Talk:Valerie Jarrett

Archives (Index)

2014 2015 2018 2019 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)

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)

As disgusting as Barr's Tweet was - and I want to be clear that I am in no way trying to downplay what she did, or support her in any way - the fact of the matter is it wasn't racist, so mention of the Tweet needs to be removed, or the reference to it being racist does, or the Tweet should be quoted exactly so that people can make up their own minds about whether it is racist or not.

All I'm trying to say is that there is a short paragraph about Valerie Jarrett being the target of racial attacks, which seems to be more about Roseanne Barr than Valerie Jarrett, and refers to a Tweet which was horrible, and disgusting, and shouldn't have been made, but was not racist, so we could:

1. Have an example of actual racism against Valerie Jarrett.

2. Remove the part about Jarrett being the target of racist attacks and simply leave the paragraph about Barr's Tweet and the results of it (it was a significant thing, and should probably remain).

3. Quote Barr's Tweet in it's entirety and allow people to make up their own minds about whether it was racist or not (because I realise some people are going to insist it was racist, even though it wasn't).

I changed the text of the paragraph because it was factually incorrect, but I did not remove it because obviously this is something which would have to be agreed to. However I think the text I changed does highlight my point, because Barr's words had supposedly been paraphrased, but did not reflect what was actually said, and instead reflected an erroneous interpretation of what was said. What Barr wrote was despicable and she deserved what she got (as far as I'm concerned) - free [hate]speech advocates often mistakenly believe that they have a corresponding right to a platform, and that the rest of us are required to listen to them - but this is an encyclopaedia and I'm simply saying that what we currently have is not factually correct and should be changed, one way or the other, or the other. Thoughts? FillsHerTease (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s not for us to judge whether or not the tweet was racist - that’s not how Wikipedia works. All we do is reflect what reliable sources say per WP:NPOV. In this case, that’s exactly what they do say and the cited source reflects that. If we don’t say that we fail to comply with NPOV - we can’t leave it to “people to make up their own minds”. I have, however, taken out the reference to Barr having a history of racist comments. This is partly because that’s nothing to do with an article about Jarrett. But also, although the source makes the claim of a history, it gives only one prior instance. Given that WP:BLP applies to Barr we need a stronger source to back up a claim like that. DeCausa (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree! It's not for us to judge whether or not the tweet was racist (even though it clearly wasn't, as a tweet which doesn't mention race at all, obviously can't be racist), and that is why we must implement one of my suggestions, as it isn't up to us to pick and choose reliable sources which support the erroneous suggestion that it was racist, especially when those reliable sources are wrong. That's why I think we should include the actual words of the Tweet, if this issue is going to be kept, so that people can make up their own minds (even though they're also likely to make an erroneous logically leap.). Just out of interest, if the New York Times starts saying 1 + 1 = 3, then what happens? FillsHerTease (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2021 (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)

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)

Yeah I can see why those could be considered questionable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Valerie Jarrett is not Iranian-American

This article says she is Iranian American. Because she was born in Iran to American professors who we teaching in Iran? Iran does not grant citizenship to anchor babies or their parents. You have to be born from and Iranian father or mother to be considered a citizen. Please correct this obvious mistake! She is American through and through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.126.158 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)