Talk:Ann Dunham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recommend

Notability seems to derive only from being mother of Senator Obama, whose article contains same information as this one. Recommend merge and redirect at this time. Tvoz | talk 06:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what struck me when i saw this article. This is not a notable person. Her information should be contained in the Barack Obama article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.235.5 (talk • contribs) 02:03, May 5, 2008

There has been a debate on whether Dunham is notable or not, and the decision was keep. Since then Time magazine published a cover story focusing on Dunham. If that's not notability, I don't know what is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to contain a bit more information about Ann Dunham than the Barak Obama article does. However, a photo of Ann Dunham instead of one of Barak Obama, or at a minimum, in addition to one of Barak Obama seems appropriate since this article is about her, not him. 67.161.5.47 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Girlgeek

I don't think the article should be deleted. You have an article for Jimmy Carter's mother Lillian, and she's less likely to be talked about than Obama's mother -- at least in the near future.

You need some clarification on that "fellow traveller" comment and just exactly what was meant by it. I suspect it just meant that the person who said it and Ann Dunham made a similar journey through life. Some people are taking it as an indication that Dunham was a Marxist, and you see a lot about that on the blogs now. That allegation is something that should be addressed. A user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.105 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

error in article

you say Obama sr obtained a PhD in economics from Harvard but Harvard says he did not

as on checking with Harvard University, they say he only obtained a AM (masters).

see email to me below:

source: Harvard University

Subject: FW: obama Date: 2/21/2008 11:49:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time From: pdyer@fas.harvard.edu Reply To: To: x CC: BCC: Sent on:

Sent from the Internet (Details)

Dear x: We do have a record that indicates a person by the name of Barack Hussein Obama graduated from Harvard University with an AM degree in Economics in 1965. We cannot confirm, however, this is the father of Barack Obama.

Sincerely

Pat Dyer Supervisor of Information Services FAS Registrar's Office Harvard University 20 Garden Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-496-3713/fax 617-495-0815 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.66.85 (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace

I believe that the mother's birth place should be changed or at least put in question; the citation in the article simply says "Some reports indicate she was born in Wichita. However, the stated source for the Leavenworth reference is the Wichita Eagle newspaper." which really doesn't prove much. However another source cited later in the article (but not for her birthplace) gives it at Wichita Kansas (http://genealogy.about.com/od/aframertrees/p/barack_obama.htm : "Stanley Ann DUNHAM was born on 27 November 1942 in Wichita, Kansas and died 7 November 1995 of ovarian cancer.") I believe this is correct, because the wiki article says that the mother worked at a plant in Wichita while her father was away, and it makes sense that she was born there; but not in Fort Leavenworth since there is no evidence that I can find that her family was ever stationed there.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.81.53 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ann Durham was certainly NOT born in Kenya, Africa. She was born in Kansas--whether Wichita or Fort Leavenworth is still under discussion. Rhysdux (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Orignal SSN application reads Wichita as her birthplace

1942 Wichita Eagle birth annoucement stating she was born in Wichita

Cladeal832 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusion that "the campaign got it wrong" is based on this evidence? Webofdeception.com is not a usable source, and the article on the Wichita tv station page is one article, versus other sources that state she was born on the army base. Please wait for consensus before making changes lke this, especially when you're removing sources. Tvoz/talk 14:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on the evidence that a birth annoucement from 1942 stating she was born in Wichita. Based her own handwriting, she was born in Wichita. The New England Historic Genealogical Society has seen her SSN application and it confirms Wichita. Email NEHGS if you doubt it. Based on reading her obituary and it states she was born in Wichita.

Also recall the Uncle liberating Auschwitz concentration camp story.

Cladeal832 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Find some reliable sourcing then. I'm not making a brief for Ft Leavenworth, I'm making a brief for having things reliably sourced in our articles. And when sources differ on details, we say so. I'm not going to be emailing anyone - this is OR at this point. (And the webofdecption post of her SSN application could just as easily be written by me as by her. Not reliable, sorry.) Tvoz/talk 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And the birth annoucemnet in the local newspaper? Wichita. That's from ABC News. Good enough? All I said what that NEGHS has the documents and they is how come they put Wichita on there official stuff. [[1]] I emailed them as how come they put Wichita instead of Fort Leavenworth, and the people of NEHGS has her SSN application with Wichita. I only put in the remark about emailing yourself, that's only if doubt it so much which I hope not. So acredited ABC News and New England Historic Genealogical Society and their primary sources. Reuters was a campaign release without then author and as to sourcing to Dreams from My Father, quote: "You reconstruct your memory for what happened. It is not reportage. It is not appearing in the New York Times or the Sun-Times. I say that explicitly in the book."

Ancestry of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

So it's Wichita.Cladeal832 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-read the current sources. Time Magazine's Amanda Ripley, New York Times' Jan Scott or Wichita Eagle's Fred Mann do not state where they got the information that she was born at Fort Leavenworth. Wichita ABC News wrote in that article that they got Wichita from a 1942 birth annoucement and NEHGS got Wichita from a 1959 SSN application.Cladeal832 (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Fort Leavenworth do not state sources for info beyond a campaign statement and son's memoirs, neither definitive.[2] Sources for Wichita state 1942 newspaper birth notice and 1959 SSN application as primary source. Impossible to be born in two places, so it's Wichita.Cladeal832 (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cladeal1832, that's very interesting that you refer to an article by Lynn Sweet, but how does it support your claim? I read the article and it says nothing about Ann Dunham's birthplace. Is there a reason you are claiming that it does? Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all Cladeal832 should not have edit warred over this matter and I have warned that user for that behavior. Also changes should ideally be discussed first, and if a change is reverted then it really must be discussed. But discussion is happening now so that seems to be moot, and probably things should stay as they are until some consensus is reached. If we have Wichita for now but further research proves this to be wrong it would not be the end of the world, so better to leave as is in order to avoid edit warring.

I don't have a position on what the actual place of birth is, or what we should say here in our article on Dunham. It could just be that we have contradictory sourcing and need to say that, or maybe we can come to a conclusion. I think one thing that could be useful in terms of coming to consensus would be to file a Request for comment. These do not always work out (sometimes no consensus is reached, sometimes no other editors bother to comment), but it's a chance to get a few more eyes on the issue at hand, and also maybe someone will turn up some info that neither of you have so far. Either of you could file an RFC - which must be worded neutrally obviously - or I could do that if that's easier. An RFC could be a useful way forward, and if not I think it's at least worth a try. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does the U.S. Army say she was born at Fort Leavenworth? [3][4] Obama also claims his mother was born at Fort Leavenworth.[5] Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New article with information

If anyone wants to add information from this article - [6]. Remember (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC) And here's another article [7] Remember (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote removed

I took out:

Barack Jr. would later relate that his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama (c. 1895-1979), "didn't want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman".

The fact that Barack Sr.'s granddad objected is given in the sentence before, so no information is lost. I think a lot of people will find this quote offensive and it doesn't really add much to our understanding of Ann, who is the subject of the article after all. Another objection that could be made is that Barack Jr., whose interest was to tell his life story in a dramatic way, didn't really know anything about his grandfather's state of mind. I don't think that he ever met him. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to take it out, but the source is the letter the grandfather wrote to the father so it's not conjecture. Flatterworld (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Marking it as POV

Marking it as POV challenged - see the edit from "13:21, 6 March 2008 74.129.135.194 " which lacked quality, did not do spell checking and made several strong statements with citing any sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.184.182 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 March 2008

I reverted the 74.129.135.194 edit. Americasroof (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good source

Obama's mother - an unconventional life Anthropologist disliked ethnic barriers, sought to aid world's poorUser:calbear22 (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another useful source is this New York Times article on her life; interestingly, this article calls her Soetoro, not Dunham. It looks as if she kept her second husband's name after divorcing him. The article should probably be edited to reflect this. --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Where buried/cremated and where died?

Noticeably missing from this article is where she died and where she was buried or was cremated. This source says she died in Wichita. This article also says her mother Madelyn Dunham currently lives in Wichita. This is new information since this article started. I'm looking for a second source. Americasroof (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer my own question according to the NY Times article mentioned above she died in Hawaii and her ashes were scattered in Oahu. Americasroof (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Genealogical info?

There's been some back-and-forth about whether the genealogical info (showing that Dunham was distantly related to George Bush, Brad Pitt, etc.) should be kept in this article or not. It's better to discuss than to edit war, even in slow-motion. So — opinions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think no. What is it adding? And it is certainly misplaced in the intro. Tvoz |talk 21:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Everybody is related to everybody. Her son is a "fifth cousin 8 times removed" to Robert E. Lee[8]... but then, so are you, probably. I'd be more interested in her employment history. Andyvphil (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we are agreed here. I'll remove it.Student7 (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article name?

The Time and New York Times articles both introduce Obama's mother under the name Soetoro. The New York Times calls her by her full name, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, and the Time article refers to her first as S. Ann Soetoro and later divides her life into four names she used: Stanley Ann Dunham, Mrs. Barack H. Obama, S. Ann Dunham Soetoro and Ann Dunham Sutoro. It looks as if she used the name Soetoro (or the variant spelling Sutoro) from 1967 to her death in 1995. Wouldn't it be appropriate to move the article to Ann Soetoro or Ann Dunham Soetoro? (Of course, redirects would remain from the other versions of her name.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd stick to one name - her maiden name as used in college is fine with me - and redirect her alternate names. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

heritage

There's an edit war going on about whether or not to include this characterization in the article. TheslB suggests that the wording "in 2007 Obama described his mother as "a Christian from Kansas." " is misleading, because the actual quotation from Obama is "My mother was a Christian from Kansas." Andyvphil and Mareino disagree. One of the points of dispute would seem to be whether this comment by Barack Obama was true or not.

I can see the arguments on both sides. On the one hand, the biographical facts seem to indicate that Dunham was a religious skeptic at least from high school. On the other hand, her parents were Christians (if not particularly devout), so she was probably raised as a nominal Christian — hence, the statement "My mother was a Christian from Kansas" could be said to be true, from a certain point of view.

My leaning is to exclude the sentence not because the elision of "was" removes the possibility that she was a Christian at some point in her life, but because this is Dunham’s article, and as such should cover the truth about her, not what her son might want people to think. The various reliable sources we have from newspapers and magazines show a woman who was a self-declared atheist at a young age, but later found respect for various religious traditions and a non-specific spirituality. The inclusion of Barack Obama's comment seems to me to be less about what Ann Dunham actually believed than it is about catching Barack Obama in a fib (as Andy put it in his edit summary) — and that isn't the purpose of this article. If this misleading comment about his mother's biography were to become a major campaign issue, then there might be a case for putting it in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008‎ — but I don't see why it belongs here.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I encourage the editors who've been reverting each other to discuss the matter here instead. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• To the extent that it's verifiable and reputable, the article should of course discuss her religion a bit -- it's become a relevant topic as of late. But why has it become a relevant topic? Because Ann Dunham is a rare departure from Wikipedia's rule that fame is not contagious -- her religion is at issue purely because it helps us develop a full picture of who Barack Obama is. As such, Obama's statements about her religion are especially valid. Another issue that bears remembering is that, since Ms. Dunham is deceased and since she recorded little information about her beliefs, almost all of the information that we're getting about her is hearsay and third-party impressions. Among that class of evidence, the third-party impression of the subject's own son surely deserves special weight. --M@rēino 18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the clear implication of what Barack Obama told the voters he was speaking to in his coffee shop interview during the South Carolina primary was that he had been raised a Christian because he had been raised by his mother, who was a Christian. The implication that she had been a Christian not at some point before she entered High School but when she was raising him was both clear and clearly false. Statements about her like that is precisely why people will come to this article seeking answers, and we should be clear in providing answers to their questions. Why else does this article exist? Andyvphil (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no clear answer anyway. She was a 'philosophical Christian' in that she believed in the values and way of life (Sermon on the Mount stuff), but Barack has made clear she didn't believe in an afterlife. To some people that means she couldn't be a Christian, to others (deists, unitarian universalists, for example) she could well have been a sort of Christian. I think the point is that she wasn't practicing any organized religion, or following any particular theology. Flatterworld (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

delete article

I want to re-nominate this article for deletion. She is not notable. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Support deleting. Not notable and there is no reason to think the person this article is about will be notable in the future WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Being mentioned a few times by the media doesn't make you notable. I'm using this same argument for all biography articles being nominated for deletion that are related to Barack Obama, it's clear that Michelle Obama is the only notable person given an article, the others all seem to be fluff. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Note - ObamaGirlmachine (above) is a problematic and potentially disruptive new WP:SPA account that has been canvassing others to come to this and other pages in an attempt to delete articles for Obama family members. Suggest speedy closure if these articles are nominated. - Wikidemo (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As Josiah notes, a TIME Magazine cover story quashes any "notability" argument for deletion, and the independent notabilty barrier for WP:SS spinouts isn't very high anyway. No way is this article going to be deleted. Andyvphil (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose deleting. I think that she is notable based on her being the primary long-term formative care giver of candidate Sen. Obama. Her life, upbringing, beliefs and major lifetime experiences are part of the story of Sen. Obama. --TGC55 (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not happening, and this wouldn't be the way to go about considering it anyway. Tvoz/talk 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How can anyone seriously suggest deleting an article about the President of the USA mother. If you want to nobble wikipedia then you need to be more subtle? I assume this will be watched carefully from now on?Cagedcalcium (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Defining who she is

There is some merit in deletion of an article about a woman who is dead and for whom we have very little verifiable information short of a candidate for an important political office. The latest from his book about her being terrifically religious just does not ring true IMO. But what else do we have? Observations from a divorced spouse? Student7 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They're both dead too. But it wasn't in his book that Obama said his mother was religious -- only when campaigning in the Bible Belt. Andyvphil (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Without trying to impugn the candidate, that observation seems less than scholarly to me. I would like to see it removed. Student7 (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself regarding marriage to Obama Sr.

The first paragraph of the "First Marriage" section states that, "the couple was married on February 2, 1961... " and then the last paragraph in the same section states that, "no evidence has yet been presented to show they were ever married." So, which is it? It seems to me that encyclopedic content must not only be verifiable, it ought not contradict itself. Maybe it could be re-worded to state that they were allegedly wed, but no evidence exists (really? Anyone check with Maui records?).Techwritrr (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)techwritrr

• It looks like 65.8.69.15 decided to mess with that section for no good reason. Another editor has already fixed the problem. --M@rēino 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While it does not reflect on her child, it is clear to the media that Dunham was never married the "first" time. They always say that "there was no record of their marriage/divorce" when referring to this arrangement. This leaves Wikipedia, who always needs proof of being the only game in town that is pretending that there ever was a marriage in the first place. The son does not wish to look at this too closely. That is understandable.

Obama Sr. was reputedly married in his home nation so it would have been bigamy if they had married. I really don't know what to do here, but the current language of pretending their was a first marriage is wearing a bit thin, since we're the only ones doing that. Then referring to her "two" ex-husbands. How about the two ex-fathers? At least that would be accurate. Student7 (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. You can bet a billion dollars there are paid campaign staffers looking at this wikipedia article hourly. 76.229.171.85 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are right there! You'd think that some reporter would mosey down to the courthouse. They must either have a record there or no record. I assume that all research has come up emptyhanded which is why it "can't be verified." Student7 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"And then there was a problem with your father’s first wife. He had told me that they were separated. But it was a village wedding, so there was no legal document that could show a divorce." - Dreams from my Father.

Ann was apparently under 18 when she became pregnant. It's my understanding that the age at which a woman could contract marriage in Hawaii was still 20 at that time.

I saw a supposed quote from Obama's book that said that he "didn't want to look too closely" at his mother's first marriage, suggesting that he suspected that she wasn't really married but really didn't want to know either, somewhat understandably. If someone can come up with the exact quote, I think I will change the article so it doesn't mention her "first marriage." Make it marriage-independent. Student7 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that it's clear that the Obama campaign released a fake birth certificate--with campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt insisting it was real--many people are wondering if perhaps Sen. Obama doesn't want people to see something on his real (and complete) birth record. Speculations on what that might be range from the possibility that his parents weren't married, to his place of birth not being Hawaii, to political strategy (to waste time of those who are concerned about his credibility).

For a sitting senator to perpetrate a fraud for political gain would not be new (and taking not of it is not the point of Wikipedia), but the relevant point is that it would impact this article a great deal. Already, there's no marriage license or other direct info on Dr. Dunham's marriage, and likewise, only fake documentation has been provided of her son's birth, so it highlights the fact that this article makes unsupported (unverifiable) claims--and we might soon discover that some are, additionally, incorrect.

And I'm not stupid...I recognize that the Obama campaign staff has folks watcing this site, ready to vandalize the site. But that doesn't mean we should stop fighting to do things right 68.83.72.162 (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I could understand your conspiratorial tones if there were just some reason for Obama to be lying. But, much like the McCain birth certificate conspiracy, this one falls on its face once you realize that Congress defines the term "natural born Citizen" and has zero interest in disqualifying either of these candidates. --M@rēino 15:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• These are the facts as I understand them: The birth certificate is real. You go to the county courthouse, and you get a printout in whatever the currently-used format is. (As a point of interest...if you apply for a passport, the 'original' birth certificate isn't good enough if it's an 'old version' - you have to get a new copy.) The marriage was real (Obama was understandably reluctant to embarrass his mother, or more likely his grandmother and sister, by providing the date which was less than nine months before Barack was born). It wasn't bigamy because his father's village marriage was undocumented and wouldn't have been recognized in Hawaii. The divorce is real. (People who insist on believing in various conspiracy theories are also real, unfortunately.) Flatterworld (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we've gone a bit further here than the original topic. I think the only problem originally was whether his parents were married at all, not whether Obama was born in Hawaii. It is true that his parents claimed to be married on such and such a date on their divorce application. The reality of the first marriage seems doubtful, which is no big deal in itself but of interest to the article. Documenting the "first" marriage as fiction is not without editorial problems however, which is why it hasn't been done. Student7 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Engagement prior to first marriage?

Was the couple actually engaged, or did they marry (if they married) because she was pregnant. The article talks about the families being against their engagement, but vague/weak wording is used concerning the ordering of the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.110.168 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Military Brats?

At the very bottom of the page, it says that she is lumped in category "Military Brats". Is this some kind of vandalism that has gone unnoticed?

"Military brat" is a time-honored appelation for the child of a person in the military. It is not intended as a pejorative! Army children are routinely called "Army brats." The service was not specified for her father. (BTW, I did not add the category!). "Brats" are considered a social group unto themselves because they have shared experiences. Student7 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's normally used only for kids of career military - her father enlisted for WWII and didn't remain in the military afterwards. Flatterworld (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote

While not quite in the same category as "MONOTREMES OVIPAROUS, OVUM MEROBLASTIC," I would think that the quote could be linked. What is the best way of handling it? Paraphrasing and linking? Student7 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Which quote could be linked?—MiguelMunoz (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mercer Island

There are a two points that are somewhat misleading in tjhis section. The Dunham family moved to Mercer Island after living a year in Seattle, and Ann attended both the Middle School and the High School there (not just high school). The school district there was known as one of the best in the area, if not the best. Also, the characterization of Wichterman and Foubert makes them sound like some sort of leftwing radicals. Foubert taught world literature and Wichterman (a Marine veteran, btw) taught world philosophy. They worked out a combined Humanties Block course to start with the ancient Greeks and move up to modern times - basically following the Great Books program from the University of Chicago. Their program was nationally recognized in educator circles, and I believe at least one of them was given an award from Harvard University for it. So yes, one could say the students were taught to question x and y, but the point was to make them think about all sorts of things, as in the unexamined life is not worth living. I realize the current meme being pushed is that Barack and has mother were surrounded by wacky leftists (to the exclusion of all others), but the truth is that Ann, and therefore Barack, were taught to be unafraid to examine every point of view whether they agreed with it or not. Unfortunately, that doesn't come through the way this section is currently worded, based on the selection of quotes used. So, it's a bit POV. Flatterworld (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mergers by User:Justmeherenow

The mergers of Obama family is being done without consensus and less than a day of discussion. Virtually all other Presidential biographies have separate articles for ancestors. Americasroof (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

New Merge Proposal

This needs to be discussed, probably by people other than me, before it's done. I do not know the formal process and have already queried an admin on this. Please do not merge this page until it's been discussed.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

At least one comment Lolo and Ann were married for about 15 years, but lived together for approx. half of that time. As such, the vast majority of their lives were apart and because of that it seems important that they have separate articles. If they were a long married couple, it would be one thing, but their time together was only from circa 1966 to circa 1971. They were officially divorced in 1980 but did not live together throughout most of the 1970s.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Merge Debate Is Now Incoherent - All articles should be reverted back to July 7

The unilateral merging of articles and then merging talk pages and then moving talk pages all over the place has made any discussion on merges incoherent. If merges had been desired they should have been debated one at time. Now nobody can make sense of what is what. The widescale moving and rearranging of talk pages has made a total mess of everything. I would STRONGLY FAVOR reverting all articles and talk pages back to July 7 before User:Justmeherenow ran amuck. Americasroof (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A Yankee farmer making a covered bridge gathers planking and fells two large, straight trees for its support. The farmer's neighbor comes along while the farmer's off sharpening a saw and the neighbor, having seen a beautiful meadow a halfmile downstream, is able to wade with one of the logs down to the new location. But the farmer's neigbor tires of the project and goes home. Some Virginian gentry come along and dismount from their carriage to ford the stream. The look at the single heavy log spanning the stream and decide it's more of a hidrance than a help, so order their footmen to set it aside. After they get across, they comment to each other about the mess some local yeoman had made of the crossing.

I simply followed a common procedure through moving the merge discussions to the talk page of the article to be merged to: clean and simple. User:Tvoz then reopened duplicate discussions back on the some of the talk pages' proposed for merge, but never deleted the discussion here, leaving a mess. Now you come along and observe the mess left in the wake of our two contradictory marching orders.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Americasroof. Unilateral moves should not be made. Clear that "family" article is preposterous with merged categories, etc. Only makes sense if Dunham (her actual maiden name which she owns for all time) is looking back on her parents and her daughter has her own article, at least until November until we see whether that is permanent or not.Student7 (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Justmeherenow, I desperately tried to make some sense out of the mess I found, which included redirects, moves, closed talk pages, multiple old discussions that were modified in an unclear way and non-existent discussions, and I still don;t see a valid merge proposal here with reasons. If I misinterpreted what you had in mind I'm sorry, but it was all but impossible to make any sense out of it and it was incoherent before I touched it. Since I know you have something specific in mind, you need to articulate it clearly in the place(s) you are requesting discussion, or no one will know what to discuss. And no discussion should not be confused with consensus to proceed. Tvoz/talk 00:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose that less-notable Dunham–Soetoro family members be listed in a single article. This can start as a list of the two families' members with each member covered in a sub-section. This would simply involve transferring each article to the new compound article. The article could be left this way, along with a short introduction for the whole article added; or at some point somebody could write a comprehensive introductory narrative that weaves in the histories of all the constituent members, concluding with a final section where all members, spouses and children are grouped together in a list.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree that the Dunham article could contain her ancestors, but with no categories for them. They would be mentioned as briefly as possible. Having said theat, it must contain whatever the Obama article contains which might not be brief. Haven't checked. I disagree that Sotero should be merged. She is a living person and (after November) might or might not be merged. Her article could certainly contain her spouse, children, whatever. Student7 (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Y I've retracted the proposed merger.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  )

On second thought, such a "Wikimacropedic" venture ("organizing stuff according to topic"----as opposed to the more "Wikimicropedic" one of the status quo of there being all bite-size pieces that are alphabetically organized), when applied to an electronic encyclopedia, is maybe as pointless or as cosmetic of a change as rearranging deck chairs on an ocean liner.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem sentence?

"Obama noted in the book that it was Ann rather than his natural father who taught him about his African American heritage." Although Obama is literally an African American it does sound a little odd to say that he has an "African American heritage" since none of his ancestors were African American (as far as we know) for him to inherit from them. I can't think of any other way of expressing the concept however. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I did think of something. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't he considered Irish American? Didn't his Mother have heritage too? Funny that when someone is equal parts Black and White. Everyone says....Black. Funny huh? Says a lot about how Americans think. Or don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.41.107 (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bogus citations

The claim about the place and date of her first supposed marriage references two sources, neither of which supports that claim. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.123.188 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

First suggestion is don't remove reliably sourced material from an article without discussing it. Second suggestion is please explain what you are talking about. The sources clearly support the statements in the article, and you've given no explanation for any of your changes, so they are reverted. Tvoz/talk 03:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean "don't remove UNreliably sourced material"? http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1729524-3,00.html is the only sourced date for the supposed first marriage; and it's not actually a source for the marriage date other than it is the claimed date of marriage on the Hawai'i divorce record. There is NO Hawai'i record or source for the actual date of the Dunham-Obama marriage. Furthermore, the TIME article notes Obama was already married in Kenya: thus according to Hawai'i law, if there was a Dunham-Obama marriage, it was illegal due to bigamy. The other reference is not a source for a marriage or date, only that 'she divorced him'... proof of marriage isn't required for a divorce in most jurisdictions. Does that help you Tvoz? You seemed to have problems understanding what the anon poster clearly stated. The marriage and date is best described as 'putative'. That is undeniable until Hawai'i has an explanation for the non-existence of a record of marriage. Currently, there is none. Futhermore, Senator Obama offers no clear confirmation, and admits he never asked his mother anything about the circumstances.--Sturmde (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that doesn't help me. The above appears to be original research and synthesis - or do you have reliable sources for your interesting theories about Hawaii law, divorce law in most jurisdictions, and - and here's the important part - specifics about Ann Dunham's marriage and divorce? Tvoz/talk 04:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To say that they were "presumed" to have been married on a certain date raises the question: "Presumed by whom?" Why not simply state that Stanley Ann Dunham filed for divorce in 1964, asserting that they were married on a certain date, and cite a reliable source for that statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.123.188 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ann Dunham's University Education: Where?/When?

I've moved the following discussion from my talk page, where it didn't belong, to here (and User:Bddienst: WP norms say you shouldn't send me private emails for a public discussion). Bellagio99 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bddienst (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC) ==

Dear Bellagio99, You removed my edit that states in Aug of 1961, Ann Dunham was enrolled at the U of Wash. Here is the actual email from the U of Wash that serves as reference. Please restore my edits. Thank you.

From: pubrec@u.washington.edu

Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington for:

Autumn 1961 Winter 1962 Spring 1962

The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.

Madolyne Lawson Office of Public Records

Also please see below records from U of Hawaii

From: Stuart Lau [stuartl@hawaii.edu]

The University of Hawaii at Manoa is only able to provide the following information for Stanley Ann Dunham:

Dates of attendance: Fall 1960 (First day of instruction 9/26/1960) Spring 1963 - Summer 1966 Fall 1972 - Fall 1974 Summer 1976 Spring 1978 Fall 1984 - Summer 1992

Degrees awarded: BA - Mathematics, Summer 1967 (August 6, 1967) MA - Anthropology, Fall 1983 (December 18, 1983) PhD - Anthropology, Summer 1992 (August 9, 1992)

Sincerely, Stuart Lau

Stuart Lau University Registrar Office of Admissions and Records University of Hawaii at Manoa Ph:

Bddienst (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC) --Bddienst (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not sufficient sourcing; we have to go with published, verifiable sources - the article that is cited says otherwise. Tvoz/talk 07:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

end move by Bellagio99 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And Ferrylodge kindly provided the source of this so-called email - in the section below - a racist screed. Tvoz/talk 06:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

Tvoz, the chronology is now messed up, I'm afraid.

If Ann Dunham took her one-month-old son to visit Mercer Island, then that would have been in 1961, right?[9] Her husband did not graduate from University of Hawaii until June of 1962, right?[10] So how could she have been travelling to see him at Harvard when she made that visit to Mercer Island?

Also, Ann Dunham was enrolled at University of Washington in spring 1962,[11] which was before her husband had graduated from University of Hawaii. How could she have enrolled at UW after visiting her husband at Harvard, as the article now says?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No - not one month old - one year old, Ferrylodge, according to Maraniss' article which is far more detailed than the others, and which makes more sense. The baby was born August 1961, she left school to care for him, the couple were together through that school year. Sr. graduated June 62 and left for Cambridge; she followed him "later that summer" - this is 1962 - and goes to Mercer Island first, on her way to Massachusetts; she goes to MA, and then comes back to Seattle because apparently it didn't work out in Cambridge. The enrollment at U of Wa would appear then to be for possibly fall 62, maybe spring 63, after which she returned to hawaii, initiated the divorce, enrolled in Univ of Hawaii. I know there is some info here and there that appears contradictory, but the Maraniss article is, as I say, much more detailed and all fits together more logically. No one else has suggested that she left Sr - all reports are that he left her and the baby for Harvard. That she followed him and tried to work it out makes sense and is confirmed in several places, with perhaps an error in dates. We do not know that she was enrolled in U of WA Spring 62 - Spring 63 makes more sense, following the logic of the story. Read the Maraniss piece - it seems to me to be more likely to be accurate, as it fills in the details that the other two really don't. Tvoz/talk 05:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there are some conflicts among the sources. Here's what another reliable source says: "But she returned to live in Seattle around 1962, after Barack was born in August 1961, leaving her husband, Kenya-born Barack Sr., and his newborn namesake in Hawaii. She lived on Capitol Hill and enrolled at the University of Washington." See Anderson, Rick.“Putting One of Our Own in (or Near) the White House”, Seattle Weekly (2008-10-21).

We've apparently got a fundamental discrepancy about whether he left her, or instead she left him. Because we've got reliable sources on both sides, it may be best to present both versions, instead of us picking one. On the other hand, it should be fairly straightforward to find out the truth; if she really did enroll at UW in Spring 1962, then she clearly left him.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's some more detail about Ann Dunham's UW attendance, from Madolyne Lawson, Office of Public Records, TEL 206-543-9180: Autumn 1961, Winter 1962, and Spring 1962.[12] If that's correct, then she left him. Also see this edit to the present article.

You know, Tvoz, I'm beginning to think that Hillary maybe should have done a bit more investigating of her opponent's birth and infancy.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you find a less reliable source than Atlas Shrugs? You should be ashamed of yourself trying to foist that disgusting crap here as a source, Ferrylodge. Did you read that article? Do you actually believe it? Frankly, I thought you were better than this. I understand that you're demoralized at the prospects of a Republican loss, but this is pathetic. I should have known that this was the latest rightwing talking point when that supposed email was posted in the previous section - there is absolutely no verification of it, and you know it is not usable. The story that Maraniss lays out is completely plausible and logical, and falls in line with what has been said by many reliable sources long before it actually looked like Obama might win the election, therefore making it much more likely to be true than the desperate scare-tactic garbage that your friends are conjuring up in these last days. For shame. Tvoz/talk 06:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. Could you possibly ignore more completely the Seattle Weekly article that I cited? Jeez, Tvoz, for five minutes couldn't you chill a little bit?

No! Of course I'm not saying that Atlas Shrugs is a reliable source! I'm the one who reverted the Atlas Shrugged info out of this article. Can't you give me just a tiny little bit of credit here? All I'm mentioning is that if this unreliable source was not lying about what UW told them, then we have a clear answer to which of the conflicting reliable sources is right. Jeez.

And I'll be blunt. Shame on you for dismissing reliable sources like Seattle Weekly and Seattle Times and Lawrence Journal World as "desperate scare-tactic garbage." You have no right to toss all those sources overboard merely because you prefer Maraniss. Try some NPOV here, Tvoz. Anyway, good night. Write whatever you want in this article. Good riddance to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I dismissed the wholly unreliable source of Atlas Shrugs as "desperate scare-tactic garbage" because it is. You didn't mention when you posted it here that it was unreliable crap, did you. Only when I challenged you on it. No surprise. I did not dismiss the others, or remove Seattle Times or LJ World from the article (Seattle Weekly wasn't there) - I said that their stories were not as well developed as the Maraniss piece which seems more researched and makes more sense and lines up more with numerous earlier sources that have long been quoted here. We all evaluate source articles when we decide whether or which parts of them to include. Seattle Weekly's piece seems to be an outlier, as it says she left the baby too - yet no other sources say anything like that, except - oh yes, Atlas Shrugs. You didn't put Atlas Shrugs into the article, and I didn't say you did - but actually it looks to me like Bellagio and an IP, not you, are the ones who removed the bulk of that material - but you posted a link to the screed here on talk to confirm the point about what the colleges allegedly said which Bdienst didn't even do, so no, I'm not going to give you a break. The entirety of the article you cited here is disgusting scare tactic, libelous garbage, so your posting it here does little to convince me of your objectivity. Tvoz/talk 08:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, that is BS. The only thing in the Atlas Shrugged article that I remotely relied on here was an email that they reproduced from the University of Washington. Why don't you just attribute all of the crap on the internet to me too, since we are both using the internet here. And I didn't even suggest that the email should be referenced in this Wikipedia article.

You have unilaterally decided that Maraniss is the best source, and therefore Obama Sr. ditched Ann Dunham instead of vice versa. Three reliable sources that I've cited here undermine and contradict that conclusion of yours: Seattle Weekly and Seattle Times and Lawrence Journal World. But you'll just keep on keeping on with the 100% certain Tvoz-Marinass version without indicating any ambiguity or uncertainty in this article. And that's fine, because I've already kissed this article goodbye. You can write whatever you want in it. You can include a section about how Ferrylodge and Atlas Shrugged are in cahoots. Go ahead. I won't revert.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferry and Tv, I've been watching this dialogue and don't understand the Atlas Shrugged discussion. BTW, since the meltdown last month, Atlas Shrugged has been moved to the science fiction section of my bookstore (couldn't resist);-) Bellagio99 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand it myself.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Atlas Shrugged, Bellagio, Atlas Shrugs - a racist screed that Ferrylodge cited here on talk which claims to have inside information about when Ann was enrolled in school in Seattle (no proof, by the way, that it is authentic or that she actually attended, it just says she was enrolled but that's another story) - this screed says among other things, on the page he saw fit to link to here on talk, that Barack was not born in August 61, that Barack Sr was not his real father, implies that perhaps Malcolm X is his actual father, and - should I go on? It is a scurrilous piece of crap and to use it to verify anything at all is beyond belief, and to post a link to it - that even Bdienst who copied "the college record" part on your page did not - is appalling. But Ferrylodge says he is done with this article, so I can only hope his word is better than his judgment in what is a reasonable link to post anywhere, on any site, on any page, anywhere. Read it yourself and see if you think it should be used as a source for anything other than wrapping the trash. And I'm trying to be polite here. Tvoz/talk 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I haven't read the purported "screed" at Atlas Shrugs. I never visited that site until a couple days ago. I did a Google search for "Ann Dunham" and "University of Washington", and that's what led me to the following email message reproduced at "Atlas Shrugs":

Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington for:

Autumn 1961

Winter 1962

Spring 1962

The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.

Madolyne Lawson

Office of Public Records

206-543-9180

I agree that this is not a reliable source, but I also suspect that it's an accurate reproduction of an email written by Ms. Lawson. It's completely absurd and preposterous that Tvoz criticizes me for mentioning it. And the main point is this: even ignoring this reproduced email message, Tvoz insists on presenting the Marinass article as unambiguous truth, notwithstanding the multiple reliable sources that contradict Maraniss. That's a lousy way to write a Wikipedia article.

And yes, you will not find me editing this Wikipedia article as long as Tvoz is involved with it. I have no desire to be smeared any further.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, you didn't read it. And the headline "HOW COULD STANLEY ANN DUNHAM HAVE DELIVERED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. IN AUGUST OF 1961 IN HONOLULU, WHEN OFFICIAL UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON RECORDS SHOW HER 2680 MILES AWAY IN SEATTLE ATTENDING CLASSES THAT SAME MONTH?" - at least some of which comes up in that Google search - didn't tip you off that you were using an utterly unreliable source here on talk to "prove" this? And you continue to suspect that it is an accurate reproduction that proves something? Sorry, but I'm not buying. I don't criticize you for "mentioning" it, I criticize you for linking to it. But maybe you did us a favor, as we can see the source of this garbage. I assume that you would not sit still for a similar source to be used for anything related to, say, Cindy McCain or Sarah Palin, but here it's ok? And if you'd read above, I did not say Maraniss was unambiguous truth at all. I said his presentation appeared to be better researched and more thorough than the other sources on this one particular minor point - because it confirms what multiple earlier sources have said (that Sr left Ann, not the other way around). This is a libelous source - Madelyn Dunham is still alive and she is smeared in there, for example - so stop pretending you are shocked to find out that it is an indefensible and unusable racist piece of crap. I didn't smear you, Ferrylodge, you did it yourself. ANd now I am going to a JOan Baez concert. Kumbaya. Tvoz/talk 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested using Atlas Shrugs as a reference for this article, and I reverted another editor who did so, and you know that very well so please stop suggesting otherwise. As for the Marinass article, you apparently refuse to allow any mention in this article that several reliable sources contradict it.

Getting back to Atlas Shrugs, yes now I've looked over the material about Malcolm X. It seems like a nutty accusation that Malcolm X may be related to Barack Obama. That strikes me as nutty rather than racist. In any event, you have now expatiated about Atlas Shrugs, yet you accuse me of smearing myself by linking to that same site. Expatiation is fine but linking is not? Baloney. And the Lawson email merely confirmed that Marinass is wrong, just as three reliable sources I cited did as well. Kumbaya.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just want to say this: Atlas Shrugs pretty clearly fails Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source for verification of claims. We can't go printing everything that Some Guy On The Internet says. --M@rēino 19:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. But that does not mean it is verboten to mention the words "Atlas Shrugs" here at the talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You didn't "mention the words 'Atlas Shrugged' here at the talk page". You linked to the racist screed. You're an intelligent person - you know the difference between talking about something and giving a link to it. It is a libelous and disgusting piece, and you are well aware that it's unusable, but you provided readers with a link to it, then later claimed that you didn't read it which is just not believable (and all you needed to read anyway was its headline to know it was crackpot rightwing smear bullshit)- so the only conclusion I can reach is you wanted to disseminate that material in whatever way you could. Your protestations are ridiculous. Tvoz/talk 06:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, instead of calling me a liar and virtually calling me a racist, perhaps you could find it in your heart to acknowledge that Wikipedia has entire articles about racist things, such as the article Mein_Kampf (to cite but one of millions of examples). All I did was give a link (at this talk page and not in the article!!!) to a web site that reproduced an email from an employee of the University of Washington. Was the email from the University of Washington racist? No. Is there any indication that the email from the University of Washington is falsified? No.

Look, I'm not arguing here to include any information in this Wikipedia article, or to include any more information at this talk page. I'm writing here to say how outrageously hurtftul and offensive it is that you are trying to smear me as a racist and a liar when I did not remotely have any such intent. Cut it the hell out, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

←Let me be perfectly clear. I did not say that Ferrylodge is a racist and I apologize if anyone made that inference from my comments. What I said is that the page he linked to here on talk has outrageous racist content with serious BLP concerns. I did not say Ferrylodge is a liar, I said I didn't find his argument believable - I don't know if it's true or not, I just don't believe it. I said, every time I posted about this, that Ferrylodge did not put this link into the article, but I said that the link posted here on talk has BLP violations and should not be included anywhere in the encyclopedia. We're not talking about "articles about racist things" - that's inevitable in an encyclopedia. But including racist material gratuitously, as this is, is a different matter entirely. I am all too aware that gratuitous racist and anti-semitic material appears in the encyclopedia, and I object to it when I see it, but that obviously is utterly irrelevant to this discussion as it surely does not justify its inclusion here. And BLP violations are to be removed from anywhere anyone sees it, not just in mainspace, as I am sure Ferrylodge knows. There also is no evidence that the alleged email published in that wholly unreliable screed is valid - so linking to the screed doesn't prove anything, and Ferrylodge could have removed it from here any time after he read the screed, yet he still has not. Tvoz/talk 19:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of removing it now; if I were to remove it now, then people would have no idea what it is we've been discussing. In fact, I'll repeat it now, to clarify what we've been discussing: "Here's some more detail about Ann Dunham's UW attendance, from Madolyne Lawson, Office of Public Records, TEL 206-543-9180: Autumn 1961, Winter 1962, and Spring 1962.[13]" People can judge for themselves whether or not this sentence (which I never suggested inserting into the article) is as horribly awful as you say it is.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, as you know what we've been discussing is the link you posted to the screed and just posted again - the screed is what is racist and offensive, not this unverified quote from it - and you should not have linked to it and you should remove the link, including this second posting of the link. Anyone who cares could go back and look at it in history. This is getting us nowhere, if you refuse to acknowledge the fact of that piece, so there's nothing more to talk about. Indeed, anyone can look and decide for themselves whether a link to that piece is acceptable anywhere - you apparently think it is, by reposting it after you acknowledge having read it. I think that speaks for itself and I need not belabor it. Tvoz/talk 20:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the link here. It doesn't imply any endorsement, and merely indicates where the info came from. That's not to say it should go into this Wikipedia article itself.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

The article starts with a sentence telling us that she was an anthropologist, as if that's what makes her notable. While I feel that any primary caregiver of a prominent politician is notable, I wonder if she should be first identified as the Mother of Barack Obama, and then as an anthropologist. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Surnames

Was she ever known as Ann Obama, ie during her brief first marriage? Or always as Dunham and later Sutoro, but never as Obama?Kitchawan (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Surname question

Is she referred throughout the article as Dunham for simplicity's sake? Her official name from ca. 1980 until her death was Ann Dunham Sutoro, according to Time magazine.Kitchawan (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro" in the lead has got to go. It looks like a bad Elizabeth Taylor joke. I think it should say: "Ann Dunham Soetoro (née Stanley Ann Dunham, formerly Obama, Soetoro sometimes spelled Sutoro)". That would use the best known version of her name first, with less repetition in the alternates. Ariadne55 (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama born in Honolulu: no dispute

Tripodics (talk · contribs) recently put the phrase "in Honolulu" into hidden text, adding the comment, "Let's keep this NPOV! This assertion is disputed, and there is no evidence to support it. Travel records appear to support the claim that she was still in Kenya in August, having been denied passage by air, and that the baby was actually born in Kenya." The edit summary was "Location of birth is disputed. (Until travel records are released, it's best to leave out an actual birth location, to avoid taking sides in this dispute!))"

This is based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Although some fringe sources have claimed that Barack Obama was not born in Honolulu (as his birth certificate states — and please, let's not get into the paranoid nonsense tedious business about long-form versus short-form birth certificates), no reliable source has disputed the statement. It is original research to attempt to draw some conclusion from "travel records", or their absence. In short, there is no dispute about this worth mentioning in this article. The "dispute" is limited to paranoid speculations on the internet and a few frivolous lawsuits, at least two of which have already been thrown out of court. If it had been seriously entertained in any reliable sources, then it would be appropriate to mention that; but as far as I'm aware, it hasn't been. (And no, Andy Martin and Jerome Corsi aren't reliable sources.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Josiah that the text of this article should simply say that he was born in Hawaii, since no reliable sources presently contradict that view.

As far as characterizing those who want more information as engaging in paranoid nonsense and frivolous speculations, I don't think much can be accomplished by going down that road. I agree with Camille Paglia, who wrote today in Salon.com: "In the closing weeks of the election, however, I became increasingly disturbed by the mainstream media's avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama -- even as every flimsy rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. For example, I had thought for many months that the flap over Obama's birth certificate was a tempest in a teapot. But simple questions about the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks to their own blathering, fanatical overkill, of course, the right-wing challenges to the birth certificate never gained traction. But Obama could have ended the entire matter months ago by publicly requesting Hawaii to issue a fresh, long-form, stamped certificate and inviting a few high-profile reporters in to examine the document and photograph it. (The campaign did make the "short-form" certificate available to Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.) And why has Obama not made his university records or thesis work widely available? The passivity of the press toward Bush administration propaganda about weapons of mass destruction led the nation into the costly blunder of the Iraq war. We don't need another presidency that finds it all too easy to rely on evasion or stonewalling. I deeply admire Obama, but as a voter I don't like feeling gamed or played."Ferrylodge (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll retract the phrase "paranoid nonsense" for the purposes of maintaining civility. However, I'll note that the characterization of the lawsuits as "frivolous" is not mine, but that of the judge who threw out one of the lawsuits. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You might want to also strike through "paranoid speculations" if the goal is to promote civility. I agree that the lawsuits were frivolous on the standing issue, but that was only one of many issues in the lawsuits.

By the way, there's a video here of Ann Dunham's friend Susan Blake stating unequivocally that Dunham visited her in August of 1961 in the Seattle area with her newborn Barack. This is merely FYI, since I do not expect this info to be allowed into this article. However, I would support its inclusion, given that we also mention that she "stopped to visit her friends in Mercer Island" again in the summer of 1962.

I'd also like to object again to this Wikipedia article's denial and omission of reliable reports that Ann Dunham was already enrolled at University of Washington before her husband left Hawaii in June of 1962.[14][15]Ferrylodge (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've struck the other "paranoid". I haven't done enough research into what the sources say about Ann Dunham's movements in 1961–62 to weigh in on that matter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. If you get a chance to do the research, your opinion would be appreciated. I swore off editing this article before the election, but maybe the article will be less contentious now that the election is over.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is undeniable that the green colored document now used by Fact Check is an abstract of the original "long form" birth certificate. There are two kinds of birth certificates, those issued when a child is born in a hospital and those born "elsewhere". Sometimes, babies are uncooperative and decide to be born elsewhere. When that happens, without a doctor in attendance, the mother applies for a birth certificate. If Barack Obama was born in a hospital, then his original birth certificate will have the name of the hospital and the attending physician on it. The green document Fact Check uses does not have those things. At the bottom of that document, it has the statement that the document is "prima facie" evidence of a live birth. The term "prima facie" is a legal term indicating that the document is not conclusive proof of the birth, but is in fact rebuttable. No one suspects that Obama is lying about being born, but even he doesn't know where he was born. The most disconcerting thing is that he could release the original birth certificate and put all these questions to rest. If the Supreme Court continues blocking investigations into Obama's birth, there is a risk that the truth will come out later that he is not a US citizen at all. If that happens, all the laws he signed are void. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.84.21 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It is essentially misleading to say that "prima facie" means "not conclusive", since the opposite is closer to the truth. Prima Facie evidence must be accepted as true (it is presumed to be true), unless it can be proven otherwise. Both the hospital registration and the computer abstract have equal legal standing under Hawaiian law. It is a false implication that there is one form for hospital births and another form for home births. The form is the same and certified copies of each are printed on green security paper (either photocopied or laser printed). [16][17] Kevin (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: And people wonder why Wikipedia is considered a liberal source; this is clearly worthy of mention and/or further elaboration. I like the president, but anyone who spends a small fortune to keep a birth certificate hidden is clearly hiding something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.210.4 (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that a fortune has been spent to "keep a birth certificate hidden". Obama's attorney in California stated in an article at Politico.com that he was working pro bono. The other cases aren't just about the "birth certificate" and producing one wouldn't end a single one of them.Kevin (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• What defines a fringe theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.210.4 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Further elaboration can be found at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory about son's birthplace

As discussed here, the fringe theory of Alan Keyes about Barack Obama's birthplace might conceivably have some place in the Keyes article, but does not belong in Barack Obama. As such it does not belong here either, and I have removed it from the footnote. Tvoz/talk 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed discussion of the fringe birthplace theory from the main text of this article, as it was not referenced to any reliable source. However, I did subsequently insert a brief mention of the fringe theory into a footnote: “Alan Keyes and various fringe characters doubt the birthplace.” This was subsequently reverted by Tvoz, whose edit summary stated: "we don't include fringe theories, even in footnotes." That statement is incorrect.

According to WP:Fringe, “A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory….If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it.” This is clearly true in the present instance.

We should also be careful not to give the appearance of scrubbing all the Obama articles to eliminate any hint that fringe theories about him exist. Of course, I do not subscribe to the notion that he was probably born outside Hawaii, but this is a fringe view that has been reported in many many reliable sources. It’s one thing to remove this info from the main Obama article, where a vast amount of very notable info is competing for inclusion, and quite another to remove it from this article where the threshold of notability is much lower.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As you should recall, Ferrylodge, this crackpot theory was not removed from Barack Obama because there wasn't room for it, or because of your notion that that article has any higher threshold of notability than this biography - a notion I don't subscribe to in any case. It was removed because of its fringiness, and because it had nothing to do with Obama's life and therefore did not belong in his biography at present, and editors - including you - agreed that at present if it belonged anywhere it was in Alan Keyes, and that if the lawsuit got any traction it would be considered for inclusion somewhere, the place(s) to be determined at that time. No one said it should be added to this article, and certainly not now. At present, this story is about Keyes, not Obama, and not Dunham. Tvoz/talk 02:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don;t have time to hunt down the specific diffs - this is the section in the Obama archives that is clear about this matter, from only a few days ago. Tvoz/talk 02:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::I wasn't aware that conclusions at one article talk page about the corresponding article apply equally at all other articles. In that case, there's absolutely no need for you to address anything I've said here at this talk page. Please continue disregarding.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read this Wikipedia policy about fringe theories warranting mention in other articles. There is no prohibition on mentioning fringe theories in non-fringe articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I've started a discussion about this here.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hawai'i

Everywhere in the article, the island is referenced as hawai'i. However, on the page for Hawaii, I read Hawai'i is the Hawaiian name. This is the English wikipedia, shouldn't we change this all to Hawaii? IIVQ (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My uninformed understanding is that Hawaii is a state consisting of several islands, one of which is Hawai'i. So, when we're talking about the island, it's proper to use the apostrophe or whatever that thing is. On the other hand, when talking about the state, there's no punctuation.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that Hawai'i is used as a general name for all of the islands, not just the "Big Island." Borock (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The "apostrophe" is a ʻOkina and it has the shape ʻ, not '. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides, wasn't Barack born on Oahu? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, Oʻahu, in honor of Hawaiian language purists. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Category overload?

There are four or five categories for Ms Dunham's various ancestral lines. I'm guessing, as a white American with much the same family background as she, that none of them were how she defined herself or how others defined her in her life. Borock (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Six: English Americans | Irish-Americans | Scottish-Americans | German-Americans | People of Huguenot descent | Americans of Cherokee descent | Borock (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A citation to Cherokee is needed? In all the trees I have seen this does not occur?Cagedcalcium (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan

This Wikipedia article briefly says that she was "a consultant in Pakistan" for some unspecified time. But, the following article says that she "spent five years in the eastern Punjab province":

Latif, Aamir. "Pakistanis Remember Obama's Helpful Mom," Islam Online (2008-10-23).

Does that seem reliable? If so, we ought to mention in this article that she was in Pakistan for five years.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Redoubt Reporter

The Redoubt Reporter seems like a reliable source to me. According to their web site: "The Redoubt Reporter is a community newspaper for the Central Kenai Peninsula, published weekly in Soldotna. It is distributed Wednesdays to more than 50 locations in Soldotna, Kenai, Nikiski, Sterling and Kasilof." So, I'll reinsert the footnote, with some other confirming footnotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge - you included Maraniss as a source for the "she enrolled at UW in 1961 while living in Seattle" sentence, but that's not what he says - he says that Obama Sr left her and the baby behind in Hawaii when he left in June 1962 for Harvard, and he explicitly and in detail explains that the Seattle friends remember her coming back to Seattle later that summer with the baby, on her way to join him in Cambridge; then she and the baby returned to Seattle where, yes, she lived with the baby as a single mother attending school. This appears to be a second visit, if the first was in the summer of 1961 which sources refer to as "passing through" and "a brief visit". These recollections of friends could be exactly correct, or may be off a year or even just a few months - we're talking about over 45 years ago, so it's not surprising that we have discrepancies in dates. Or the brief visit could be the 1962 "passing through" visit - we really don't know, and sources conflict - so I suggest a compromise: leaving the year off in the sentence about living in Seattle as a single mother with the baby since all of the sources agree that she did that, just differ on whether it was 1961 or the spring or summer of 1962, and add the corresponding text from Maraniss to that footnote. (By the way, she also may have "enrolled" in 1961 when she visited, but not attended until 1962 - it's all rather sketchy.)

As for the Redoubt piece which you had originally listed as the sole citation for that sentence, my problem with it was that it appears as a blog online, and there's not much indication of its publication standards (like, say, the Washington Post), which is what we're supposed to consider when evaluating sources, so I didn't think it was reliable on its own. But I don't object to including it if we can also back it up with other sources. (Not the Dent reference which is just a pointer to the exact same Redoubt piece, so it isn't valid as an additional source.)

Since I assume you'd agree that when reading the source articles and considering where they are published, the Martin and Maraniss articles seem to be the most comprehensive and reliable on this matter even though they contradict one another (in a relatively minor way), I hope you'll agree that the compromise of leaving off the year and using both of them as citations, along with the Redoubt piece and the LeFevre, works. I've edited it that way - see what you think. Tvoz/talk 07:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You've left the primary sources, and people can look there for the dates, so I won't object to your edit. Incidentally, the fact that the Anchorage Daily News considers the Redoubt Reporter reliable is significant, but you've left the Redoubt Reporter cite so I won't quibble about deletion of the Anchorage Daily News cite.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's progress. I also agree with Newross' further edit - you can't get away from the fact that 47 years can cloud memories of minor details and we ought to be careful about making definitive statements based on these contradictory reports. The primary sources remain, so people can draw their own conclusions. Tvoz/talk 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunham ancestors

I suppose we could include something in there about the Dunham Indiana homestead, although I don't personally think it's really relevant - but unless I'm missing something it's just wrong to say that Madelyn and Stanley are from Tipton Indiana - they're not. Neither of them. That's why I took it out. If it goes in, it has to be worded differently. Madelyn has nothing to do with it and Stanley was born in Kansas - perhaps his father too, although the split in the original grandparent article was not done too well and I can't even tell on quick look where Stanley's father was born. I'm checking into that, but meanwhile, we can't leave it stand as is because it's really wrong. Tvoz/talk 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Anna & Barack Obama in Seattle, Washington, 1961-62

The Wikipedia article on Ann Dunham needs work. I tried to improve the "First marriage" section with an edit yesterday (Feb. 10), but my contribution was deleted. I believe that, based on recent information uncovered by news reporters and researchers, including the on-line articles in HistoryLink.org (highly-acclaimed website devoted to Washington State history), "Stanley Ann Dunham, mother of Barack Obama, graduates from Mercer Island High School in June 1960" and "Barack Obama moves to Seattle in August or early September 1961", the following information has been verified by reliable sources and should be included in the Ann Dunham article: 1. Ann Dunham (Anna Obama) and her baby son Barack Obama, lived in Seattle from Sept. 1961 through June 1962 (possibly until later that summer). 2. They lived for at least the last six months of this time in a small, roughly 500-ft. square unit in the southwest corner of the first floor of the Villa Ria Apartments, a Victorian house converted to apartments at 516 13th Avenue East in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle. (picture of apartment building available in HistoryLink articles). 3. Ann Dunham rented the apartment as "Anna Obama" (see 1961-62 Polk City Directory). 4. She was enrolled in the Univ. of Washington for the Autumn 1961, Winter 1962, and Spring 1962 academic quarters. 5. She listed her major as History. 6. For about two months, during Winter quarter 1962, while she was attending night classes, Anna left Barack in the care of Mary Toutonghi, who lived with her husband in unit #10, located in the floor below the Obama apartment, in the Villa Ria apartment complex (see Redoubt Reporter, Soldatna, AK, and listing of "Toutonghi" in 1961-62 Polk City Directory). (Mary Toutonghi knew Barack's mother as "Anna".) 7. According to several sources, some of Ann Dunham's former friends/classmates saw her in the Seattle area and/or visited her and Barack at their Capitol Hill apartment during the period from Sept 1961 through the summer of 1962.

Although further details related to the above points await verification by researchers, it seems to me that the above information has been verified and should be included in the Wikipedia article about Ann Dunham, as well as in the more restricted article about her son Barack Obama, the President of the United States.

Canopus44 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide links, and a draft of what you'd like this article to say. This article currently says: "Old friends in Washington State recall her visiting them with her new baby.[22][23][24][25] She may have subsequently enrolled at the University of Washington and lived in Seattle as a single mother with her son Barack.[19][24][26][27]" What additional footnotes do you want to add?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this. I would propose deleting the text currently there and substituting for it something like the following: In September 1961, she enrolled at the University of Washington for the Autumn quarter, and subsequently for the Winter and Spring 1962 quarters, listing her major as History. Going by the name Anna Obama, she rented unit #2, a small apartment in the southwest corner of the first floor of the Villa Ria Apartments on 13th Avenue East in the Capitol Hill, Seattle neighborhood (see photo of the house accompanying this article). During the Winter quarter Mary Toutonghi, who lived in unit #10 of the Villa Ria, babysat Barack while Anna attended night classes at the university. Some old friends/classmates at Mercer Island High School recall seeing her and her baby shortly after their arrival in Seattle in late August or early September 1961, while others recall visiting them at their Capitol Hill apartment in the summer of 1962.

The references could include those currently listed, as well as the HistoryLink.org articles, as follows:

and

I am quite open to suggestions regarding the text of the revision, how much detail should be included, the inclusion of photos and other illustrations, etc.

Canopus44 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the draft. I am pressed for time today, and won't be able to comment until tomorrow at the earliest. Also, you might want to drop a line to User:Tvoz who has taken a great interest in this subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also pressed for time today, but on a quick look I have the same problem with this rewrite suggestion as with the previous iterations - this historylink essay seems to be based on the same sources as were discussed before - the Redoubt article, the Capitol Hill article and personal interviews - which reflect memories of people from 47 years ago, and the details regarding things like dates are unsurprisingly vague and contradictory with other memories of friends from 47 years ago. Other reliable sources tell the story differently, and we don;t have any way to know what is correct, so we have written the section in a way that accommodates both. There is no reason to choose the narrative of the historylink version over the others - the sourcing is not better. The David Maraniss (Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist) Washington Post article, for example, tells a somewhat different story based on his research - so I think the way we have the section, accommodating both, is the best way to proceed. As for photos and illustrations - only if they pass the rather stringent Wikipedia requirements regarding free use and copyright. As for historylink - I withhold judgment as to whether it would be considered a reliable source in any case - would have to look into it further as to what its journalistic standards are, etc. For example, if it's a wiki-type "anyone can write an essay" publication, it might be considered less reliable. (PS -As for my taking "a great interest in this subject" - yes, I've been editing the article since February 2007, and have a strong interest that it not be hijacked for any purposes as in my view has been attempted in the past - I'm not saying that's what Canopus is doing here however.) Tvoz/talk 19:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside for the moment the reliability of the many recollections by Ann's high school friends/classmates of their visits with her and baby Barack in Seattle 47 years ago, we still have documentation proving that 1) Ann was enrolled at the Univ. of Washington in Seattle for those three academic quarters (Univ. of Washington Office of Public Records, with whom several people have talked and corresponded, including myself) and 2) 516 13th Avenue East was the residence for Anna Obama and Mary Toutonghi, the babysitter, according to the Polk City Directory of 1961-62.

Since I'm new to this discussion, I don't know about past efforts to "hijack" this article, but that is certainly not what I am trying to do. I am suggesting that the current statements in the article that Ann "may" have attended the Univ. of Washington and that she and Barack "may" have lived in Seattle in 1961 and 1962 are lame. These are not guesses or speculations, but rather, historical facts.

Canopus44 (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Canpus44, the fact that you have spoken with the University of Washington is fine, but it does not help you here, because we must rely on "reliable sources." See WP:RS. I have never attempted to put anything into this article about the Univ. of Washington Office of Public Records, because we do not have any reliable sources for it. As for hijacking, Tvoz can provide diffs if she wants to specify what she is referring to.

But I do agree with you that the current language in this article is lame. Maraniss was equivocal ("But there is an unresolved part of the story...."), and the cited references include an article having a photograph of the Polk Directory. Plus Maraniss was evidently unaware of the babysitter, who obviously did not confuse what state she babysat in. Subsequent on-the-scene reporting by multiple sources who dig up new evidence is usually more reliable than a single equivocal older news report, generally speaking. Et cetera, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Maraniss appears to have been unaware of the babysitter, to not have consulted with the Univ. of Washington, and to not have checked the Polk Directory. He also appears to have been unaware that in the summer of 1962, when Ann's old friends from Mercer Island apparently learned of her trip (planned or actual) to Cambridge to join Barack Sr., she had already been living for nearly a year in Seattle.

Canopus44 (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's more new info:

"Anna was taking night classes at the University of Washington and according to the University of Washington's registrar's office her major was listed as history. She was enrolled at the University of Washington in the fall of 1961, took a full course load in the spring of 1962 and had her transcript transferred to the University of Hawaii in the fall of 1962. Along with the Seattle Polk Directory, Marc Leavipp of the University of Washington Registrar's office confirms the address Ann Dunham gave upon registering at the University."

Source: LeFevre, Charlette and Lipson, Philip. “Babysitting Barack Obama on Seattle's Capitol Hill,” Seattle Gay News (2009-02-06).Ferrylodge (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not resolved, as there are conflicting sources, so the edit was a bit premature I think, but I can agree at this time to leaving off the "in 1961" which is in contention, but also removing the "may have" which did read awkwardly and adding the Lefevre ref - leaving it just as "She subsequently enrolled". Is there a reason that "in 1961" is necessary? I believe all of the sources agree that she subsequently enrolled and lived in Seattle, it's just the specific month that is in conflict with what other sources have said as the progression of her visits/stays in Seattle. And we don't know what Maraniss was aware or unaware of - not including something could mean a source didn't meet a reporter's standards, or anything else. I am also concerned about the appearance of original research here so think we should be careful about specifics when there are different versions of this 47 year old story. Tvoz/talk 03:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see "She subsequently..." instead of "She may have subsequently..." I've made this same change on the "Early Life and Career of Barack Obama" page as well. Perhaps the "in 1961" is not yet warranted. Re. the Univ. of Washington, we still have not seen documentation from a reliable source that she actually attended classes during the quarters when their Ofice of Public Records states that she was registered. And re. the Capitol Hill apartment, we still don't know when they moved in, the duration of their residency there, and when they moved out. The suggestion of the Toutonghi interview is that they were there in about Feb. 1962, but it would be helpful to have the Univ. of Washington Office of Public Records (or some reliable source in touch with them) state that Ann/Anna attended night classes during that Winter quarter, which would confirm Toutonghi's recollection that at about that time she babysat Barack in the evenings while Anna was attending classes.

Canopus44 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - but please bear in mind, again, that Wikipedia edit policies and guidelines prohibit us from doing our own research and including that information, no matter how accurate. I hope we're explaining this clearly - the standard here is verifiability, not accuracy. Of course we want the articles to be truthful but we must base them on third-party published reports in reliable sources with journalistic/editorial standards that include some oversight, fact-checking and multiple sources, etc., that other readers can check. So no matter what the University office tells you, we can't include it unless it appears in reliable sources, as Ferrylodge says above. As I've said earlier, it is certainly possible that she enrolled in the University when she visited in 1961 but then did not actually attend at that time, returned to Hawaii, then came back to Seattle after her husband left for Cambridge and her attempt to join him didn't pan out - reconstructions of some accounts in reliable sources suggest that possibility. The recollections of old friends support different parts of the narrative, sometimes contradicting themselves in different sources - maybe they are misquoted, maybe they forgot - we don't know. So we stick with published reports and when necessary include contradictions in the published reports as such. What we don't do is call up Maxine Box, ask her what she meant, and report it, even though it might clear this up - it still would be just her latest recollection, and it would not be verifiable. Of course we do weigh sources and make decisions about which ones seem more reliable than others all the time - just because something's published doesn't necessarily mean it's reliable.Tvoz/talk 01:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Tvoz, a good point that can't be emphasized too much. Although I am new to Wikipedia editing, I do understand the rule you mention, and the need for it, and believe I have have been abiding by it in my edits.

Canopus44 (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)