had moved to America from the country of South Africa. The point I'm making is that the expression is *not* more accurate in that, while a black person may *possibly* be "African-American", an "African-American" does not by any means need to be a black person. Expecting otherwise just demonstrates a certain ignorance towards the global community in which we all live. As such, it wouldn't bother me to see this expression phased out of use.

Another reason I cringe at the use of this expression, is because it leaves me with the impression that the speaker is so unfamiliar with that entire geographical region, that the best they can do is lump black people together with the entire continent of Africa. You'd be surprised at the number of people I've met who think Africa itself is a country - or who couldn't name five countries within Africa to save their life!

Incidently, I have the same reaction towards people that don't realize "Asian"-looking people tend to only originate from the more eastern and southern parts of Asia. Russia is still a rather large part of Asia... and I'll give you three guesses which continent India, Iran, and Afghanistan belong to. Eliptek (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

What is the basis of notability? Are all Senators' spouses notable? Are all Presidential candidates' spouses notable? Because she doesn't seem notable of her own accord (Vice President for Community and External Affairs for the University of Chicago Hospitals etc.).--Pharos 03:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Not all Senators' spouses are notable. Most are not. Michelle Obama is unique in that because of the very public role that she has taken as a result of her husband's popularity. Would she be notable on her own? Probably not. But there are multiple reliable sources on her and it is in that context that she has an article of her own. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
A little addition/rewording to what I was typing above. It is true that if it were not for Barack, Michelle probably would not be notable, but Michelle has taken a role that is unusual for the spouse of a Senator/Presidential candidate. She's used her husband's notability to build her own notability. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It could be argued that if it were not for Michelle, Barack wouldn't be notable beyond being a Senator, but let's not get into that. It's clear to me that Michelle Obama's very public role in her husband's campaign - comparable perhaps to Elizabeth Edwards but in contrast to, say, Jill Biden or Ann Romney - supports her article. Tvoz |talk 17:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's fetish about 'notability' approaches the absurd and is one of the main reaosons I seldom bother contributing to this project any more. The smug tone of the above people who feel that they are in a position to judge if another person is notable or not is arrogant and depressing. Of course this woman is notable, and an honest an open Wikipedia would welcome information on all people. What a pile of elitist crap this site is degenerating into.steven 12:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I can quite safely say that in my opinion a good and useful wikipedia would not welcome information on me or the rest of my family at the current time as we are not noteable Nil Einne 08:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No. You aren't notable. When you get featured on the cover of a national magazine, let us know. We'll be sure to create an article for you. ~ Rollo44 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

NB: What about me? :-> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.232.10 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is she still working?

I read on Salon that she quit her job to work full-time on the campaign. Redddogg 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This may or may not be true and may or may not be notable - please provide a citation - I don't see it on Salon. Tvoz |talk 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP concerns

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an unfounded and rather bizarre charge. I do not think that it is particularly appropriate to refer to her as an "African American attorney" as if that somehow defines the kind of attorney she is. We correctly do not say that John Edwards is a Caucasian attorney, or for that matter that Al Sharpton is an African American minister. Further, what derogatory information is being added to this article that would suggest a BLP problem? Tvoz |talk 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion there is a patern to deny that Senator Obama is an African American. BTW there are many people like Mrs. Obama who are introduced as African American, Jewish American, Native American, and so forth. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
But not Caucasian American? Sorry, Steve, I think you are very wrong about this claim - the senator's article has abundant references to his multi-racial background, mainly because it has been extensively written about and discussed by him and by many others and is therefore notable. If there is a "pattern to deny" that he is African American, it does not survive in the article which is carefully watched by good faith editors, as you know. Michelle Obama's race is not a subject for discussion any more than Elizabeth Edwards' is - and there is a clear photo if you are concerned that people won't know who she is. Furthermore, those "introductions" are rarely if ever in the lead sentence, as if the ethnicity defines the type of lawyer she is, as I said. Barack is identified as African American in the first paragraph because it is notable that he is only the fifth black Senator - he is correctly not described in the first sentence as an "African American junior Senator". Tvoz |talk 16:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The last time I checked Senator Obama's article it said he grew up in "his mother's middle class American family." Steve Dufour (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What is your point? It actually says that he wrote about experiences growing up in his mother's middle class American family and goes on to talk a bit about that. It also refers to him as the fifth African American senator and the only African American Senator currently in office - this is the second sentence of the article. It mentions he was the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. It explicitly says his father was black and his mother white and says he is multi-racial. It says he is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. There is an extensive discussion about race in the Cultural image section. And that's not even looking at the footnotes. And there are photos. So why do you keep suggesting that we're hiding or downplaying his race? Tvoz |talk 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
p.s. Since I am one of the long time contributors to the article I consider myself part of "we". Steve Dufour (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if Senator O's article introduces him as an "African American Senator" why shouldn't Mrs. O's ethnicity be mentioned too? BTW when I first came to Obama's article I didn't know that his wife was black. The article didn't say but I was able to figure it out by a lot of reading between the lines.

Why not change the sentence in Senator Obama's article that says he was born to "a Kenyan father and an American mother" to say "a black Kenyan father and a white American mother", and then say next, "He considers himself an African American"? And then the sentence on his being the only African American Senator could be moved down the page to the section on his election to the Senate?Steve Dufour (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2008(UTC)

In response to the original comment posted by Steve Dufour, I would have to say that, in my eyes, this pattern seems more to deny that being black is an anomaly, or something which makes him different from "regular" Americans. Eliptek (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] $51,200?

The article says:

She served on the board of TreeHouse Foods, Inc.[16], a major Wal-Mart supplier with whom she cut ties immediately after her husband made comments critical of Wal-Mart at an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, New Jersey, on May 14, 2007. She collected $51,200 from TreeHouse in 2006.[17]

What is the point of mentioning the amount of money? Is that a large or small amount to receive as a board member? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


I question that assertion that Michelle is the "breadwinner" in the family. Her income in stated as roughly $330,000. But the total Obama household income is nearly $1 million. The missing figure in this calculation is book royalties. Last time I checked, Barack wrote the two books. I believe the "breadwinner" sentence should be removed. Barack earns about 2/3 of the family income. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.184.175 (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Tvoz |talk 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention Treehouse Foods here! I mentioned it, and my article on Treehouse foods was deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "City pump operator"?

"Michelle Robinson was born to Frasier Robinson ... a city pump operator " -- What is a "city pump operator", please? (Or for that matter, a "city pump"?) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A city pump station helps maintain the water pressure in the city's water system. ilmari (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV section in dispute: proposal to delete last sentence in article

Having a reporter's opinion as to the quality of Michelle Obama's stumping is pure opinion and not a fact. At best, this is only her opinion and not representative of the majority's consensus as to the quality of her ability to campaign for her husband. Propose to delete this last sentence for being NPOV and will delete in a week, if there are is no other input. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine

I disagree. As long as it is attributed to the person who said it, it looks fine to me. I would certainly agree if it presented the description without qualifying it as someone's opinion. Would it be better, maybe, to find another perspective to add, rather than removing this one? DBaba (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. Most press accounts I've read say something along similar lines, but if you have reliably sourced information to the contrary, by all means add it. I should note however that placing a tag to emphasize your point is frowned upon. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the tag addition, but I do have a problem with a two-sentence section. That a reporter found her to be an impassioned supporter of her husband isn't super-notable - surely more has been written about her role in the campaign which has become a lot more visible. I doubt we're going to find sources that dispute the reporter's statement - it's more a question of expanding this into a bona fide section, or changing the structure of the article a bit until we have more material suitable for a "political activities" section. Tvoz |talk 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of an external link

I have removed an external link:

as it is basicly just another Oprah article about the Obamas' appearance on the Oprah Show. If it were needed for a reference that would be something else. It is no longer found at that address anyway but at http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:tdWrUp8FcQcJ:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20061019/ai_n16806999%3Flstpn%3Darticle_results%26lstpc%3Dsearch%26lstpr%3Dexternal%26lstprs%3Dother%26lstwid%3D1%26lstwn%3Dsearch_results%26lstwp%3Dbody_middle+2006+%22michelle+obama%22+herrmann&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
--User:Brenont (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wall Street Journal

This article in the Wall Street Journal seems to have some good biographical information on her. We should try to incorporate some of this information. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work, thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Approval

After a detailed review, I conclude that this article meets the good article criteria. The prose is well written and well sourced. The article is neutral, stable beyond some minor discussions that are mainly resolved, and the images are excellent. As far as room for improvement, I think the introduction needs to include more information that makes the reader want to read the article. While the information concerning the campaign was good, it lacked some details. More detail should be included about her argument for her husband. Also, I'm not sure why her appearance on the The Oprah Winfrey Show is not mentioned. The IMBD website might be able to source that information. Maria Shriver, Oprah, and Michelle campaigned on Barrack's behalf in California. Shriver announced her endorsement at the time, so it should be covered in the newspaper (sfgate.com). Finally, in the family and education section, the word "always respects each other's advice" is a difficult claim to uphold, source, and it does sound a little un-encyclopedic. The wording just needs to be adjusted a little perhaps.

Thank you for your efforts in improving this page. I encourage you to review other nominated articles at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations. If we all do our part, we can ensure that all articles get reviewed. (I nominated the Gavin Newsom a few days ago, and I'm still waiting on a review.)User:calbear22 (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think this article needs more balance. This entire page tends to read very pro-Obama to the objective eye. Much of what is problematic with this article has to do with the way things are interpreted. The quotes such as the one in the last paragraph, is explained away as a joke or as a subjective interpretation. Much of the article's substance is so implicitly pro-Obama, favoring to put Michelle Obama in the best possible light. While there are some notable mention of Obama's past skeletons in his closets which will undoubtedly come out as the primaries wear on, Michelle Obama is portrayed in the most best possible light here in various parts of the article. There is no commentary on how the Clinton campaign interpreted Michelle Obama's snarky remark, and the explanation proferred by Michelle is an apparent attempt to wash away what she really meant. I would not conclude that this article meets the good article criteria at this time until some sense of objectivity is restored to various portions of this page. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine
I agree that most of what is in this article is favorable about Michelle. You mentioned "skeletons..will undoubtedly come out.." but our problem is that they haven't come out yet and we can't speculate that they will. The problem here goes beyond Wikipedia, it is the media coverage and campaigns in general. How many skeltons do we know about the other wives of candidates who have recently run for president? Not very many. Public perception of potential first ladies is almost always positive because they are not attacked as much by opponents like their spouses. As far as I know, the Clintons didn't directly respond to Michelle's remark. And even if they did, we can't reduce the article to a tit for tat discussion about that one quote. The article mentions many of the bad things Michelle has done, from her criticism by some for her comments about her husband, to her work on a board that supplied food to Walmart. This article does not suffer the major POV problems you suggest.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Calbear22, this article's feel still appears to be very pro-Obama and I still don't agree. As far as the White House aside was placed, there was no official response from the campaign. Yet, the very manner in which Michelle Obama has viewed and continues to look at Hillary Clinton, her admissions in regards to being a combined Democratic ticket, her feelings regarding that matter and her conduct on the campaign vis a vis other candidates, have yet to be discussed and examined here. The media has undeniably shown a pro-Obama bias, and this has been reflected in related articles to the Obama campaign on Wikipedia as well. I have not seen a consistent pattern of fair treatment and an objective portrayal of what's considered Wiki-worthy in content on other pages (e.g., Hillary Clinton's campaign page), or on other candidates' pages--for that matter. That's all I'm saying, so I cannot agree with submitting this for a Good Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aznusmcmarine (talk • contribs) 09:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You are free to nominate this for delisting at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Delisted GA nomination and suggestions for improvement listed above. Thank you TonyTheTiger. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine
Ummm.. TonyTheTiger was not saying you should remove the current ranking, but rather that if you disagree with the GA ranking, you are more than welcome to list this article on WP:GAR so that others may review the listing to see if it is a GA or not... --Bobblehead (rants) 08:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the delisting. Per delisting guidelines, point #4, "Allow time for other editors to respond. If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted." Your objection was made less than two days ago, which I believe is clearly insufficient time to allow editors to respond. For the record, I have no strong views, pro or con, in this debate. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Then we'll wait for consensus--a week is a reasonable time, agreed? If the consensus is that it still needs constructive work until this article reaches that status, then I will proceed to delist upon agreement then. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine
The proper procedure is if it is almost uncontested to delist upon sight. If it is debatable, make a formal nomination at WP:GAR. It is clear that this is a contentious delist proposal. Thus, the proper procedure is to make a formal nomination at WP:GAR. DO NOT DELIST THIS ARTICLE EVEN AFTER A WEEK. POST AT WP:GAR for formal discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Promising source

Michelle Obama defends husband's voting record, experience has some good information about the campaign that could be added.User:calbear22 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anther one: [[2]].User:calbear22 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Really Proud of Her Country

I originally put this up but it was removed because it lacked context. I put it back with proper referencing and provided the exact quote. Please keep in mind that the "Some people were offended part..." is also from the source, it isn't just a judgement I made up. Thank you. Michael.passman (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what was meant by "context." It needs to be placed in context in this article, not just with its source. What is the significance of the quote? What is the reason for inclusion? It doesn't add anything to the bio and it isn't referencing anything notable. If it had somehow proven controversial, then the controversy itself would be notable, but that is not the case. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The context of the article is that it relates to her Political Activity, thus it goes under that heading. Just like the things she said about getting her family in order, and all the other stuff she has done as part of her husband's political campaign. If you feel it would be better contextualized in the article, I will be happy to create a section called "Unpatriotism" or "Hatred of America" (that's a joke). As for controversy, the article I cited from ABCnews.com says it is controversial. No offense, but I think ABCnews is a better judge of what is controversial than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.passman (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it was from a blog post (commenting on another blog post), not from ABC news. There's a big difference. Just because some attack blog took the line out of context (and somebody else remarked on such) doesn't mean that it rises to the level of notability here. If it did, then every single article in the politics project would become nothing more than a coatrack of partisan comments. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Technically yes its a blog. But its an ABCnews blog written by what I assume to be their profressional political analyst. So its a neutral and veryfiable source. And sometimes things become notable because they are taken out of context. I do see your point about the coatrack, though I don't see why this is any less deserving to be in the article than the "misunderstood" quote about Hillary not keeping her house in order except that comment is already on the page. On the other hand, I honestly have never heard a presidential candidate's spouse say anything like this. That's just me obviously, but it seems that since the ABCnews political analyst thinks its something to spend his day writing about, someone else must think this is notable too. In fact, the source itself says its controversial. Personally I think this should go in because it says a lot about how Ms. Obama feels about America (not necessarily negatively, I don't think its necessarily negative to show her own words about America). But I'm not going to edit war so I haven't put it back in since I did originally because I misunderstood what you meant by context. Hopefully others will weigh in and we'll have a good collaborative effort like wikipedia is supposed to produce. Michael.passman (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you raise an interesting point about the "house in order" quote. That one is equally non-notable, especially given that it was a misquote anyway. I was meaning to start a discussion on removing that one but hadn't gotten around to it. But if its inclusion is going to be cited as a precedent, now is probably the time to do so. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Although, the "proud of my country" thing seems to be picking up some traction.[3] Or at least, more than just Chicago magazine are bringing it up. Granted, no idea if it will go anywhere due to the recentism. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So now we have two sources, ABC News [4] and CNN saying this is notable and controversial. Is it still not notable enough. Just because particular wikipedia editors may not be offended or upset by Michelle Obama's comment doesn't mean that others aren't. This is certainly notable and will effect the way people vote. It deserves to be on the article page. I'm not going to put it back, at least not today because I don't want to contribute to or start an edit war. But the people who thought this wasn't notable before should reconsider there position now that CNN picked it up. Keep in mind as people head to the polls tonight they are going to be reading CNN and ABC to find out about the candidates. Meanwhile wikipedia is pretending like Michelle Obama didn't say these things. Michael.passman (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, you're confusing blog posts with news. CNN and ABC did not report on these things. The stories did not come from the newsroom, they came from blogs. Political bloggers commented on something that other political bloggers were writing about it. But the standard of notability is higher than that. Wikipedia is not an up-to-the-minute political blog. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) One thing Wikipedia has to be careful of is making sure that it doesn't propagate or extend the life of something (be it positive or negative) beyond its notability. Notability is not temporary and it's just too soon to determine if Michelle Obama's comment will have any impact beyond a couple of news articles before disappearing into history. The comment only happened a few days ago and it is only now actually showing up in some reliable sources. That seems to indicate that it isn't particularly notable yet. That doesn't mean it can't be included in the future, just right now appears to be a bit premature. Stupid comments are going to be said throughout the campaign by everyone, we just have to make sure we don't give them more credibility than they deserve. As far as affecting the way people vote.. That's just speculation at this point. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a classic case of "let the dust settle." Edits should only be made with an eye towards a permanent article. A few months from now will anyone be talking about this or even remember it? Highly unlikely. But who knows? If it gains traction and actually becomes a news item, then it should be revisited in a couple of weeks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Now in addition to ABC News and CNN, this story has been picked up by NBC [5], FOX News [6], and the New York Times [7]. Even Rush Limbaugh picked it up and that guarantees it will effect voters (even though I personally disagree with most of what he says, his wikipedia page claims he "has a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million listeners, making it the largest radio talk show audience in the United States"). [8] I fail to see how it is still not notable. As for the idea that it may not be notable in a year, it may not be. But this is a free encylopedia anyone can edit, so if this isn't notable in a year it can be removed (though by then it might be notable as a major gaff that hurt her husband's campaign). This is notable now and should be on the page. Michael.passman (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You're still not understanding the difference between something being mentioned on a blog linked to the NYT and being reported on by the actual NYT. It's a big difference. That said, wikipedia does not work the way you describe it. You don't add something, notable or not, with the assumption that it can be removed a year later if it turns out not to have been notable. The burden is on demonstrating notability before it is included. The daily chatter of a few RW pundits notwithstanding, this very well may turn into something big, but it hasn't yet. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I do see your point that these are "blogs." But there is a big difference between ABC News' political analysis blog, the New York Times Opinion blog, and CNN's political ticker blog all one one side vs. random people's blogs on the other side. These so called "blogs" are generally edited and vetted by some of the same people that appear on television news and write regular newpaper articles (Wolf Blitzer at CNN is the prime example). But yes, you are correct that they are technically blogs. To be clear though, the FOX and NBC articles weren't blogs. Anyway, I'm willing to let the dust settle but I really think that you guys are taking wikipedia waaaaaaaay to seriously if you think you're building a "permanent" encyclopedia. :) Michael.passman (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently someone went and put the "proud of america" comment back into the article and didn't even respond to our lengthy discussion here on the talk page. I think this kind of makes sense because wikipedia tends to have a small group of people who use these pages to their fullest and a large amount of people who just edit what they think is good without reading people's arguments in the talk pages (which I think is perfectly in good faith, I'm not so haughty to assume most editors read what I write here!). Anyway, I thought the treatment was alright, except the characterization of the tone as "condescending," so I edited that phrase out. Michael.passman (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously if others are going to cut this whole section out even though it is now recognized as notable by every major news station, I guess they will. But this issue has really been picking up traction: according to this site [9], Ms. Obama's comments were noted on the evening television news on NBC, ABC, and CBS. Though that source is clearly biased, I think we can trust it to accurately report on what was said on the evening news. Michael.passman (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The Proud to be an American thing is just getting too much attention. Even Cindy McCain's counter statement might be worth adding. It has been talked about on CNN, [10]. The last few paragraphs are going to need some work still. As people talk about the Proud to be an American, they are also talking about her swipe at Hillary. User:calbear22 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I added some of the sources that have been cited here on the talk page to the article. As long as its in the article, it should be well sourced. Michael.passman (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, after listening to the punditry talk last night and this morning, I must say that Michelle's comment "Proud to be an American" comment surely has gotten quite the run, but I haven't heard a single comment about her "house in order" comment. Although, she seems to be getting a free pass from most of the punditry on the comment. I'm not at all opposed to the proud comment being mentioned in the article at this point in time, but it does need to take up less real estate than it does now. Two paragraphs is a bit much, especially considering the only real change she made between the speeches was to put a bit more emphasis on "really". --Bobblehead (rants) 16:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The "proud" comment has gotten enough traction now to be considered notable. It looks like the POV language was removed overnight and the paragraph was trimmed. It seems to work well in its current form (as of this writing, it will probably be changed again by somebody!). There wasn't any need to repeat the quote twice or pile on a list of everyone who commented on it (again, the whole coatrack thing. The "house in order" quote is another story. I can't find a single reference to that outside the one cited source. That should probably go. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Sorry, looks like we edit conflicted on the removal of the second paragraph. I also got rid of the "really" from the first quote. The problem is I think the ABC news blog is using the updated quote and not the original. Most of the other quotes in the sources (and the ones I've heard) do not include the "really" and that seems to be the one that triggered the "controversy". In subsequent speeches that she added in the "really". Although, question is, has she been using the phrase in prior speeches and the one that started the firestorm is the one she forgot to use it? Or was the first speech truly the first speech she used it and they modified the quote after the negative reaction? --Bobblehead (rants) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, from what I've read, the quote without "really" was a misquote that first appeared in the Boston Globe and was later corrected (but not before it was picked up by other sources). I just watched the video of the speech that started this whole thing and that seems to be the case. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was a misquote. Most of the "controversy" has been in regards to her comment in Milwaukee and the ABC quote is from her speech in Madison. See [11]. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm glad this quote got in but I don't think its appropriate to include her husband's own campaign's remarks explaining her remark AND quoting an MSNBC talking head (Mika Brzezinski) defending her, without quoting anyone criticizing her; the criticism is left to some amorphous "many critics," as if to suggest the people criticizing her don't like her but a neutral news commentator defended her. This is especially unfair because the source citing Brzezinski is also about Joe Scarborough (Brzeninski's co-host) criticizing Ms. Obama. I think a more fair way to balance this issue would be 1. quote, (cites) 2. say it was criticized (cites), 3. give her husband's campaign's response (cite). If we include the Mika Brzezinski why not include Joe Scarborough, and if you include him, why not include another person, etc. Long story short, I removed the Brzezinski quote but left the citation to the source; if people want to read it they can see that two people disagreed. Michael.passman (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Your recent edit wasn't necessarily inappropriate, but I reverted it for the external links that were added (per WP:EL As a last bit of housekeeping, the sentence about her being criticized should be changed to remove the POV (saying critics "wondered why she wasn't proud of her country before" is a variation of the old "when did you stop beating your wife") --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the change I made explained in my immediately above talk post was reverted cause people didn't like it, or because I used the phrased "see also" (which is apparently not allowed) and then changed it but it was being changed while I was changing it if that makes sense. So I made my change again, per my explanation above. I guess it can be reverted back. But my basic idea is it should be balanced, not just quoting supporters of Ms. Obama. Michael.passman (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see what happened now. We were stepping on each others edits. I'm fine with the change as it is now. That other "critics" sentence still needs a rewrite, though. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed that sentence and merged it, removing some weasel words, both pro and con (ie., the campaign "issued a statement" as opposed to "clarified" which implies that their position is the correct one).--Loonymonkey (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, the quote controversy is primarily centered on M Obama's first statement, made as part of a speech in Milwaukee, WI, where she said that fir the first time in her life she was pround to be an American; later that day, she gave a second speech in Madison, WI, in which she made a similar comment about being "really proud" to be an American. This Wiki article featured the second quote; I have replaced it with the original quote that actually elicited the controversy. Given that there has been a lot of confusion over these, not least because of a clip of the second speech that was edited to cut out the word "really," it may be worthwhile to include both versions of the statement. You can see and hear the two original comments at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGjR81pFJI4&feature=related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.196.98 (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "House in order" quote non-notable.

There is a whole paragraph devoted to what is essentially a misquote that got no notice whatsoever (it is mentioned in passing in the cited article which is a much more extensive biography). I really don't see what the notability of this is at all. It's not a political position, a biographical fact or a noteworthy campaign development. Anyone have an objection to removing it? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It might stay of we had more on it or if it wasn't a quote so grossly taken out of context. Remove it.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree and think it should be kept. I wasn't trying to say that this was totally un-notable. What makes these notable is that they were misconstrued or misquoted (though I actually think both this and the "proud of America" comment are controversial even in context, and I think its a political spin to say that you could only be offended if your tricked into reading them out of context). The point is these are notable. People comment on them. They are in the news. And they effect the way people vote. They shouldn't be swept under the rug just because they make Michelle Obama look bad. She said something. People deserve to know what she said. Michael.passman (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability doesn't have anything to do with whether you find it interesting or controversial. That's your point of view. The notability comes from what sort of reaction or repercussions the quotes had. In both cases, the answer is none. Contrary to what you said, they are not in the news. One of them appeared on a blog and the other was just an offhand mention in a long biography piece. As you admit yourself, the whole point of these quotes are that "they make Michelle Obama look bad." Sorry, that's not a good enough reason for inclusion. If this were actually some kind of controversy that was in the mainstream, it would be worthy of inclusion but absent that it's simply POV-pushing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As long as it's sourced well, I guess it would be okay. I think if we add a few sentences that relate to the quote's notability (volume of reaction), it might read better.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I can't find any references to this other than the cited article (which isn't about this at all, it's just a throw-away line in the middle). I'm going to remove it unless anyone has anything more to establish notability. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source for it [12]. I couldn't find anything else though.User:calbear22 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rezko Issues

I hope no one minds, but I'm moving this to its own section from the section on the "Really Proud of America Section" which is kind of long on its own.' Michael.passman (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Rezko stuff, while we can debate if it should be in the career section, it's going to need to stay in the article somewhere because she did buy the house with Barrack.User:calbear22 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
On Rezko, the entire story is about Barack's relationship to Rezko, not Michelle's. While it's true that Michelle and Barack bought the house together, none of the sources mention Michelle except in passing. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It can be a shorter version of the matter, but she was on the purchaser of the home.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of her name being on the house purchase, Michelle's involvement with Rezko is not notable, or at least none of the articles I have seen on the Rezko-Barack connection have mentioned Michelle except in passing. --Bobblehead (rants) 07:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
We can keep it out for now unless any one else has something else to say on the manner.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It's really only relevant to Barack Obama. -Maximusveritas (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, to go backwards a little bit, Rezko was under investigation when they bought the land. It appears in this article [www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article] it was public knowledge they were under investigation and Michelle Obama didn't object to the purchase. Although Barrack was mainly involved in the headlines, we can't deny her agency in the matter.User:calbear22 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)To draw any connections along those lines would be original research. You can't assume what knowledge she did or did not have at the time the house was purchased. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I defer.User:calbear22 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Father's job(s)

The sources I'm looking at have a variety of jobs listed for her father. There's mention that he was a boxer and tended steam boilers, was a city pump operator and a Democratic precinct captain, and more generically a water plant worker. Anybody got the full story? Speciate (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Income info

I took out a paragraph about their relative incomes. It just seemed kind of weird, or even a little creepy, to me. Kind of like spying on them. Besides everyone knows that the kind of jobs they hold pay well. And I have never seen this kind of item in other WP bios. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the income numbers. It adds detail to the article. We can't say they make a lot of money because that wouldn't let facts speak for themselves. When Clinton made a 5 million dollar loan to her campaign, Barrack said they didn't have that type of money.User:calbear22 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I too think it is an important detail about the couple in a field where money rules.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "In her relationship with her husband, they have respected each other's advice."

How can anyone possibly state this as a fact? How does anyone know what happens inside their relationship? If she has said: "In our relationship, we have respected each other's advice", then that can be quoted if properly sourced. Otherwise it is just speculation and should be deleted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. I took out that sentence and the whole 2 paragraphs that followed. It all seemed like it was put together, using cited quotes and remarks of course, in a way that tried to paint a general picture about something we really can not know about for sure. It's better if the article focuses on facts, not speculation about people's emotional states. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm really glad to see that sentence go. It use to have the word always in there too.User:calbear22 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good new article about Michelle Obama

New Yorker has a new profile of Michelle which could be incorporated into the article Article. Remember (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the article yesterday and it seems balanced. She comes across as honest but perhaps too outspoken. JonErber (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secret service codename?

If that's true, then does it not defeat the purpose of a codename by making it public?

Agreed, I'm going to remove it. Kairos (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "really"

Someone put "really" back in the proud quote and I removed it. The source article that is quoted says this: "People in this country are ready for change, and hungry for a different kind of politics," Michelle Obama said. "And let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

Now I don't know if she said "really proud" or "proud". What I know is what the source says. If the source is wrong, then find a reliable source that supports the "really" and change it - don't just add the word. Tvoz |talk 06:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that another source has the "really", from a later statement she made - well, we ought to decide which way it's going to be in the article - having the first source not support the statement is not going to work. Either we explain that there is a discrepancy or we choose a reliable source to support the "really" and go with that as our source, but I don't think that's the way to go, since the original statement that caused the controversy was without "really". Tvoz |talk 06:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Obama's religious upbringing

Does anyone have any info on Ms. Obama's religious upbringing? This would bear mentioning in this article, especially given all the related controversies. 99.150.118.157 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Law Degree

Maybe I'm a little confused.

According to the article Obama is a sociologist who later went to Harvard Law School to write doctoral thesis. How does this make her a lawyer? When did she study law?

Or is the bar exam making her a lawyer (can anybody take that exam?) 84.176.185.44 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

When did she study law? Um, what do you think they study at Harvard Law School? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
according to this article she attended Harvard Law School as a postgrad to write a doctoral thesis. Isn't that more of research than study? I mean, usually a postgrad doctoral student only sees lecture hall as substitute lecturer, not as a student. What am I missing here? 84.176.185.44 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Read the Juris Doctor article. Flatterworld (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that at all, 84.176. She wasn't a sociologist, she merely majored in sociology and wrote the thesis as an undergraduate at Princeton. Then she went to law school, and became a lawyer. There is nothing confusing here. Tvoz/talk 20:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Alleged "Whitey" remarks on videotape

See discussion at Talk:Larry C. Johnson‎#Whitey Rumor. Johnson blogged that he had talked to someone who had talked to someone who had seen the alleged videotape of Michelle Obama ranting about "whitey." Fox News discussed the rumor. The right wing blogosphere spread it and elaborated on it. Obama denied it. Several mainstream media outlets discussed it. No one says they have seen it. Should it be excluded from article at this time because of WP:BLP concerns, under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Basic human dignity and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material as a harmful and unverified rumor, or should it be included based on mainstream media discussion of it (Harper's Magazine, National Review, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Reason, Village Voice, Haaretz, The Guardian). Edison (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You just answered your question by yourself. Rumors don't belong here. --Floridianed (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I certainly have not answered my question, or I would not have posted it here. I will take your response as a "NO" based on it being an unverified rumor.I seek a community consensus as to whether the claim can be placed in articles in Wikipedia at this time. Read WP:BLP. Rumors become encyclopedic if they have sufficient coverage in mainstream media, as in when public figures comment on the rumors and print and broadcast news discuss them. Fox News elevated this one from the Drudge and Larry Johnson blogosphere to TV news coverage, and it has been discussed in several reliable sources, and commented on by Mr. Obama, making it arguable sufficiently well covered to satisfy that requirement of WP:BLP. The countervailing BLP questions are about "basic human dignity" and it being a "harmful and unverified rumor." Please address these issues. Thanks. Edison (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not proper for inclusion. One, it's unverified -- COMPLETELY. Whether or not some "news" organizations pass along rumor without attribution or verification (which is a violation of journalistic ethics, and only happens to candidates on one side of the aisle) adds no more teeth to the rumor. WP:BLP is exactingly clear on this... We're not going to participate in that sort of shameful behavior here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, we don't insert unverified (and possibly slanderous) rumors into WP:BLP articles. The fact that Fox News might have devoted airtime to reporting on "blog rumors" speaks volumes about their credibility, but it doesn't change the standards on wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just hopped on to insert a news link and found this discussion amusing. I love where the "We don't slander" happens in the same sentence of slandering Fox's creditablity. May want to check your bias at the door.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRNN (talk • contribs) 09:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're a bit confused as to the definition of slander? There is a minor criticism, but no example of slander against Fox News in the comments above (and there is a big difference between talk space and article space on Wikipedia, anyway). Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have sourcing, as a well publicized unsubstantiated rumor, but I have come to feel that as an utterly unsubstantiated damaging and derogatory rumor, which fans the flames of racism, it falls afoul of WP:BLPand should not be included in articles at this time. At this time no one even claims to have heard the remarks or to have seen the tape, and Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for politically motivated racist smear campaigns, especially when they appear to be intended to influence a Presidential election. It is at this point a "non-incident," with no tape, no witnesses, and no one who says they viewed the tape. It is a rumor per se, just "I heard from someone who heard from someone....." and does not come near the standard which has been set for derogatory information about others in the recent past. Edison (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PR link

http://www.prnewsnow.com/Public_Release/Consumer/211086.html

Article on Michelles dealings with Asthama and her daughters dealing with same. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRNN (talk • contribs) 09:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)