Talk:Valerie Jarrett/Archives/2015

1950's FBI reports - Smear of living person?

There is an impending edit war brewing here, with unsourced remarks followed by reversions because it is unsourced.

-I tried to source it, but for some strange reason, each time I tried to cite the article I receive an error message. So here is the source: examiner.com/article/fbi-investigates-valerie-jarrett-s-extensive-communist-family-ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2xspeak (talk • contribs) 6:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

While unsourced, it is coming from the lobbying organization [Freedom's Watch] who is mining FOIA data from the FBI. The web site WorldNetDaily is reporting the FW material. So three questions: Is WorldNetDaily too much a conspiracist tabloid to be used as a source? Is anything coming of the Red Scare era and the FBI investigations of communists in the 50's appropriate as a source for the Wikipedia? Is this basically an attempt to smear a living person through an alleged association of a relative with organizations with ties to communists? (I thought Joe McCarthy was dead.) Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

-No, it's not coming from a lobbying organization. It's coming from an article written by a journalist.

-As far as your "three questions" are concerned, if the FBI investigates, then it should be worth noting. Valerie Jarrett's Wikipedia page reads as if one of her staffers wrote it. There is absolutely nothing critical of her. You wouldn't happen to work for Valerie Jarrett?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2xspeak (talk • contribs) 6:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - could you please sign your posts with the four tildes? ~~~~ It's impossible to track the discussion. Flat Out (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted a sentence that references the subject's father, because the source supplied was unreliable. Please note that Examiner.com is not a reliable source and is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Please do not reinstate the sentence without a reliable source. Flat Out (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Lobbying and political smears are not appropriate for the biographies of living persons. See WP:BLP for Wikipedia standards for the quality of sources used for the biographies of living persons. [I have edited my paragraph to delete some erroneous information. DC] Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC) In the 1950's there was a witch hunt going on and many decent people were smeared and ruined through guilt by association. The attempted change in this article is also a smear through guilt by association. What is notable in the Wikipedia is based on what the mainstream press thinks is worth reporting (not what the right-wing nut job advocacy and conspiracist press thinks is useful to taint someone's reputation through a non-public investigation 50 years ago of a relative). WP:BLP talks about the general problem of biographies promoting their subjects, or smearing them. This is why only high-quality sources are allowed. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not only should the source be reliable, it should be about the subject of the article. Interpreting the source ourselves to imply something contentious about the subject of the article would be a way to commit smear by association. – Wdchk (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)