Talk:Michelle Obama/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Michelle Obama : Not an Honorary Member of AKA

"There was no active undergraduate chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha at Princeton when Ms. Obama attended.In July 2008, Obama accepted the invitation to become an honorary member of the 100-year-old black sorority.[50][51]"

This must be expanded because it is deceptive. Mrs. Obama may have initially accepted the invitation back in July, but her acceptance was contingent on it being non-exclusive, meaning that she could join other sororities as well. AKA does not allow non-exclusive members. Once an honorary member, you cannot join other black sororities in the Divine 9. In short, Mrs. Obama is *not* an honorary member of Alpha Kappa Alpha, and was not inducted after the "invitation acceptance" in July 2008 (view http://www.aka1908.org/present/membership/#honorary for proof). —Preceding unsigned comment added by stris (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not clear that the source is a current list - other data on that page is from 2006. As far as Im concerned, the whole thing could be removed as I don't see why it's particularly notable anyway (see above), but at this point the third-party source we have included confirms what our article says. Tvoz/talk 09:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The cited page is updated as of 2008 with current honorary members, including Vivian Stringer and Carol H. Williams who were both inducted in 2008. Until her membership is confirmed and clarified by the sorority, the reference should be removed. This reference is deceptive in nature because it leads people to believe that she is a member; at the very least it should also state the following: "though she was not formally inducted into the sorority."

She wasn't inducted into the sorority, yet. If she was, there would be a press release on AKA's website. I was hesitant to add her, yet, since she isn't a full honorary member. miranda 20:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Family ate meals together

That sentence sounds a wee bit banal. What is so unusual about the family eating their meals together that it needs to be mentioned in her article? Most families do take their meals together!!!!--jeanne (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's illustrating that she comes from an intact functional family. Tvoz/talk 09:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

reorganized

I've rearranged the page some, combining "Lifestyle" which is not what that section was about with "First Lady to be" which is not really meaningful. Once she is First Lady and we have something substantive to talk about regarding her accomplishments, etc., with some perspective after some time goes by, we can create a meaningful "First Lady" section. I've renamed it "Style and influence", which is actually what that section is about, and moved it down to below the campaign section. I also think the comment about whether first ladies should be paid doesn't belong in this article - perhaps First Lady of the United States would be a better place - this is Michelle's biography, and should really be about things directly about her. I also consolidated the material from the Newsweek opinion piece about Michelle as a black woman - too much weight was being given to one person's opinion about how she and her friends see Michelle. I moved the mention of the two published biographies to a "Further reading" section, following the general style of the encyclopedia, and removing the amazon. com links which we don't use and review links which aren't needed. Also, I can't find any citation about that Health Care book - I see that Barack wrote an article, but I don't see anything connecting Michelle to the book, on the publisher's site or via Google search - if there is a source, please post it here.

Finally - I think in general we need to be more discriminating about what we include here - just because there are sources for various items does not mean they are necessarily notable enough to be in a biography of her life - an example is the USO care package stuff. I left it in for now, but question if it's really appropriate or particularly important enough or illustrative of her life. We can't and shouldn't include everything that is written about her, or everything she does - there will be hundreds of articles about minutiae and we have to go for things that have lasting significance, as is appropriate for a biography. Tvoz/talk 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Her title

Would it be fair to call her the first lady-in-waiting? ABC is now calling her this.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.236.152 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not an acceptable title, and ABC is not calling her that - one writer referring to her that way in his blog doesn't make it a legitimate characterization. We have just another week, and then our articles will all call her First Lady. We don't need a cutesy designation in the meantime. Tvoz/talk 08:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted a few minutes ago that she is now First Lady. And the swearing in hasn't happened yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.112.144.129 (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

More Reading

{{editsemiprotected}}

• David Colbert (December 2008). Michelle Obama, An American Story. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 054724770. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolbester (talk • contribs)

Done - thank you. (And I corrected the ISBN.) Tvoz/talk 20:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a member, but found the correct URL for "dead link" Reference 15 - "Her Plan Went Awry, but Michelle Obama Doesn't Mind" http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/04/040831.michelle-obama.html - The web archive page is no longer working either. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.153.8 (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

photo

New one is much better! Thank you to whoever found it. Tvoz/talk 20:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add this one myself. I saw it over at Commons yesterday. It's really good of her, and the rose-pink suit she's wearing is very stylish and flattering. My compliments to the photographer. Nice work.--jeanne (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't the photo be cropped so that just Michelle is featured in the picture. There's too much in the background.--jeanne (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The First Lady is an Incumbent??

I have tons of repect for the job that a First lady has to do. It in its self is a full time position, and she has numerous duties to perform. Yet, the position is not an elected one, therefore, she can't be an incumbent as it now says in the info box. I did go back and see that Laura Bush also had the same title on her info box, so perhaps it was either missed, or a previous consensus decided to keep it the way it was. Either way, I just want to address the issue, so that it can be discussed.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, she shouldn't be labeled an incumbent. You can't run for First Lady. Parkviewtruth (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping address the issue. I think that I may actually be bold and remove it, just to see what people say, or if they notice it at all. I was hoping to get more of a discussion. I would also like to point out that I am not trying to downplay the first ladies role to her country. I just think that an incumbent is only an elected person, or appointed like in the Sec. of State.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it (if you have edit permissions). --Parkviewtruth (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No - this is not the way to make a change in the Infobox for First Lady - it's a template, which has this hardwired - same for all First Ladies - so the appropriate place for this discussion and request for a change in the template is at Template talk: Infobox Officeholder which regulates this template. Tvoz/talk 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo redux

OK, now we have yet another new photo - the one of Michelle waving on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I like it, think it is a good photo - and until we have an official portrait I'd go with this one. But rather than repeatedly changing the picture can we discuss here from now on and try to come to consensus on any alternatives? I also corrected the caption field so that a caption will appear. Tvoz/talk 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, the photo is a good one of Michelle, but it needs to be cropped. The man in the background needs to go.--jeanne (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone really hates her in here if this is the picture that represents her... --Anime Addict AA (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I put up her official portrait...Kewl?? It's slightly cropped.τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 20:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good job in adding the official picture, but please remember to cite your source! :-) miranda 20:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually got the pic from the Huffington Post (that's why it's slightly cropped). I thought it would be better for the article than the original because she'd appear rather small on the page. The cropped pic is zoomed in. I think your cited source should stand though. ;-) τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 21:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We need to have the photo deleted, because a high resolution photo is better. Also, do we need the Vogue picture? There are so many alternatives, and she will have many photos taken of her. I think we need to delete the Vogue picture. miranda 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite request

I have asked for a cite for her membership in UCC. Please supply one to remove the tag. Requesting a citation is not a disruption, but a logical use of WP policy. If I had found a cite like I had for Obama, I would have changed it to Christian, but I can't, so I have left it and requested the citation.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Every time I turn around more stuff has been chopped from the lead. Her fashion sense and her brother should both be in the WP:LEAD, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How about her daughters as well? Borock (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Added. miranda 18:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First Lady Title

Last time I checked being a first lady is not a formal position and I am not sure why Wikipedia is misinforming people by posting this under the persons picture like it is a formal position. There is also "In office" underneath the title. This is unprofessional and misinformation and should be removed from underneath the picture of the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.211 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't post the same topic on several different pages. (See Hillary Rodham Clinton) faithless (^speak) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

not notable

Other than being the wife of Barack Obama where is Michelle's notablity? This violatesWP:NOTINHERITED (Weather130 (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

WP:NOTINHERITED is only to prevent the creation of articles on subjects that do not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Michelle Obama has had significant coverage in reliable sources, so she meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 08:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And being First Lady makes her also notable by itself. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, PaterMcFly. All the other First Ladies have their own articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Vogue Template

Although the template is mostly for use in model articles should we add the above template to this one?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that appropriate here - I think it's fine that we mention the cover in the article, but the template, in my opinion, gives it more weight than it deserves in her whole life bio - but that's just my 3AM take on this. Tvoz/talk 06:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't added these templates to anyone's page who is not a model for this reason. I was just thinking that for a woman who gets so much press for her fashion sense, it may be appropriate. Look at the amount of space in the First Lady section dedicated to her fashion sense.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if she gets more covers and there is more coverage, ect, then maybe. I wouldn't include now per undue weight. --Tom (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"touching" the Queen flap

How long till we can trim/remove this material? Week, month, year? TIA Tom (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this question, but I've already severely cut it back. Tvoz/talk 08:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even include it, but maybe in a few weeks, months, years it can be removed. Will this "event" really be worthy of inclusion in a serious bio, 10 years from now? I guess time will tell :) Thanks, --Tom (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If it won't be worth noting in ten years, why include it at all? WP:NOT should be sufficient to cull it entirely, IMHO. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is an non-issue, but due to recentism. miranda 02:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting Bottom Picture on the Page from the NATO Summit

Can someone u/l the HQ version of the bottom picture and add the picture to the last section. It is a part of Mrs. Obama's trip abroad. Thanks. miranda 16:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. :-) miranda 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

User:TonyTheTiger asked me what I thought the prospects were for FA. Here are my thoughts:

Ok, I've looked over the article and these are my thoughts:

• the lead definitely needs a rewrite. Per WP:LEAD, it should be a summary of all main points in the article. Being the mother of Malia and Sasha and the sister of Craig Robinson belong in the body article (though you could say she married Barack Obama in 1992 and they had two children). Focus a little on her time as first lady as well.
• The article needs restructuring. Family and education overlap her career, so why bump the career section below the other one? That just makes for repetitiveness (as indicated by the first sentence of the career section).

In family and education

• perhaps rename the section to Early life, education, and family
• why did they skip the second grade?
• why is this important: "The round trip commute from her South Side home to the Near West Side took three hours."
• what does this mean: "She was inspired to follow her brother to Princeton because he had shown her it was possible" -- of course it is possible for people to get accepted. Did she feel she wasn't going to get accepted into the college? I'm just wondering, so that should be clarified
• "At Princeton, she challenged the teaching methodology for French because she felt that it should be more conversational" -- surely she alone did not change how teachers taught French. Did she influence the teachers, or school board.... how did she do this?
• Why is this important: "I remember being shocked," she says, "by college students who drove BMWs. I didn't even know parents who drove BMWs."
• I think the parenthesis should be combined at "Natasha (known as Sasha) (born 2001)."  Done Tvoz/talk 20:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Throughout her husband's 2008 campaign for President of the United States, she made a "commitment to be away overnight only once a week—to campaign only two days a week and be home by the end of the second day" for their two children.[27]" -- this belongs in the 2008 campaign section
• "She is the sister of Craig Robinson, men's basketball coach at Oregon State University. She is the first cousin, once removed, of Rabbi Capers C. Funnye Jr., one of the country’s most prominent black rabbis." -- these are placed very randomly. Perhaps a better place for them could be found
• "She once requested that Barack, who was then her fiancé, meet her prospective boss, Valerie Jarrett, when considering her first career move.[10] Now, Jarrett is one of her husband’s closest advisors.[28][29] " -- this confusing. First, why is it important? Second, who does the "her" refer to in the second part of the sentence?
• Rosalyn Carter is spelled incorrectly (should be Rosalynn).  Done And thank you. Tvoz/talk 20:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In Career

• "Following law school, she was an associate at the Chicago office of the law firm Sidley Austin, where she first met her future husband." -- repetitive (my second bullet point)
• Just a general question: how did she get all these jobs? For example, why did the college choose her? Why did the hospitals choose her? What caused her to be chosen over other people? From what I read, she held some pretty important positions in the Chicago city government as well. These are questions that should be answered.

I'll go through the 2008 campaign section again (I did earlier last week). The first lady section appears to be pretty good.

So: IMO, now is not the time for FA. Complete what I've recommended above, and then we'll go from there. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Caption contest

Sorry to interrupt, but this picture is really worth it: http://www.oeuvre-notre-dame.org/actualite/otan/hr/DSC08569.jpg. If someone knows what is going on between Bruni-Sarkozy and Obama, speak out! --RCS (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"was raised in a conventional two-parent home"

Michelle's Wikipedia article states that she "was raised in a conventional two-parent home". This sentence struck me as odd. Why is this worth mentioning? Is it because readers assume that all african americans grow up in non-conventional, single-parent homes? How would it sound if another first lady's biography, like let's say Ronald Reagan's wife's biography, said she "was raised in a conventional two-parent home"? It would sound odd wouldn't it?

Does anyone else think racial bias is responsible for introducing this sentence into the biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.75.186 (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very odd language. I hadn't noticed it before. I'm going to remove it, if anyone objects please say so here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the source, the Vanity Fair article. This is actually wording that comes from Michelle herself, describing the difference between the kind of family she came from as compared to the kind of family her husband came from. There's no racial bias in this at all. Perhaps it could be reworded to say she describes her two-parent family as "conventional", but I think our paraphrase, with its citation, was fine as it was. Tvoz/talk 07:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Objections to reinstating it? Tvoz/talk 07:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Source needed

The last sentence in "Work undertaken and causes promoted" either needs a source that verifies it or a {{fv}} tag. 138.4.59.44 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sentence on her arms

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The reason I created the separate article on her arms (which has since been deleted) was to point out how much media coverage they had received. Since that article is gone and is to be replaced by a single sentence here, I want that single sentence to point out how much media coverage they have received, by citing all of the sources that I cited in the separate article. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC) And a recurring reason the other article was deleted was because it is trivial. However, all of the sources you came up with are presently in note 99, referencing new wording that says she "has become a fashion trendsetter, in particular her favoring of sleeveless dresses that showcase her toned arms." It is way too much weight, and very poor form, to list the sources in the text of the article. Please check edit history, and the rest of the article, before adding material that is already there. Tvoz/talk I would like the article to state that all of those sources wrote articles which were specifically about her arms. That's not undue weight, because the sentence would reflect the articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Tvoz is completely correct -- listing out the news organizations in the text is pure lunacy. Her style of wearing sleeveless dresses is of course notable, but this article should not document every account from every news organization that reported her fashion choices. It is suffice to say that the dresses highlight her arms without listing every published source on the matter. Happyme22 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, and I think the list of sources that I put in note 99 is unnecessarily long already, but I put it all there as a jumping-off point to be edited down. I suppose we could add a few words to the beginning of footnote 99 (not in the text) to say something like "Much media attention was paid to her signature look, including" and then list some of the sources, which might address Grundle's interest in emphasizing the media coverage on this. Tvoz/talk 20:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC) In agreement with Tvoz and happyme.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Really necessary?

The Obamas' daughters now attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington after also considering Georgetown Day School.

This may have been written when there was public interest in which school the kids would decide to attend, but is it really necessary in a biographical article that at one point in time she briefly considered a different school for her kids?

I propose sentence is amended to: "The Obama's daughters now attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington"Invictusnz (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's of great importance to include Georgetown either - Sidwell is enough. Tvoz/talk 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Second sentence on her arms

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I added the following after the first sentence on her arms: "Her bare arms have received so much widespread, extensive coverage from the mainstream media that the satirical publication The Onion wrote a fake article about them titled "Michelle Obama's Arms Meet With Sri Lankan Refugees"." But someone else deleted it, citing the previous talk page section on the first sentence. However, this Onion satire is a brand new article. Also, it comes one month after I wrote the (since deleted) article Michelle Obama's arms. Apparently, I'm not the only one who likes to make fun of the media's obsession with her arms. Anyway, I think this Onion article is worth having its own sentence in this article. But I wont put it back without consensus. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC) It is all satirical and has no encyclopedic value. The Onion is not a reliable source. Mulitple sentences (which include satire) on Michelle Obama's arms are not necessary and definitely not detrimental to our understanding of the first lady. Happyme22 (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I am the "someone" who deleted it, and, as Happy suggests, an encyclopedia isn't the place for "making fun of the media's obsession with her arms", which is one of the reasons why your "Michelle Obama's arms" article was deleted as well. Actually, I think you know that, so could you please stop wasting our time with it? Tvoz/talk 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama has 26 taxpayer funded servants.

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Source. This should be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "Canada Free Press" is the Free Republic of the northlands, Grundle, and is nowhere near a reliable source, as evidenced by their framing this as if the first lady is a sovereign queen attended to by slaves. Also, how is this relevant, and why should it be in the article? What have the sizes been of past first ladies? Is this an increase? Decrease? Tarc (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC) You could save us all a lot of time, Grundle, and just say "Can I add anything I see on the DrudgeReport to any Obama-related article?" Then we could just say no and be done with it. Putting these items up one at a time for "debate" is just getting tedious. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I don't normally frequent political articles and I'm neither a political person in general or a supporter of the Obamas in specific, but I happened to be looking something up about Michelle Obama and saw this. Grundle, I know you're a smart guy, so I'm surprised to see you arguing for this. This is clearly a stupid and misleading article. A press secretary or chief of staff is obviously not a servant; that's either a mendacious point or one made by a total dullard. Either way, I would have expected better from you because I know you're a good editor. --98.204.25.126 (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

polls show NOT a fashion icon

I am sorry but Michelle Obama is NOT a fashion icon, many neutral (non biased) polls show that Americans, especially men, do not think of her as a fashion icon or simply as a pretty woman. It is only in the democratic circles, liberal medias, that she is highly admired. There is an enormous bias about any criticism against the Obamas because of people's fear to appear prejudiced. But millions and millions of Americans, including many fashion experts (White or Black), agree that Michelle is NOT a fashion icon and her dresses have been very controversial from day one. Wiki should cite this and not be inaccurate just to be politically correct. Wiki just can't say that Michelle is a huge symbol, an icon of beauty etc when there's literally millions and millions of people who disagree. Wiki should be neutral.

Please can we remove entirely the 'fashion icon' section or summarize in a few phrases citing neutral polls. In opposition the fashion icon of Jackie Kennedy should be augmented and contain a lot more references. It is quite ridiculous that right now we have a huge section for Michelle but almost nothing for Jackie. Jackie was THE first lady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.69.178 (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. Of course men don't think so -- they're men! Men typically don't care about fashion. Also, there is considerable evidence to prove the contrary - I know that some of the articles of clothing she has worn by J Crew and advertised (inexplicably) on some talk shows, it has sold out. Sorry, but in many ways she is a fashion icon. <tommy> (talk)

Pop culture and those before her

In regard to the popular culture reference and other first ladies before her: I only gave three examples. They aren't the only three. Of course, with the position of the first lady having evolved over a number of years, any first lady's role in popular culture is greater more-so now than in the past. But first ladies, generally going back to Eleanor Roosevelt, have found their way into pop culture. So other than being an African American first lady, which is already well documented in the article, Michelle, so far, is nothing new (in the sense that many first ladies before her were part of pop culture too).

Even before Eleanor there were first ladies such as Frances Cleveland, who was a fashion icon and fascinated people during her time in the White House. Eleanor was perhaps the most active, no doubt was part of pop culture and still sheds a sphere of influence to this day. Jackie Kennedy is perhaps best known for influencing and being a part of pop culture. Pat Nixon was to a lesser extent, though Betty Ford was much more prominent; her ERA activities and the Betty Ford Center make her, in many ways, better known than her husband and there is no doubt when it comes to her effect on pop culture. Nancy Reagan had "Just Say No", and her name is continually envoked when people discuss drugs and drug abuse as a part of pop culture. Barbara Bush was to a lesser extent but she was; Hillary Clinton was at the front of pop culture during her tenure as first lady, her 2008 campaign, and continues to be a prominent pop culture figure. Laura Bush was not so much, but she exerted influence elsewhere.

Here's my beef: by including the sentence about how Michelle has influenced pop culture without the comma insert about how other first ladies in the past have been in the same position she's in, we are implying, to some extent, that Michelle Obama is pioneering new territory, when in reality she is actually just following the same paths that others before her pioneered. So we should at least say something like, "With the ascent of her husband as a prominent national politician, Michelle Obama, like many first ladies before her, has become a part of popular culture." --Happyme22 (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't see a problem with that sentence, because in the sentence "With the ascent of her husband as a prominent national politician, Michelle Obama has become a part of popular culture" I see no remote implication that she is pioneering new territory. What is stated is a simple fact and there is no suggestion that other first ladies did not have an impact on popular culture. To me at least it makes about as much sense as forcing us to say, "With his ascent to basketball superstardom, Michael Jordan, like many athletes before him, became a part of popular culture." I don't think that, sans the "like many athletes" clause, anyone would read that sentence and assume he was the first athlete to become part of popular culture, just as anyone who reads that Michelle Obama entered popular culture when she became first lady will almost certainly not assume she was the "First" Lady to do so.

What is arguably a problem in that sentence is the vague nature of a term like "popular culture." As time goes on, we might have enough perspective to be able to say more specifically how Michelle Obama influenced pop culture (we discuss some of these obviously like fashion) and put that in the lead sentence. We also might be able to compare her to past first ladies (no matter what happens, Jackie Kennedy will always be the most obvious comparison for obvious reasons), and that would perhaps allay some of Happyme22's concerns. But personally I don't see a problem here, aside from the lead sentence being more vague than we might like. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up on the latest smear campaign

It seems that for Obama's Olympic pitch, she said she remembers "sitting on my dad's lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis", which is kinda odd since Lewis first competed in the Olympics when she would've been an an adult, at 20. A mistake or misstatement perhaps, but predictably partisan sources are framing it as a lie. Either way, I think we can do without edits such as this, which frames it as "She watched the Olympics sitting in her father's lap until she was 20 years old". Tarc (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> tommy talk 03:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Disbarred

Closed per WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:STICK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can anyone clarify the facts concerning whether Michelle Obama was disbarred from practicing law? I heard this claim on a talk show program recently and find it hard to believe. One would think that if this is true, it would be a well known fact. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC) If you can't find WP:RS on the topic, then it doesn't belong here. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC) [ec] A word to the wise: don't believe things you only find on talk shows and in partisan blogs. Indeed if this were true it would be a well-known and sourceable fact. Since this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not as a forum for researching the subject, unless someone has a reliable source making this claim, let's move on. Tvoz/talk 02:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC) To be certain this is not my opinion nor belief. It seemed to be spurious and not credible information. Nevertheless questioning its validity on this talk page hardly seems inappropriate. As for the lecture on what the purpose of this page is, I disagree with the premise that asking the question here, and getting to the bottom of this wouldn't help to "improve" the article. One way or the other. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Can there be a summary of this disscusion? Was this a case like the Birthers were there is no truth to the argument what so ever? Did she voluntarily giving up her license? If so shouldn't the article state that she no longer practices law?21:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.59 (talk)

The website of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois states that the status of Michelle Obama's law license is "Voluntarily inactive" but also indicates "attorney is on court ordered inactive status." website address is <iradc.org>, visited 18 March 2010. The term "court ordered inactive status" suggests that the inactive status was not completely voluntary. No date is indicated on the website as to when the surrender was effective.TexEcon (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a RS which says she “voluntarily surrendered” her license to practice law, three years after passing the bar. Feel free to add it in. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. CFP is pretty much a sister site of World Net Daily and is equally unreliable as a source for the Wikipedia, other than for basic information about itself. Lawyers who no longer intend to practice let their license do to so expire all the time. This entire saga has be right-wing agitprop about nothing from the start. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is a RS. Just because you don't agree with their politics doesn't mean they are not a RS. And lawyers don't let their licenses expire three years after obtaining it. Also, she didn't let her license simply expire; it was court ordered. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

NO this is her information

Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama should be the Top communist 100 person of the year. Michelle’s birth name was Michelle Lavaughn Robinson. She was born January 17th 1964 in Chicago, Illinois. She was raised in a one-bedroom apartment in Chicago’s South Shore. She didn’t really have a “bedroom”, she shared one with her brother, and it was actually the living room with a divider down the middle. Her brother, Craig Robinson, class of 1983, was a basketball star at Princeton and is now a college coach. A tragedy passed, her father had died 1990 two years before she married Barack Obama. Michelle graduated from Princeton in 1985, and then attended Harvard Law School. Although she's younger than Barack Obama; she graduated from Harvard Law School first, in 1988. She became a lawyer, a Chicago city administrator, and community outreach worker. Barack didn’t have an interest in law as much as he had an interest in Michelle. He was a summer intern and she was assigned to advise him. Michelle had worked in the offices of Chicago's mayor and its planning commission, headed a career-training program for young adults and directed community affairs for the University of Chicago and its medical center. The Obamas were married in 1992 and had two daughters, Malia (born 1998) and Natasha (called Sasha, born 2001). Michelle caught the eye of a national audience at her husband's side after he delivered a high-profile speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. He was elected that year to the U.S. Senate. In 2007 she scaled back her own professional work to attend to family and campaign obligations during Obama's run for president. She took her turn as a speaker on the opening night of the 2008 Democratic convention, and her husband was elected president on 4 November 2008. She became First Lady with his inauguration on 20 January 2009.

thats why she is sooo cool!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.225.232 (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll pass, as this an encyclopedia which simply reflects what other sources have to say on a subject. We're not a host for original prose. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's Move

Why is there no articles linked about First Lady "Let's Move Campaign?" http://www.letsmove.gov/ and also, I don't see even one mention of her mentor program http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33594161. Can someone update the First Lady bio. signed Marei123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marei123 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Order of precedence

The First Lady does not have a separate entry of the Order of Precedence while the President is alive; she attends with the President or is given his precedence if attending alone. This is true while the President is in office and is at the beginning of the list and afterwards when he becomes a former president slightly lower on the list. The First Lady will have her own place, still lower on the list, only after the President passes on, hopefully not for many, many years. Celestra (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Obama's toned arms

The “hatting” of the two sections: Talk:Michelle_Obama#Sentence_on_her_arms & Talk:Michelle_Obama#Second_sentence_on_her_arms is not a good thing. In particular, I object to the wording of “Closing” and “The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.”

The topic of “Michelle Obama’s arms” is a valid topic for discussion. It is a topic subject to many third party references. There is currently a single cited reference to it in the text of the article.

Disruption elsewhere by an editor and his sanctioning does not mean that the topic is now forbidden. A relevant Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Obama's_arms contains significant dissent against the greater numbers that the topic is too trivial, or even ridiculous. It remains debateable as to how much coverage the topic should be given.

To template the discussion as closed, or archived, and to instruct “Please do not modify” is a pretentious and authoritarian way to shut down debate. Consensus can not be asserted if participants are bullied out of discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you really feel that you can change consensus and bring a fresh angle to this old topic, then sure, nothing is stopping you from opening a new discussion section here on its own merits. What I objected to was reopening the old, tired, and begun-in-bad-faith discussions from TEN MONTHS AGO. Complaints of censorship are, of course, unfounded. Tarc (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read bad faith in the hatted sections. I can appreciate that you tired of a tendentious editor, but I object to the thread hatting because it looks like censorship. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I suppose it is fair to say that nearly everyone here agrees that the single mention of her arms is appropriate and sufficient? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Image

Do you think we could add on "Trivia" or whatever, that Michelle Obama was on an episode of The Simpsons - and use this image: —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Severe (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No way that image is here legally. Tvoz/talk 21:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Why are Michelle Obama's racist views and remarks not mentioned somewhere in this article? Not the maximum (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the wikipedia is not the proper venue for right-wing punditry? Tarc (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Obama is the victim of quite a few racist remarks, unfortunately. See Racist attacks on Michelle Obama. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fashion

The claim that Michelle Obama has worn Oscar de la Renta gowns is not actually mentioned in the cited source (number 92). Also, other sources indicate otherwise:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/michelle-obama-state-dinner-oscar-de-la-renta_n_812043.html

http://www.stylelist.com/2011/01/21/oscar-de-la-renta-michelle-obama-alexander-mcqueen/

I recommend deleting this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.148.173 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Kind of overstating it to call it a "claim", as if there was some nefarious intent behind what is probably just an error. But thanks for bringing it to our attention - Oscar is out. Tvoz/talk 23:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

First lady touts 'Women for Obama' == "Family and education" section ==
It says that "In July 2008, Michelle Obama accepted the invitation to become an honorary member of Alpha Kappa Alpha, which had no active undergraduate chapter at Princeton University when she attended." http://usatopnews2015.blogspot.com/2011/11/first-lady-touts-women-for-obama.html It does not go on to say that she was never inducted!!! -> However, Obama would later decline initiation into the organization due to the sorority's exclusive requirement preventing acceptance into other NPHC organizations, and desired her membership in Alpha Kappa Alpha to be "non exclusive." Taken from Alpha Kappa Alpha page on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.128.221 (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It says, "the couple does not intend to have any more children". This seems grammatically incorrect. In the UK, I'm sure we'd say "the couple do not intend to have any more children". Of course the subject of the article is American, so I could be wrong - perhaps it is something to do with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Nouns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.112.191 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this - this grammatical point, and others like it as per the article you reference, is a perennial discussion around Wikipedia, and either way is dissonant to different groups of readers. I've found the best way to deal with it is to rewrite the sentence, eliminating the offending phrase. So I reworked this sentence (which I never liked anyway), and replaced "the couple" with "they" which I think now works on both sides of the Atlantic. And while I was at it, I tweaked the text here and there in that section to improve the quality of the writing and remove some of the monotony. Tvoz/talk 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks Tvoz. That kind of swift, sharp fix is what this site is all about. 86.176.100.128 (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Review topics

Should I re-emphasize the meeting with these three topics at this November? 1.the interaction of the Legendary Luminous pearl and the Brain.2.the item of public health.3.the revolution of timer.--114.33.23.93 (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Hsiao Hsian Li September 20,2011

• I really don't understand what you are talking about. Does your comment have anything to do with Michelle Obama and the article? Please explain. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Court-Order Inactive Status of Michelle Obama's Law License (Effective Disbarment) Coverup

The sentence about Michelle's law license is deliberately misleading.

See: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/wtf-michelle-ob.html

46.33.218.148 (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal blogs are not reliable sources, the "law license coverup" story is a product of blogs such as this and not legitimate news locations, thus is unusable in the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And Snopes.com is a legitimate news location?!? Either delete the sentence in its entirety or reference the conflicting reports over her court-ordered inactive status. Court-ordered inactive status is a major, major event in an attorney's career. Why would Michelle Obama give up her law license after practicing for only 3 years and then continue to work at hospitals in Chicago? There is certainly a legitimate debate over the topic, and referencing only Snopes.com to provide support for one side, without speaking to the other side's argument, is intentionally and deliberately misleading.

Infobox image

Hi. I changed the infobox image from File:Michelle Obama official portrait.jpg to File:Michelle Obama official portrait headshot.jpg just now. I think it looks better. I also added a border to the image so that the white image background doesn't bleed into the infobox. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• A distinct and significant improvement! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Obama is not currently a practicing attorney

https://www.iardc.org/ardcroll.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.196.254 (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Where was that said? Handsomeransom (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

christmas tree for donation

Dear Mrs. Obama,

I am writing to you in a request to donate to the White House a 5 story Blue spruce tree for Christmas. It is tall and slim and has been growing for over 40 years. I would hate to cut it down without a purpose, but the weather we have been having, I see no other choice. Every time we have a strong wind storm, Im worried it will fall over and damage houses and injure people. Please consider our gift to to you and your family and our nation.

As I sit here and consider our country's future, I am happy to say that after hearing your husband, our President, talking this afternoon, I am more than proud to vote for him for President in the next election. I will wait to hear from you.

Sincerely,
Michael, Suzanne, Michael III, Dane, Lucas Malys 992 Buffalo St.
Conneaut, Ohio 44030
440-599-8308 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.70.217 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

White Ancestry

Please edit the first paragraph under Family and Education with this new information:

Her maternal great-great-great grandmother, Melvinia Shields, also a slave, became pregnant by a white man. DNA tests and research confirm that this man was Charles Marion Shields, the son of her white owner, Henry Wells Shields. The nature of their union is not known.

So what? HiLo48 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Graduated vs Attended

In the first paragraph of Michelle Obama's page it states that she "attended" Princetown University and Harvard Law School. Under President Barak Obama's page it states that he graduated from ...

Ms. Obama's description should be edited to state that she graduated from her two Alma Maters.

PametFisher (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Education

The round trip commute from the Robinsons' South Side home to the Near West Side, where the school was located, took three hours

Mapquest says it is 21 minutes from her neighborhood to the school - please get rid of the hyperbole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.189.207 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Seems like a useless factoid, one might even say an attempt to make her very comfortable upbringing seem less so.68.0.150.57 (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012

the problem with this page is that it says she is the wife of the 44th and incubent president in the first line when Obama has not been elected to office twice, I do not have any suggestions for what to replace it with only for it to be removed, Thankyou... and my source is common sence 24.186.197.13 (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you get your common sense upgraded. President Obama is the current (that is, incumbent) president, and he is the 44th (allowing for the slightly irregular numbering system used - which does not directly affect his presidency). If you want an amendment made, you'll at least have to be clearer as to what is incorrect. The fact that Obama is in his first term does not negate either of the other facts you mention. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Rivertorch (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please unlock all the edit pages

To preserve our first amendment rights, all the editing pages should be unlocked. Censorship is for dictatorships and communist countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.130.199 (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.... perhaps you confuse the United States Constitution withWikipedia:Protection policy and/or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, you can get past most of the locks by registering, and getting more involved in editing. Go for it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't her title: The First Lady of the United States follow after her name. I say this because the title of first lady has become (by convention) an official title much like, say, the Countess of Wessex would be. Or am I wrong? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 election

There is next to nothing about her role in the 2012 election. At the very least her keynote address should be included in-body, perhaps with an indication of the main points. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Its just silly not to have a controversy section for Michelle Obama given that she sat clapping in a racist anti-american church for decades. I also suggest adding links to her famous quotes about not being proud of her country until her husband started winning. Its very telling as to what kind of people the Obama's are and if this page is supposed to be anything but propaganda than it needs to tell the whole story. Lawalker22 (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Go and have a read of Wikipedia:Criticism. Then come back and tell us what you would include that would be fair, balanced, neutral, and with appropriate weight. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's Move

...has its own article, which is the best place for details of the program unrelated to the subject of this article. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Style

Hi. I'd like to propose the following rewrite of the section about Obama's style. It is sourced to design specialists at The New York Times. What we have now seems to be observation of many individual dresses she has worn. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC) From:

"Obama's style is described as populist. She often wears clothes by designers Calvin Klein, Isabel Toledo, Narciso Rodriguez, Donna Ricco and Maria Pinto, and has become a fashion trendsetter, in particular her favoring of sleeveless dresses that showcase her toned arms."

To (I already changed the first sentence.):

"Obama's style has been described as "fashion populist". In 2010, she wore clothes more than 50 design firms, most at the high end, as well as less expensive choices from J. Crew and Target. A 2010 study found that "the average value to a company from an appearance by Mrs. Obama was $14 million". She became a fashion trendsetter, in particular her favoring of sleeveless dresses that showcase her toned arms."

Speaking of individual dresses, maybe Jason Wu should be singled out because she wore his work twice. Also I would like to see a photograph from the second inauguration (a Thom Browne dress). -SusanLesch (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this article and in particular this subsection which I agree could use some TLC. Your ideas will improve refs & wikilinking. Go for it, thanks again! Hugh (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, HughD. Where does the second term go? There's a White House photo (and another one) on Flickr, but I'm not sure where the 2012 election goes. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think eventually the First Lady section may have 1st & 2nd term subsections, but for now just a few months into it the 2nd term section might look kinda puny, may I suggest for now we add content where it seems to flow, until we accumulate significant 2nd term content. Further I would identify as another to-do integrating the facts & events of the the "Political views" section into the First Lady section. Thanks again for your interest. Hugh (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Done for now. Does it look okay? Thank you for the good advice to wait on the second term. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! Hugh (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And speaking of style, apparently plastic surgery to get arms like her is surprisingly popular. I kinda hope that won´t make it into the article, but it wouldn´t surprise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Feminism

There were a couple of recent articles intersecting Michelle Obama and Feminism. I've linked two of them here, they take opposing viewpoints: [2][3]. Surprisingly, Fox News is the one most supportive of Michelle Obama.--v/r - TP 14:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

wife

wife of Barack Obama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.252.174 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

okay lol -- Pingumeister^(talk) 19:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a Lawyer

Michelle Obama is not currently licensed to practice law and is not allowed to hold out as such by law (of Illinois, which is the only place she ever held a license in public knowledge???)...so therefore, she has a law degree but is not a lawyer. I know many with law degrees...but alas, not lawyers2602:306:B835:3440:6174:1416:72A3:32C4 (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Kay

So what? HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article states that she is a lawyer, when she is not. That is the point. Carissimi (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Role model?

The article states that Michelle Obama “has become a fashion icon and role model for women.” How is this a neutral sentence? How influential is she, really? Carissimi (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2014

She is not a lawyer so this incorrect. Her license was revoked by submission many years ago and can not practice law anywhere in the United States. She did graduate law school but without a valid license, she is not a lawyer.

173.15.64.117 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: seems more like she voluntarily inactivated it, and a lawyer who has gone on inactive status still holds a valid law license Cannolis (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

LGBT

There is a section under "First Lady" on LGBT rights which seems excessive, as if written as advocacy. There is no question that she supports the idea, but there are many things she supports which are not included. In the course of seven years as candidate's wife and first lady she has given hundreds of speeches about a wide variety of subjects. This subject is singled out as significant when, in fact, the percentage of the time in which she mentions LGBT is likely to be very small. Thus, I believe this section should be trimmed to simply say she supports the idea, rather than including banal statements like "she was proud of his co-sponsorship of a bill" or the Supreme Court "will weigh in on the subject" - which it does for everything anyway. It should be important to remember that Mrs. Obama has no actual authority to do anything, so her support is, merely, an opinion.Asburyparker (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have trimmed this section just a bit, and took out one sourced sentence that seemed vague and unnecessary, but kept the majority of the section intact.Asburyparker (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2014

Please add Smolenyak, Megan to the sources for 11 (Swarns, Rachel L; Kantor, Jodi) and 12 (Swarns, Rachel L; Kantor, Jodi)

Thank you for your edit request. I've checked references 11 and 12 and modified 11 so both references now accurately reflect the authorship as reported by the publisher. Of course reporters often in turn rely on sources, but those sources are not part of the reference template in Wikipedia. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Reason: Although the NYT did not add Megan to the byline, she is clearly cited early in the article, "In First Lady’s Roots, a Complex Path From Slavery" as the source of the information reported. Nicole.Paull (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit requests. Megan Smolenyak is the primary source for much of what is known about the genealogy of the subject of this article. This important body of work has been added to the external links section where it will serve as an excellent resource for readers seeking more information. Wikipedia as a matter of policy prefers secondary sources as references, please see WP:NOR. I hope you find this resolution satisfactory. Thanks again for your contribution! Hugh (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2014

Please add this reference (below) to: "Among her maternal ancestors was her great-great-great-grandmother, Melvinia Shields, a slave on Henry Walls Shields' 200-acre farm in Clayton County, Georgia; he and his children would have worked along with the slaves."

Nicole.Paull (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

External link to Smolenyak index page added. See below. Hugh (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2014

Please add this reference (below) to: "Among her maternal ancestors was her great-great-great-grandmother, Melvinia Shields, a slave on Henry Walls Shields' 200-acre farm in Clayton County, Georgia; he and his children would have worked along with the slaves."

Nicole.Paull (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

External link to Smolenyak index page added. See below. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2014

Please add this reference (below) to: "The Robinson and Shields families can trace their roots to pre-Civil War African Americans in the American South."

Nicole.Paull (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

External link to Smolenyak index page added. See below. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015

The Family and education section includes six or eight uses of Michelle instead of Obama, which I think goes against the convention outlined in MOS:SURNAME. Some simple edits should fix this. Tnx! jxm (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC) You're right. Thanks for noticing and commenting. Go for it. Hugh (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

The section "Women's rights" is incorrect. Multiple sources have pointed out (see here, here, here, and especially here) that female foreign dignitaries visiting Saudi Arabia do not as a matter of protocol wear the abaya. (Note: I consider myself a feminist, I'm not saying this because I'm opposed to it politically, I'm saying it because it's just wrong.) -CircleAdrian (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Hugh (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit Requested: (TYPO) Career Section

Hi all. Under the Career subheading with whom should be changed to with which:

She served as a salaried board member of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (NYSE: THS), a major Wal-Mart supplier with whom she cut ties immediately after her husband made comments critical of Wal-Mart at an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, New Jersey, on May 14, 2007. She also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Done. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Doc McStuffins

Request edit under her career that she has worked as a voice actress for herself per "First Lady Michelle Obama Will Appear on Disney Cartoon Doc McStuffins" Time article. 64.228.89.137 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

ancestry

The ancestry section here really is excessive. In Laura Bush, there is one short sentence saying that she is of English ancestry, and beyond that nobody earlier than her parents are mentioned. Here, we have extensive discussion of racial heritage going back many generations. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015

 Michelle was not the Salutatorian of Whitney M. Young HS.  It was Maria Sanchez who was #2 and Jeffrey Schwenk was #1.  To confirm contact Whitney Young newspaper called the Beacon.  They should be able to look at June 1981 wherein the class rank was listed.  Jeff said that Maria was #2 and that Michelle was in the 20's. I was also a member of NHS at Young and in same Division as Michelle and ranked 22.  I noticed many sites have this in error.

2602:306:C5D2:57C0:817C:2D11:DEB2:F91C (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
• We cannot take your word for it as that would constitute original research which is unacceptable for Wikipedia article. That quote is already sourced to a published article. In addition, we are volunteers and we will not be contacting any off-wiki individual for information (again see original research). If you have a reliable published source that confirms what you say you can reactive this request. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Added references

Hello Laursren. Welcome! Normally references are added to the References section automatically, as we add relevant content from those sources to our articles, see Help:Referencing for beginners. Were you perhaps trying to add to the Further reading section WP:FURTHER? We need to undo the four links you added directly to the References section. Hugh (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016

Within the "Education and Early Career" section, please fix a spelling error by replacing

she feared that she was not as intelligent as her new piers

with

she feared that she was not as intelligent as her new peers

midway through the second paragraph. 121.98.124.75 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

redundant wording

"In August 2011, she appeared on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens magazine, the first person to do so in 48 years, and the first woman." can someone remove "and the first woman"? because she's obviously the first woman if she's the first person. I feel that adding that unnecessary phrase detracts from the fact that she was, without qualifiers, the first person signed, a woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.152.221 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not exactly correct - she's the first person in 48 years and the first woman, ever. Different. Will take a look at whether it can be worded more artfully, however. And please leave the signature that was bot-added - that's how we roll here.Tvoz/talk 20:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2016

Mirza Mujabašić (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha (edit request)

Michelle Obama is NOT a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha. I removed it once and it was promptly put back in error. Although Michelle Obama initially accepted the offer to become a member, she later declined because accepting the offer wouldn't allow her to accept membership invitations from certain sororities so as a result she decided to stay neutral. The media ran several stories of her accepting membership but none ran stories of her later changing her mind soon after and declining the offer. Read the list of distinguished Alpha Kappa Alpha members and you'll see Michelle Obama is nowhere listed. SO PLEASE REMOVE IT, IT'S WRONG ... SHE'S NOT AN HONORARY MEMBER! The Huffington Post wrote on how Michelle Obama later declined the offer in the following link Michelle Obama is not a member of AKA - Huffington PostBroadmoor (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not exactly what the link says - it says A previous version of this article listed Michelle Obama and Toni Braxton as members of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. Although both ladies were offered honorary membership, they are not officially members of the organization. We apologize for the error. I'd like to have something a little more clear before changing the article - is she an honorary member, but not an official member? A reliable source saying she turned down the honorary membership would be better.Tvoz/talk 03:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2016

(Under the Heading: "Education and early career")

After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1988, Michele Robinson (now Obama) passed the Illinois Bar Exam on her second try and was admitted to practice law by the Illinois Supreme Court on May 12, 1989.

Ajdfsu (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)