This is an archive of past discussions about Family of Barack Obama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There's a polite dispute between Sourcechecker and myself. I keep adding to the Ethnicity info box the fact that in addition to being African American, the family is also Indonesian (and Indonesian-American -- Maya) and English-American. Sourcechecker wants to limit the Ethnicity description to African American. This seems to me to not fit the facts of this diverse family. Comments? Bellagio99 (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the difference between ethnicity and heritage. The heritages of the immediate potiential First Family have already been addressed in the first line. The ethnic group is refering to the cultural traits of those who will be members of the First Family (Barack Michelle, Malia, Sasha) which is why there is a picture of only the immediate Family above the ethnic box. An example is how the Kennedys were considered "Irish-Americans" despite the fact he has many other heritages in the family. While Obama is half Kenyan and half English he refers to himself as African American, the media (national and international) refers to him as African American. Not to mention his wife and kids are African American. That is what an ethnic group is -by definition-. If an ethnic group was simply hertiages then yes, there would be an endless list groups listed in the the ethnic box, but thats not what it is. I really dont see why this is a problem considering his heritage listing everything you want is already in the FIRST SENTENCE.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
indeed. the striking peculiarity of this family is how it is multiracial, it isn't anything like your typical African American (descendants of West Africans deported to America) family. The ethnic heritage is Luo, Anglo-Irish, African American and Cherokee. The cultural heritage of the core First Family would be US American and Indonesian. That of the extended family of course much more heterogenous. The point isn't that this is an US American family with the father having spent some years of his youth in Indonesia, that wouldn't be very remarkable. What the lead should address is the multiracial combination of White American, African American and East African ancestry. Sourcechecker, "White American" and "African American" do not designate ethnic groups, they designate race within a given nationality. --dab(𒁳)17:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You are incorrect, African American is both a race and a ethnic group. Ethnically, it refers to the original Africans from the American colonial era (Africa did not have countries when they first came). Michelle Obama is of African American heritage. Obama is racially African American but of English and Luo heritage. If we want to get technical the First Family is 50% African American 25% Luo and 25% English. Multiracial is not a country therefore no one can "descend" from mulitracial. Again the major heritages are in the FIRST SENTENCE. I dont see why thier ethnicity should be a problem. Every international paper considers them African American.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I live in Italy and virtually all television and newspaper journalists refer to Barack Obama as African-American. Just as JFK was called Irish-American. I do think adding Irish ancestry when it's just his great-great-great-grandfather who was Irish-thus making him only 1/32nd Irish- is silly. The same goes for Cherokee Indian. If his ancestor was not on the Rolls, there is no way he can be legally accepted as a Cherokee. Ridiculous and offensive comments as to his grandmother's coal-black eyes and beaky nose do not constitute proof of Indian ancestry. I have already commented on the offensive beaky nose statement in the article (see bottom of talk page). Describing him as an African-American of the Luo tribe from Kenya, with significant English ancestry from his white mother sufficiently describes his ethnic make-up. To the editor above who says Africa didn't have countries when the first Africans were enslaved by Europeans is mistaken. Africa had many ancient kingdoms including Ethiopia, Songhai, Mali. The modern names for most African countries weren't used then, however Ghana is also the name of an ancient kingdom.--jeanne (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Zeituni Onyango
As anyone who's read the news knows, information was leaked today (11/1/08) by government sources and printed by the Asociated Press that Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango is living illegally in the US, an administrative (not criminal) violation, after her failed application for asylum. However, the Obama campaign knows nothing about it,[2] ICE is not talking (other than to say it is investigating sources of possible leaks), and other news sources have been unable to confirm. Given that this is a fairly transparent last-minute election ploy to disparage an individual, that it reports private and disparaging material about an individual, and that we do not have clearly reliable sources (AP is not the source - the so-called "unnamed sources", which other outlets have not confirmed) are, this information is a BLP problem. It is also a BLP issue, and except for the recentivism of it being a last minute campaign point, it is not clearly notable to Obama's family overall or the lives of the people involved. She apparently gave some money, in the low two figures, to the Obama campaign, which would be illegal - that is completely trivial except as campaign disparagement / trivia, so I removed it. I suggest that we avoid trying to stay up to date on the most current news. If this is a notable issue there is plenty of time after the election to sort it out, and figure just how important (or not) it is to the subject of the article. The other path is that Wikipedia becomes a mouthpiece of election smears, which is not a good way to go.Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, from reading the DfmF, Onyango has no children by Helima and Sarah, Barack, Sr. and Auma by Akuma and Omar, Zeituni, Yusuf and Said by Sarah Obama, right? Cladeal832 (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Puppy?
After being elected President, in his speech to the nation, Obama mentioned that there would be a new puppy in the White House. Details...? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.234.236 (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
issues of tone aside, this is incorrect. According to the US constitution, it isn't the "First Family" that "heads" the democracy, it is a single person, the elected president. Now, while arithmetically, the Obama family may be "predominantly" of "African descent", the president-elect is of "African descent" to exactly 50%. It is also unclear that the "source" provided, a 2001 article explaining how "G8/G7 exercises tremendous influence over the multilateral institutions of global governance" has anything to do with this. --dab(𒁳)09:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually the Bonaparte family has an extremely interesting story. One of his relatives was a noted authority on the Celtic languages, and I think his father was a Corsican nationalist. So not as stupid as you claim... Obama's family background is extremely unusual and complex...--MacRusgail (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Scottish ancestry
I have heard that Obama has Scottish ancestry through his mother. Can someone verify this please? (Note to American readers: Scots do not count as "English"!)--MacRusgail (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's condescending. Most Americans understand that there's a difference between Scottish and English, although ignorant people worldwide may not. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
"predominately"
should be "predominantly" since the word "predominate" carries no meaning of "foremost" whereas "predominant" does.
Renault Robinson [4] founder of the African American Patrolman's League is deserving of an article by himself. I had heard (somewhere) that he is related to Michelle, but went to check it out here. The article linked above might suggest otherwise (son of Robert and Mabel), but thought I'd ask if anybody has better info. Thanks for any help. Smallbones (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Soetero
The family tree is heavily weighted towards Kenya, but they are only his half-siblings... it should also include his Indonesian half-family 70.55.86.100 (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There are two Soetoro articles, but Barrack Obama lived in Indonesia, where his stepfather came from, and did not live in Kenya where his half-siblings came from, so coverage of his stepfather's family should be expanded. Are you saying that there are only two Soetoros in that family? 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
First, his Kenyan family members are actually related to him through his father. His only "Indonesian half-family" is Maya, his mother's daughter, with whom he was raised and who he calls his sister. Do you have reliably sourced information about other Soetoros? If so, bring it here. But I would be concerned about venturing out into his stepfather's family, if any are even known, unless there's a demonstrated connection to Barack, as this article already is large and full of individuals who are rather peripheral to his or Michelle's life. Tvoz/talk10:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Enhanced version of "Ann Dunham with Father and children" Image Available
I have uploaded an enhanced version of this file in which I enlarged it, reduced noise and resaturated the color. I did not want to replace the original file with the enhanced version without consensus so I uploaded it as (click on image for page):
It's not just African-American. If it is African-American, why add the extended family as well? I can see African-American, Caucasian, Indonesian, Chinese Malaysian, Indian (Cherokee). Should be listed as varies. w_tanoto (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It has been so listed, but one editor reverted it since "varied" is not an ethnic group (which is, IMHO, precisely the point). --Orange Mike | Talk22:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see who the editor is. I won't do anything though, as I don't want to be involved in edits that will lead to "three revert rule". If varied is not ethnic group, why not list all? (I noted that some users have tried to add the ethnics from "history")w_tanoto (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, the next time you-know-who changes it back to a less-accurate form, he's reached his third reversion. Could somebody please revert him besides me? --Orange Mike | Talk00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
B/c you're on the verge too? . . . ahem. In furtherance of consensus, I agree with you, Orangemike. As with most Americans, his ethnicity is varied. Perhaps, European American is amore accurate 1/2. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
They will be the first First Family in the U.S. of predominantly African American descent. Is 'predominantly' needed? As far as I know, they will be the first family with any African-American descent. It sounds a bit weasel-like. He is regarded as the first black President, not the first predominantly black or half-black President. Lawshoot!01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The sources say he is of English heritage. "European" as we all know is not a heritage. Europe consist of several different countries. African-American is a heriage, Indonesian is a heritage, Luo is a heritage, "European" is NOT a heritage, it is a continent. I dont see why you have a problem with this. I also agree with the others in that, the first family is 50% African American 25% English and 25% Luo. The family is mostly African American and that should be made clear.Djh42883 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I cannot really tell who you are addressing. The members of the first family, the daughters and both parents will have different heritages from one another - they are not all 50% or 25%, etc. In addition we don't 'all know' that European is 'not a heritage.' You say it's not because it is several different countries. That doesn't explain heritage at all. Africa is several different countries as well, so African is not a heritage? Lawshoot!20:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we will be successful in resolving the problem of the socially constructed matters of race here. As a matter of the historic significance of race in this election, he is the first black president of the United States, and as a matter of common understanding and language usage, he would typically be referred to as an African-American. With regard to more accurately defining his ethnicity, this is one of the major objections I have with categorizing the subjects of wikipedia articles on the basis of race. (See also, this discussion, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_12#Category:People_by_race_or_ethnicity_et._al. among others). Use the mainspace of the article to describe the diversity of his family's genealogy, but good luck summing it all up in concise label or category. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I can see how this can be solved: by voting or by eliminating "ethnicity" from infobox. I won't participate in edit wars though. There is a source that his ancestors were English and German somewhere in this article (I think it is reference number 2). Maybe French as well. I haven't read all of them. w_tanoto (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess what I dont understand is why this is even a debate? The most exhastive study of Barack Obamms ancestry shows hes
50.0 % Luo
37.255 859 375 % English
4.687 5 % German
3.125 % Irish
3.125 % Scottish
1.562 5 % Welsh
0.195 312 5 % French
0.048 828 125 % Dutch
It's clear that the only ethnicity relevent here is English. I went on ahead and added everything else under 5% under maternal relations because it clearly shouldnt be in the lead. Labeling his white ancestry as "European" is nothing more than patronizing, everyone knows whites are decended from different ethnic groups in Europe. European nor African are nothing more than a broad charaterization. On the other hand Michelle is ethnically African American, in that shes a decendent of the original slaves or free blacks within the bounderies of the U.S, this is the modern definition of AA taught in Universities. Wht confuses people is that African American doubles as a racial term, but it should be made clear African American is not the equivelent to European American. As for the ethnicity box, I support African American mainly because that is clearly the term the family is associated with. If you go the route of just naming off the heritages again in the info box, there is no sense in having the ethnic box at all.Djh42883 (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Ethnicity: Single or Multiple?
I am puzzled about the dispute that User:Sourcechecker419 is having with myself, User:Dbachmann and perhaps others about the Ethnicity in the Infoxbox of the Family of Barack Obama. Source keeps reverting this to African-American only, while its prima facie clear that the family has many ethnicities: Luo (Obamas), African-American (RObinson side, the kids), English-American (Dunhams), Indonesian (Lolo Soetero), and Indonesian-American (Barack's half-sister Maya).
Every time I've changed the info box to reflect this, Source has reverted, and now I noticed that s/he has done that to someone else.
Source also told me that I didn't understand the definition of ethnicity. Which is kinda funny, as I taught an advanced university course in that subject (and did a PhD thesis too). So I went to the Merriam-Webster dictionary and I found this:
"ethnic: relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background" -- which seems to fit what I and Dbach. have been saying.
I also went to Source's Talk page and found this note from Admin User:Bearian:
"Hi, I hate to bother you, but I noticed that virtually 100 % of your edits appear to be concerned with erasing references to ethicities of notable persons, especially those of mixed race. Why are you doing this, and only this? Bearian (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)"
I'd like to get this now-even-more important Family page right. And I'd hate to see Barack -- or his family -- stereotyped as only African American. Any suggestions about what to do. I hate edit wars, and this one seems rather pointless.
I think that semantically at least, it's accurate to say that the immediate Obama family is predominantly African-American. Michelle and the girls are predominantly of African-American heritage, while Barack himself is half African and half American. The rest of the article makes it clear how reductive this characterization is, and I wonder how worthwhile it is to more fully describe the varied ethnicity of the Obama family in the infobox. If the description "predominantly African-American" is misleading, perhaps the ethnicity information should be removed from the infobox altogether. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
ok, let's make this accurate. The lead needs to distinguish clearly (a) the First Family from the Extended Family, and (b) "racial" heritage or ancestry from cultural heritage.
the core First Family is African-American to exactly 50% (Michelle), or to 75% if you count Kenyan-American as African-American (which is debatable, since African-American has the dual meaning of "black" and of "Americans decended from West African slaves", the latter being true of Michelle Obama, but not of Obama Sr. who wasn't an American at all, and a fortiori not an African-American)
The ancestry of the core First family is thus:
African American 50%
White American 25%
Luo (Kenyan) 25%
The extended family also includes Javanese (Indonesian) heritage. Barack Obama himself has been partly socialized in Indonesia and can thus be said to have some cultural Indonesian heritage, even if he hasn't any Indonesian ancestry.
These are the facts. The question is how to present them.
I certainly agree it should be stated the family has significant African-American ancsestry. I wouldn't recommend predominant since that's needlessly inflating the point. It is also important to state that the family is significantly multiracial. There is room for both points in the lead.
Also, please distinguish ethnicity from nationality. Barack Obama isn't "half African half American", he is half Luo half White American (ethnically), and 100% US American (nationality).
The ancestry of the president-elect is 50% Luo, 50% White American, because (doh) his father was a Luo and his mother a White American. We don't have any info about the percentage of Cherokee ancestry, but I suppose that's not above the average strain present in most White Americans, and thus nothing special to distinguish Obama from any Anglo-Irish president. --dab(𒁳)10:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Race needs to stay out of this, this page is supposed to be a break down of HERITAGE and ETHNICITY. The terms black/white/multiracial are to broad and does not describe the detailed heritage and ethnic break down. Obama isnt part "white" hes English. His father isnt "black" hes Luo, MIchelle isnt "black" shes African American. The correct heritage of the First Family is 50% African American 25% Luo and 25% English. The First Family is mostly African American and that should be clearly states. Obama is a post racial candidate and Saying "multi-racial" unnecessarily brings up race. Again, THERE SHOULD BE NO RACIAL REFERENCES. It insults our intellegence.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Why try to define the ethnicity at all? Why not just let the facts speak for themselves? Or maybe we could call him a 'mutt' as he did himself at the press conference today. ;) ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
"race needs to stay out of this"? You must be kidding. The world press is in cahoots because the Americans after 200 years finally managed to elect a non-WASP president, and you are suggesting "race isn't real". Just look at any newspaper frontpage of the past week for crying out loud. I give the correct breakdown above.
Most importantly, we need to keep apart self-identification and ancestry. While you are free to self-identify as anything you like in the US census (since 1989), your ancestry is a matter of fact. The Obama family self-identifies as African American. Michelle Obama is also of African American ancestry, while Barack Obama is of 50% Luo and 50% White American ancestry, making the family of multiracial ancestry. These are the simple facts, and yes, they are extremely notable. --dab(𒁳)11:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
why would somebody pick the account name of "Sourcechecker" if what they are doing is really stubborn reverting of efforts to fine-tune accuracy based on actual sources? Pray stop the mindless reverting and maybe go check some sources instead. --dab(𒁳)18:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a really terrible article
I don't know what kind of errors remain but I just corrected a bunch of instances where the article misattributed facts to the wrong sources, misquoted people, relied on inaccurate reports that had since been corrected, plagiarized phrases, misreported statements written by journalists as quotes said by Barack Obama's relatives, etc. This is an article about living people and also an article about subjects that have received a lot of popular and media attention. Based on that you might expect that some administrator would be paying attention to it, but apparently not.Article3 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, keep up the good work. I'm an admin and I've been doing my best, but please don't hesitate to be bold in making further changes. Khoikhoi02:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Obama's religion
What is the problem with mentioning in a footnote that a statement in the AP article is inaccurate and was later corrected?Article3 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
We put forth the verifiable facts. If the information is incorrect, it needs to be corrected. We can't just point out that the information is wrong. Why is your source more reliable than the AP source? --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
My source is the AP's own correction, or more precisely a screenshot of it since the original correction is a 404 now. The information has already been corrected in the article, I want to mention it in a footnote so that anybody who reads the AP article will be aware of it and not have to wonder why the NYT and AP seem to be reporting contradictory information.Article3 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we should just provide the correct information supported by the correct source and leave it at that. This is an article about a family, not the fallibility of a news organization. Whichever source is verifiably incorrect should be removed. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
We can't really remove it, since it's a reliable source that's still cited in two places in this article. Because of that, some readers are likely to read the AP article and wonder why it contradicts what Wikipedia is telling them. USA Today should have included the correction along with the original article, but since they didn't, Wikipedia would be doing its readers a favor by directing them to it. This is the correction btw.Article3 (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Just cite the correction. The reference can remain in the other two places to support other facts. We do not need to point out that the original article was wrong if we cite the correction for the correct fact. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Current Prime Minister of Kenya.[citation needed] In August 2006 Obama traveled to Kenya to campaign for his cousin Raila Odinga. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Obama spoke on behalf of Odinga at numerous rallies, declaring that "Kenyans are now yearning for change". [1][2] While Odinga says that Obama is his cousin, Obama's Kenyan uncle has said that while their ancestors came from the same tribe and refer to each others as "cousins", there is no blood relation.'
“It’s stretched to the point of ridiculousness,” said Joel D. Barkan, political science professor emeritus at the University of Iowa and senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. “To my knowledge, they are not first cousins in the normal sense. To my knowledge, there’s absolutely no relationship at all.” [6]
and
“Raila Odinga was groping all over the place, trying to find some political legitimacy to get on a high pedestal to claim leadership and using Obama was basically going to add some political points,” said Awiti, who lived in Kenya until three years ago. “This is very opportunistic and it should be totally disregarded.” (Alex Awiti, a Kenyan postdoctoral fellow at Columbia University)
There is no doubt the BBC trumps "PolitiFact.com" in terms of being a established reputable WP:RS. I don't particularly buy that some random dudes opinion from the University of Iowa negates the fact Odinga states publically that he is Obama's first cousin. This needs to analyzed with WP:WEIGHT in mind. Glen Twenty (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
We have one article reporting what someone said, and then we have a fact checking website which is a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly. It's apparently a reliable enough website to be cited by the Obama campaign as a reference. As for the "random dudes", Joel D. Barkan has been described as "A specialist on politics and development policy in sub-Saharan Africa" ([7]), and Alex Awiti is the Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University ([8]). If these two individuals are consulted by a fact checking website, I don't see why they would be unreliable or anything like that. WP:UNDUE indeed needs to be taken into account, and someone who is not Obama's cousin should not be added to an article that mostly includes his brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles. Khoikhoi06:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT does need to taken into account, and fact that the current President of Kenya claims he is the first cousin of Obama and has admitted it to all and sundry, to such reliable sources as the BBC probably deserves a line or two in this article, especially considering that the two of them traveled together around Kenya campaigning for Odinga. Joel Barkan has never even met either of them and is in no position to be declared an authority on this issue. Glen Twenty (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you get to decide who is in position to be declared an authority on the issue. It's not up to me either. PolitiFact.com and consulted him and cited him. The same article has stated, "Lone, Odinga’s spokesman, said cousins in the African sense is very different from cousins in the American sense, so they might be distant relatives." As I have previously pointed out, adding Odinga would give people a reason to add Cheney as well. We cannot add people to this article who are possible distant relatives, that would amount to trivia. And if we are to be a reputable encyclopedia, we should only add confirmed relatives by the Obama family. Khoikhoi06:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This section included by an author seem to be of little relevance to an already cluttered Obama family page and takes focus off the core First Family and extended Family of Barack Obama. The source of Odinga dosent even link to Barack Obama but based on word of mouth only. The other happen-stance relations are neither new nor note-worthy as they are run every election cycle (and seem to regurgitate the same people). Before this page section is included, Id like to hear the thoughts on its merits by other authors. I personally think this page should be focused on the main players of the First family and notable members of the extended.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree that this section distracts from the main point of the article, and it also includes incorrect use of captions. Tvoz/talk20:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd take it out - at least take out the pictures WP:undue. Perhaps a 3 line statement might be ok, something like "The following people have been identified as distant relations to Barack Obama: Mark Twain, Charles Goodnight, ..." But I think even that is too much. The Sun-Times articles CATHERINE GOODNIGHT DUNHAM, Six degrees of Barack Obama seem to be based on the idea of six degrees of separation, which comes close to saying that everybody is related to everybody else. In short, either borderline trivia or not notable. Smallbones (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted it. It's just too distant for my taste. Of course, if concensus is reached against me, I'll withdraw my "taste" objections. Smallbones (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I removed it from Template:Obama family, but the question now is how to remove it here. BTW, I think the discussion should be here, as well as the ability to edit it from the article page rather than the template page. Smallbones (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I also have moved the family trees directly into the page rather than as templates - this setup is too complicated and inhibits editing. All editing should be done here - these family trees aren't the same as templates that appear on multiple pages. Tvoz/talk04:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, that helps, but I don't see why this needs to be transcluded here rather than just placed here. It's not a template in the sense of being use across multiple articles, so what's the point? We generally don't use templates this way. Tvoz/talk04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess the idea was to relegate the charts to their own templates since there's so much code in them (similar to filing the Mc's separately from the many other M-names(?)) Justmeherenow( )05:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Shape of this article
This article is becoming a laundry list of obscure relations and links - reaching the point of uselessness. The visual family tree is nicely done, but honestly, is it really necessary? The information is all included in the text - what's the need for the visual duplication here? I'd like to hear what others think on this. Also, I removed the long list of external links to individual pages in one unified Sun-Times family tree article, and substituted that article's index page. There's no reason to list each individual here. Anyone can follow the links that are on the index page. Tvoz/talk09:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep the pedigree/family relationships chart as it is, a rejoinder to a familial list a la Corleones?
I'm a bit undecided here. Yesterday, I may have been hasty in deleting all those pix, I should have gotten consensus first. But I'd still delete the pix. The chart, as it stands now, is excellent, and Justmeherenow should be congratulated on this difficult work. I'd leave it at the bottom of the page (but haven't looked at the list of alternatives above). I'd think the number of relations given here is about as far as most people would be interested, but there isn't a need to cut back further. Smallbones (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me unpack and clarify what I said: I completely agree that Just did a great job with the visual family tree, and I didn't at all mean to imply that I would want to remove it from the encyclopedia. I'm just wondering if it's really needed to be displayed as a part of this article in its present size and shape. It certainly could be a separate piece like the Lincolns (#4 above) with a "see also" pointer here to that separate piece and links from that piece back to here, and this main article remaining intact minus the chart. If we were to move it to the top here à la Romneys, or keep it here on the bottom for that matter, I would think we'd want to shrink its size and have less verbiage in each box - again, like the Romneys and Bushes - since that is all repeated in the prose sections. I just find that it overwhelms the article the way it is now. And I'm not necessarily saying we should eliminate family members that are already here, but I do think we're reaching a saturation point on obscure half-uncles. Tvoz/talk20:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, I like the chart as it is and where it is. I don't see a need to split it into a separate article (some percentage of readers won't find it) and I like the capsule verbiage in the boxes (it helps reinforce what I'd earlier read). Wasted Time R (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Immediate family
There's been some back and forth going on about the "Immediate family" section. First, the revert to the earlier format was not "mindless" as claimed here - see my edit summary for the reason for the revert to this style. The style of the article is to have individual sub-sections: very short ones for people for whom there is a full article, with navigation hats to their full articles, and longer ones for people without separate articles. This is the format used throughout the "Extended family" sections and the same style should be followed in the "Immediate Family" section for parallel structure and ease of navigation. I'm happy to discuss it, but please don't call it "mindless"! (Also, note correction of spelling of "Ann" in the Barack section.) Tvoz/talk20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
As I've said on your talkpage, we need to move away from the "lots of tiny h2" structure here. Also, the ToC structure is really independent of the telegraphic, ungrammatical style of the article body. Please avoid reverting fixes to that. --dab(𒁳)11:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree, but we need consistency, and to reduce repetition of the names in heads, hats and first lines - I'm going to try another approach later tonight. See if this works. (Roughly based on Romney-Pratt family, but more consistent, I hope.) Tvoz/talk20:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
To blow smoke through my hat, since I've not followed the recent editing history referred to, but just to say: If tabular style presents a clunk of info simply and quickly (think an almanac) and if good prose invites listeners into a story while it magically brings them to an understanding of a mass of details of contextualized information, maybe this article does awkwardly hybridize the two styles or objectives somewhat in places ¿no? Justmeherenow( )20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's exactly the problem. The hybridization is kind of awkward and inconsistent in places. I'm really not sure what would be best - is this a genealogical article which tend to the tabular or a collection of smaller articles about various people? Or am I too focused on consistency? It just seemed like a bit of a mess before, with some sections starting with names, others with dates, still others with relationships - and having at least the consistency of each small section starting with the person's relationship to Barack/Michelle, the birthdate and some facts seemed to give it an overall feel of being a unified article. My thought is to remove the hats and make the subsection heads links - like Pratt-Romney - so it will be a little less cluttered. But I'm not sure if that answers Dieter's objection. Tvoz/talk21:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Both for more ease on the eyes and to save redundancy, instead of making all entries into sub-heds (viz each paragraph with a headline in swollen print with the name repeated up in the table of contents), I changed them into "anchors," making it easier for those consulting it as a reference to scan the actual body of text to look for whatever names, rather than to scan the table of contents (as before). Justmeherenow( )00:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
the "mindless" referred to Sourcechecker419 (talk·contribs) and his recent edit-warring spree. If you keep this up, "Sourcechecker419", you'll be blocked for 3RR over and over again, and not just for 24 hours at a time. Block lengths may progress up to several months at a time. If you have a specific issue with the current phrasing of the lead, explain your concerns and make a suggestion on how to improve it. --dab(𒁳)11:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
For the 3RD TIME, this page focuses on HERITAGE AND ETHNICITY. Race (black/white/multiracial) should not be on a page that supposed to give a detailed description of HERITAGE AND ETHNICITY. As it stands the lead gives fair recognition to all of the major hertiages of the extended family and a fair description of the immediate. Its even broken down further once you begin reading the specific maternal relations. You have constantly included irrelavent photos of neferious links to cerlebries, and you keep adding terms like "significatly multiracial" which makes ABSOLUTLEY NO SENSE. First of all, your either multiracial or your not, you cant be "a little, or a lot multiracial". What makes your lead even more nonsensical is that everybody on earth is multiracial, there is no such thing as a "pure race". Adding terms like black/white/multiracial where people genuenly want to learn about the heritage is misleading and disrespectful to readers. I hope others will help us come to a compromise but Im stanuchly against hiding hertiages under racial terms, when we begin doing that the page essintially becomes pointless.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and another thing what would stop someone of putting "significantly black" in the lead, that would technically make more sense than "significantly multiracial". I say just leave them out altogether.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sourcechecker419. The term significantly does not mean anything and mutliracial is not a reasonable category. Even if we accepted that the term multiracial as meaningful, we'd have to go back in history and see if any other first families were multiracial (Thomas Jefferson springs to mind almost immediately). No, I say forget about significant or multi-racial. I also suggest dumping African American because that is about Obama rather than about the extended family described in this article.
Beaked nose?
That part about one of Barack Obama's maternal ancestors having had a beaked nose as proof of her alleged Cherokee Indian ancestry is highly offensive and needs to be deleted. Who says a beaked nose is a Native American facial feature? I wonder how many people have actually set eyes on flesh-and-blood American Indians or just the Indian on the box of baking soda in the 1960s.--jeanne (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
ahem, we are not stating Obama's granny "had a beaked nose", we are quoting Obama stating that
she "would turn her head in profile to show off her beaked nose, which along with a pair of jet-black eyes, was offered as proof of Cherokee blood."
If the woman thought her beaked nose proved Cherokee ancestry and was proud of it, we can record the fact without necessarily endorsing the notion. --dab(𒁳)10:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like another excuse to endorse stereotypes about Native Americans which would never be tolerated by other ethnic groups.--jeanne (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it is ok. The quote is from Barack Obama's book and is relevant because she is notable because of Barack Obama. By quoting him, wikipedia is not endorsing a beaked nose as a stereotypical facial feature of Cherokee Indians but rather providing valuable contextual information about Mr. Obama's family (the possibility of native american descent). Not that I see anything particularly offensive about that feature, if indeed it was a stereotypical feature of Cherokee Indians. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not Native American but I find it offensive. I am curious as to the reaction of American Indians were they to read that a beaked nose was a possible signifier of Native Indian ancestry. I believe Mr. Obama may have seen too many Hollywood films played by fake Indians.--jeanne (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Distant relation genetics
The problem with the quote I keep removing goes beyond simple tweaking. It presents a common simplification of genetic statistics, then uses it to draw a completely meaningless and invalid conclusion. Basically, counting the number of shared genes is wrong for two reasons. First, the unit of genetic recombination is not the gene. Forcing the equation to deal with the number of genes is completely inappropriate. It would be like saying McDonalds can't serve hamburgers because you can't fit a cow on a bun. Looking on the nucleotide level, then, the two individuals would share ~750 nucleotides. That is out of ~3 billion. That brings us to the second problem. All humans share >98%, so they would have >2,940,000,000 identical nucleotides anyhow. Forest . . . trees . . . . It just doesn't work the way it is being portrayed, and tweaking the language doesn't make the premise any less flawed. Agricolae (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
If the science writer's position hasn't been misrepresented in Wikipedia, then the fact of his having expressed its belief would be accurately reported. Would you be able to reference scientific argumentation in refutation or criticism of his argument? If you could, this could perhaps earn equal billing or replacement of the existing argument! Thanks. Justmeherenow( )11:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The science writer has now been misrepresented by your attempted tweaking. That being said, the science writer's original work was flawed, unhelpful (being inaccurate on multiple levels), and unnecessary to the fact that these particular people happen to share a 17th century ancestor, and hence the inclusion of this statistical misapplication is unencyclopedic. An article on Obama's family is not the place to discuss whether or not a scientific writer at the Times, in trying to dumb down the statistical genetics of distant relationships, has gummed it up. This is just some guy's back-of-the-envelope calculation, after all. The goal is not to achieve balanced irrelevancy. We don't have to include, let alone include refutations of, something that is clearly wrong, when it is so peripherally linked to the topic of the page - just leave it out. Agricolae (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Your agument that we don't generally share 50% of our genes from our mom, 50% from our dad is based on the fact that 99.998% (or whatever it is) of our genetic material is identical, leaving only .002% to be divvied up between each of our folks. Which is an interesting thing to accomodate; however, I believe that when a geneticist says that we're obtaining half of our genes from each parent, the geneticist is actually referring to a half of this .002%, so the end result would be the same. (As an analogy, many people back in the day said Cantorian mathematics was unworkable since it proposes mathematical operations utilizing infinity and zero. But Ensteinian relativity is based on it and, voila, the Michelson-Morley experiment proved this theory, as based in Cantorian mathematics, to be accurate. Likewise, the idea that we inherit half our genetic makeup from mom and half of it from dad is supported by empirical evidence (see Mendel)-- despite the apparent actuality that only a tiny fraction of genetic material is actually involved.) Justmeherenow( )12:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This is not what I am saying at all. We get half of our DNA (or nearly so - Y and mtDNA aside) from each parent - that is a full half: 50%. However, the vast majority of this is absolutely identical, AND he is using the wrong scale. Let my try to demonstrate the two problems with the argument using a penny analogy:
Example 1. You have $8 in pennies (800 pennies). You divide the pile in half, and half, and half, and half again. By his simplification, you have no money left, because no pile can have $1, yet every pile in fact has 50 pennies in it at this point. Genes are the wrong scale. That is error 1.
Example 2: You have a pile of pennies. Now make a roll of 100 - that is the starting point. Take 50 out and combine it with another 50 from the pile. Now take 50 out of those, and combine it with 50 from the pile. And again, and again, and again, and again. As he has configured his argument and conclusion, you now, statistically, probably have no pennies, but in actuality you still have 100. He is ignoring the commonality of human DNA, and the reintroduction with each generation. That is error 2.
Flawed premises, flawed conclusion, unnecessarily flawed Wikipedia article if we include it. (And you may want to update your frame of reference. There has been a little bit of progress in genetics in the 100+ years since Mendel's time : e.g. see James Watson and Francis Crick, or better yet Recombination hotspot and Linkage disequilibrium, both of which deal with the actual process, and neither of which mention genes anywhere in them.) Agricolae (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I like Crick "cous" he wasn't even the trainded genetic biologist! -- but admit the jeans I know most about are frayed at my knee, so presume the Times was trying to illustrate the unlikelihood of much shared genetics between two 11-times "causes" 4 a reading public precisely like me Justmeherenow( )13:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
revert-warring
I am getting very tired of this. I have invested time in pointing out precisely why the more detailed lead is superior, above. Sourcechecker419 (talk·contribs) keeps reverting without as much as pretending to contribute to any collaborative effort here on talk. This isn't how Wikipedia works. Let him either detail is concerns up front or stop the disruption. --dab(𒁳)19:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This is misleading. Looking through the discussions on this page, I see that Sourcechecker has participated in good faith in the conversations above -- you may not agree with his points, but he is still making them. You reverting back your preferred text is also slow motion edit warring. "Significantly multiracial" and "significantly African American" are weaselly, OR, and POV pushing. RS's establish that his immediate family is African American, his extended family as a whole is multiracial. Which reliable sources use the term "significantly" in discussing his race/heritage makeup? Establish consensus based on reliable sources/verifiability ... THAT is the way wikipedia works. --guyzero | talk19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
ahem, that's what I was doing. I find it somewhat surreal to be accused of "pov pushing" and "weasling" at the same time. Which is it? I am trying to be neutral here. There are plenty of sources describing the Obamas as "African American". This isn't under dispute. There are also plenty of sources describing their bi-racial or multiracial heritage. This isn't under dispute either. The only WP:NPOV way here is to make both points, side by side. Sourcechecker is trying to censor any reference to "biraciality" on a simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. If you object to the "significantly", remove the "significantly": this is how Wikipedia works, by iteration and compromise suggestions on talk, not by reverting to some fixed version.
I shouldn't be expected to perform this iteration unilaterally. But as a show of good faith, I am trying to address the concerns that were not even voiced explicitly, attempting a rephrasing of the significantly bit. If you have any suggestions, feel free to bring them up.
The point here is that of 44 first families, 43 have been White American. The notable point is that the Obamas are one in 44 by virtue of being non-white. This is the main historic "first" here, quibbles about the politically correct description of their actual racial classification aside. --dab(𒁳)09:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
regarding the "participation" of Sourcechecker here, his last comment reiterates that "Race (black/white/multiracial) should not be on a page that supposed to give a detailed description of HERITAGE AND ETHNICITY."
Leaving aside his taking for granted what this page should and should not address (the title of this page isn't "heritage and ethnicity of the Obamas" after all), this is in blatant contradiction to his own edits. He keeps re-instating "first African American". African American is a racial category in the US, see Race in the United States, being synonymous (euphemistic) for "black". It doesn't make sense to take the position that "this page shouldn't mention race" (without giving any reason whatsoever, seeing that the media are full of discussion of the family's race), and at the same time selectively pushing one racial category over another. Sorry, but this isn't honest.
Regarding the claim that "biracial" or "multiracial" isn't a proper term, or unsubstantiated in this case, how about using google?
nobody disputes Obama is African American, ok? In his own words, he is "rooted in the African American community".[9] That's not under debate. What is under debate is that a user keeps removing a perfectly relevant point from this article based on his personal ideology alone. I understand I have to meet WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:DUE, and that I have to be prepared to discuss the precise phrasing even after I have met these. I am perfectly willing to do that. But I also understand that once I have met the necessary criteria for inclusion of a relevant point, the point cannot be simply removed on a whim. --dab(𒁳)09:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Guyzero, Ive tried to debate this editor and everytime consensus falls against his/her way s/he decides to start a whole new topic on the same thing. "Predominantly African American" has been struck down, the same goes for "predominantly multiracial", not only are they weasl words they frankly dont even make sense. If words such as "multiracial" is used that puts into question the identity of every American Presidential family. Using dabs school of thought every presidential family was not white as many had native American ancestry (native american is a racial term), theres even strong evidence Warren Harding was black. If we want to start draging RACE into this what is stopping someone from saying the Obama family is "significantly BLACK"? This is why race should not be in this article. User dab is also incorrect on the ethnic termology "African American", African American is an ethnic term for decendents of American slaves and free blacks. Everybody has a hertiage (even American slaves), while obama is "African American" he is not authentically African American. This is discussed on the wiki page Public image of Barack Obama. Everywhere African American is used on this page correctly refers to it ethnically not racially. Im frankly am tired of debating him/her, as far as Im concerned consensus has been reached on the lead. Please look at prior discussions, consensus has fallen my way on the issue. If anyone has the authority to place some sort of sanctions on dab it would be greatly appreciated.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
We need to get out of this loop where we're discussing editors intentions and focus on the content. Both of you are making good points, and I'm hopeful there is a compromise in here somewhere. I apologize to you both for not being a better participant in this discussion -- I'm making this edit from Dulles before getting on a flight. I will do my best to return here tomorrow to give this section and the sections above, and the Public Image talkpage (where I'm hopeful to see reliable sourcing..?) thank you and kind regards, --guyzero | talk19:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
More distant genealogical relationships
This whole section is spurious trivia. I'd whack it out, but someone has put a great deal of work into it. Cam someone suggest a better place to put it? PhGustaf (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of that deletion, and in fact encouraged it. I just don't think that ninth cousins are notable, even though I'm quite possibly a ninth cousin myself. Does anyone have an argument for keeping this section? PhGustaf (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused what you mean by spurious. Roots by Alex Haley had elements that were controversial, as far as his research goes, but no relationships mentioned in this section are speculative. In any case, although according to Wikipedia:GNG#General notability guidelines, mention of these connections pass muster for a presumption of their being encyclolpedic, the section's intro does, in fact, quote a New York Times science writer who says something to the effect that at the distance of 11th cousins, any genetic significance to a relationship would be pretty neglible. So, with this in mind, if you were to insist that we remove a few names... [I dunno; leave only the section's opening paragraph and then add a short list that would mention in passing Bill Hickok -- only because Barack has mentioned the relationship -- and, say, Obama's fourth cousin (another four times removed) Truman and one or two others] ...would this be an acceptable compromise? Just tips me hat but then 〜on thoght bows deeply 23:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
What I hate about this is the implicit message that a person is better or worse through his ancestry. This might work for racehorses or show dogs, but not for people. Leave Obama's family page to the people who shaped his life, or at least to those he'd recognize at Thanksgiving dinner. And, Happy Thanksgiving to all of us who do it this time of year. PhGustaf (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Preliminary consensus appears to favor retaining some mention of this topic in the article. Although your point of view regarding genealogies is as valid as any, your merely expressing its sentiment nonetheless fails to provide a supportable rationale to remove any coverage to the topic in whole from this article. (Cf.:WP:NOTCENSORED.) Which is also why I reverted a portion of your deletion (and why, in my opinion, Khoikhoi did, as well and is why Evb-wiki argues that the present, composite article would provide some mention of the material its most reasonable home). Just tips me hat but then 〜on thoght bows deeply 06:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with that compromise. For what it's worth, the record is pretty clear that my great-grandmother Bengta was born out of wedlock in Sweden, and there's a fuzzy record that suggests that a great^N grandmother was thrown out of Dorchester, MA, in 1670 or so for "entertaining gentlemen in the evening". It is fun to look these things up, but it doesn't say much about who I am now. PhGustaf (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Spoken like a true republican (not intended as an insult: I mean "a promoter of power to the people! through prohibition of hereditary titles"). Still, isn't it true that, even in a republic, heads of state are regarded by many somewhat similar to royalty -- from the military's giving them 21-gun salutes to, we guess, some folks who trace genealogies' being fascinated by admittedly obscure connections to their heritages? Just tips me hat but then 〜on thoght bows deeply 16:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Why so many categories? Surely cats such as French-American, Indonesian-American, and Chinese-Canadian are unnecessary. Does Obama have Chinese or Indonesian ancestry? And does he have enough French ancestry to be considered a French-American?--jeanne (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Rosella Cohen
Was Michelle Obama's great-grandmother of partial Jewish ancestry? Her surname is Jewish, although the portrait of her in background of image shows her to have been black. The article does not describe her. Details on Michelle's family are pretty scanty and need to be expanded. Is nothing known about her colonial ancestors or when the first of her forebears were brought to America?--jeanne (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Tony, it doesn't deserve to receive GA status as long as that offensive comment regarding Cherokee Indians' beaky nose remains. Why it needs to be in the article is a mystery to me as Ann Dunham had no proven Native American ancestry.--jeanne (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence is extremely awkward and should be rewritten
The first sentence of the Family of Barack Obama article is awkward and should be rewritten.
Here is a suggestion:
Barack Obama has a large diverse extended family with members from (insert list here) backrounds, as revealed in President Obama's writings and official biography, as 44th President of the United States.MdReisman (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Family of Barack Obama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
