Talk:Roseanne Barr/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

BRD and RfC over recent edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wording here [1] was changed to this [2]. It was almost immediately reverted back. Which wording is more NPOV and compliant with Wikipedia policies on WP:BLPs and WP:NPOV? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Choices

1. Previous and current version: "The post was immediately criticized for its racist theme, as it used the word "ape" as an ethnic joke to refer to Jarrett, an African-American who was born in Iran. Barr defended the tweet as being a "joke", and stated in a subsequent tweet that "ISLAM is not a RACE, lefties. Islam includes EVERY RACE of people". Barr later deleted the "ape" tweet and posted an apology, stating that she was "truly sorry for making a bad joke about [Jarrett's] politics and her looks."
2. Edited version that was reverted out: "Even though Barr deleted the tweet soon after posting it and tweeted an apology along with stating she was quitting Twitter, the post was quickly criticized for its perceived racist theme. Barr defended the tweet as a "joke", and stated in a subsequent tweet that "ISLAM is not a RACE, lefties. Islam includes EVERY RACE of people". Barr's apology said she was "truly sorry for making a bad joke about [Jarrett's] politics and her looks."
3. Another version The post was immediately criticized as racist, as it used the word "ape" to refer to Jarrett, an African-American who was born in Iran. Barr stated in a subsequent tweet that "ISLAM is not a RACE, lefties. Islam includes EVERY RACE of people"; she later deleted the "ape" tweet and said that she was "truly sorry for making a bad joke about [Jarrett's] politics and her looks".

Survey

• Support Choice 2 Choice 1 is overly POV in its wording and improperly in Wiki-voice, redundant in how it repeats the same content, the writing is awkward/poorly executed and the tone is less than encyclopedic. Choice 3 is poorly written. Choice 2 solves these problems. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Choice 2 I don't see any particular POV issues, but this gets the point across more succinctly than Choice 1. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC) After seeing the third option, I have to support Choice 3 which I feel is a better choice than the other two as it doesn't leave out anything pertinent yet isn't overly wordy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1 or 3WITHDRAW RfC per Jytdog. Jumping prematurely to an arbitrary and limited set of alternatives precludes discussion and incorporation of new information from sources or editors. It is a counterproductive device that ensures a suboptimal outcome. The RfC should be withdrawn. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Alternative two is a convoluted denial of the facts as reported by every RS account and confirmed by simple observation of what happened. Choice 2 wording "perceived racist tone" is an insult to our readers and to the reputation and credibility of this encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely perceived to have been about race. As quoted in the article, Barr herself stated, "ISLAM is not a RACE, lefties. Islam includes EVERY RACE of people". According to Barr, it wasn't racist in intent. Others, however, perceived it - incorrectly - to be so. To say in Wiki-voice that it was racist and not perceived to be so, we are contradicting what Barr said and, in so doing, are essentially calling her a liar. Is that what we are supposed to do? Absolutely not. Hence, the reason why I have asked those commenting here to remember this is a BLP and that certain rules apply. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

We state what RS state. When RS are overwhelmingly calling it racist, we use that word. Because it's a BLP we include her denial. That's how Wikipedia works. Your statement does not accurately reflect how we do business on this website. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem very emotional about this. Perhaps you should wait to comment until you can get your emotions and resulting POV in check. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing they said was emotional and it's inappropriate to bully other editors to be quiet or to agree with you. You need to check yourself. Option 2 defends Barr right from the first words which is inherently POV.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"bully"? No, sorry - that's not bullying. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 08:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not your intent. Certainly patronizing, though, and always inappropriate to tell your peers to go away and be quiet and come back when they're less "emotional". There's not one iota of emotion in their sentences. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: "We state what RS state."—no, this is most definitely not what we do. We report everything in a NPOV manner, regardless of the manner in which the day-to-day news reports it. It should be very obvious why. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Concur with what Curly Turkey stated. We don't state what RS's state, Wikipedia is not a mirror site supporting online sources. We write encyclopedic prose here, we don't parrot news stories. And when we write that prose, we do it NPOV and in encyclopedic, unsensationalized manner and we certainly don't state what online sources do in Wiki-voice. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment. As a general comment, this is turning into a discussion of Wikipedia. We don't have to discuss what Wikipedia does and what Wikipedia does not do. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course we do, when a user argues for a particular wording because it's "what Wikipedia does". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Choice 3 then 1 All the high quality sources I've seen so far, including ones that carefully use labels like "racist" like Reuters, and the Associated Press, use the phrase "racist tweet" or similar; not allegedly racist, not "perceived" as racist - just racist. "Even though Barr deleted the tweet soon after posting it and tweeted an apology along with stating she was quitting Twitter, the post was quickly criticized for its perceived racist theme." is massive editorializing, unsupported by sources. Even version 1, "The post was immediately criticized for its racist theme, as it used the word "ape" as an ethnic joke to refer to Jarrett", refers to, in wikivoice, as it being an "ethnic joke", and having a "racist theme", neither phrases the sources I've seen use. She refers to it as being a joke, but the sources don't. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Choice 3 now also trims down the overwordiness of the paragraph, though that bit is less important; most important is the first sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Withdraw RfC per Jytdog, regular discussion on the text is best, rather than choosing between 3 terrible or suboptimal options. An RfC should only have begun once people had discussed this text normally and if that didn't lead to a consensus; that would've allowed the development of the full spectrum of options. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Choice 3 as the most NPOV and encyclopædic in tone. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Choice 3 per Galobtter. Gandydancer (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Strike my vote per Jytdog, SPECIFICO and Galobtter Gandydancer (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Choice 3, or something along those lines. We can say that the tweet was widely labeled as "racist," but we, as Wikipedia, shouldn't assert that it was in fact racist, as this goes against NPOV. Barr herself denies that there was ever racist intent. One small nit-pick with choice 3 is that it describes Jarret as "African American," but she's actually mixed-race, and arguably could even pass as White. -2003:CA:83CB:B600:900D:128D:CA26:447D (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support none of the above All three versions are way too complex. As 109.125.18.180 points out there is simpler wording that is more compliant with NPOV. By the way, given three choices, this discussion could go on endlessly. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Choice 3 Choice 2 is a denial of racism ("perceived racism"...oh please). As much as this issue makes it ever more obvious that Wikipedians are trying to put on journalist caps, I believe Choice 3 to be the most neutral and representative of the events that led to the cancellation of her show.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Suppport Choice 3 Choice 1 has an improper tone for Wikipedia, Choice 2 is too convoluted in its wording. --Joshualouie711^talk 18:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support option 3: clearest and most concise of the three; Option 1 is second choice; "Oppose" Option 2. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Withdraw RfC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support option 3: Most concise, but I have a caveat. Is Jarrett actually known as an African-American woman? My own (unreliable, I know) research indicates that she's probably about 3/8ths African-American, and to my eye she doesn't really look African-American. She's a PoC, but I would not have guessed African-American at first blush. I would have guessed either perhaps Latin-American or even just "indeterminate mixed race". Felice Enellen (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  Per the the US's one-drop rule, she's African-American, but "known as an African-American woman" is not encyclopædic. Perhaps something like "woman with African-American heritage"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  The One-Drop Rule is not actually a rule and not in common use in present-day USA. The label "African-American" is not very well-defined. I think it's best just to go by what sources would refer to her as in stories that did not involve a possible racial slur. Felice Enellen (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support choice 3 - per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Would also support racist and Islamophobic per sources. racist and Islamophobic tweet, racist and Islamophobic, racist and Islamophobic, racist and Islamophobic, racist, Islamophobic comment, racist, sexist and Islamophobic, racist and Islamophobic, racist and Islamophobic. Sources discussing past incidents (history of Islamophobic comments) - Islamophobic comments, It is not new information that Roseanne Barr makes racist, Islamophobic and misogynistic statements..., ...she has constantly attacked Islam and retweeted people with the same abhorrent views. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• none of these All of them are bad in one way or another - each one is too long and overloaded. User:Winkelvi this is a very poorly done RFC; please pull it and instead work toward framing better proposals. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  Explaining further - The content should say "racist tweet" as there is no mainstream source that did not simply say "racist tweet", and even Fox News said this (Headline: ABC cancels 'Roseanne' after Barr's racist tweet. Heck even Breitbart said "racist tweet" in the bold lead just below the picture, as Vice noted. We also don't need to explain why it is racist, which options 1 and 3 do, but two does not. Whether to do so should be its own RfC. 3 is not OK because it presumes we have not already called a spade a spade and said "racist tweet" (so the first part needs to go) and it explains why it is racist, which we don't need to do. So the options are not good and don't offer clear alternatives that cover the true range of what we could do here. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, the RfC was started way too early, without prior discussion, with two options that weren't very good. An RfC really isn't a very good place to really discuss wording. I agree on calling a spade a spade, though I don't expect that to get consensus (the best I expect is widely criticized as racist); I made the wording in the lead "racist tweet" for that reason. I added a quickly edited option 3 later as in my opinion at-least being better than the horrendous option 2, but it can definitely be worked upon Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Choice 3 seems to be the most concise with neutral POV. MissTofATX (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX
• None of the above, according to the BBC the comparison was to a character from Planet of the Apes, that might be offensive but it's subtly different to simply using "ape". I have no problem with using "criticised as racist", that is sufficient, we don't need "perceived as" since it is obvious that a criticism is not a fact (Film reviewers criticised the film for being - in their perception - boring?). We should establish whether the 'target' is/was generally described as African-American, WP editors shouldn't be deciding that, it's a social identification as much as skin-colour or parentage - though "AA descent" seems RS. The 'Islam is not a race' is fairly pathetic. If I call anyone from the Far East a 'Chinkee', does it cease to be racially offensive because "Far Eastern isn't a race". Irish probably isn't a race, so it isn't possible to be racist about 'Paddies'? Whether it should remain I am neutral about, but any idea that it is putting "her defence" is - well with a defence like that, who needs critics? Pincrete (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support 3 as it's more concise than 2 and 1 endorses the view that the comment was a joke. Landbroke99 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Of the options, support choice 3. I understand Jytdog's concerns that this RfC may have been rushed and that there are certainly more conceivable options here, but instead of trying to void the !votes of a large number of responding editors, which (as an old hand here) Jytdog ought to know ain't gonna happen, they should have instead constructed and floated their own proposed language. The fact that Jytdog cannot now recapture the !votes lodged for other options because they waited too many days to make their own proposal cannot be held as a procedural bar to a pretty obvious and overwhelming consensus here to adopt one of the proposed options. Every respondent to an RfC (or at least most) knows that the feedback they provide is not limited to the solutions proposed by the OP, and we each would have had that in mind when nevertheless choosing to endorse proposed wording. There is a bit of an WP:RFCBEFORE issue here, but frankly, with a topic as political as this, I can reasonably accept the proposition that this was going to be divisive no matter what, and an RfC is always warranted in such circumstances. I'm not about to award the OP a barnstar for collaboration on this one, as there was no effort to hash this thing out (I certainly agree with Jytdog that such preliminary discussion is always the more constructive and collegial first step), but neither can we just set aside an overwhelming consensus because of less than stellar bridge building. All of that said, as this is a not insignificant event in Bar's life: even if one of the options here is adopted, it surely should not preclude any expansion of coverage with specific attributable commentary and discussion of the response/fallout/criticism.

Moving from the procedural to the substantive issue: Option 3 is what I would consider most consistent with the WP:WEIGHT of the sources. I would remind some editors who have responded above and in the new thread below that this question cannot be answered on the basis of our own idiosyncratic logic regarding whether it "obviously" was or was not racist. Rather we merely relay, as accurately as we may, a perspective which is consistent with the balance of the sources. And indeed, the wording proposed in option 3 doesn't even go so far as to definitively state the comment was racist, as an empirical matter. Rather it says that the comment was criticized as racist. That seems strong enough to represent the fairly (if not absolutely) uniform response to the tweet, while maintaining encyclopedic tone. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise I believe any clueful admin will see the clear lack of consensus here. Lack of consensus is a very valid close. As you know. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That's true, it is an option. But I can't share your confidence in that outcome given the clear endorsement of a given choice here. I think it's very problematic, indeed kind of borderline disruptive, that entire new threads have been started below converging on trying to find consensus to the exact same issue as the one in this still-open RfC. But even with that unintentional muddying of the waters, I'm still seeing vastly more support for choice three of this RfC than any other proposal, by significant margins and with substantial agreement in the reasoning. It looks like clear consensus regarding the weight of the sources to me. I'm not saying its the single best option; I thought others below might have been equally promising. The opposition to the choices here probably should have been maintained in this thread, rather than forking the discussion; had that not happened, you may have convinced more respondents here that these were viable alternatives. But I feel fairly confident that the average closer would not view the balance of discussion here as no consensus, not with the chorus of endorsement for one particular option already proffered. That's my honest assessment, as someone who is somewhat neutral as to the outcome between the options. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support 3 of the three options given. Choice 2 is far and away the worst option. The "even though she deleted it" parts sounds more like someone coming to her defense or writing an editorial - not encyclopedic sounding at all. (And baffling - it seems to insinuate that her deleting it should resolved the whole controversy or something. Since when has celebrities deleting controversial comments ever stopped a backlash? That's not how the internet works.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yawn – Further proving that Wikipedia is trying to be little more than a news site and a popularity contest. I think WP:FART covers this, if I remember correctly. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oh yeah, while I'm at it – RFCs have become a bit overused as of late. Is this merely another case of such, or does it actually approach abuse? Just wondering. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  

FART does not cover this because she was fired. Her big comeback is over, the show is cancelled, so, yeah, it's significant. I can't comment on the second point. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with "yawn" but I don't agree with "fart". The cancellation of the show is significant. Bus stop (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think "immediately criticized" should be amended to "immediately and widely criticized", as there is a breadth of sources calling it racist Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Above I asked Winkelvi to pull this poorly framed RfC, and they have not, so I encourage folks who have already !voted to strike their !votes and call for this to be withdrawn or closed no consensus. The options here do not cover the range of options and at the same time are too complex, and if this is closed and one of these stated as 'consensus", we will be stuck with very suboptimal wording. Pinging everybody who has !voted - the ping is not personal: User:Winkelvi, User talk:SNUGGUMS, User:SPECIFICO, User:ZarhanFastfire, User:Curly Turkey, User:Galobtter, User:Gandydancer, not pinging IP b/c it doesn't work; User:Bus stop, User:TheGracefulSlick, User:Joshualouie711, User:K.e.coffman, User:Felice Enellen, User:Isaidnoway, User:MissTofATX. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If I agreed with your assessment of the RfC, Jytdog, I would withdraw it. But, because I do not, I will not. And let's point out it has generated discussion, some productive discussion, therefore the underlying purpose of an RfC in general has been achieved. "RfC" does, after all, stand for "Request for Comment(s)". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

For an RfC to be productive it needs to be well framed, as the guidance for RfCs points out. I did understand that you don't wish to withdraw it, since you didn't reply before. We will see what others do with their !votes. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I won't be striking my !vote. Jytdog's non-sequitur of a comment here has made it clear he has bad-faith political motiviations for pulling this. Why not just say "You're a racist, Curly Turkey!" instead of "distancing" yourself with this "kowtowing" horseshit? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that because I would not say that about anybody. I have no idea if you hold racist views or not. You have still provided no sources to support the distancing language. That is what I care about most - that and the confusion over what NPOV means. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog: sources for what? This is an encyclopaedia, and the wording is encyclopaedic. Show us one source that doesn't criticize the tweet as racist.

"I have no idea if you hold racist views or not."—then demonstrate your good faith by retracting your "kowtowing" comment. Kowtowing to racists is racist. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So instead of bringing sources, you are going all ballistic. It is a fringe view that this was not a racist tweet; i have no idea who the fringe advocates are, or what they are like, that you are kowtowing to whose views you are arguing for Wikipedia to represent, since you have brought no sources for this view. Again, ceasing to respond to you. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC))

But sure, I will strike. No drama. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog: I have not argued to represent anyone's views, least of all "that this was not a racist tweet". Rewording a bad-faith accusation is not the same as retracting it.

Now show us a source that does not criticize the tweet as racist. All the sources I've seen do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

For those wondering what this is about, it is Curly's statement below, arguing against saying "racist tweet": How is this preferable to "criticized as racist"? It's shorter and also takes no POV on whether it actually was racist. There are still no sources being brought to say that "racist tweet" is somehow not NPOV and not the very broadly held mainstream view on this. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't argue against "racist tweet" (and you've provided no diffs that I have)—I argued the other wording was shorter, NPOV, and more encyclopaedic (which it objectively is). This is just more of you trying to paint those you disagree with as racists rather than engaging in discussion in good faith. You still have "whose views you are arguing for Wikipedia to represent" up there with not a diff in support, and you have yet to provide a source that does not criticize the tweet as racist. You think you can make that go away by ignoring it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:Winkelvi reviewing the !votes as they stand now, I cannot see this being closed in any way but "no consensus". Would you please withdraw this so we can start to work on a new set of RfCs? We can of course wait but the sooner we can get this resolved the better for everyone. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  I don't see where you get that; we have 10 supports for choice 3; 6 for withdraw or "none of the above"; and 1 for choice 2. Several of the supports came after your call for a withdrawal, and the supports are nearly double the withdraw/"none of the above"s. On top of that, while Pincrete voted "none of the above", they appear to have supported a version similar to choice 3 in the ""Allegedly" racist" discussion below. There's no basis for "no consensus" here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

To summarise my response, more info, more context, less emphasis on labelling. In the proposals we have "Islam is not a race" as Barr's defence - which is meaningless unless the Muslim Brotherhood content of the tweet has been mentioned (is Ms Jarrett a Muslim? I still don't know, or is she simply being accused of being excessively Muslim friendly?) - and the 'Muslim' element does not appear to have sparked much reaction, so why include that 'defence'? The wording I favoured was 'criticised as racist', that is objectively true, is part of the narrative sequence (Barr tweeted, then others took offence), is concise and is neither weasle-ing nor putting into WPVOICE that the content was objectively racist. 'Allegedly racist' does seem weasle-y when a clear, neutral alternative is available. Pincrete (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"Criticized as racist" is still weasel-y because it implies the criticism has no validity to it. Also can I have a clarification as to what RfC means?--Harmony944 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it that way, where space does not allow for full exposition of the subject (where we don't for example have space to say why and by whom something is criticised as 'pseudoscience' or some other negative - or as here where full exposition is undue), I'd always prefer to phrase half-a-notch on what you might call the 'weasel-y' side of the scale. It may be a function of how I react as a reader, I always prefer to be given the info and left to apply by own judgements, less can be more. I can't help noticing that we only tend to get these disagreements with negative descriptors. Pincrete (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quoting tweets: almost always a bad idea

I want to compare and contrast two sections of the Controversies section: the sections Parkland shooting tweet and Zimmerman tweet. Both concern events of no lasting significance: Barr tweeted something ill-advised, there was some form of criticism, and there was an eventual resolution of some sort. In the Parkland section, we tell this story in a nice, concise 3 sentences: what happened, what it means, and what was the eventual resolution. The Zimmerman section is more than twice as long, and includes the full text of the tweet (as well as too many details about a lawsuit that went nowhere). The sentence before the quote explains, with sources, exactly what happened and why the tweet mattered; I defy anyone to identify an additional encyclopedic purpose served by the inclusion of the tweet itself. (Preemptively, let me note that "letting readers decide for themselves" is not an encyclopedic goal, and readers who care can click on links to sources.)

I propose to remove the quote from the Zimmerman section. (And also shorten the uninteresting details about the lawsuit.) --JBL (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done If folks want to expand the summary of the tweet slightly, I can see that rationale but I do think it should be summarized following reliable secondary sources not quoted.

I also wonder if the Parkland tweet really should be a whole subsection (being of even lesser encyclopedic significance than a tweet that launched a lawsuit) but I don’t particularly have a proposal for what reorganizing would allow for just a sentence in a broader section. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's definitely better. There is probably more condensing that could happen here -- it is not clear that any of these needs its own subsection. --JBL (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC re Barr tweet about Jarrett

The consensus is to keep as is. There is no prejudice against discussing whether the word "racist" should have quotation marks around it since the suggestion of removing it was proposed late in the RfC with no discussion by other RfC participants.

Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Should the tweet be described as a "racist tweet" in the two places it is mentioned in the body and the one time in the lead (3 total), or something like "a tweet that was widely described as racist"?
2. Should we quote the tweet?
3. Should we describe why the tweet is racist or widely considered as racist in the body? (for example, all three versions proposed in the RfC above did so)
4. Should we quote or characterize Barr's subsequent statements about the tweet itself?

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Instances

For clarity, the existing lead language is “controversial tweet, which many called “racist” and she later called “a bad joke”.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

For clarity:

• the first appearance in the body is in the subsection about Roseanne in the Career section, and currently reads On May 29, 2018, the series was canceled by ABC in the aftermath of a tweet widely considered to be racist. I fixed that today. Until today the relevant bit read: ...in the aftermath of a joke Barr made on Twitter earlier that day. which was generated here.
• the second appearance in the body is in the subsection about this tweet in the Controversies section, which in its entirety, is:

On May 29, 2018, Barr posted a tweet about Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to former President Obama. It read "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj" [sic] which was widely criticized as being racist about Jarrett ("vj"). Barr was initially defensive, but later posted an apology "for making a bad joke about [Jarrett's] politics and her looks." She disputed allegations of racism, saying she believed Jarrett was Saudi (or white). Barr also said she made the tweet, which she called wrong and indefensible, at 2:00 am while on Ambien, a sedative. Sanofi, which manufactures Ambien, responded by tweeting that "racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication", though noted Ambien had been linked to reduced inhibitions. Later that day, ABC canceled Roseanne and removed the show’s content from the network website. The cancellation announcement from ABC president Channing Dungey, the first African-American woman to head the network, called Barr's remark "abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values". Within three weeks, the television show was revived as spinoff The Conners, with mostly the same cast and crew, minus Barr.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

votes!

• 1 - no change, nothing proposed and current lead is OK.

2 - weak no, unnecessary as RS provide characterization and context and results, but adding raw text would be first-person and is unnecessary propagating offensive material, and if it goes to that detail then should provide context of quoting tweet it was responding to ... seems too much detail.

3 - no, respecting that the prior rfc results specifically on this did not want to.

4 - neither. Should be WP:PARAPHRASE of RS, not us characterizing directly about her statements. Not quotes in any case.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as is Not sure how I'm expected to answer this (technically), but in June I went with Curly Turkey's way and it's still only September. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) Current text as described above appears to be OK. I see no reason to change it at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as is the wording is clear and has narrative sequence. Pincrete (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as is but change "noted" to some other verb (as per WP:SAID). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 18:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep As is. Seems quite fine to me. (Summoned by bot) ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• Small tweak. I'd be more comfortable if there were no scare quotes with "racist", as I don't think its appropriate in these circumstances, as a matter of representation of weight in the sources, and creates a slight sense of skepticism of the descriptor in-Wikipedia's own voice. To my ear, it feels a bit too far towards original research to be tolerated, where the term is treated in this way. That said, the overall statement in the lead is basically in compliance with what I would expect to see in a lead in this context, given the intersection of WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP; that is, a concise description of the criticism and her voiced perspective on the matter. I certainly see no reason as to why we would not quote the tweet itself, as this is vital context to the reader and I can't see any good editorial argument for obfuscating its content from the reader. As to other issues regarding later language I'd need to review each independently, and the format of the RfC is such that the scope is so broad that is impractical to try to answer all of the topics it touches upon. More specific proposals on specific language later in the body than the lead would be useful. If anyone proposes any, feel free to ping me back fore any further !voting/discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• User:Markbassett, WP:PARAPHRASE is a warning about unacceptable editing. If what you meant was WP:SUMMARIZE reliable sources, that is exactly the question - should the summary include quotes or just a characterization or description of what she said about her initial tweet. Obviously everything in a BLP is per reliable sources and the other policies and guidelines. The first point offers are a clear question, unclear what "nothing proposed" is about. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accident age and where first child

Article current claims the car accident occurred when she was 16 and that the baby was born while she was hospitalized. This source claims she was 17 and that the baby was born after her hospitalization, not during. More sources needed. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

QAnon beliefs and support

There is a sectin in the article about Rosanne Barr's support for Donald Trump. However there is no separate documentation of her clear and vocal support of the QAnon complex of conspiracies. Her beliefs are well documented by Rosanne herself in her own tweets, as well as in the QAnon WP article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnonand is highly relevant.

"Supporting Donald Trump" is not necessarily synonymous with believing in "Q", following and trusting the messages from Q or believing the stories that are now described under the heading of "QAnon Conspiracy Theory"

Therefore this should be separately documented under it's own heading. I know I cannot edit this article, so who will?

The archive material is first hand in terms of Barr's twitter feed. Here a 2ndary source articles to get started; this from 2018; https://medium.com/@willsommer/roseanne-barr-is-tweeting-about-qanon-a-new-pizzagate-style-conspiracy-theory-234526f52e54 Quotes a few Barr tweets, as well as Rush Limbaugh saying of Barr; "Now, I’m not familiar with the conspiracies that she believes in, but they are conspiracies that are associated with this relatively private chat group on the internet called 4chan and a group called QAnon. Now, I don’t know how that’s pronounced, but it’s spelled the letter Q, A-n-o-n. So I’m guessing it’s QAnon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennpublic (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This article quotes a survey respondent who says their partner was inspired by Barr's twitter feed to start researching then following Q beliefs. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/qanon-families-friends (as an example of her influence as a Q amplifier)

"Active Politician"

Barr is not an active politician and should not be included in the list of. She stood for office 13y ago and lost. She has political views and is quoted as saying she votes for herself using write-in space on ballots. This does not make someone a politician.

I'm assuming WP has some kind of definition for a politician - eg a person either in elected or appointed to government office or current candidate for same... or some-such. There is no definition I can come up with that makes Barr an "Active Politician", so this is factually incorrect.

Who can correct list memberships?

The article is automatically added to the list when the "activepol=yes" flag is added to the biography template on THIS page. (i.e., not in the article page itself.) I agree that this is not an appropriate tag for Barr at this time, and have removed it. PianoDan (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

Hello. Roseanne Barr briefly guest-voiced herself on the animated show Futurama, in the episode Three Hundred Big Boys, which aired in 2003. She is listed in the end credits but this is nowhere on her Wikipedia page. Please add it. 173.88.123.127 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for that? QoopyQoopy (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased and misleading content

The entire tone of this page is negative. I would be interested to know how much of this was added or edited following Ms. Barr's controversial Tweet. I'm seeing sources cited, but if the statement is "Roseanne did xyz" and the "source" is quoting a person who told his/her version of events in some interview or other, then that isn't reliable verification of facts (i.e. If a cast member from the original show went on Oprah and said, "Roseanne once mooned the studio audience" you would either need corroborating evidence to cite for Wiki or you say in the page that a cast member once claimed Roseanne mooned the audience and then you cite the interview. Other bio Wiki pages do that, but here I see things worded as though it's fact instead of "according to" or "in so-and-so's opinion...." It's very skewed. One example, makes it sound like Roseanne was cast for the part. Uh, no. Even the credits say something like "based on a character created by Roseanne Barr." I can't remember the exact wording. The point is, this page is written like a commentary on her personality instead of an objective biography of her life and career. Take out the feelings and keep in the facts. MandieJ1975 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for check

Hi! I've just added 3 new references to this article. 2 of their sources are listed as trustworthy on Wikipedia's list, but I'd appreciate it if someone could look over them to ensure their relevance and reliability. At the moment, they're listed as [92], [93] and [94].

1. Coaston, Jane (2018-06-11). "George Soros is not a Nazi, explained". Vox. Retrieved 2022-04-21.
2. Tamkin, Emily (6 August 2020). "Five myths about George Soros". The Washington Post. Retrieved 21 April 2022.
3. "Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)". www.govinfo.gov. Retrieved 2022-04-21.

Thanks! ☺ --SeparateTitan92 (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

[ADD: Rosanne Barr has a cameo in one episode of the television show Futurama. It is not listed here.] 67.83.101.150 (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: She appears as herself 67.83.101.150 (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Recoil (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

She appears in "Three Hundred Big Boys" as herself 67.83.101.150 (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0584461/characters/nm0001683

https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Roseanne_Barr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_Big_Boys 67.83.101.150 (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: All three provided sources are not acceptable as they are user-generated content. See also WP:CITEIMDB, WP:FANDOM, WP:CITEWP, and WP:CIRCULAR. – Recoil (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Lede

The lede on this article is terrible. Instead of being a summary of her life/career and establish her notability, it focuses on salacious controversies and exceptional events in her life. I'm going to try to make it a better summary of the article. Ashmoo (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Info Wars

Roseanne made an appearance on Info Wars in March of 2023 where she was interviewed by Alex Jones. In it she espoused numerous false conspiracy theories including but not limited to an illuminati of elite individuals who have heart attack and earth quake machines used to assasinate celebrities and destroy cities via fake hurricanes. There are multiple news outlets that reported on this interview, and it's one of her most recent public appearances in several years. I believe this is relevant to be mentioned in the article. 2601:602:900:7910:A8B3:DED3:4FA:2B17 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox political parties

Barr is categorized under Category:Utah Republicans but Republican Party isn't listed under her political parties in the infobox. Why the inconsistency? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Just the showbiz? No reality?

It should be obvious to anyone who's lived in Los Angeles that Barr has done all these outrageously loony, offensive things just to keep getting attention in an industry that requires publicity to succeed. I can't help wondering: Is there no practical way to explain that, leaving us to dryly document what seems like a series of pointlessly demented activities? ("Series" is singular, BTW.) As our purpose here is ostensibly to inform and educate, wouldn't there be some value in conveying some understanding of how the business worked, rather than simply reporting it all at face value and sending readers on their way thinking, "What a crazy, pathetic person"? Just saying. I'll hang up now and take my answer off the air. – AndyFielding (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Plastic surgery quote

"Barr went back to stand-up comedy but with a notably different appearance: she has lost some weight, dyed her hair blond, and had plastic surgery, which she does not recommend. "Now I realize that everyone has to get old and die, but it was still a very bad experience....No one looks better after plastic surgery. Just pink and shiny. At the end of it, you look like an idiot." Much of her surgery was for health reasons; she had a rhinoplasty to correct sleep apnea; while her breast reduction surgery was for health reasons."

I'm not doubting the quote or the health reasons, but can anyone find a citation to back them up? Is it from a tv show or radio interview? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phish0202 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is something I've never gotten: If a comment's "unsigned", why is it signed (identified) anyway? Is this what happens when you don't manually "sign" with the four tildes—but you're logged in, so the system knows who you are? Why should that matter? Is it a way the system has of chiding you for not using the tildas? Doesn't the system have better ways to spend its time? Maybe it needs some hobbies? (I'm using the tildas, BTW.) – AndyFielding (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)