Talk:Valerie Jarrett

Archives (Index)

2014 2015 2018 2019 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Jarrett's Religion?

I notice you list the religion of other political notables, but don't do so in the case of Valerie Jarrett. You should consider discovering and including such information if only to refute rumors that she is a Muslim with an Islamic agenda. Otherwise, one might think that dual standards were at work at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a most curious comment. Why would a scurrilous unsourced "rumor" have to be dignified by a refutation? It may be that she does not have a religion, or prefers to keep her religious affiliation private. 172.78.171.204 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Coughoula

The article should probably not mention it for now, because there is too little evidence to support any statement. "In a 2011 speech to the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jarrett revealed that her great-grandfather was Jewish, but made no specific reference to her own religious identity... An in-depth Chicago Tribune obituary of Jarrett's father, James E. Bowman, a prominent professor of medicine and pathology, did not refer to any religious background or involvement of the deceased. The obituary mentioned a memorial service to be held at Bowman's university, but did not name the officiant. Jarrett's daughter was married in a private home ceremony officiated by a judge."[1] If her only public comment about religious affiliation refers to a great-grandfather, one might perhaps infer that she and her nearer relatives have probably no religous affiliation. WP:VERIFIABLE would require more than such an inference, so until someone finds more reliable evidence, it should probably stay out of the article.TVC 15 (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The tidbit about the Jewish great-grandfather is outdated. On Finding Your Roots (and in the book, Finding Your Roots, Season 2: The Official Companion to the PBS Series), Jarrett discovers that she doesn't have a Jewish great-grandfather, though she did get a DNA test result of 2% Ashkenazi Jewish. And her mother is not "one fourth black" as the article stated. Jarrett's mother was born to two black parents. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible Acts of Vandalism

Given the nature of the current events following this particular person, this page needs to be monitored against further acts of vandalism, particularly by user with IP address 123.231.107.181 — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieB5175 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there specific information that is being targeted by the IP you mentioned? (108.252.124.176 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC))

There have been new acts of vandalism:

• June 29, 2018: King Kong and Magilla Gorilla https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Valerie_Jarrett&diff=next&oldid=847191539
• July 29, 2018: White house stripper, claiming she died, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Valerie_Jarrett&diff=next&oldid=852163600

CryMeAnOcean (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding maiden name "Bowman"

Currently the first cited reference is "http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-2509901886/bowman-dr-james-e.html". This link does not lead to any information that claims Valerie Jarrett's maiden name was "Bowman". While I do not doubt it is "Bowman" this is a poor reference and will be deleted. (108.252.124.176 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC))

Roseanne Barr tweet

Dear Wikipedians,

First I agree about the hold on editing for the racist numb skulls vandalising the text. How very creative, write over her parents and suggest that her parents were as Barr put it. Very edgy. Great satire and social commentary, not.

Second, I like us to consider on such a short article, not bringing up Roseanne Barr's tweet. It attracts a disproportionate entry for such a non-entity as Barr. Much like Barr, it is here today, gone tomorrow flim-flam and Wikipedia is writing for readers decades hence. They might think, who or what is Barr? Was she important? TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Barr is far from being a non-entity - she has a long, successful career. I nevertheless agree that this article shouldn't mention this incident - unless she publicly talks about it. Jarrett was merely mentioned, not involved. The consequences of the tweet have a major effect on Barr, but no effect on Jarrett. Jim Michael (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Barr is a far more notable person than Jarrett will ever be. But the tweet story is about Barr, not Jarrett, so it belongs in that article, not in this one. -- 209.150.231.38 (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Jarrett herself played no part in this controversy, and as such, the tweet by Roseanne, and subsequent effects one her show deserve no more than a passing mention in this article, and should not have a devoted sub-heading (WP:RECENTISM) just because Jarrett's name is in the news. The controversy should only be discussed in any depth at Roseanne Barr and Roseanne, not here. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Valerie Jarrett has now responded to Roseanne Barr's comment. This at least belongs in the Popular Culture subheader of this page. 108.252.124.176 (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

References

The tweet stuff is significant in the life of Barr as it led to her show's cancellation. it is not significant in the life of Jarrett. It belongs there, not here. See also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It probably merits a passing mention though. One line somewhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's just news and I've not seen any sources showing it is significant in the life of Jarrett. She has probably experienced racist attacks many times in her life. The fact that this time it was harmful to the other person has nothing to do with her. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

<redacted>

redacted BLP-violating rant. This is not OK, anywhere in Wikipedia. I am seeking page protection. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@71.246.97.72:, @71.246.97.200:. Tone it down a bit, you're not on Facebook. WP:CIVIL and all that. Thanks, Yintan  19:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Iranian descent

Why is she in the Category:American people of Iranian descent? She was born there, but that doesn't mean she's of Iranian descent. 65.125.21.164 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No good reason at all. You are absolutely correct; I've removed the category link. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Why income figures?

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Do we really need to have income figures in a biographical article (unless they substantially illustrate an otherwise noteworthy issue)? Wefa (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph in Valerie_Jarrett#Business_administration, I've deleted it for irrelevance. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:ONUS, facts merely being verifiable does not mandate their inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity: More European than African

Can someone please explain to me how she/both her parents can be African Americans when she is more European than African (according to the below)?

Her parents are both African-American. On the television series Finding Your Roots, DNA testing indicated that Jarrett is of 49% European, 46% African, and 5% Native American descent. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a question for the reference desk. See Help:Reference desk Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A human has 23 pairs of chromsomes. A pair is a chromosome from each parent. The chromosomes split up and one from each pair goes into a gamete. One's gametes do not have equal numbers of genes from each parent. The mixture is random. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Pahlavi Dynasty

What is the significance of her having been born in Iran during the Pahlavi Dynasty? It sounds like a subtle dig. 65.78.167.204 (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Valerie Jarrett photo with President Obama

The photo of Valerie Jarrett and President Obama (in the section "Relationship with the Obamas") looks like somebody is trying to show him with a Pinocchio nose. There must be a different photo available that shows the two of them from a different angle. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Bad sources

The sources The Western Journal, The Daily Caller, and PJ media are used, and repetitively so, to support negative information. They are all right wing media sources, used to support negative information about a person associated with Obama. PJ Media is pretty much of a blog and should not be in any BLP; it is almost entirely derived from the Daily Caller piece. The Western Journal piece 1) is a copy of the Daily Caller piece (as it notes) and its use here is pure reference padding and b) Western Journal is itself a rag and really should be blacklisted (see here). The Daily Caller is a rag and unreliable per community consensus here. This edit was incompetent with regard to 1) BLP policy and 2) what reliable sources are in WP. 2604:2000:1481:C006:F14C:B674:B294:9FDD (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually it was pretty competent understanding of both sourcing and NPOV and your reaction makes me wonder how neutral your position on this is. NPOV would require balanced coverage from both sides to be in the article. Also you were bold in removing an established edit on this page and I contested so that was where it should have ended until the consensus was established unless it was egregious violations of BLP which it was not. So far the only source that seems to be actually a problem is the Daily Caller. I'd also like to remind you of WP:NPA, calm down, smoke a joint do whatever it takes but do something. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the numbered editor's very correct objections to those sources are couched in ideological language. For the record, based on the Wikipedia articles concerning those media, they'd appear to be dubious sources for any article, other than a description of their reporting and opinions when relevant to an article. If the Wikipedia articles are incorrect, please update them...especially now that they're on my Watchlist. Tapered (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually I have no objections to them being removed based on consensus or a good argument. Thanks for the opinion, I was unsure on this myself hence why I had refrained from a second revert. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please do check out the articles on those sources, and if you concur or object, leave a reply here. Tapered (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)