Talk:Karine Jean-Pierre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Quote

In Early life and education there is a quote by the subject, about the subject. Is this considered reliable?--FrankTursetta (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Bachelor's degree

I can't for the life of me find a source that indicates where/if she earned a bachelor's degree. Sources that provide biographical information only mention the MPA from Columbia. Can anyone else (help me) find this? KidAd (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm doing a look-over and cleaning up some sources/copy editing. Will update when finished. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Light&highbeautyforever, thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Done for today; will look it over again tomorrow with fresh eyes and rework the lead then, unless someone else wants to take a stab at it in the meantime. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, well done Light&highbeautyforever! This is light years better. Thanks so much for all the work that went in! Innisfree987 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Citizenship?

Born in France. Has she been naturalized? 2603:8081:5004:3A00:382B:6B88:EFC1:D08 (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Questioning 2016 and 2018 elections

Toa Nidhiki05 has added text to this page about Karine Jean-Pierre's comments about the 2016 and 2018 elections. They added them (I think) in two different places with at least 5 citations (containing basically the same information multiple times). At least 5 wikipedia users removed or shortened one or both of these segments on the page, and Toa Nidhiki05 has restored them and accused the wikipedia users of "whitewashing." This user added comments from Brad Raffensperger equating Ms. Jean-Pierre's comments with former President Trump's very frequent allegations of a 'stolen election' in 2020. This is essentially a false equivalence. In the "Commentary" section of this article, it provides more appropriate context about Georgia's 2018 election that Brian Kemp as Secretary of State could affect voter rolls in his own election race for governor. The comments from Raffensperger give no such context.

It seems this issue takes up too much space in this article and has been placed there (and restored several times) for political reasons. If I remove it again, it will just be reverted. If there is some discussion here, perhaps we can come to some consensus, which (in my opinion) should be different from the status quo. Math-ghamhainn (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s not false equivalence. Sources from national and international news outlets regard her claims as false, unfounded conspiracy theories. You don’t get to whitewash that because some other guy thinks something worse. Toa Nidhiki05 10:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Every time you have reverted changes to tone down or shorten this point about the "stolen" elections she tweeted about a couple of times you have called it "whitewashing." It is not a central part of her political work or her role in the government This suggests you have a political agenda here, and wikipedia is supposed to be more objective. It seems you also do this with the IP address 47.203.28.160 using identical language about "whitewashing." Let's hope some other people chime in, for instance Isaiahlaitinen99. Math-ghamhainn (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Strike that allegation or report it if you seriously think I’m socking. Utterly unacceptable. Toa Nidhiki05 11:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, we've finally made some progress. The page is cleaner now and less space is devoted to this issue, which is not really a notable aspect of her career (it was a couple of tweets).

What she said about the Georgia election is not exactly a "conspiracy" theory - Kemp has been accused of aggressive removal of voters from the rolls for such minor issues as the placement of a hyphen. He was the Secretary of State running his own election for governor. The appearance of doing things in his own favor is there. One could view it either way.

As for the 2016 election, the Russian government aided Trump, and he did nothing to renounce that help. This much is true (see the Mueller report) and is not a conspiracy theory. Some Democrats view that as the election having been "stolen." But let's leave this page as is for now. This edit war has been tiresome. Math-ghamhainn (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• This discussion could do with attention from more editors, IMO, so I've posted a note at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Bishonen | tålk 20:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC).

  Thanks for doing this. I wasn't sure what the right protocol is here. One editor (and an IP address 47.203.28.160) consistently accuses others of "whitewashing" and reverts their edits to insist on calling a couple of tweets a "conspiracy theory". The issue was mentioned in 3 different places on the wikipedia page and I condensed it. Math-ghamhainn (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I've just added another ref from the Independent Journal Review, which is a member of the News Media Alliance. The news was also covered by Yahoo news, and Psaki apparently made the odd choice to make a statement directly to Mediaite. YoPienso (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Moved from article - tweets

Following the announcement that she would be the next White House Press Secretary, Jean-Pierre was criticized for tweets that called the 2016 presidential election and 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election "stolen" and Donald Trump an "illegitimate President". Psaki defended her, saying Jean-Pierre now agreed both elections are settled, that Trump won in 2016 and Kemp won in 2018, and that "people should admit who won regardless of preference".

References

This looks like WP:NOTNEWS. The refs are poor, and, as the Politico ref says, Conservatives and Republicans are resurfacing old tweets by Jean-Pierre.... --Hipal (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely astonished by this, but the whitewashing is complete. I have a feeling no reliable sourcing will convince you people, so great work - take a victory lap~ You've just covered for a government official spreading insane conspiracy theories that required the press secretary to actively respond. You've successfully scrubbed this article of a good chunk of the coverage this person received, and in its place left a piece that's borderline promotional and out of whack with sourcing. Nice! Toa Nidhiki05 02:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's some additional sourcing:

• The Australian
• AP News
• KATV
• The Hill
• The Christian Post
• NJ.com

Toa Nidhiki05 02:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Those sources, with the exception of KATV, are focused on her appointment and not on her tweets. It does read as NOTNEWS content. Tell me how you think it isn't a NOTNEWS exclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This smells like "We don't like it."

• The AP article, republished by US News & WR, is enough to establish that this brouhaha is news.
• The fact that Jen Psaki publicly addressed the issue with Mediaite carries weight, as well.
• While there's currently no consensus on the IJR as a RS, it's not marked unreliable, either, and is a good supporting source. ("IJR" is a member of the News Media Alliance, whose "members represent today’s most trusted and compelling news media brands whose job it is to keep the world informed.")
• As long as we write only two lines (See above.) about the conspiracy theory allegations, we don't need articles dedicated entirely to that one point. When national media including the AP, USN&WR, The Hill, and Yahoo devote a paragraph to a topic, it's notable.
• The Christian Post highlights the controversy as one of 4 key points to know about Jean-Pierre.
• KATV (an ABC affiliate) published a whole article about it.

Tweets, Facebook posts, and other social media have become hot potatoes in our age. How many celebrities (and common people) have been fired for what they said on social media, or for what was reported by the MSM years earlier?

This topic is notable and well-sourced enough for two lines in the BLP. YoPienso (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the potential refs. Note that AP qualifies it to one person, Raffensperger. The Hill, "Not long after Jean-Pierre was named, some conservatives criticized her over old tweets..."

If you want to include it, then POLITICO summarizes it nicely, as I indicated. Better to let rest and see if it matters in the future as something other than a political attack. --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't consider a throwaway paragraph about a tweet in an article about her appointment to be WP:INDEPTH coverage. The AP piece cites Raffensperger's criticism in paragraph #20, The Hill in paragraph #30 (forgive me if I miscounted by one or two, but it's buried deep). How many celebrities (and common people) have been fired for what they said on social media, or for what was reported by the MSM years earlier? I don't know, but its irrelevant to KJP. Has she been fired for this tweet? Clearly not. Has she commented more directly on this? How did she believe the election to be "stolen"? If she's ever said more about it, that would strengthen the case to include. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Why is it a "throwaway paragraph"? Because you don't like it?
• Why does it matter where in the AP's article or in The Hill this subject appears? The Hill has multiple paragraphs about KJP's tweets and the Republican attacks.
• The Christian Post published a whole page on the tweets.
• The sitting Secretary of State of Georgia published a whole page about it on his official website. Was that a political act? You betcha! We cover thousands of political acts. KJP's position is political.
• Jen Psaki directly addressed the issue. Obviously, she thought it merited comment.
• Here's a whole article on Fox News about the allegations.
• BLPs often include negative info since negative allegations are common. Why exclude it from this particular BLP? It's true, well-sourced, and relevant. Are you trying to make KJP look bright and shiny? She's a real person, and real persons in the public spotlight are often criticized. YoPienso (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's absolutely a case of WP:DONTLIKEIT. This got attention in both state, federal, and international outlets and excluding it makes very little real sense. Moreover, removing it violates WP:EDITCON as the information had been there for weeks. Per WP:BRD, the information should be added back while discussion is ongoing. Toa Nidhiki05 15:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• You see how deeply buried it is by the AP, The Hill, etc? These mentions are clearly "in passing", per WP:INDEPTH.
• Yes, a politician who runs elections in Georgia put out a press release defending the election in Georgia. WP:MANDY applies.
• Is The Christian Post a reliable source? Looking around their site, they have a clear bent. That no mainstream pubs seem to be running it, aside from one ABC affiliate, isn't making a strong case for inclusion.
• Jen Psaki's comment is the only thing that makes me think this might be worth including, but the other issues outweigh it.
• Fox News is not a good source for U.S. politics.
• WP:ONUS is clear that not all verifiable information must be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreeing with Muboshgu, I remind editors to not bring up potential references that we clearly cannot use. Doing so undermines the case for inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I want you to seriously look at all these sources and tell me this isn't notable.

• POLITICO
• Fox Baltimore
• The Times (UK)
• The Australian
• Associated Press
• Christian Post
• NJ.com
• The Wrap (statement from Psaki)
• Independent Journal Review
• The Week
• LA Times

At some point you really have to just go with what the sources say, and there are dozens of them. Her comments got media coverage in both US and international news sources (highly credible ones, at that) and received a substantial enough stink that the White House Press Secretary had to respond to them. This is more than sufficient for a two-sentence mention. Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Country of origin? Country of citizenship?

See also: fr:Discussion:Karine Jean-Pierre § Nationalité française

Conflicting information exists within. Clarification, please:

• Lede

Karine Jean-Pierre (born August 13, 1977) is an American [became a citizen?] political campaign organizer, activist, political commentator, author serving as White House Deputy Press Secretary to Jen Psaki since January 2021.

• Early life and education

Jean-Pierre was born in Martinique to Haitian immigrant parents. She was raised in Queens, New York.

• Personal life

Jean-Pierre is a lesbian from France.

Thank you, 24.45.172.94 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I just came in to see if anyone had mentioned the France thing; it's so random and not sourced in either of the two references in that paragraph. I'm going to remove it. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

France has jus soli so it's not a totally ridiculous idea. For someone born in France of foreign parents to get French citizenship, 5 years of residency are required, she would tick that box too. However you have to actually ask for the citizenship, unless you live in France habitually when becoming an adult, then you get it automatically. I'm guessing since the family lived in the US and she got US citizenship eventually, no step was taken to get French citizenship. Aesma (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to her as Haitian-American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:590B:5000:7C01:F549:8855:61A7 (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Stolen election illegitimate president

Okay do the editors on here DENY that she said the 2016 and 2018 election was stolen or illegitimate? Do the editors on her DENY that the previous White House press secretary addressed this topic if you deny please explain how. If you agree please explain why there isn’t a mention of this. Utterly shameful that there is no mention. 47.203.28.160 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It's explained above. Nobody is denying what she tweeted, but WP:ONUS says clearly that "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Reply to Muboshgu
First, thanks to you and Hipal for engaging so civilly in this discussion.

• You wrote, "You see how deeply buried it is by the AP, The Hill, etc? These mentions are clearly "in passing", per WP:INDEPTH."

No, it's not deeply buried or mentioned in passing.

• The AP didn't bury it, but placed it strategically: They told the news that there's a new press secretary, introduced her, and then told about detractors.

Hiding this excerpt from an AP article to avoid cluttering the talk page. Click to read.

But Jean-Pierre’s appointment also has its detractors. Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state of Georgia, said the promotion was unwarranted due to her advocacy of “stolen election conspiracy theories” following Democrat Stacey Abrams’ loss in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race. Democrats had accused Abrams’ opponent, Gov. Brian Kemp, of improperly purging voter rolls. Raffensperger is among Republican state officials who refused to support Trump’s unfounded claims that he lost reelection in 2020 because of fraud. At the outset of the coronavirus pandemic under Trump, Jean-Pierre said Fox News Channel was a “racist” network, angering conservatives.

• This excerpt from The Hill a more than a passing mention; it weaves in the ramification about political attacks in general.

This excerpt from The Hill is too long to plop into the discussion about criticism of KJP. Click to read.

Not long after Jean-Pierre was named, some conservatives criticized her over old tweets she wrote about Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp’s election over Democrat Stacy Abrams being “stolen.” She also referred to Trump’s election in 2016 as a “stolen election,” referencing the Russian hack of Democrats’ emails. “Baseless stolen election claims undermine the integrity of our elections, regardless of who pushes them,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) said in a statement criticizing her appointment. Jean-Pierre’s allies say she should pay no attention to the criticism. I would not allow Republicans to color anybody with crayons, because all they’re doing is throwing slime,” Brazile said. Finney added that anyone in the administration will be a target of the right wing “because they are looking for ways to drive their very divisive, at times racist, sexist, bigoted agenda of using issues to divide people.” “We’ve seen particularly despicable attacks against Black women, from the vice president to [the Justice Department’s] Kirsten Clark and Judge [Ketanji Brown] Jackson, so she’s in very esteemed company,” Finney added.

• WP:MANDY isn't a policy or guideline but just something you're throwing out to support your opinion. It's notable that Secy. of State Raffensperger published his statement, and to be expected that some media would pick up on it.
• Good question about the Christian Post. It's obviously factual, but hasn't been vetted per WP:RS, so we can scratch that one for this discussion.
• Jen Psaki's response is very heavy weight. More later about why it's not outweighed.
• Fox News is a perfectly reliable source for this issue.

From WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. There is no contentious claim or opinion here, only a question of weight. There is no WP prohibition, but only a caution against opinion for using Fox for political issues. Here Fox is merely telling the facts. (The only sense of "opinion" is the arbitrary choice of 10 things Fox thought its readers should know. Other sources have chosen 4 things, 6 things, and 7 things.)

• Agree that we can't tell everything! But KJP's biographical facts are thin. Maybe we could agree to add that she was a firefighter? Oh, and that Republicans are criticizing her?

To summarize:

• Jen Psaki addressed the fact of KJP's tweets about "stolen elections" in an apparently exclusive statement to Mediaite. Very heavy weight.
• The criticism of those tweets has been covered by the AP; The Hill; Fox News; an ABC-affiliated TV station, Politico, (which provides a link--and thereby tacit support--to the Fox article with the banner headline, "Biden's new WH press secretary claimed Trump, Ga. Gov. Kemp 'stole' elections"); NJ.com, which is the largest digital news source in NJ; TheWrap, which is reliable for media analysis, and many other sources. Heavy weight.
• Ergo--we include a line or two acknowledging KJP has been criticized. YoPienso (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

We disagree on too much to find consensus on inclusion: what are appropriate sources in this situation, and what (if anything) we should actually present. --Hipal (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting!

This is what I propose including:

She was criticized for old tweets that called the 2016 presidential election and 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election "stolen," but Psaki explained that Jean-Pierre now agrees both wins were legitimate.

References

Because this has been widely noted, people will come to Wikipedia to learn the facts. We need to supply them.

That said, there's still a lot to add to this BLP. Why don't we say she was a firefighter? Is it too "peacock" to note that her appointment was called "historic"? YoPienso (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that proposed language is a good starting point. I'd support something about that length or shorter, and I do think the controversy has enough weight for a short mention. I'd prefer to cite stronger sources than Mediaite and KATV. I might go for LA Times and The Hill. My second thought is that we should be clear who is doing the criticizing, which sources agree is "conservatives", sometimes "Republicans". Finally, I don't think we should include Psaki, but I admit I'm on the fence about it. My draft would look something like "Conservatives criticized her appointment, citing old tweets that called the 2016 presidential election and 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election 'stolen'."

References

I'm fine with something that length provided it makes clear the claims she made are false. Toa Nidhiki05 03:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Mediaite and KATV are not such great sources, LA Times and the Hill bury it 20-30 paragraphs in. I'm still seeing this as some tweets from a few years ago that Republicans tried to use as attack fodder, and it's already over. She's the press secretary now: has any reporter asked her about her tweets? That seems like Peter Doocy's angle. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating your own argument without replying to my responses? Why do you keep saying the LA Times and The Hill "buried" the story? And, the tweets aren't the story--the attacks are. Kindly respond directly to my question. YoPienso (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The burden is on those seeking inclusion. We don't, and won't for some time, have any references that demonstrate this is anything more than a passing political attack. --Hipal (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Because presenting a WP:CITEBOMB with the same level of information doesn't change what I've said before. You aren't presenting new arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You're deflecting. I did present the counter-argument that AP and Hill didn't "bury" the news. Please click to read and then respond directly to the info I posted at 19:27, 2 June 2022. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's an article from The Times - a highly reputable international news outlet - entirely about her stolen election tweets. What's your excuse going to be on this one? Toa Nidhiki05 18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good source and it helps demonstrate that a short mention is due. If my proposal above gets any support, I'd probably swap it in for the LA Times source (both are paywalled). It doesn't mention anything about the 2016 election, but The Hill does. If anyone needs a copy of, or quotes from, either Times article, feel free to email me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the TheTimes ref available in the Wikipedia library or elsewhere for easy access? However, before Jean-Pierre gets to work she faces attacks over a two-year-old tweet claiming that the 2018 governor’s race in Georgia was “stolen” from Stacey Abrams, the Democratic candidate, by the Republican Brian Kemp, the eventual winner. Is there any context the demonstrates this isn't just a passing political attack? --Hipal (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

FireFangledFeathers offered to send us a copy of The Times' article; I'm awaiting mine. There's no rule that refs have to be available online. YoPienso (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Yopienso: I sent it a few hours ago. Maybe check your spam folder? Hipal, nothing surprising in terms of context. It describes the recent "attacks" by "conservatives", covers the tweets, mentions some background on the 2018 election, quotes criticism from Kelly Loeffler, and then finishes with some non-Jean-Pierre-related coverage of the state of Georgia politics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! It was indeed in the spam folder. Definitive article on the criticism over the tweets. I'll work on this if I have time. Hope somebody beats me to it! YoPienso (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the information, since it seems generally agreed upon that The Times is legitimate and noteworthy here. Open to changes to wording. Toa Nidhiki05 14:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the wording from "criticisized" to "attacked" to better summarize the situation and not mislead readers. If this doesn't play out as having some importance in the next few months or beyond, then entire sentence should be removed as NOTNEWS. --Hipal (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Toa that "criticized" is the better term here. I think "attacked" is news-style attention-grabbing prose. I might feel different if the thing being "attacked" were an idea or publication and not a person. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Heading off into conduct dispute territory. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm going to advise you to refrain from obnoxious insults, Hipal. You might want to read up on WP:AGF and WP:BRD, which can get you blocked. Toa Nidhiki05 15:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC) I'm reminding you that you were recently blocked and appear to have learned nothing from it. ArbEnf applies. --Hipal (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC) If you want to threaten me, do it directly or not at all. No use in pussyfooting around it. Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that we're finally identifying that this is coming from conservatives. Everything I read suggests this is all a political attack, political messaging, and bothsideism. It's all NOTNEWS. We need to be very careful not to echo political attacks, very lazy ones in this case. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Me too! I'm with you on re-evaluating in a few months to see if coverage lasts. Importantly, I'm not sure there's actually consensus for including this material, and I think we're one or two "oppose" comments away from needing to remove it pending further discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the coverage of it is already done. The most recent source that I see of it is Psaki's defense of KJP. This doesn't meet the WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You've made that more than clear regardless of what sources are provided, yes. Toa Nidhiki05 17:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, I would strongly encourage re-adding the Psaki content back with a citation to NJ.com given it clarifies Jean-Pierre's current position. I'm not sure why one would see that as objectionable honestly. Toa Nidhiki05 20:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Both article and talk page are encouraging in that they demonstrate the ability to edit together despite some bumps in the road. I would like to see Psaki's defense included, too, but assume it's not in order to keep the mention brief/avoid undue weight. Omitting it, though, might suggest to some readers that KJP still holds those opinions. YoPienso (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I've requested article protection due to the disruption by the ip's. I've self-reverted while we get it sorted out. The London ip is HOUNDING me. The TAMPA ip should have been blocked weeks ago. --Hipal (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

London ip and associated accounts blocked. --Hipal (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s amazing that it took weeks to put on her profile that she falsely claimed an election was stolen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This is what we have “Upon her appointment, she was criticized by conservatives for old tweets that called the 2016 presidential election and 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election "stolen".[28]” why can’t we identify that this claim is false? Shouldn’t it say “Upon her appointment, she was criticized by conservatives for old tweets that falsely called the 2016 presidential election and 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election "stolen".[28]” what she said was indeed false and should be stated for the reader. I have no idea why there is so much debate over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's remove it

I don't see how to balance NOTNEWS, UNDUE, SOAP, and BLP in this case. --Hipal (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

We already have balanced it - it has roughly as much coverage as irrelevant biographical details like how many languages she speaks, her dad being a taxi driver, or her various career moves, many of which have no real relevance or notability beyond their original announcement. Her fairly irrelevant memoir, for comparison, takes up a similar amount of space as the tweets controversy - I think that's entirely fair, if not nearly as comprehensive as it should be. Toa Nidhiki05 19:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The onus is on those seeking inclusion. Arguments that don't directly address policy probably don't create a strong consensus. --Hipal (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The onus is also on those who disagree to provide actual reasons, not just dismiss sources - reliable ones, at that - out of hand, list a slew of tangentially related policies, and have a shifting standard of what is actually needed from sources. Toa Nidhiki05 19:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. This article is under WP:AE. --Hipal (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/karine-jean-pierre-is-the-wrong-choice-to-rebuild-bidens-shattered-credibility?_amp=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't waste our time with potential refs that cannot be used. --Hipal (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

So glad you said that! I went on another page and saw the Washington examiner as a reference. The difference, it was a conservative. Why is it okay for Wikipedia to use the Washington examiner on a conservative’s page but not here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Given, Casey (December 9, 2019). "The misguided war on pornography and the return of right-wing puritanism". Washington Examiner. Retrieved June 3, 2022.

The HuffPost is also a reference in articles too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted that change. Nobody other than you seems insistent on removing it, and it's been up for quite a few days now with no issue. I'd suggest giving some actual acid reasons for removing it rather than WP:DONTLIKEIT arguments. Rather than simply listing policies, I'd suggest you actually explain them in detail. It might be more convincing. Toa Nidhiki05 16:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The onus is on those seeking to include the material, and explanations have already been given. --Hipal (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Simply listing a bunch of policies is not a valid argument, and it doesn’t improve the more you do it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You do realize that Content has been up for days with no issue is not a valid argument, correct? (And Hipal is not the only user against including it.) – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, you are misrepresenting the situation. Again, the onus is on those seeking inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Default in a BLP is exclusion, not inclusion. I really don’t see the encyclopedic importance of "she was criticized by conservatives for old tweets". I’ll remove the material until I see a good justification for including it. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's not important whether you "see the encyclopedic importance of" the proposed content. The dispositive factor is whether it is covered by reliable secondary sources. Per WP:BLPBALANCE: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Wallnot (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Read the link you just shared: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." It’s really strange how you ignored that part. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I did read that part; I didn't mention it because, unlike the Flat Earth Theory cited on that page as an example of a view of a small minority, this view is held by sitting members of Congress who belong to one of the two major political parties. Its coverage in multiple major media outlets is evidence that it is worth including. Also, I don't appreciate the sarcasm; I don't think anything I said warranted an uncivil tone. Wallnot (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest reading the past discussions here on the talk page. I've listed three content policies that apply, pointing out two different areas of NOT. While some editors would prefer to treat those policies as being brought up in bad faith and without discussion, I hope you won't fall into that perspective as well. --Hipal (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I won't fall into that perspective. I actually was originally leaning Toa's way but after reading the discussion I think you're in the right, because of NOTNEWS more than anything else. I replied to Viriditas because "that doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me" is not a standard for exclusion on Wikipedia. Wallnot (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Third party POV

@Toa Nidhiki05: @Hipal: Not that you asked for it, but, having read your discussion, my view as a completely neutral third party is that this content doesn't belong on the page absent further/continuing news coverage or Jean-Pierre repeating the claim that led to the criticism. This was something she tweeted about, over four years ago, and is not a view she continues to publicly espouse. I think WP:NOTNEWS is particularly relevant here: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. I don't think these tweets, absent, again, Jean-Pierre's continued espousal of the views they contained, meet the standard of "enduring notability"; complaints about those tweets certainly do not. I do wonder whether this content would be included on other pages, but that leads us directly into the territory of WP:WHATABOUTX.

Again, not that either of you asked for it, but you've both expended a great deal of energy arguing about this, both seemingly in good faith, and I thought a third opinion might save us all from more debate. Wallnot (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I had started thinking we might need an RfC full of third parties to solve this. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective. If this content isn't notable, then I am going to prune a bunch of the fluff that fills this article. I assume people will have no objections to content that fails WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTNEWS being excluded? Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If the content is first examined to a depth similar to this dispute, there shouldn't be any problem at all. --Hipal (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Narrator: it wasn't. I’ve restored the mention of her memoir and her life stance, which are in no way trivial to her biography. I did not restore the sexual abuse trivia, as it isn’t clear if that’s important. For example, does she do charitable work for survivors? The editor who removed the memoir indicated that it was trivia and not notable, but neither of those things come into play here. This is a notable public figure who wrote a memoir. Mentioning it in a biography is encyclopedic; that’s what biographical, encyclopedic entries do—they discuss the work of the subject. While it may or may not be notable outside this bio, it’s topical for this subject treatment. I can’t think of a single instance where we would exclude mentioning the memoir of an encyclopedic, biographical subject. This very much has the appearance of bad faith, tendentious editing. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Her memoir is not remotely notable. There is no indication it's notable; simply writing a book isn't notable, many people do this all the time. Was this book successful? Did it reach a place on a chart? Did it receive widespread coverage? No. It is absolutely a piece of trivia that adds nothing to the page, and it's absolutely obscure material that serves no real purpose here, especially when comparatively stronger events and details aren't noted. There's no biographical benefit to including it.

Moreover, I would caution against accusing people of bad faith, of course, but I can't control what you do. Toa Nidhiki05 23:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be engaging in bad faith editing by disrupting this biography in a very childish and immature, retaliatory fashion, according to your comments on this page. I’m staring at a dozen reliable sources on my screen about her biography. Your claim that the memoir of a highly public political figure is not notable is one of the most ludicrous claims I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia, and merely supports what I’ve said about your editing approach. My own personal take is that you are engaging in this disruption to trap other editors into edit warring with you and getting disciplined as a result of your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And I could list a dozen sources about her tweet controversy. How many sources are talking about her memoir years later? If we're going to have standards here, I simply ask they be consistent.

As for reporting me - put up or shut up. If you have an issue, report it. Otherwise I'll take your claims as the bad faith threats they are. Toa Nidhiki05 00:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ve reverted your intentional, willlful, purposeful disruption of the BLP. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The latest bit of edit-warring is extremely worrisome. I'll be reverting if other action isn't taken. --Hipal (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I beat you to it. Consider it my one revert for today, even though this article isn't under that level of arbitration enforcement, yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I support, weakly, including the content, but I think there's no stable status-quo that includes the content. My best head-counting suggests there's rough consensus against inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Full protection

I semi-protected the article a few days ago when responding at WP:RFPP. To paraphrase from a comment I wrote on my talk, I'm sensitive about people coatracking negativity in BLPs but this looks like an issue that has to be resolved with an RfC. The text is 23 words close to the end of the article (not the usual stuffing of the lead). If there were a denial of the assertion I might fully protect the article and justify removing the material per BLP until an RfC concluded but I don't see that. This is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Is Karine Jean-Pierre a conspiracy theorist? but that issue is moot since the article has no mention of "conspiracy". Due to further edit warring and another request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected the article for two weeks. It's pretty clear that an RfC is needed. It would be desirable to draft the RfC question here so I'm looking for suggested wording. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

At this point, we have one editor unhappy with the consensus, and engaging in POINTy behavior, writing, If this content isn't notable, then I am going to prune a bunch of the fluff that fills this article. --Hipal (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that WP:POINTy comment above, but let's concentrate on how the issue can be resolved. First, what are the alternative outcomes that realistically might stick? There is the current wording and removing that wording. Are there any other realistic proposals? Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no alternative because there's nothing that can convince Hipal. I will continue to maintain that it's patently absurd to not include a fundamental biographical fact about her that has been reported in national and international news, while pretending like her memoir is somehow noteworthy beyond that. I simply am not sure discussion is possible here because a handful of editors are not open to *anything* or *any* compromise. This mention was here for, if I recall right, a month before being removed. First it was trimmed down to nothing, then removed outright, all through edit warring with very little discussion. Somehow that's fine. Despite WP:EDITCON, adding it back is edit warring. And now, you can just veto by saying WP:BLP and WP:10Y like a wizard invoking incantations. I've literally been accused of defamation just yesterday for incredibly tame wording. It feels like the standard just kept shifting until finally it was just a straight "this isn't notable, regardless of the sources". I can't reason with that.

An RfC that draws in a greater audience would *absolutely* be warranted; such comments hold virtually no weight in an RfC. I'd be happy to work on drafting proposed language so we can finally resolve this. To say the extent of discussion in the last few days has been dreadful in both tone and substance would be an understatement. Toa Nidhiki05 02:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The newest and latest comprehensive biographical treatment of the subject by a reliable source says nothing about your proposed addition. The conesensus here and on the notice board appears to favor exclusion due to the paucity of sources attributing encyclopedic longevity. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

But her memoir is deeply and eternally notable. Sure. Toa Nidhiki05 03:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This bizarre delusion you have that the published memoir of our biographical subject cannot be mentioned or cited in reliable sources is extremely concerning and says a lot about your entrenched, battleground attitude. Since you have a great and abiding interest in the accusations of voter suppression under Republican governor Brian Kemp during the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, perhaps you should consider adding your material to those pages where it is relevant? After all, Kemp supported laws which are "considered by critics to be a form of voter suppression designed to disproportionately target minorities" to influence the electoral outcome. It sounds like those two articles are exactly what you are looking for. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

See, there you are with the insults again. What do you honestly think this adds to the discussion? Seems like gaslighting to me. Toa Nidhiki05 03:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. As I pointed out earlier, If the content is first examined to a depth similar to this dispute, there shouldn't be any problem at all. So far, no such examination has happened. Please work to gain consensus. --Hipal (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll be happy to focus when people stop insulting me. I feel that isn't too much to ask. Toa Nidhiki05 03:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Cards on the table, people. Associated Press:

But Jean-Pierre’s appointment also has its detractors. Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state of Georgia, said the promotion was unwarranted due to her advocacy of “stolen election conspiracy theories” following Democrat Stacey Abrams’ loss in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race. Democrats had accused Abrams’ opponent, Gov. Brian Kemp, of improperly purging voter rolls. Raffensperger is among Republican state officials who refused to support Trump’s unfounded claims that he lost reelection in 2020 because of fraud. At the outset of the coronavirus pandemic under Trump, Jean-Pierre said Fox News Channel was a “racist” network, angering conservatives.

Our articles on accusations of voter suppression under Republican governor Brian Kemp during the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election and various articles related to Fox News controversies demonstrate that this was not a conspiracy, and that Fox is accurately characterized as racist. Conservatives once again express their displeasure at the existence of facts, evidence, and reality. This is trivial, once again. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Look, I can't have a discussion if you're going to refuse to engage on a level beyond petty insults. I am not sure what you hope to achieve here. What is clear now is that you fundamentally agree with Jean-Pierre, and oppose including the content here for that reason. Toa Nidhiki05 04:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Our best reliable sources on voter suppression during the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election and our sources on voter suppression connected to Brian Kemp (see above linked articles) agree that the notion that this is "conspiracy" of any kind is nonsense. That’s just a Fox News talking point. Every major expert on voting declared there were problems with the 2018 election in Georgia. Right wing sources are trying to spin this by turning this set of facts into a "conspiracy". That’s once again, trivial, as this is what right wing news sources do every day. They take facts and evidence of wrongdoing and turn it around into accusations against the people who are calling them out for their misdeeds. This is, in fact, the entire policy of the GOP and Trump. It’s nonsense, and you’re trying to insert it into this article. Voter suppression occurred during the 2018 election in Georgia. That’s the opinion of experts. And voter suppression is a GOP strategy in every state where they operate. That’s another fact. None of this is unusual or surprising. It’s trivial. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see you be straight-up as to your beliefs and motives here. Of course, even if we take everything you've said at face value - and we shouldn't - she also called the 2016 election stolen. Do you agree with that, too? Toa Nidhiki05 04:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m more than happy to share the facts, evidence and data by our most trusted sources and election experts, as found in our articles on the accusations of voter suppression under Republican governor Brian Kemp during the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election. My belief is that you are ignoring this evidence and you’re motivated to distort this biography in an attempt to play a childish game of tu quoque to try and reverse the blame from the GOP on to Democrats as a form of deflection. Like I said, this is what the GOP does, and there’s a long history of it. The AP source I cited doesn’t cover the 2016 election, so I didn’t address it. I would have to know more about the context and the tweet and to see a good source about it, but knowing none of that, I can imagine the shock one must experience to wake up one day and realize that Donald Trump is the new POTUS. Could one react in such horror as to imagine the election was stolen? Perhaps this was a normal reaction. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are trying to coatrack into a discussion on the merits of her claims (which reliable sources do not back up, contrary to your claims; AJC found no evidence, WaPo didn't agree with them, PolitiFact rejected them, USA Today says there is no evidence), but it seems like it would be more productive to focus on why you think they aren't notable. Your personal opinion on the validity of her claims, and mine, are irrelevant to this discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest everyone drop it. The content has been removed, and this discussion isn't going to create the required consensus for inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think I will. An RfC is warranted. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly an option, though it seems a waste of time. Please fully label all potential references with author, publisher, and publication date. Please do not include any that are not worth considering (poor or unreliable sources that don't meet the extremely high requirements for BLP information, or poor sources that are inappropriate for demonstrating due weight or encyclopedic value for biographical and political information). --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Please stop repeating things you've already said and that don't apply to current sources being used and debated. Toa Nidhiki05 17:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I've provided additional details, so I'm not simply repeating myself, not that repeating policy is a problem. --Hipal (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to start an RFC, then please do so so everyone can move on. I agree it does look like consensus here is to exclude it, but if only the process would satisfy you, then please do start it! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 June 2022

"At the age of five" should be replaced by a syntactically consistent phrase like "When she was five years old" Newlangsyne (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Dangling modifier. Thank you, Newlangsyne. Bishonen | tålk 12:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 June 2022 - Protection

Could we get {{pp-dispute|small=yes}} on the page for the protection padlock and categorisation? Thanks. Aidan9382 _(talk) 09:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 June 2022

Addition of Queer 50 award: https://www.fastcompany.com/queer-50/list/rank/7 99.151.34.211 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much weight is due that award. What independent sources have covered it? --Hipal (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Well,...This is already in the article, added here, by someone on 3 June 2021. I moved it to personal life section here 4 June 2022. Seemed odd to be in Biden-Harris section, I was merely organizing. I'd never heard of FastCompany before. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done this information is already in the article, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

We should consider removing it if no better refs are available. --Hipal (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be remove. It's not notable and is even less notable than things not in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

In June 2021, this might have been OK. Now that KJP is a more prominent person, notability of text should be carefully considered. Fast Company is not listed at WP:RSP, if that helps. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 18:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 June 2022

Remove She was named to Fast Company's "Queer 50" list in 2021. per NOT. It has no independent references, and the award itself doesn't appear noteworthy. --Hipal (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Hipal (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• • I Agree with the above request by Hipal, for the same reasons.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    Also agree... per Hipal and per my above 22 June cmts. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 June 2022

The source does not say "LGBTQIA+." It says "LGBTQ." Of the other two sources used to describe her sexuality, the first says "LGBTQ+" and quotes her as identifying simply as gay, while the second refers to her simply as "gay".

The sources can take care of themselves. We don't need to adjust them to say what we think they ought to have said. We also don't need to to go great lengths to squeeze language into the lead that isn't supported by the body, or by the subject's own self-identification. I would have fixed this myself in half the time it took to make this comment, but apparently someone is having an edit war. GMG^talk 11:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Came across while patrolling ER's: Based on the sources, one of which quotes the subject self referring in saying "There I was ... a Black gay woman..." the other of which calls out the notability of this attribute that the subject is to being "...the first openly gay woman in her role." (my emphasis added); I think we should just say gay (link optional). Leaving this open for another patroller now. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done I went with LGBTQ, as "gay woman" and "lesbian" are under-precise, per the sources, when talking about the first for the position. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess I disagree on this. While people do describe themselves as two or more of L,G,B,T,Q, she has not (to my knowledge) described herself as B, T, or Q. As a gay person, I describe myself as "gay" and a member of the LGBTQ community, but I am not an LGBTQ person, since I am not all of those descriptions. I would say that "openly LGBTQ" is over-precise as the first person in this position because there has not been an openly trans or bisexual person in this position. "Q" is sometimes viewed as all-encompassing but not everyone in the community self-identifies as "queer."

Ultimately, she is "openly gay" (or "lesbian") not "openly LGBTQ." The sentence could say something like "she is the first member of the LGBTQ community in this role." I won't get into an edit war on this (as I got it started, or finished, depending on how you look at it, on the "stolen election" stuff), but the way it is currently written does not seem right to me, which is why I changed it and you reverted that. Math-ghamhainn (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

The sequence of events in the latter paragraph of section § Biden–Harris administration is confusing and confused, due to the year being mostly ommitted. Currently, the sentences refer to 2020, 2022, and 2021, in that order. Please fix as needed.

- 2A02:560:59D8:8400:886A:7AD3:79A:C024 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done As far as I can tell, none of the dates were in 2021. I left out one 2022 but I think that part is clear. Thanks for the suggestion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but the refs in the currently last sentence really are dated 2021. Likely, what brought about some of the confusion was that the 2022 dates are in early May and the 2021 date is in late May, and that it sounds just right that she becomes press secretary shortly before giving her first press briefing. In actuality, though, of course there are occasionally going to be circumstances in which a deputy press secretary gives a press briefing in place of her principal. The May/May thing looks to be just a misleading coincidence.

- 2A02:560:59D8:8400:2814:5EEE:55DF:D806 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right! I re-organized and clarified. Let me know what you think. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The additional paragraph split was just what was needed to get rid of the last vestiges of confusion. Very nicely done! :)

- 2A02:560:59D8:8400:2814:5EEE:55DF:D806 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Threat to Democracy

Her calling MAGA voters extreme is very relevant in her career. Needs to be included. Wikipedia is becoming a joke. It’s so obvious that the administration and editors are very biased (see the page on recession). I sited an NPR article. I think that’s good enough. What a joke. Tentemp (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The NPR ref is an interview, demonstrating no weight nor encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Her calling MAGA voters extreme is very relevant in her career." How is a common sense observation about these fanatics notable? Dimadick (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And there it is. That last comment shows how biased editors are. If it no big deal why not include it. If it condemning 70 million voters it should absolutely be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentemp (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC --Hipal (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Most Americans see Trump's MAGA as threat to democracy: Reuters/Ipsos poll WASHINGTON, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Days after Democratic President Joe Biden gave a fiery speech attacking former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies as an extremist threat, a Reuters/Ipsos poll completed on Wednesday found a majority of Americans believe Trump's movement is undermining democracy. Fifty-eight percent of respondents in the two-day poll - including one in four Republicans - said Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement is threatening America's democratic foundations. We all have biases, but the idea that MAGA is a threat to American democracy is a mainstream view. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Captain obvious here. They are threatening voting rights, they try to discount election results, and they are against peaceful transitions in power. Their opposition to democracy has been clear for years. Dimadick (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahh yes polls! Never wrong always correct. And that’s only one data point. If it’s common sense it should be included. And if you truly believe this poll then you should have no problem adding her quote into her profile. Wikipedia edits are extremely biased. Tentemp (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, WP:FOC. Knock off the crap. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What crap? If it’s so common sense it should be included Tentemp (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The references don't support it. --Hipal (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Stolen elections, back in the spotlight

Contrary to what some people insisted in prior discussion, Jean-Pierre's past advocacy for election conspiracy theories is back in the news, including international outlets:

• The Hill - Fox’s Peter Doocy asks White House press secretary if 2016 election was stolen
• WGXA - White House press secretary grilled for calling GOP election victories 'stolen'
• POLITICO - The Hunter Industrial complex ("During Tuesday’s briefing, press secretary KARINE JEAN-PIERRE forcefully defended herself when pressed about comments she once made calling the 2016 election “stolen.” Asked by Fox News’ PETER DOOCY to compare her comments to Trump’s 2020 election denialism, the press secretary dismissed it as “ridiculous.” She argued she was talking about voter access, while Trump did little to discourage a violent mob from attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6."
• The Independent (UK) - Karine Jean-Pierre brands Fox News’ reporter’s question ‘ridiculous’ during White House briefing
• The Independent (UK) - White House press secretary calls Fox News reporter’s question ‘ridiculous’
• Mediaite - ‘I Knew This Was Coming!’ Jean-Pierre Bristles When Fox’s Peter Doocy Confronts Her Over Tweet Saying Trump Stole Election
• RealClearPolitics - White House: "Ridiculous" To Compare Claims That 2016 and/or 2020 Election Were "Stolen"
• Independent Journal Review - Watch: Doocy Asks Karine Jean-Pierre About Comments Biden Says Would Make Her a Threat to Democracy
• Raw Story - ‘I was waiting Peter’: Karine Jean-Pierre calls Doocy’s claim ‘ridiculous’ as he presses about ‘MAGA Republicans’
• National Review - White House Press Secretary Called Out for Saying Trump ‘Stole’ 2016 Election
• Washington Examiner - Fire election denier Karine Jean-Pierre

There's clearly enough coverage in the past and now for a short section, and these new articles - which include her own, personal response and explanation - provide a good opportunity to add one. This is clearly a defining part of her public figure that isn't going away any time soon. Toa Nidhiki05 16:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A potential short section that could be added:

Following the announcement that she would be the next White House Press Secretary, Jean-Pierre was criticized for tweets that called the 2016 presidential election and 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election "stolen" and Donald Trump an "illegitimate President". Psaki defended Jean-Pierre, saying she now agreed both elections are settled, that Trump won in 2016 and Kemp won in 2018, and that "people should admit who won regardless of preference". Jean-Pierre later stated that Trump and Kemp had both won, that she was referring to "what was happening with voting rights," and that it would be "ridiculous" to compare her comments to Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

References

Toa Nidhiki05 17:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you please indicate publication dates, and identify any refs that you feel are clearly demonstrating a situation that is coverage of encyclopedic content rather than a WP:NOTNEWS situation?

And remove sources that don't meet BLP requirements, like Mediaite. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

These were all published in the last few days. I see no reason to supply a date for everything, although you're welcome to do so if you like, and your claim about Mediatie is simply inaccurate. Toa Nidhiki05 17:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the dates of the refs

The Mediate ref is not usable. WP:CONLOCAL is not a way forward. --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The Mediate ref is absolutely useable. Toa Nidhiki05 18:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please drop it. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Mediate. --Hipal (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m not going to drop it. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You put yourself at risk of a ban or block then, seemingly ignoring policy and consensus where WP:AE applies. --Hipal (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

An empty threat is just that. Toa Nidhiki05 12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like "Conservatives criticized her appointment, citing old tweets that called the 2016 presidential election and 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election 'stolen'. She later said she was making a point about voter rights and that she acknowledge the wins of both Trump and Brian Kemp." I wish I could make the second sentence shorter, but the muses elude me. This recent wave of coverage lends some lasting weight (a small amount) to criticism for those past comments. I don't think we need to cover the full exchange between her and Doocy; we are likely to see oodles of traded zingers in transient coverage of her press conferences.

I would prefer not to use the Mediaite source, as other, more dependably reliable sources are available. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Am I understanding this right, that this is all "back in the spotlight" because of Peter Doocy and no other reason? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's that plus a background rise in partisan tension after Biden's speech. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Biden's speech has nothing to do with KJP's tweet. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Hill and The Independent both bring it up as relevant background. It doesn't matter for this article at all; at least, I wouldn't support mentioning it in any language we add about this issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think the Biden remarks are really notable for anything here. The only things important here are her tweets, the criticism she faced, Psaki's response, and Jean-Pierre's response. That provides a balanced enough picture. Toa Nidhiki05 12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

past advocacy for election conspiracy theories is pushing it. This was hashed out on BLP/N less than six months ago.[1] Let's not go back there. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not proposing the article is going to say that, but I'm not going to censor myself here, sorry. As far as I'm aware, claiming elections are stolen is absolutely a conspiracy theory. Toa Nidhiki05 12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Following the announcement that she would be the next White House Press Secretary, Jean-Pierre was criticized for tweets that called the 2016 presidential election and 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election "stolen" and Donald Trump an "illegitimate President". Psaki defended Jean-Pierre, saying she now agreed both elections are settled, that Trump won in 2016 and Kemp won in 2018, and that "people should admit who won regardless of preference". Jean-Pierre later stated that Trump and Brian Kemp had both won, and that she was referring to "what was happening with voting rights"; she also said that it would be "ridiculous" to compare her comments to Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

References

Revised version without the Mediaite source, which was literally just reporting verbatim what Jean-Pierre said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the references.

NOTNEWS. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please provide an actual reason, not just links to policies. Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I already have. Let's not waste time repeating old discussions. --Hipal (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

So you're basically admitting here that no amount of new media coverage can ever make this content noteworthy. Got it. Sadly, that's not a valid reason, and I expect other editors will disregard it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please follow WP:FOC and WP:TALK to avoid sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh look, another hollow threat. Do us both a favor - stop. Toa Nidhiki05 16:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

[2] --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A WP:CITEBOMB doesn't make something more noteworthy that it would otherwise be. What we have is a situation where she used the word "stolen" in a tweet about the 2016 election, but she since clarified that she was making a comment about voter suppression and acknowledges that Trump won the 2016 election. The right-wing echo chamber firing up after Biden's speech doesn't make this more noteworthy.

On the other side, we have Republicans led by Trump out-and-out saying that there was voter fraud in 2020 sufficient to swing the election from Trump to Biden. These two things are not the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

But I think it is noteworthy even though it is exactly the same. Having a press secretary deny the legitimacy of an election (via voter suppression or fraud) is noteworthy. Very biased. Tentemp (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We write articles based upon references, not personal opinion. In the case of WP:BLP articles, the standards for references are very high, and consensus is required for inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus requires evidence, and also requires rational arguments. Your continual WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments will not be considered when the time for consensus comes. Toa Nidhiki05 04:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

[3] --Hipal (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree that including this is undue weight to minor oppositional stuff. Several of the sources linked like Raw Story and Washington Examiner are unreliable for politics. It seems to be borderline WP:FRINGE WP:SOAPBOXing political advocacy and POV pushing to insist that the press secretary's emotional utterances about the 2016 election should be used to cast her as an election results denier. Andre🚐 04:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Year of birth: 1974 or 1977?

Many sources have the year as 1974, but this page has it as 1977. Davidgschuster (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. Which references cite her age or year of birth?

No reference was indicated when it was added [4]. @Therequiembellishere:, did you have one in mind when you added it?

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/15/karine-jean-pierre-white-house-press-secretary Not currently used, gives an age of 47 on May 15, 2022.

The NYTimes article gives an age of 47 on May 20, 2022.

That's enough to put 1977 in question.

I'm finding 1977 quite a bit as well. We may need to include both per WP:DOB. --Hipal (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing quality sources that say 1977, or list her age as of becoming press secretary as 47. What are the best sources that say 1974? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

2022-47=1975, giving 1974 for the multiple May 2022 refs giving her age as 47 at the time. --Hipal (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Oof. Turns out I really need Template:Age as of date to do my math for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we should work to include both dates then. What are the best refs supporting 77? --Hipal (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources for 77 (in no order): Business Insider, BlackPast, Fox 13, BBC News Pidgin, National Black Justice Coalition, and RCI FM which has her at 43yo in 2020.

Jean-Pierre herself lists her birthday as August 13, 1974, in her autobiography (it's a few paragraphs into Ch. 1 and I was able to access it via Amazon preview). Between that and source like The Guardian (above) and The New York Times putting her at 47yo in 2022, I think we should list 1974 in the body and 1977 in a footnote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds best. --Hipal (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Haitian Creole

She states in her memoir that she doesn’t speak much Haitian Creole at all. I’ve never heard her speak any. Should the wiki page state that she’s fluent? Not sure if she is. 2600:8804:8C14:2600:ED7D:26F6:616E:85D7 (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Updating Partner Name

Ms. Jean-Pierre has asked that Suzanne Malveaux's be removed as her partner on the page, as this is no longer the case. I work as her webmaster, and she has asked me personally to have it removed. Please feel free to reach out for further verification. Mspikes82 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mspikes82: have any reliable sources covered the split? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"LGBT person" is very confusing

"LGBT person" is very confusing. Does it mean she (or he?) is a lesbian? A straight transsexual? Or a lesbian transsexual? Something else? As far as I understand it, being "LGBT person" is not a thing but rather a collection of things, where not all of them necessarily apply at the same time. Hopefully someone can clarify this. Robert1dB (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

A LGBT person is very much a thing. I could consider myself falling in all four categories, really. But it likely means she is the first person under the LGBTQ+ umbrella as a whole to have that job. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)