Talk:Valerie Jarrett/Archives/2021

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)