Talk:Valerie Jarrett/Archives/2019
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ethnicity: More European than African
Can someone please explain to me how she/both her parents can be African Americans when she is more European than African (according to the below)?
- Her parents are both African-American. On the television series Finding Your Roots, DNA testing indicated that Jarrett is of 49% European, 46% African, and 5% Native American descent. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- That is a question for the reference desk. See Help:Reference desk Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Her parents are both African-American. On the television series Finding Your Roots, DNA testing indicated that Jarrett is of 49% European, 46% African, and 5% Native American descent. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- A human has 23 pairs of chromsomes. A pair is a chromosome from each parent. The chromosomes split up and one from each pair goes into a gamete. One's gametes do not have equal numbers of genes from each parent. The mixture is random. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Bad sources
The sources The Western Journal, The Daily Caller, and PJ media are used, and repetitively so, to support negative information. They are all right wing media sources, used to support negative information about a person associated with Obama. PJ Media is pretty much of a blog and should not be in any BLP; it is almost entirely derived from the Daily Caller piece. The Western Journal piece 1) is a copy of the Daily Caller piece (as it notes) and its use here is pure reference padding and b) Western Journal is itself a rag and really should be blacklisted (see here). The Daily Caller is a rag and unreliable per community consensus here. This edit was incompetent with regard to 1) BLP policy and 2) what reliable sources are in WP. 2604:2000:1481:C006:F14C:B674:B294:9FDD (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Actually it was pretty competent understanding of both sourcing and NPOV and your reaction makes me wonder how neutral your position on this is. NPOV would require balanced coverage from both sides to be in the article. Also you were bold in removing an established edit on this page and I contested so that was where it should have ended until the consensus was established unless it was egregious violations of BLP which it was not. So far the only source that seems to be actually a problem is the Daily Caller. I'd also like to remind you of WP:NPA, calm down, smoke a joint do whatever it takes but do something. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the numbered editor's very correct objections to those sources are couched in ideological language. For the record, based on the Wikipedia articles concerning those media, they'd appear to be dubious sources for any article, other than a description of their reporting and opinions when relevant to an article. If the Wikipedia articles are incorrect, please update them...especially now that they're on my Watchlist. Tapered (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I have no objections to them being removed based on consensus or a good argument. Thanks for the opinion, I was unsure on this myself hence why I had refrained from a second revert. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah I can see why those could be considered questionable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)