A good balanced rational article, tho' it does need more information.
As stands, it is
"Born and raised on the south side of Chicago, Michelle Obama's roots, has a complex path from Slavery: Fraser Robinson III (died in 1991) and his wife, Marian are the parents of Michelle; they got married in 1960; Melvinia Shields, the enslaved and illiterate young girl, and the unknown white man who impregnated her are the great-great-great-grandparents of Michelle Obama, the first lady... the more complete map of Mrs. Obama’s ancestors — including the slave mother, white father and their biracial son, Dolphus T. Shields — connects the first African-American first lady to the history of slavery, tracing their five-generation journey from bondage to a front-row seat to the presidency.  (Dolphus Shields was a very light skinned, church-going carpenter who could read, write and advance in an industrializing town.) Some of Michelle's relatives still reside in South Carolina."
To me this is confusing and gets in the way of the article. Can someone who understands exactly what this paragraph is saying create a more clear version? KingHanksley 17:51, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
Court Ordered Inactive Status by a Disciplinary Agency
"Savior" in Bold
Why is the word "savior" in bold? It seems clear that the quote explicitly warns against viewing any one person (including Obama) as a savior. --Economist 22:37, 24 July 2009 (EDT)
Perhaps you might want to cite some of the "fashion disaster" claims, especially since her favorite designer has done quite well since Michelle became first lady. Also, if you're going to argue that she is a fashion disaster, then you might not want to do it next to a picture of her looking fashionable and stately! DanieleGiusto 13:44, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
- You may think that Michelle looks fashionable and stately, most people disagree. Anyway, added refs and a new pic.--Jpatt 00:52, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
- I don't have an opinion on her fashion either way, but this does seem opinion-driven, and I can't find all the claims in the refs. Could someone who does care about this cite them individually, or select phrases that were actually used in articles? I just think it takes away from the weight of the more substantial claims on the page if we have uncited opinions on her fashion KingHanksley 18:00, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
This "fact" was never proven by any reputable sources...seeing as it could be extremely libelous (and likely is) I removed it. DennyW66 00:10, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
"American taxpayers are shelling out a staggering total of $1,591,200 annually for the First Lady’s 22 member personal staff." Why "staggering"? It's roughly in line with the amounts spent for the staffs of other recent First Ladies. BryanF 08:45, 28 December 2012 (EST)
- Did most of the other First Ladies inveigle against "Whitey"? Were they proud of their country "Finally"? Or had they always been proud of their country? DanAP 10:11, 28 December 2012 (EST)
- Hi, Dan! I'd be happy to buy you a dictionary so you could learn the meaning of the word "relevant". As a bonus, you could find out that "inveigle" is not a word at all. Good day, now! BryanF 10:33, 28 December 2012 (EST)