Talk:Zeituni Onyango/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge

To attract more input, I moved the discussion below to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This a WP:CFORK of Family_of_Barack_Obama#Zeituni_Onyango. VG ☎ 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree - this is an unnecessary article that should be redirected to Family_of_Barack_Obama#Zeituni_Onyango. There is no independent notability and this matter is handled there. Tvoz/talk 20:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No point in duplication. This person is also only notable for being a family member - so she belongs on a family article (split only if that article gets overlong). Agree with merge/redirect.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The first post here was made 19:25, and a non-admin user claims "consensus" at 21:01 [1], is this really ridiculous on it's face like it seems? This has to be one of the most un-wiki things I've seen. Obviously there is no consensus to do this nor can it be after on hour. What's next? First poster declares consensus disruptively after 3 minutes based on his own opinion? Oppose any such merge oppose disruptive closing of discussion after 1 hour. We have processes like Afd (mandatory run for 5 days) for a reason so everyone can have a voice, so we can have discussion. There is no discussion and zero reasoning and arguments above. Of course how could there be in just a short time. I ask everyone to follow wikipedia processes on deletion, discussion and consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some comment to make on the merits of why there should be a separate article on this individual? What I see is no independent notability, and to the extent she is known, it is for one thing only - both of which would suggest that the redirect makes sense. So if you think this article should stand, could you share why? Also, don't you think you a should have reinstated the merge tag when you reinstated the page? Tvoz/talk 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(please don't modify your comment like that, it's not what I replied to ,ec) Yes, first of all discussion should run it's course with multiple people having the opportunity to comment, so that's a procedural reason for the time being. However also there is the reason that I see no evidence that this person would be non-notable. In fact a simple search of reliable sources on Google News shows that she was notable enough for around 2200 articles at the moment. These are only English language sources and only those tracked by the service. I can confirm that she received international coverage as well outside of the US. It is also probable that the level of notability will increase rather than decrease with time for the moment at least. All these facts lead to the conclusion that this person is far more notable than a good percentage of existing articles, and far more notable than the standards we use for inclusion. Also I fail to see what is the 'one thing' that she is known for? Is it being written about in "Dreams From My Father", is it moving to the US, is it qualifying in an unprecedented manner for federal tax dollars in federal housing, is it contributing to the presidential campaign as a non-citizen? Is it influencing a presidential campaign in the last days? Which would be the one thing, rather it seems that the she is known internationally for many things. There are many Obama relatives who are never written about in the press, because they are not notable for doing anything. Hobartimus (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Now 2500 hits, all about one thing: a story about her immigration status that mysteriously came out a handful of days before the presidential election, likely in order to try to embarrass the candidate. There's no evidence that this story is having any influence on the election, and if it does it would belong at most as a small note in the article about the election. That doesn't merit a biography. Nor does being a minor character in his memoir. As for your prediction that the coverage will increase - if that happens, an article can always be created. We are not the news - there will be plenty of time in the future to determine if she has become notable enough to warrant an article. Tvoz/talk 08:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Now 2500 hits, all about one thing: a story about her immigration status" False. The media reported it even before the AP broke the illegal immigration story. Read the first articles they have nothing about illegal immigration. "There's no evidence that this story is having any influence on the election" did you actually check the articles? If you do some simple searches I'm sure you can find all the articles discussing how the story a few days before election is significant. We have multiple press releases from the Obama campaign. If it has no significance how do you explain the press releases from a presidential campaign? Hobartimus (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If it has no significance how do you explain also the following "Onyango's case resulted in an special nationwide directive within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations to be approved at the level of ICE regional directors before the U.S presidential election.[6]" Hobartimus (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it also depends about how you define "one story" or one thing. Obama is only notable for his "political activities" but I think it's a stretch to define "one story" this way that it includes so many things and events. I mean you must admit that there is multiple things here, the immigration status, the special nationwide order to halt all deportations, there is the public housing, there is the campaign contributions, the return of those contributions, being featured in the best selling book by Obama, the coverage itself, possible effect on the election (I know you doubt it, but I think possible is a word that can be agreed on, also effect does not mean it turns it but that it moves some votes) . Hobartimus (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

←No, the comparison to Obama is not at all correct. And I disagree with your assertion that these are unrelated stories. All of the stories about Zeituni come back to the immigration status story - contributions and their return are only an issue if she doesn't have a green card, the article itself says that the deportation approval directive came out of this story, we do not write articles about every person in his or any book, and I do not see anything regarding a "public housing" issue - in fact the articles I read say there is no issue and you should be careful of BLP violations on this. You may be hoping this affects the election outcome, but there's no reporting that it is having such an effect, and we do not write about "possible" effects - we wait, because there is no emergency, until there actually is an effect that is notable. You seem to be in a big rush and haven't explained why. In any case, the suggestion was to merge with the already existing section in the Family article, so anything of any real notability can be put into that section. You haven't demonstrated a need for a standalone article. Let's see what other editors think - you've made your point. Tvoz/talk

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: To attract more input I'd moved the above discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY

Resolved

 – Article sent to AfD. -- Banjeboi 22:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Is there anyone, anyone at all, who makes the claim that "Zeituni Onyango" did NOT receive "significant coverage" in "reliable sources"? Anyone who makes that statement in light of the evidence and challenge the inclusion as a stand-alone article. I think it's high time we base the discussion on Wikipedia's rules. Hobartimus (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This article should be 100 words maximum. (i.e. "She's an aunt of obama who's immigration status came into question during the 2008 US Presidential campaign." That with a few sentences of filler is all she warrants). But I'll wait until after the election to fix this... what the POV pushers don't understand, is that no one cares about this woman as a campaign issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion is to merge and redirect this article to Family of Barack Obama#Zeituni Onyango which already has a short discussion of her, more than adequate. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango for a discussion of this. Tvoz/talk 19:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted content

Resolved

 – Context and refs found; reworked content re-added removing POV statistics. -- Banjeboi 22:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

“ Kenya is in eastern Africa between Somalia and Tanzania and widespread ethnic violence - including the 2007–2008 Kenyan crisis - have resulted in over 700 deaths and the displacement of up to 600,000 people. ”

The above was deleted as "soapboxing". I believe this BLPs political asylum case should be contextualized to show the atmosphere. I'm open to suggestion but any decent biography would certainly cover similar material. Suggestions on how to handle this? -- Banjeboi 02:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This article should be 200 words total. "Context" about kenya is not needed here. She's seeking asylum from Kenya. Got it. People can go read up on Kenya if they want. I suppose if you had specific info from her assylum request (i.e. "she says she can't return because of x") that might belong here, but general background on Kenya in an article on a figure whose article will be cut down to the appropriate length of 200 or so words on November 3? Nope. Stick to the subject. No WP:SYNBali ultimate (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is likely to be one of the more famous asylum cases and has resulted in some rather unprecedented federal responses. Agree that Kenya information should tie into this subject - that's what I was attempting to do. Independent media sources are reporting why she had sought asylum so I was simply following their lead. Your opinion on how many word this article should be capped at is also duly noted. And WP:Synthesis doesn't seem to apply here - at all. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Likely" does not cut it. If it becomes so, then we can write a competent article at that time. For now this is a blip in the presidential campaign. I have deleted a bunch of content that has nothing directly to do with the life of the person featured in the article - general talk about immigration law, Barack Obama's response to the incident, and discussion of how the Associated Press got its sources. There is no rush here. Her notability is four days old at this point (as I mentioned in my comments in the deletion proposal). There are many sources, but nothing very solid to sort out what to say about her life. If it is worth writing a biographical article on someone, we have to discuss their life, not how they have become a campaign curiosity in someone else's election. That material belongs, if anywhere, in other article(s). Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and neither am I but this is already one of the most famous asylum cases of 2008 in the US. And actually we do contextualize why someone made the choices they did if it can be reliably sourced. Likewise we discuss the background environment from where someone arose. We don't lead to story, we follow what reliable sources state - if they cite Kenya's violence as the likely reason she sought political asylum then we follow that lead and let the reader decide for themselves what weight to apply to the information. -- Banjeboi 19:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Disability

Resolved

 – Context and ref found, content re-added. -- Banjeboi 22:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

“ Onyango suffers from a physical disability and uses a walking stick. ”

I've removed this for now until it can be contextualized to show why it needs to be in the article. I think it is relevant but it should be more clear why it's included. -- Banjeboi 03:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

actually, assuming the citation reflects the claim and is from a reliable source, inasmuch as she needs an article at all, this didn't need to be removed: It's cited, it's about the subject of the article, and says something that one interested in the subject might want to know: She walks with a cane. Was the inclusion of this disputed by anyone? (it's hard to keep track).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't she living in public housing because she is disabled? VG ☎ 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is true it would tie in several points in the article storyline of why an illegal immigrant got public assistance. As I stated I'm not opposed to including it but it needs to be given some context if we are assigning a BLP as a disabled person. Sourced or not. -- Banjeboi 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The source indicates she uses a walking stick - which still doesn't seem that notable - and lives in a flat normally set aside for disabled people. I've added that. -- Banjeboi 22:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge/Delete/Keep discussions

Resolved

 – AfD closed. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please use the links in the templates at the top of the article page to go to the AfD discussion regarding the status of this article. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Blanking 30% of the article by Wikidemon

Wikidemon is an active participant to the current Afd[2] After voting there to 'merge' he deleted large amounts of content from an article under Afd, in a way that would change the effect of all "merge" votes. He did this minutes after posting his vote in the Afd. You can see the content of the article, at the time he voted to merge [3]. Note that the article at that time had 19 sources. He then proceeded to delete about 3000 bytes worth of content about 30% of the article without discussing it on the talk page first [4]. After these deletions the article had only 11 sources down from 19, and lost a large amount of content due to the blanking. If more blanking like this is done it would essentially delete the article outside of the running Afd process. The well sourced content should be restored to protect the integrity of the Afd process and allow participants to actually see the article they discuss. Should similar edits be allowed to continue the article will disappear completely with the Afd participants unable to see what it is they are actually discussing. Hobartimus (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The rather confrontational comment above is basically a duplicate of content posted by the re-creator of this deleted article at the AfD page. The material I deleted is inappropriate to the article - BLP vio, POV, material impertinent to the subject's life, campaign-related stuff. The article, and the issue, are about four days old. Onyango may or may not be notable, but even if she is, this article is not the place to describe broader issues of immigration, campaign tactics, Obama's statements and knowledge of the matter, etc. With the election 2 days away, and the AfD on a 5-day track, we cannot hold everything up to wait for AfD results - AfD does not suspend BLP or concerns for tending to the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I will also add that the content I deleted is all newly added, and I am disputing it. Per WP:BRD and general rules of consensus, anyone proposing to add disputed material to the encyclopedia ought to establish consensus for it first, and not blindly revert to keep it in. An AfD of the article is not a free pass to add disputed content, particularly not content with BLP issues. As they say, there is no deadline on Wikipedia. The events that may or may not make her notable are unfolding on a daily basis. If Onyango has lasting notability, there is plenty of time in the coming weeks and months to write a suitable article about her. I do not wish to edit war on this, and will not revert again - but if people push the contact in I think we need to take the question rapidly (and one hopes, civilly) to some form of resolution, e.g. ANI.Wikidemon (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[ec]It's completely unacceptable to remove reliably sourced information which attests to the notability of the subject in the midst of an AfD. The BLP violations Wikidemon speaks of are not slanderous claims or assaults on the character of the subject, merely minor issues with undue weight/coatracking that will be resolved decisively by the AfD. There is no consensus for removing this content. the skomorokh 18:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, AfD won't regulate a minor article content issue like this one. I don't particularly care about whether this is mentioned in the article or not. On one hand pretty much every news report mentions the donations, but on the other hand in what other BLP do we detail small donations to this extent? A reasonable compromise would be to make this a two-sentence mention (she dontated ~260, Obama said will return because of her status) and remove the heading, which gives WP:UNDUE weight to the matter in her bio. The current article reads like donating that money was the achievement of a lifetime. VG ☎ 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be treated better. It's widely reported so was seen as important at the time. This too should be placed in context. These are minor donations to a multimillion campaign but they may have been huge to her individually. -- Banjeboi 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

May or may not. You've deleted other details like her physical handicap, which were also widely reported by the press, citing unclear importance. I could easily claim that you're applying a double standard here, but I've got bigger fish to fry. VG ☎ 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved the disability content to the talk page to discuss how it should be added - I think I've found a good source to explain the connection but per BLP we probably shouldn't make a big deal of someone's handicap if it's not notable to their story. If it is - fine, if it isn't - fine. But we should be clear rather than labeling her without context. -- Banjeboi 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful edits, Benjiboi and Thisglad. The edit warring and procedural wikigaming by some to force disputed BLP material into the encyclopedia was rather sad. The new version of the material in the article is disputable for weight and relevance (it's quite a long section on a relatively small part of the life of a private individual), but it is neutral and solidly sourced, hence not an obvious BLP violation and no call for immediate removal. It's also well-written and conforms to our encyclopedic standards. The AfD may go either way, but that will not answer the content question. Whether here or elsewhere there is still the question of which of these details to include and in which article. Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

3rd paragraph in "History" section (the one about unrest in Kenya) seems a bit WP:SYN

While it's admirable to try to provide context, none of the sources cited explicitly makes the connection between all those events and Onyango's immigration case. It's all a bit speculative since the actual content of her asylum application has not been leaked. I'd keep just the last two sentences, which are directly attributable to a source (The American Prospect). VG ☎ 22:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Her asylum case is due to violence in Kenya which is tribal based. Showing that the current party in power and the main opposition, whose leader claims to be a relative certainly seems relevant. We could spell out more that relatives and fellow tribe members are routinely tortured and killed. -- Banjeboi 23:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That graph has no place in this article. I removed twice, benji editwarred over it and I lost interest. But it remains a violation of synthesis, undue weight, and if i spent some time thinking about it, probably a few more policies to boot. This article is not about kenya and its various problems, but about this women. To say she's seeking assylym makes it clear that, at least from her perspective, she's coming from a place that she needs asylym from. As a matter of law and practice, the mere fact that one comes from a place where some people may be deserving assylum seekers is insufficient to demonstrate one's own need for asylum. As I told Benji before, if there was information about this lady's specific claims (i.e. "I need asylum because of x") that might belong in this article. But general background on problems in kenya, in service of helping readers to "connect the dots" is very, very bad practice for wikipedia in specific and for encyclopedic writing in general. And on that note, i've removed the offending graph again.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the bad faith accusations but sorry, her case is sourced to violence in Kenya. A contextualizing on the violence in that country, her - and the president-elect's - tribal associations to those tribes responsible for the violence is all helpful to our readers who would be curious what violence in Kenya exists, how it relates to her, the US President and her asylum case. Her case in the United States started in the early 2000s and this information is a brief overview of that. Presented NPOV and sourced. If you feel a particular aspect could be reworked, reworded or sourced better then I'm happy to work with you, Simply deleting material and labeling it and myself as POV-pushing is contentious and unhelpful. I have little doubt that now the election is done she may be more forthcoming with details but a relative of then US Senator and now US president could easily be seen as a target for violence. I think she may have been targeted, or believed she was targeted simply because of her tribal affiliations but we don't state that. Simply that she is a part of tribe that has been in ongoing political struggles and violence. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see why you got topic banned on some stuff. What you think about the merits of her asylum case isn't all that relevant on Wikipedia; "verifiability not truth". Take it easy. VG ☎ 09:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for that. In fact my one topic ban was due to an editor who has since been site banned. Verifiability not truth is all that's being applied here. In fact, if it weren't brought up I wouldn't have known about it. If a source doesn't publish it - in my eyes it simply doesn't exist. I don't have some majic infoline and generally I don't read blogs. In this case there are so many sources it isn't needed. I'm quite uncomfortable with editors unilaterally deleting sourced content with a blunt shovel crying some policy that doesn't seem to apply. Reasonable dialog is how we build better articles. Recrafting sentences, reworking content, updating facts. These are helpful activities. labeling swaths of content unencyclopedic, synthesis or something else generally isn't. If something isn't clear what is it? Let's improve it. -- Banjeboi 11:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added some more sources and tried to rework this content to spell out more that Onyango is of the Luo, amongst the most marginalized ethnic groups in Kenya. The history of tensions between the Luo and the ruling tribe - the Kikuyu has been uneasy since the mid-1960s at least. There is fascinating information that is great parallel for Barack's content but I haven't included it here. The current Prime minister is also Luo and claims to be related to the Obamas. The President is Kikuyu and speculation is that Kikuyuland greatly benefits from his favors and these inequalities result in even more ethnic tension. In an FA article we would delve into this better but we need more background and less speculation. I expect that to follow soon but we have enough to get the picture. Gems like "Government figures show that a Kenyan born in Luoland today can expect to live 16 years less than one born in Kikuyuland." is insightful but will have to wait more until we can show she lived in Luoland, and when. In any case please let me know if something isn't threading successfully or there is some logic flaw missing. I'm obviously willing and interested in fixing any errors or omissions. -- Banjeboi 13:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)