Talk:Jennifer Carroll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is the term "African-American" the proper ethnic label for Carroll?[edit]

Many people (or at least non-black people) arbitrarly throw this term around but there are clear and distinct cultural differences among individuals of Black African descent community. The latest U.S. census no longer treats all black people as if they are a single ethnic group. On page 225 of the Census outreach plan it reads the following:

The Black audience includes all individuals of Black African descent. There are three major groups that represent the Black Audience in the United States. These groups are African Americans (Blacks born in the United States), Black Africans (Black Immigrants from Africa) and Afro-Caribbeans, which includes Haitians.

According to this outreach plan she would clearly fall into the Afro-Carribean category as she is a native of Trinidad and Tobago and she even maintains a heavy accent. I also find that many blacks, specifically Caribbean and African blacks get highly offended when you arbitrary assume they are "African-Americans". I proposed that in light of changing social opinion we either 1) address her as the first Black women 2) the frist Afro-Carribean women or 3) Just remove the ethnic label altogether and let her background speak for itself. I have personally changed African-American to "black". Id like to hear discussion from individuals of -all backgrounds- on if you support these changes.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes, as, according to the source given, "she also is chair of the Republican Party of Florida African-American Leadership Council.". Please let the discussion play out first, then make your changes. - BilCat (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So by your logic, if an Italian-American guy joined a club for German-Americans Republicans it magically makes the Italian guy German. Unfortunatly I dont think ethnicity/ancestry works that way. Reverting to blackSourcechecker419 (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the term "African American" is not always used exclusively for blacks born in the United States, it's also used for any American of black African heritage. The media and Carroll herself have repeatedly referred to Carroll as African-American. See, for instance this and this. That said, "black" certainly isn't any less correct than "African American" in this context; this is an editorial decision.--Cúchullain t/c 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no "problem". No one of African or Caribbean immigrant origin would ever call themself African-American, that's just reality. They don't identify with that history or culture. (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You're making a blanket statement. While I am sure it is true that some African or Caribbean immigrants would never call themselves "African American, you can't prove that it's true of all such immigrants, especially those who came to the US as children, as in Carrol's case. Carroll has apparently referred to herself as African-American as Cuchullain cites, and that's enough for our purposes here. - BilCat (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is a difference between saying that African or Caribbean immigrants don't identify as part of the group containing blacks born in the US, and saying that they never use the term "African American". The latter is just plain incorrect in this case, as I just showed that Carroll herself has referred to herself as "African American".[1]--Cúchullain t/c 14:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

When can play the "find sources" game forever. Shes referenced as Caribbean-American and Trinidadian here and here and here. Why not just let common sense prevail can call her black? There is no sense in lumping arbitrary ethnicities together with treating them as a single group. Not even the U.S. Census does it anymore. As a "black" person myself it drives me insane. Call people what they are.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not "arbitrary" if she self-identifies as African American, which she does. That doesn't change her heritage or birthplace. That fact that you, apparantly, choose not to self-identify as African American is your choice, and rightly so, but you can't force her to adopt your choice when there is evidence to the contrary. - BilCat (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems that not everyone, including the subject of this article, uses the term "African American" in the way the census does, Sourcechecker. We follow what the sources say, and it is clear Carroll has used both terms to describe herself.--Cúchullain t/c 14:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


The IP replaced Jennifer Carroll's picture with a gorilla picture. Not only is it disrespectful, but it's racist. That IP has edited other black politicians' bios, too. I hope this issue is resolved as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, I fixed the picture.

Thank you, I reported this user to the admins to hopefully get blocked. Disgusting --CutOffTies (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"diploma mill" is not NPOV language[edit]

I removed the phrase "diploma mill" from the discussion of Lt. Gov. Carroll's educational background. The cited articles make it clear that her graduate degrees, or rather their sources, are a legitimate topic for her article. However, the term "diploma mill" is judgmental in tone, and therefore not appropriate under Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. A quick look at Google results indicates that this is a topic that would support a properly-sourced, NPOV section in the article, but the term was not appropriate. Because it appears properly-sourced, likely accurate, and does not violate NPOV, I left "unaccredited" in place.Audemus Defendere (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegations section[edit]

I've yet again restored the "allegations" section.

  1. The entire section is very well sourced.
  2. Carroll is a prominent public figure, the Lieutenant Governor of Florida.
  3. The allegations were very widely reported in Florida; I think it would take real work to find a major media outlet that didn't report on it.
  4. The allegations were widely reported in the national political press, and selectively in other national media (such as USA Today and New York Daily News).
  5. The allegations are a significant fact in Carrol's political biography and will likely have repercussions for the rest of her political career.

Therefore, a minimal inclusion about the existence and reportage of the allegations doesn't violate WP:BLP, and is necessary to be a complete, balanced article on the subject.

However, the claims of the allegations themselves are not particularly well-sourced; we have a case of "the media says so-and-so is saying X", in this case "is saying" is happening in legal papers that we CANNOT use as sources directly, and we should resist repeating details of the claims unless there are reliable sources substantiating the allegations or a judicial determination that validates them. In essence, the section is really "explosive allegations were made and widely reported", with enough context to make clear that the truth is not known and it is reasonable to doubt.

I'm going to ask the folk at WP:BLP/N to take a look; there are legitimate concerns here. While I think removing the section is wrong, a 3rd party perspective could be helpful. Studerby (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Allegations" sections are virtually never proper in a BLP. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer, and should not be allowed to mimic it. Contentious claims require very strong sourcing, and "allegations" are absolutely contentious. Collect (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This article seems to be sabotaged[edit]

As a newbie I am reluctant to make too many major changes, and I am not an expert on the topic of this article, yet it is pretty clear to me that the current version does not meet Wikipedia's standards.

I note that the Allegations section is controversial, but at present there is just mention of the allegations in the introduction, and all further reference to controversy has apparently been deleted. Second, the section "Economic Contribution" is utterly bizarre. The language suggests it is copied and pasted from election material, and it reads as a promotion of Carroll. The content is also, as far as I can see, not the kind of information that has any place on Wikipedia.

In conclusion, it seems that someone has attempted to edit this article to remove information that could potentially put Carroll in a negative light and add promotional material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diagonaldagger (talkcontribs) 16:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Carroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)