Talk:Valerie Jarrett

Archives (Index)

2014 2015 2018 2019 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

1950's FBI reports - Smear of living person?

There is an impending edit war brewing here, with unsourced remarks followed by reversions because it is unsourced.

-I tried to source it, but for some strange reason, each time I tried to cite the article I receive an error message. So here is the source: examiner.com/article/fbi-investigates-valerie-jarrett-s-extensive-communist-family-ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2xspeak (talk • contribs) 6:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

While unsourced, it is coming from the lobbying organization [Freedom's Watch] who is mining FOIA data from the FBI. The web site WorldNetDaily is reporting the FW material. So three questions: Is WorldNetDaily too much a conspiracist tabloid to be used as a source? Is anything coming of the Red Scare era and the FBI investigations of communists in the 50's appropriate as a source for the Wikipedia? Is this basically an attempt to smear a living person through an alleged association of a relative with organizations with ties to communists? (I thought Joe McCarthy was dead.) Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

-No, it's not coming from a lobbying organization. It's coming from an article written by a journalist.

-As far as your "three questions" are concerned, if the FBI investigates, then it should be worth noting. Valerie Jarrett's Wikipedia page reads as if one of her staffers wrote it. There is absolutely nothing critical of her. You wouldn't happen to work for Valerie Jarrett?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2xspeak (talk • contribs) 6:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - could you please sign your posts with the four tildes? ~~~~ It's impossible to track the discussion. Flat Out (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted a sentence that references the subject's father, because the source supplied was unreliable. Please note that Examiner.com is not a reliable source and is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Please do not reinstate the sentence without a reliable source. Flat Out (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Lobbying and political smears are not appropriate for the biographies of living persons. See WP:BLP for Wikipedia standards for the quality of sources used for the biographies of living persons. [I have edited my paragraph to delete some erroneous information. DC] Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC) In the 1950's there was a witch hunt going on and many decent people were smeared and ruined through guilt by association. The attempted change in this article is also a smear through guilt by association. What is notable in the Wikipedia is based on what the mainstream press thinks is worth reporting (not what the right-wing nut job advocacy and conspiracist press thinks is useful to taint someone's reputation through a non-public investigation 50 years ago of a relative). WP:BLP talks about the general problem of biographies promoting their subjects, or smearing them. This is why only high-quality sources are allowed. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not only should the source be reliable, it should be about the subject of the article. Interpreting the source ourselves to imply something contentious about the subject of the article would be a way to commit smear by association. – Wdchk (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

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))

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))

Why give the non-entity Roseanne Barr an entry on Jarrett's page?

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)