Talk:Madelyn and Stanley Dunham

Only living ancestor

Madelyn is Barack's only living ancestor. There is some confusion with Sarah Obama who is a step-grandmother. Americasroof (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Free Obama's White Grandmother"

The article currently includes this:

An article by Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and critic Andy Martin ran under the headline "Free Obama's White Grandmother."[15]

Is this Andy Martin really someone whose opinion is noteworthy? He doesn't even have a Wikipedia page at the moment (although there's a redlink to him at Andy Martin). The inclusion of his view on Madelyn Dunham seems a bit odd to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The exact phrase has 748 hits on google. Americasroof (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

/shrug/. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I more clearly identified him with Newsmax to differentiate him from "just some blogger." Americasroof (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Has become sonewhat notorious now -- see Andy Martin (U.S. politician)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

When the New York Times documents frequent bouts of vicious antisemitism in a man and quotes a psychological study of the man as "moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character," you know he is not to be taken seriously. Andy Martin himself has admitted that many of the vicious rumors he pushes are false. This may sound extreme, but read the article about him: . At any rate, he should not ever be used in any way, shape, or form as a reliable source on any subject whatsoever.GreekParadise (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the earlier discussion was from March, before Martin had become quite as notorious as he became later in the campaign season. Obviously someone suggesting he be used as a source now would get a less measured reaction. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of phrasing

This opinion piece is part of the 2008 Presidential campaign section: "Part of the controversy lies in the fact that if the reverse were the case (a white person used the phrase "typical black person"), it would be immediately and resoundingly condemned as racist" and most of the sources are POV conservative blogs. Does anyone else agree that this should be removed?--PilsnerUrquell (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely not OK in its current form: as you say, the wording is far from neutral and not all the sources are reliable. It would be better if the criticism were attributed to a specific notable commentator, rather than forcing the reader to slough through the conservative echo chamber. I'll see if I can come up with a better way to note the comment and the reaction from the commentariat. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I will echo chamber that the comment as written is not appropriate. Those kinds of debates really should go in the A More Perfect Union speech (assuming it survives afd - which I assume it will). The focus on the article should be Madelyn. Americasroof (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted a slightly more neutral version, noting the path the story took to reach the mainstream media and eliminating the most unreliable of the noted sources. I'm not sure that my version is up to snuff either, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you did a good job on the rewrite. I think it's pretty safe to say that she's going to be the target of conservative blogs until election day so we'll have to keep on top of it. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added Obama's clarification on his clarification, although I now worry that we may be giving this undue weight. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the first time where she has formally come up in discussion. It might need to go into its own section. In the for what it's worth department, Obama made a factual error in the speech about her (he said she worked in Fort Leavenworth although she actually worked in Wichita - his mother (Madelyn's daughter) was born in Fort Leavenworth during WWII). Americasroof (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: WIP Radio Interview I inserted the actual full quote from the WIP interview from US News. Could someone please correct the citation - I do not know how to do it. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2008/03/21/obama-typical-white-person-comment-delights-clinton-aides.html

Here is the link to the full audio clip of the interview: http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=8a521134-e10b-4bfb-8aec-690d61794d50

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.65.85 (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the quote, based on listening to the clip. The US News quote was not correct - he clearly says, for example, "my grandmother", not "Grandmother" - so I have changed the text to the actual quote and put in both the original Chicago Tribune citation and the clip citation. Note that the clip site may not be stable, so I think both citations are warranted. Tvoz |talk 07:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

reworked

I did a rework of this article as follows:

• refs were in abysmal shape - they are now organized and in cite format, using "ref name" for repeating citations
• removed anachronisms such as "she met Obama's grandfather" - he was not Obama's grandfather until many years later. Not encyclopedic and not necessary.
• removed some repetitive material and some irrelevant details
• worked the names of publications, writers, etc, into the notes - not appropriate for text unless particularly notable
• removed over wikilinking and added a few wikilinks where needed
• "only living ancestor" is more confusing - he considers Sarah Obama his grandmother, although she is step - this isn't the place for genealogical details like that, as long as we are accurate
• tightened the language in a few places

Tvoz |talk 07:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal (old)

Stanley Dunham is a stub - just about all of the details about him are here already. I suggest we add his high school and parents' names and merge that article into this one, renaming it "Madelyn and Stanley Dunham" (with redirects to here from "Madelyn Dunham" and "Stanley Dunham" of course). Tvoz |talk 07:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Done - no point in having the Stanley stub, as all information was already here. Tvoz |talk 21:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Opposed to the Renaming - I am strongly opposed to the renaming of this article to Madelyn and Stanley (even if it is probably with the best intentions). It has made a mishmash and corrupted categories. We've worked very hard on Madelyn notability and not so hard on Stanley. You can redirect Stanley here until such time as more info surfaces on him (and it will). But please don't try to change Wikipedia naming conventions. Americasroof (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the text of this article was already about both of the Dunhams - pretty much all I had to add was his high school. I acknowledge the category problem which I hadn't anticipated, but there may be a better way of handling that - we shouldn't, though, have category problems determine article content, should we? I'm not trying to change naming conventions, but I'm not convinced that the best way to go is for stanley to just point to madelyn. (And indeed, my intentions were good. I waited a week before implementing the change, by the way.) Tvoz |talk 05:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, see this - there is ample precedent for this formulation. See Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for example, or John and Lorena Bobbitt - not to draw any comparisons to either of those couples! Tvoz |talk 05:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I remain strongly opposed to the merger (even though I know this was a good faith effort to please everybody). 95 percent of this article is about Madelyn. Stanley is only a small part. This messes up the usual categorization (e.g., UW and UC alumni, birth dates, etc.) The married couples category is filled with just a handfull of names. Americasroof (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ot be making headlines. Those should probably be merged here. Student7 (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fort Leavenworth

I think this part of the article needs to be reevaluated, because it says that she worked on at a factory in Wichita, but the article it quotes says "Dunham would go on to serve in World War II while his wife worked on a defense assembly line. She gave birth to Obama's mother at Fort Leavenworth, Kan." which makes it sound like she worked at the assembly line in Fort Leavenworth, where she gave birth to his mother. That can't be possible, however, since there was no assembly line in Fort Leavenworth in WWII. It is also unlikely that they were stationed in Fort Leavenworth as a military unit since Barack Obama has claimed that his grandfather was overseas during this time and Fort Leavenworth is home to the Command and General Staff college, not an active army division like many other military forts. However, that isn't to say it is impossible that he was stationed there, since there were a few engineer companies there at the time, but just that its unlikely and there probably should be some citations to support it before it is stated as a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.81.53 (talk • contribs) 11:02, March 24, 2008

Category sorting

Having a problem with the category tags - should be able to indicate which name goes which cat, but I haven't figured out how. Will check with people know more about this - if anyone knows how to fix, please do. The info is correct in the raw edit, but it is not translating properly. Tvoz |talk 22:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Useful source

I don't have the time to go through it right now, but the Honolulu Advertiser has an article about Madelyn Dunham's life which would be useful for this article. If someone wants to mine it for useful information, that would be great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Dan Nakaso has reworked his Honolulu Advertiser article for USA Today; most of the content is the same, but there's a little more info about her current status, from Maya Soetoro-Ng. Meanwhile, Madelyn appears briefly in a campaign ad for her grandson, which I suppose we should mention in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bank Vice President in Washington?

I don't entirely trust the comment that she was bank vice president in Washington since she worked at the Bank of Hawaii from 1960 until 1970 before she was promoted there. I sure wish we could get a specific bank name for the Washington bank. Americasroof (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

nominate for deletion

I want to re-nominate this article for deletion. His grandparents are not notable. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 01:15, 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) 01:46, 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)

Do not delete. We had a long discussion on this in March and the decision was Keep. At this point, given both her mention by Obama in his race speech and her actual appearance in an ad for Obama, Madelyn Dunham is even more notable now than in March. It bears repeating she is Obama's only living ancestor and the only living person who raised him.GreekParadise (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ancestry

How do editors feel about including this section? I don't find it particularly notable. It's better now as a separate section, but I'd like to hear why it's being added and what others think about it. Tvoz/talk 16:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is so much Barack Obama related articles and thought it was interesting and this, even though it is a bit long, seems like the place for it. A lot of biographical articles are ancestry sections and it's just for interest. If a reader do want to know more about it, he or she can simply just stroll ahead, and if someone is interested in Barack Obama's maternal ancestry, here it is. Mean compare Ann Dunham's article to one on Roberta McCain in terms of lenghth and information. The fact that all the information is out there and written up in major national newspapers shows that Obama's ancestry, moreso then McCain or Bush Jr., is a major issue for others and people would like to know about it and here on Wikipedia, why not be a source for people? 64.230.110.176 (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly pretention that people get into when politicians run for office. People are amazed to find out that everybody is related to everybody else. Absolutely worthless. Article should have been deleted of course. Failing that, maybe we can merge it. Student7 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Any new thoughts on this? I still find this section to be excessive and not particularly notable. Tvoz/talk 23:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It may seem like a bit much to those of us who aren't interested in genealogy, but lots of people are interested in the genealogy of notable people, and it's better to have this ancestry business here than in Barack Obama. I think it's mostly harmless. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. Tvoz/talk 03:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

hip replacement

From what I see the source says:

Payne did not know which hip she broke. He said she had previously had a hip replacement, but he could not recall on which side. [1]

So I believe the source should be quoted accurately. Grandmaster (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Onyango Obama

Sarah Onyango Obama's role in the presidential campaign does not belong in this article - it is not an article about Barack or about the campaign, it's about the Dunhams. Please stop adding it. Tvoz/talk 03:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I recently removed a bit contrasting Madelyn Dunham's lack of visibility with the initial press availability provided by Obama's Kenyan step-grandmother, Sarah Onyango Obama. I didn't think that Sarah Obama is really relevant to an article on Madelyn and Stanley Dunham. Furthermore, unless a reliable source has explicitly drawn that contrast, it's original research for us to draw it. (It also looks a bit like we're trying to insinuate something, which would be contrary to WP:NPOV.)

Anyway, BorisBadinov44 (talk · contribs) restored the material, and then Tvoz (talk · contribs) deleted it. Rather than continuing to edit war on this, we should discuss. Boris, how do you think that Sarah Obama is relevant here? Do you know of an RS which has compared the two grandmothers' press availability? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the name fix, Josiah - don't ask me where that Obongo came from. And thanks for taking the time to spell out what I was telegraphing: I obviously agree with what you posted above. I hope Boris will engage here - he has not responded to any note I've left him on his page or in edit summaries. Tvoz/talk 04:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting it again - I again have asked Boris Badinov44 (talk · contribs · logs) to join this discussion - it is not a matter of the length of the entry, it's a question of it being OR, synthesis, and not relevant. Tvoz/talk 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

it's just half a sentence and gives in some context and most media reports intially mention this comprassion. Irrelevance is an opinion but end-all trump card. Boris Badinov44 (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, please provide some media reports that mention this comparison. The citation you've posted does not, so at this point it appears to be OR. And in any case, this article is a biography of the Dunhams, and you haven't explained why Sarah Obama's access to the press is relevant. Again, the fact that it's half a sentence has nothing to do with anything - no one made the argument that it was too long, just that it doesn't belong here. At this point I don't see that you have consensus for the change - at least two editors have removed it. Tvoz/talk 05:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz is right — unless you can find a reliable source that explicitly compares the two women, we can't mention it here. Even then the relevance is questionable: Mary of Teck and Cecilia Bowes-Lyon, Countess of Strathmore and Kinghorne (the grandmothers of Queen Elizabeth II) aren't mentioned in each other's articles. How is the media availability of Sarah Obama relevant to Madelyn Dunham? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There's tons of stuff in this article not related to either Mr. or Mrs. Dunham, ie Her brother's WWII record or her daughter's Indonesian microfinance projects or the description of Mercer Island? Even if the Kenyan Granny half-sentence is added back again, it'll just removed again, but I still maintain that it didn't take away from the article or that it was irrelevant. Now were just in a pointless "I think" vs. "You think" stuff. Adding it the Sarah Obama section which if you were really interested in contributing, you would have yourself instead of being so focused on style and personal judgements on content. Boris Badinov44 (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Her brother and daughter are her relatives, so there is some rationale for including information about them in her article. Sarah Obama is not, and your connecting the two when you can't come up with sources who do so means that it's not appropriate to include. And there's no need for you to attack other editors - we're just trying to keep things straight, neutral, and sourced. Tvoz/talk 07:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Madelyn Dunham own section

Can't the woman have her own section, she basically raised him and Obama has referred to her more times then just about anyone in his family(other than his wife).--Levineps (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think there is a specific template to ask for an article to be split. Hektor (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. Also, can someone update the page to reflect that she actually passed away on November 2nd? She died shortly before midnight on Sunday. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/03/obama.grandma/index.html

The articles should be split & the death date conceren is being addressed. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The articles should not be split. There isn't much information on Stanley Dunham, and what information there is indicates that these two are basically notable as a pair - they worked together. I at least think it reads much better as is. SnowFire (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Favor splitting - I was opposed when they were combined last Winter with minimal or no consensus. The two individuals have separate categories they can fall into. The categories were corrupted and deleted when they were combined. Americasroof (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Favor splitting - I can't recall any other articles meged togather about two people. They each deserve their own articles. There is no reason not to keep them seperate as far as I can tell.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This isn't common, but happens whenever two people's relevance/story are essentially the same, and is done sometimes. See Wright brothers, Cain and Abel, etc. Telling half the story would be silly; otherise most information would be repeated between the articles. For just one example: "In El Dorado, Kansas, Stanley had managed a furniture store while Madelyn worked in restaurants." This fact would obviously need to be in both articles, or risk rendering what the family was up to incoherent. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose splitting We tried it that way and the two articles were duplicative of one another - as SnowFire said, they are written about as a pair in sources much more than not. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are other examples. There's no particular reason for separate articles, as long as the redirects remain in place - anhyone who comes here and types in Madelyn Dunham is brought directly here. Tvoz/talk 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Favor splitting These are two real human beings, not a fictional composite character. Regardless of whether or not their individual articles have significant overlap, they are two different people with two separate identities and histories (in spite of the fact that their chief notability is the roles they played in their grandson's life); as such, they deserve their own articles. Furthermore, since it is plain as day that Senator Obama is extremely likely to be headed towards a more prominent public role in about a day's time, it is very, very likely that additional information about both Madelyn and Stanley will flood into the public record, and thus, provide ample material to differentiate the two to a degree which makes crystal clear the merit of separate articles. AdRem (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We can create separate articles if and when such material surfaces. Right now we don't have it. (And I think if you check you'll find that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, and the Wright Brothers are not fictional characters either.) Tvoz/talk 07:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Dunhams belong in the same category as the examples you stated for the reasons I stated. Just to clear up any ambiguity about my previous statement: I think there is ample, ample material to differentiate the two Dunhams already--I just think that if people such as yourself who think that material is not enough at the moment will soon find that position closer and closer to impossible to defend.AdRem (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Favor splitting I originally created this article in February when very little was known about Madelyn Dunham. I agree that her life and role - particularly as of late, including Obama's visit just before her death - should give her own article. Originally, they were two separate articles. I did not favor the joining with her husband when it happened. Let's resplit the articles.GreekParadise (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in principle saying that these two have to be together, I'm just saying that we don't have enough separate material for it to make sense right now. If you'll recall, when we merged them all that had to be added to the Madelyn article was the name of Stanley's high school. Everything else about Stanley was duplicated here, so what's the point of having two articles (until and unless more information appears about either of them that makes this article unwieldy)? I don't understand the argument made upstream that anyone "deserves" a separate article - seems to me that the more efficient thing for these two is to be together rather than duplicating the material for some reason. Can you explain why you think it's better than typing Madelyn Dunham and getting here, because I really don't see what you're getting at. Tvoz/talk 09:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main argument for NOT splitting is that we don't have enough on Stanley Dunham. But that doesn't seem to me to be the right reason to take away a separate article from Madelyn Dunham who clearly has a major and profound role in Obama's life and whose recent death is so noteworthy. Certainly we could include the Stanley Dunham information in the article. But it seems to me that when you have one person more famous than the other, you don't automatically include the other. For example, Prescott Bush is more famous than his wife, but they still have separate pages, as do most husbands and wives who are ancestors of famous people, partly because it makes family trees easier. If people want to focus on her -- and many do, given the extraordinary visit two weeks before being elected President and the fact that she died the night before her son was elected -- they can. If the focus is on Stanley Dunham, they can focus on him too. Sure, there will be repetitive information, but that alone shouldn't dictate combination. I think that usually separate people should have separate biographies. The Wright Brothers is the rare exception because they did everything famous together and are known precisely as a pair. But I note that even Sonny and Cher or George and Gracie Allen have separate biographies, even though most of the two articles are necessarilly repetitive. GreekParadise (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Favour splitting Two people in one article is confusing. categorising would be easier. we won't have something like 1992 death and 2008 death category in the same article--w_tanoto (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Favour splitting on condition that Obama/Biden are elected. Afterall, being grand-parents of the President of the USA is more notable, then being grandparents of an also-ran candidate. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. It's been said before, but notability is not really the argument for why the biographies should be combined. Nobody contests that both Orville and Wilbur Wright are amazingly incredibly relevant and notable, but nevertheless information on them is best presented in one article, because separate articles would just repeat the same information. SnowFire (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Splitting funny at first, all these Obama relatives articles were trying to delete them and now it's all about splitting them. The article, while not amazing, is fine and most of the info is anecdotal and based on her grandson's memories and speeches, neither academic sources. Boris Badinov44 (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Favour splitting. There is now enough information on either to make a split reasonable. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose splitting for now - There is not enough for Stanley Dunham to be notable by himself, and this is shaping up fairly well. Perhaps as things develeop? 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Favor splitting Madelyn Dunhan into separate article. Stanley Dunham can be integrated into Family of Barack Obama.--Crunch (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Favor splitting Madelyn has often been mentioned by the media, and by Obama, without (much) mention of Stanley. There is now far more on the article about Madelyn than about Stanley. She is obviously the more notable of the couple, and is deserving of an article of her own, whereas Stanley could be added to the family article, as stated in the comment just above this one. Werdnawerdna (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Favor splitting, sorta I like Crunch's suggestion that this page become an individual bio of Madelyn, and the content related to Stanley be moved to Family of Barack Obama. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment re the "move Stanley to the Family page" suggestion. What's the point? Stanley's life is relevant to Madelyn's life, and the two dovetail together nicely. To put things another way, the current page, if it becomes the Madelyn page, will still need information on Stanley's life, so that won't change much. The only result will be to add more info to the Family page that is better treated here anyway. Now, again, people keep on saying more information will come forward... fine, and if a bunch of new information comes forward that means there's lots of content on both, then they both should absolutley have separate articles. It's just that that hasn't happened yet, and the information we do have seems to fit very nicely into this article covering both Madelyn and Stanley. SnowFire (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Part of the problem is that as things stand now, with a sizeable section about Madelyn's role in the 2008 presidential campaign, there's a large section of the article that has little or nothing to do with Stanley. Right now, only the "Raising Barack Obama" section, half of the "Ancestry" section and about two-thirds of the "Early life" are relevant to Stanley. Madelyn has had a substantial amount of coverage as an individual in reliable sources; the coverage of Stanley is more nebulous (for obvious reasons — he died before his grandson became famous). The reason I think that Stanley-specific content is better placed in the Family article than here is that there's so much more Madelyn-related content that the article seems imbalanced. Better to let it stand on its own as a decent article about Madelyn. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose splitting this is hardly a precedent article for including 2 people. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• So, no action has yet been taken as a result of this discussion, even though it appears the result of this discussion (with a few strong opponents) was SPLIT. Someone please either split it, or get this discussion moving again. AdRem (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose splitting This isn't the first article to contain multiple people when one or more of them is not notable enough to meet WP:BIO criteria on their own. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• After overwhelming support, I split the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

CNN says November 2

Unless I'm reading it wrong. CNN says she died before mid-night on Sunday night 5am EST time. What gives? GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Was Hawaii at the time, still in November 2nd? GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Dates changed to Nov. 2. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see it was changed back. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nov 2 is two days before the election, not "the day before" as in the main article. 216.179.123.198 (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however the Obama campaign didn't announce her passing, until Monday. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a time zone issue. In the continental U.S., it was the day before the election. In Hawaii, it was 2 days before. ThreeOfCups (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think your math is wrong

You say that Stanley is Cheney's 7th cousin once removed, but your source says that their common ancestor is Obama's 9x-great-grandfather (11 generations back for Obama and 9 generations back for Stanley) and Cheney's 8x-great-grandfather (10 generations back). Having a common ancestor 9 and 10 generations back would make Stanley and Cheney 8th cousins once removed, wouldn't it? The source also says that Truman was the 9x-great-grandson of the common ancestor, making him 8th cousins twice removed with Stanley. I'm changing this, but feel free to revert if I'm wrong. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry section

This section has been so mangled by vandals, it is virtually incomprehensible. Who is being referred to as the 7th x cousin? Bearian (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the source, if my math is right, Stanley is Cheney's ascendant 8th cousin once removed (making Obama Cheney's decedent 9th cousin once removed). Stanley is also Truman's ascendant 8th cousin twice removed (making Obama and Truman 10th cousins zero times removed). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It has gotten a little muddled. Stanley's Irish ancestry is on Madelyn's page rather than his own. Jmcharry (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)jmcharry

Type of cancer

What type of cancer did she have? --Voidvector (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving alumni categories to Madelyn's redirect

{{editprotected}} Per comment at bottom of Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, categories that only apply to Madelyn should be added to the redirect page Madelyn Dunham. I'm removing them from Madelyn and Stanley Dunham but they need to be added to Madelyn Dunham, which is fully protected:

[[Category:University of California, Berkeley alumni]]
[[Category:University of Washington alumni]]

This request is on Talk:Madelyn and Stanley Dunham because Talk:Madelyn Dunham currently redirects also. --Closeapple (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The full protection was recently changed to semiprotection. This means you can now make the edit without admin help. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This request is for Madelyn Dunham (the redirect), not Madelyn and Stanley Dunham (whose talk page this is on because of a talk redirect). Madelyn Dunham has been protected as edit=sysop since yesterday by User:NawlinWiki and is not unprotected yet. I still get "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators" at this moment, and I still cannot edit it. If someone wants to unprotect it instead, I will make the edit. --Closeapple (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reduced protection. The full protection from editing was without merit. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added the categories to the redirect (which I agree does not need to be fully protected). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. See also #Stanley's categories below (which I've now done). --Closeapple (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Madelyn's funeral

Westboro Baptist Church, who hate Obama, claim they will protest at the funeral: WBC to picket Madelyn Payne Dunham's funeral Does anyone know more about that? Assuming the President-elect attends, surely there will be a massive security presence, preventing Fred Phelps' followers from getting anywhere near it? Werdnawerdna (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If I remember, Westboro has neglected to show up at some of their "announced" protests after it was clear that the local legal environment was not in their favor. However, I have no references for that, and the Westboro Baptist Church article seems to be missing information about whether certain "announced" protests actually happened. --Closeapple (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Stanley's categories

If the page is not split, a decision needs to be made about the categories that pertain only to Stanley Dunham (specifically Category:1918 births and Category:1992 deaths, as well as any other categories which apply only to Stanley). The current situation works for Madelyn, since we can put most categories relating to her at the redirect page Madelyn Dunham, but Stanley Dunham is a disambiguation page (since Stanley named his daughter after himself). Assuming the page is not split, should we put Stanley's categories at the redirect Stanley Armour Dunham, or what? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've consolidated the Stanley-only categories on Stanley Armour Dunham; some Stanley categories were on the disambig page Stanley Dunham for a little while but kept getting omitted during other edits and reverts, so I moved them at the same time I moved birth/death from here. I've also added comments to both redirect pages, Stanley Armour Dunham and Madelyn Dunham, to explain that the categories were intended to be there. Madelyn and Stanley Dunham now only has categories that apply to both. --Closeapple (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Closeapple. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Enhanced version of "Ann Dunham with Father and children" Image Available

I have uploaded an enhanced version of this file in which I enlarged it, reduced noise and resaturated the color. I did not want to replace the original file with the enhanced version without consensus so I uploaded it as (click on image for page):

—Blanchette (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)