Talk:Michelle Obama/Archive 3

Merge discussion
User:Tvoz proposed merging Racist attacks on Michelle Obama into this article, but forgot to create a place to discuss it, so I'm doing so. Please comment on this merge proposal below; I have no opinion myself. Robofish (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge: Unfortunately, there is a lot of racism, stupidity, and not-funny political jokes being told. I really don't think that the ones directed at Mrs. Obama are notable enough on their own to require an article. DenaChemistry 03:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have BOLDLY performed the merge, since no one has opposed it yet while several people have supported it, and it has been two months or so. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What I said in April was "suggest merging anything that is notable here into the main article; this is essentially a 'criticism of' article which is not good form". I did not mean that the entire article should be folded into this one, and I object to the way the merge was done.  This deserves a few sentences at most, not the section that was added.  Now it is given way more weight than is warranted.  Tvoz / talk 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And reading over what was added I wish to withdraw the merge suggestion and recreate the separate article. It can go through the AfD that was started and let the chips fall where they may - but this is entirely too much weight for this article.  Tvoz / talk 01:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

closed section
Michelle Obama graduated from law school, passed the bar, worked in a law firm - then relinquished her law license to the Illinois Bar as a condition for sealing the complaints filed against her with that organization. Why does Wikipedia list her law school and law career information with no notation re: the fact she no longer holds a license to practice law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.197.89 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, because that's a lie? I wonder what special sort of Google conservatives use that make them unable to access the most elementary methods of confirming information you received in an email labeled "FW:FW:FW:FW:OMG!" Her license is voluntarily inactive, which frees her from a number of professional obligations, like maintaining malpractice insurance. It can be reactivated.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

Cheers. 89.247.97.56 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a mention of this to the sentence about her law firm work. Wnt (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=500520766

The above link is an official State of Illinois website that anyone can access and search the status of persons who are licensed to practice law in Illinois. I think this website might be a bit more reliable for accurate information than Snopes.com. By doing a search on Michelle Obama, you will see that she has been "Involuntarily" retired and not authorized to practice law in the State of Illinois. Furthermore, it goes on to state that she is on "Court Ordered inactive status". Being court-ordered to give up your license to practice law seems like a pretty major item that should be corrected in the wiki article with regards to her career. I sincerely doubt that anyone would ever accuse the Attorney Registration of the Supreme Court of Illinois of being conservatively biased. (DKD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.92.8 (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it does not say that.


 * 1) the referenced page clearly states next to "Illinois registration": "Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law "
 * 2) There is no indication of what "court-ordered" refers to here: "No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status."  in response to  "Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration;consult attorney for further information)".  But see the snopes piece for an explanation of what "court-ordered" means in this context.
 * 3) Further, you neglect to mention that the same page says "Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None"
 * 4) And finally, in addition to deliberate misquoting, all of this would not be allowed anyway as it is original research and synthesis, neither of which are permitted.
 * This kind of attempt to insert false and misleading information into an article is not tolerated.

This incorrect and defamatory material is also in violation of our BLP guidelines, which cover talk pages as well as article space,  so I am closing this section. Tvoz / talk 19:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Michelle and Carla
EDIT REQUEST http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100920/pl_afp/usfrancebookpeopleobamabruni_20100920190212 That too should be included. --188.23.184.68 (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  04:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My Perfect Cousin?
It does seem strange that there are no critical views of her - that are notable. I mean things like expenses scandals or things she has said or bad judgements. This is not a call for racist or right wing chimeras, but as a notable person putting these in context allows a balanced view point. Maybe there are none? I see that there are National Enquirer articles, but as I cannot read them outside of eth US they cannot be seen what they say on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strange? Not at all....this is Wikipedia.  If Todd Palin had been given a promotion and compensation jump from $121,910 to $316,962 as soon as his spouse had won influential office (subsequently pushing a $1-million taxpayer-funded earmark back to his employer), it would be relevant.  But this is Wikipedia, and she is a left-wing tool.


 * Heck, her Ivy League "senior thesis" would have been laughed out of some high schools, given its puerile reasoning and rotten writing (by the second paragraph of the introduction, she had sentences containing three major grammatical errors)! Somehow, though, she had enough favor of the profs—whether by affirmative action, now-faded charm, the paper's racial-antagonistic viewpoint, or something else—to pass.  Frankly, one would think that it would be a notable achivement of hers to get Princeton to pass such incompetence.   If liberals were honest, you'd see such things.  But they know their lies can't withstand scrutiny without a façade. —71.203.125.108 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an interesting article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-517824/Mrs-O-The-truth-Michelle-Obamas-working-class-credentials.html which you may find worth the read. Some of it could well be be used to source a few critical points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.234.220 (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

new section ?
Is there enough 'material' for a new section 2016 presidential election ? (under the section '2012 presidential election')

There, i.e. her speech could be mentioned. --Neun-x (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Campaigns
"Early campaigns" section is immediately followed by FLOTUS section, and includes no mention of US Senate campaign. Please change section title to something more appropriate or add a section title above the presidential campaign paragraphs. TIA Sadsaque (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Not born in DeYoung, Illinois
Should be changed immediately. Does not meet the verifiability criteria for biographies of living persons. Please change DeYoung, Illinois to Chicago, Illinois. According to several sources, like Infoplease and the Cook County Clerk's Office, Michelle Obama was born in Chicago. The New York Times article cited: Dance, Gabriel & Elisabeth Goodridge (October 7, 2009). "The Family Tree of Michelle Obama, the First Lady" does not support the claim that she was born in DeYoung. Furthermore, DeYoung, Illinois did not exist in 1964. Its' name had been changed to Calumet Park in 1925 OrangeInChicago (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * there is error in this (above) reasoning RVEHmXyMfAw and i saw it clearly today 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Dane 2007  talk  04:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional sources - in her own words: I was born and raised on Chicago's South Side, I was born and raised here on the South Side in South Shore, I’m here today because Chicago is my home. I was born and raised here...As Rahm said, I was born and raised in South Shore., and from CNN and Chicago-Tribune - Birth place: Chicago, Illinois, Michelle Obama was born and raised in Chicago - more sources available upon request that she was born in Chicago.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  13:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Updated and provided source. -- Dane 2007  talk 21:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Michelle met Barack Obama when they were among the few African Americans at their law firm, Sidley Austin (she has sometimes said only two, although others have pointed out there were others in different departments and she was assigned to mentor him while he was a summer associate" This is the only sentence that talks about the fact that she was Barack's boss. His success is discussed in depth, but this fact is skimmed over. Blh4rf (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Personal life section
Can we link her father's name to this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:4100:8575:8D29:1455:4653:EAB5 (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tvoz / talk 07:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Role in 2016 campaign
I think that section needs a little bit more meat. Her speech in NH on Trump's behavior in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Fashion icon
"As First Lady, Obama has become a fashion icon, and a cool person! a role model for women, and an advocate for poverty awareness, nutrition, physical activity, and healthy eating"

Is it accurate to portray Obama as a fashion icon before portraying her as a role model or an advocate? Does this not play into all the sexist stereotypes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.13.171 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

___________

Agree with the sentiment of the post above! Listing "fashion icon" first is somewhat degrading to her accomplishments. The sentence should read, "As First Lady, Obama has become a role model for women; an advocate for poverty awareness, nutrition, physical activity, and healthy eating; as well as a a fashion icon." [2][3] 2601:602:9C03:2300:61DE:7E65:D0CD:A44D (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)11/9/2016; sf

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016
Flip around these two statements " become a fashion icon, a role model for women". She is a role model for women first!!!! Stevedog494 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Dane 2007  talk  01:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016
Education and early career She was inspired - Poor grammar. A new paragraph/topic should use "Michelle" to begin the statement, not "she"

The mother of a white roommate reportedly unsuccessfully tried to get her daughter moved because of Michelle's race. - This should be removed if there is no supporting documents / references

Of the 400 she sent her survey to, only a small number, fewer than 90, responded and her findings did not support her - Fragmented - "Of the 400 who she sent the survey to, less than 90 responded, and her findings ..."

71.236.238.225 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Reference 39 (Politico) says she was attempted to be moved out because of her race. Stickee (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Michelle Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209224315/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_resigns_from_trinity_uni.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_resigns_from_trinity_uni.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415173151/http://www.treehousefoods.com:80/bio_michelle_obama.html to http://www.treehousefoods.com/bio_michelle_obama.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209000555/http://blogs.suntimes.com:80/sweet/2007/05/sweet_column_michelle_obama_qu.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/05/sweet_column_michelle_obama_qu.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120714204202/http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=45180 to http://www.defense.gov/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222111840/http://www.france24.com/en/20151105-disappointed-michelle-obama-calls-off-jordan-trip to http://www.france24.com/en/20151105-disappointed-michelle-obama-calls-off-jordan-trip

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Archival
I have set the minthreadsleft parameter to 4, so the talk page doesn't get completely harvested. MB298 (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

"First Lady" role omission
When will this be fixed? Frevangelion (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401152253/http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/3/28/michelle-obama-goes-organic-and-brings-in-the-bees.html to http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/3/28/michelle-obama-goes-organic-and-brings-in-the-bees.html
 * Added tag to http://www.letsmove.gov/white-house-task-force-childhood-obesity-report-president

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

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

Survey

 * Support has been tagged with notability issues, seems a clear-and-cut case of WP:INHERITED, not independently notable. Note:Article was tagged with a merge tag, but no discussion was initiated. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to her coverage in reliable sources and de facto position as "First Grandmother". MB298 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support She just doesn't seem to be notable enough other than being Michelle Obama's mother to have her own page. Unless there is more content for her page it's better to merge. The article is so short it seems like a stub. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Does not seem to be notable enough on her own to have a separate page. Mymis (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose if more information & coverage from reliable sources can be found, if not, Support. Amandarobertson (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, her notability comes from her living in the White House for the eight years of her son-in-law's presidency. This hasn't happened for a First Family grandparent since Elivera M. Doud in the 1950s. And per adequate sources. Randy Kryn 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If her notability only "comes from her living in the White House", that's actually an argument for merging. A paragraph in Michelle Obama's article is largely sufficient to point out this factoid. — JFG talk 06:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, There is enough content to be standalone and I'm sure more content will come about later with more books from Michelle Obama. 17:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.229.79.234 (talk)
 * Merge – No independent notability. What has she done besides being nicknamed the "First Grannie"? And now that the Obama presidency is over, there is little likelihood that this article on his mother-in-law could be expanded further. — JFG talk 19:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Unlike Michelle Obama, Robinson hasn't done anything notable that requires its own Wikipedia page. Merge it into information about Obama's family life. Woebegone (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - much coverage in reliable sources, and no reason to bog down the Michelle Obama page or the already overcrowded family page. She has played a significant role in the 8 year presidency and therefore in American history. No reason to delete. Tvoz / talk 04:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * May I ask what "significant role" she has played, other than happening to be the mother of the First Lady? — JFG talk 05:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not just "happened" to be mother of the FL - she lived in the White House which is of historical significance and has had sufficient RS coverage regarding her role already and will surely figure significantly in future biographies of the Obamas. Tvoz / talk 02:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, but we can agree to disagree. — JFG talk 06:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Someone saw fit to provide a narrative devoted exclusively to expounding on Robinson's eight year residence in the White House of the United States. That her residence in the White House occurred during the term(s) of a Presidency that so radically departed from a cultural climate that had been the very definition of the American Experience for the entirety of its previous history would suffice to offer a strong argument that future historians would regard valid a singular commentary regarding anyone so intimately intertwined into the fabric of the lives of others likewise seemingly representing such a stark sea change in this country's cultural and political climate. Whatever mechanism applied for vetting given profiles for a standard for contributions and imprint on cultural experiences, more than a few not paralleling Ms. Robinson's,has heretofore deemed justified the inclusion of such individuals' public profiles via Wikipedia archiving. That Ms. Robinson lived in the White House for eight consecutive and (most pertinently) unique and extraordinary years in intimate proximity of the First Family of the United States,regardless of (if not amplified by) the reason, is sufficiently unique to well exceed the litmus test that seems to have been and continues to be applied to determine a legitimate claim for inclusion of her historical profile in its own right.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80DD:2720:1945:EDCC:CD29:306E (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hard to make sense of this lengthy position, but the rationale can be summed up as "she lived in the White House for 8 years (and those were awesome years), therefore she deserves an article of her own." That is not the litmus test here on Wikipedia: Notability is not inherited. If she's only famous because she happened to live with the President and First Lady, that would be a case of inheriting notability from them. Per policy, she should be mentioned in their articles, and that's not enough have her own. — JFG talk 17:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (further dialogue moved to below)


 * Oppose - There are reliable secondary sources, thus notable - WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support- The subject of the article is not notable independently. As being unofficial first granny she didn't do anything notable. Whatever coverage she got from reliable source that is because of living in the White House. So, we can assume that the reason of her notibiliy is not she but WH. That's why not independenty notable. Ominictionary (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support even if mentioned in credible sources, it's for her connections with her son-in-law and/or daughter rather than anything of her own merit. Notability isn't inherited (as noted above), and it would be far too lenient to suggest she warrants a separate page just for being a First Lady's mother or a President's mother-in-law. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Easier for the reader to read about Marian Shields Robinson in a separate article. She can and should still be noted in the Michelle Obama article but the reader is afforded an option that they will (in my opinion) take if their interest is in learning about Marian Shields Robinson. No need to wade through the Michelle Obama article for material pertaining to the mother. Sources address the mother. The reader (in my opinion) wants an article with the sort of focus that is allowed for by the Marian Shields Robinson article. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG The reliable secondary sources establish her basic notability and I second that it's easier to read about her in her own article, no need to wade through the Michelle Obama article for information, her article is a sign of the depth of the encyclopedia, a merger would be a step backwards - Shameran81 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Champion -- as you proposed the merger back in April, what about the next steps to closing it? Shameran81 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I am involved in the discussion, I'd rather be WP:UNINVOLVED with the closure, for it is better done by an uninvolved editor when it is the right time. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, that makes sense.

Hi all who have participated in this discussion. I was reading up on WP:MERGE and 30 days or less is generally the time frame for discussion. Admins are not needed to decide on merge cases. This article merger was proposed in April, so overdue for a decision. The discussion space suggests there's no consensus to merge, and, in fact many contributors would like to keep the article, per WP:GNG. It makes sense that the outcome of this discussion is keep it the way it was. In recalling that notability is not based on the state of sourcing in an article but on the existence of sources available, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove the template proposing the merge. Not changing the article as it stands ensures the positive value of stubs and starter articles continues: they are an opportunity for others to improve the encyclopedia, and by existing, are a gateway for people to discover information. This, I believe, is maintaining the spirit of the encyclopedia, which is to freely expand access to information. Shameran81 (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
(Longer dialogue in response to an Oppose !vote moved from section above)
 * Oppose - Someone saw fit to provide a narrative devoted exclusively to expounding on Robinson's eight year residence in the White House of the United States. That her residence in the White House occurred during the term(s) of a Presidency that so radically departed from a cultural climate that had been the very definition of the American Experience for the entirety of its previous history would suffice to offer a strong argument that future historians would regard valid a singular commentary regarding anyone so intimately intertwined into the fabric of the lives of others likewise seemingly representing such a stark sea change in this country's cultural and political climate. Whatever mechanism applied for vetting given profiles for a standard for contributions and imprint on cultural experiences, more than a few not paralleling Ms. Robinson's,has heretofore deemed justified the inclusion of such individuals' public profiles via Wikipedia archiving. That Ms. Robinson lived in the White House for eight consecutive and (most pertinently) unique and extraordinary years in intimate proximity of the First Family of the United States,regardless of (if not amplified by) the reason, is sufficiently unique to well exceed the litmus test that seems to have been and continues to be applied to determine a legitimate claim for inclusion of her historical profile in its own right.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80DD:2720:1945:EDCC:CD29:306E (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hard to make sense of this lengthy position, but the rationale can be summed up as "she lived in the White House for 8 years (and those were awesome years), therefore she deserves an article of her own." That is not the litmus test here on Wikipedia: Notability is not inherited. If she's only famous because she happened to live with the President and First Lady, that would be a case of inheriting notability from them. Per policy, she should be mentioned in their articles, and that's not enough have her own. — JFG talk 17:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the "lengthy position" cannot be dissected for "sense", how then did it seem rationale to endeavor to "sum up" it's implication? (And I did note what I ascertained to be a pretty strong whiff of sarcasm, if not condescension. "First Granny?"...might warrant at least being a bit more subtle about attempting a tinge of derision or scorn - simply a suggestion.) I wholeheartedly disagree that Wikipedia has heretofore held to some standard where other profiles have exceeded that of Ms. Robinson's in noteworthiness when determining whether or not such profile should be preserved.  There are numerous examples of so-called ancillary profiles that are linked to that of a so-called primary subject, where those ancillary profiles DID survive Wikipedia's vetting process for inclusion. Exhibit A: Zerelda Amanda Mimms James. Who is this person? She was the cousin and wife of Jesse James. And how was this information obtained? By accessing HER Wikipedia page, NOT that of Jesse James. Seems to me a very specific case of "inherited notoriety" that is otherwise being argued as insufficient basis for consideration for a highlighted profile. Please explain how Zerelda James merits singular acknowledgement solely for her "accomplishment" of being related to a notorious outlaw, where the mother of the First Lady of the United States, residing for eight years in an indisputably landmark White House, does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80DD:2720:1945:EDCC:CD29:306E (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me assure you that no sarcasm was intended against Mrs. Robinson. As to Mrs. Zereida James, please refer to WP:OTHERCRAP. — JFG talk 09:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I found that "First Granny" identifier to smack of a tinge of dismissiveness; particularly in the United States, the idea of the extended family has gone increasingly out of vogue, where contributions made beyond those within the "nuclear" family are wrongly trivialized. I am fairly convinced that this was the implicit message intended when Ms. Robinson was referenced in that manner.
 * I read the materials you offered as background related to my introduction of the Zereida James profile in my commentary. It spoke of the fact that the inclusion of a particular profile would not necessarily "justify" a profile that seemed to bear a sameness of standard for inclusion subsequently being added (in short, two "wrongs" don't make a "right.")  However, my initial opposition to merging Ms. Robinson's profile did not speak at all to Ms. James or anyone else who has already been included based upon what seems to clearly be a basis of "inherited notoriety."  I argued that Ms. Robinson, like Elivera M. Doud who proceeded her, is a mother of the First Lady of the United States, who is otherwise also unique in that she also lived in the White House for eight years, merits singular commentary. It cannot be underscored forcefully enough - the Obama Presidency may very well stand as an unique and extraordinary chapter in American history for years to come, and extensive analysis of its legacy, to include all that factored into its story line, warrants archiving. My sole reticence at supporting the inclusion of profiles of the Obama children is their ages.It was only my response to the clearly inconsistently applied, express "inherited notoriety" argument that expounded on my objections to that position. Even post commentary, a newly submitted support for merging Ms. Robinson's profile suggests the "inherited notoriety" standard adopts a "too lenient" standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.  This view begs the question: where is the divide that defines when two profiles, of essentially similar import (more so in the case of Ms. Robinson and Ms. Doud than either in comparison to Ms. James - et al) should be managed under different guidelines?  What IS the litmus test? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80dd:2720:8d4a:5190:344a:42e6 (talk)
 * The "First Granny" title is cited to a Daily Telegraph journalist. I have no opinion whether it's dismissive or charming. Contrary to Mrs. Robinson, Mrs Doud took an active role in President Eisenhower's election campaign and participated in a political club called Daughters of the American Revolution; that makes her independently notable. Based on currently-offered sources, I remain convinced that Mrs Robinson is not. — JFG talk 04:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

From whatever source originated the "First Granny" reference (in this case, a source pretty indisputably right wing in its ideology, where the objectivity of its content is often difficult to discern), it still smacks of dismissiveness, and I am no less convinced that it was intentionally inserted into commentary on this issue in this forum for precisely the reason I articulated. BEFORE Ms.Doud's Wikipedia page was either modified or removed (nice move, Wikipedia.), it made NO REFERENCE to either of those instances that you deem to be noteworthy...None. (Besides, I hardly believe that the Daughters of the American Revolution would have warmed to the prospect of Ms. Robinson's activism within their organization.) No - Ms. Doud's page (had been) exclusively devoted to remarking about her being the mother of Mamie Eisenhower and the mother-in-law of Dwight Eisenhower. About her relationship to relatives, both high profile and obscure. THAT'S IT.

It's pretty clear that there is an 800 pound gorilla lurking in the shadows of this discussion that no one seems willing to acknowledge. In my experience, that is a pretty typical tactic employed by those who desire to engage in a particular endeavor, being mindful of having care not to leave a "smoking gun" that can be identified as evidence of such activities. In the past, I have frequently perused the profiles archived on Wikipedia...never once, before, have I encountered an occasion where the merits of inclusion of a particular profile has been challenged...no matter how dubious the merits of one profile or another (or NUMEROUS) might be. DON'T MAKE ME EXTRACT AND CITE PROFILE AFTER PROFILE THAT SUPPORTS MY THEORY ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON, HERE. I find it offensive that this "discussion" has been allowed to remain open for what I view to be a insultingly extended period (particularly given that its existence is pretty conspicuously - AND PROMINENTLY - noted on Ms. Obama's page...or would someone suggest that Ms Obama's profile, likewise, might warrant re-vetting insofar as determining its worthiness to be included on Wikipedia (a forum of which I am increasingly losing what little respect I once may have had regarding its legitimate contribution to scrupulous and unbiased information archiving.)

I will grant this - the "inherited notoriety" argument seems at last to have been recognized as unsupportable as circumstances heretofore prevailed. However, it seems that SUDDENLY raising other arguments, where the unsupportable "inherited notoriety" challenge was clearly perceived to be a winning strategy - until it was called for the foul that it was - is rendered moot...why were NO OTHER arguments previously raised? It strikes me that Wikipedia, by virtue of leaving this topic open for an inappropriate time,by citing that the issue was being raised not merely via Ms. Robinson's profile, but noted via the profile of Ms. Obama (which serves to implicitly diminish the merit of even the profile of Ms. Obama) is signalling a bias regarding the resolution of this "challenge." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80dd:2720:b4e1:4287:87a5:e44c  (talk)  11:19, 21 August 2017‎

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160112045239/http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141014/south-shore-above-79th/michelle-obama-recalls-stressful-childhood-south-shore-at-whitney-young to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141014/south-shore-above-79th/michelle-obama-recalls-stressful-childhood-south-shore-at-whitney-young
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820100201/http://www.letsmove.gov/ to http://letsmove.gov/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Michelle Obama 2013 official portrait.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Michelle Obama 2013 official portrait.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 17, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-01-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416013539/http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/mother_wife_superstar/6037/ to http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/mother_wife_superstar/6037

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407154631/http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/first-lady-michelle-obama to http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/first-lady-michelle-obama/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018
I want to edit so I can make books and learn how to do my editing skills better. 2600:1702:12F0:E3F0:2D51:EDF1:AF5E:7AE4 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then please edit a different article. If you have a specific request for a change to this article we are more than happy to take a look at it provided that you provide a source that backs up what you want to change and you are specific as to what you want to change. Or you can create and account and eventually be able to edit this article yourself. --Majora (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Update needed, Nov 2018
In the section Subsequent activities, please update the forward-looking ref to MB’s memoir being published, perhaps as follows:

In her new memoir Becoming (published November 2018 )), Michelle Obama chronicled the life experiences that have shaped her. In the UK the book was serialised for BBC Radio 4 with the author reading it herself.

217.155.200.241 (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Whitney Young was not Chicago's First Magnet High School
I am 3 years older than Mrs Obama, and my peers attended Whitney Young with a younger Michelle. But Whitney Young HS is NOT Chicago's first Magnet (public) High School. Chicago Public High School for Metropolitan Studies (aka at Metro HS) operated from 1970 to 1991. Google it. It pre-dates WYHS and for many years was the leading Public HS (not in white neighborhoods, with a diverse/non white majority) that had high graduation rates, low dropout rates and who had a high percentage of its students who went on to college. By all measures, Metro HS was a very successful public Magnet HS in Chicago. Whitney Young opened in 1975, and I was ALREADY enrolled in Metro High School in 1975-- where Metro had already been operational 5 years. I do not know if Metro was the first public Magnet HS in Chicago, but it was a very successful public school its first 15 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:CF00:5803:D3:67EF:2045:1AD2 (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Beginning of article
I would say that since she has been disbarred, she is not a lawyer. I wasn't in the mood to read the entire article, but when I briefly skimmed it I did not even see any mention of the disbarment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:D708:ADE6:0:18:8041:8201 (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * She hasn't been disbarred. Brad  v  🍁 15:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Typo
Under Domestic Travels: "Reese reacted by releasing a public statement that he was honored the First Lady" - should be 'she', Reese is female — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.12.190 (talk) 12:52, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, thanks for noticing. --Geolodus (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Why my suggestion ignored?
I added potential text for Michelle Obama article to Talk page last November 2018 and it has been ignored, not even rejected. Thought her visit to London and associated activities relevant to the UK readershp of Wikipedia. Link to this seems to go to another Talk page – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Obama&diff=870240782&oldid=869208898 217.155.200.241 (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion was later archived; it can still be found at Talk:Michelle Obama/Archive 3. (Don't edit the archive though). Geolodus (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Robinson or Obama!? - referring with last name gone wrong (inconsistent)
How does Wikipedia refer to a person in her own main article?

While reading this Wikipedia article about Michelle Obama, I noticed that she is briefly referred to by the last name Obama, but in some other parts this same article refers to Michelle Obama by her maiden name Robinson. I see 2 problems here: First, Michelle Robinson became Michelle Obama when she married Barrack Obama, so the change of the name Michelle is referred by seems to be perfectly logic, but this could cause confusion. At some point, I saw a referral to Robinson after Michelle had already married Barrack Obama and that is definitely wrong.

Second, simply referring to Michelle by her last name Obama creates confusion with the former president, whereas the former first lady is a person in her own right, who (at least I believe so) deserves to be respected for serving the American people in her own way. Usually, when I see a problem in Wikipedia, I try to repair it, but this article is locked. Even if it were not locked, my time is scarce, the task seems to be too big for me and there might be rules on Wikipedia about biographies that I am not aware of.

Volunteers? Anyone? Have fun fixing this bug on Wikipedia! ;-)

PS: Please don't assume I will read your message when you answer me here. I have had some bad experiences, where long and hard work, done in good faith, got me into edit wars with Wikipedia's dinosaurs who would assume vandalism, just because I refuse to log in before editing.

82.173.160.29 (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) anonymous 23:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * She is referred to as "Robinson" for the parts of the biography from before her marriage to Barack Obama. She is referred to as "Obama" from there on. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020
Change Jill Biden to Joe Biden in one of the images.

Joe Biden is referred to as Jill Biden in one of the images and redirects to Jill Biden's page. Finnegan333 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. "Obama" here refers to Michelle, so Jill Biden is correct here. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 16:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020
Change AB to BA under education after Princeton University. 2601:CD:C100:490:C4BA:ADE:4190:3D10 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. The degree at Princeton is correctly stated as "AB". Tvoz / talk 05:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Which Section
Hello all! I just recently read an article by The Hill saying that "Michelle Obama named most admired woman for third straight year: poll." So, I was wondering which section should I put it down? I was debating on either Subseuqent activties or Public Image and Style. Which one do you guys think would fit best under? Thanks, Jack Reynolds(<b style="color:blue">talk to me!</b>) 20:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of Public Image and Style. It is already mentioned there that she was "most admired" in 2019. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that, but, it was published in 2020, not 2019...

<b style="color:red">Jack Reynolds</b>(<b style="color:blue">talk to me!</b>) 21:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:MelanieN, sorry, I see it now! Sorry for the inconvience...

<b style="color:red">Jack Reynolds</b>(<b style="color:blue">talk to me!</b>) 21:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

For the interested
Michelle Obama transgender conspiracy theory Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in deleting WP:FRINGE articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021
Michelle LaVaughn Obama (née Robinson; born January 17, 1964) is the President of Princeton University, an American attorney, and author who was the first lady of the United States from 2009 to 2017. 2601:2C3:680:3310:5C84:3AB9:E708:4ACC (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: President of Princeton University? You would need a reliable source for that, but regardless, it shouldn't be in the opening sentence if it isn't talked about in the article. Volteer1 (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)