Talk:Roseanne Barr/Archive 1

Random Wisdom
Didn't she claim to be a lesbian, have multiple personality disorder, have been abducted by aliens and various other claims? I think there's some stuff missing here... Tuf-Kat 04:50, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

She said all that jokingly, not seriously. She does not truly have "multiple personality disorder", she knows she is not a lesbian, and knows there are no "aliens" coming around and snatching people up. Most of us know not to take her jokes literally. It's all part of her salty humor. ~c~
 * You may believe that it is jokingly, but can you prove it? It has been reported in many many places as a fact. So if it isn't, a lot of people clearly didn't get the joke, and perhaps she should write some detractions on her website. --IceHunter (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

She also said she was abused as a child, and made much of growing up Jewish in Salt Lake City. RickK 05:18, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jewish in Salt Lake...That's hillarious.--Gbleem 06:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Roseanne is Jewish. Yes, Salt Lake City is mostly (not all) Morman, but there ARE Jewish people living in Salt Lake City; it's not unheard of. ~c~


 * She also claimed that her father masturbated in front of the family, and that she had recovered memories, back when that was trendy. Back in the day when people "worked" on recovering memories of childhood abuse, first remembering the easy ones, then the hard ones, until they had implicated their whole family and so could relax in the knowledge that their unhappiness was not their own fault, Roseanne was referred to as a "celebrity survivor".

Give me a break! Roseanne is an inspiration and her honesty is to be commended! These characters above seem to have nothing better to do than to try healing their own issues by hurting others. How sad indeed. Rosie....we love you!!! RS

How true. And Roseanne never claimed that her memories were "recovered" or had ever been forgotten. She just did not reveal the painful memories to the press for many years. In addition, she actually did not intend to reveal the incest publicly, but a press member sneaked into one of the meetings with her psychologist and leaked it to the public. This resulted in many misreports and tabloid rumors which led to Roseanne coming out and speaking with magazines like People and the news magazines. She was not merely "following a fad" here; Roseanne is very strong-willed and doesn't cow to any trends of the day. It is unfortunate that some people feel threatened enough by a strong-minded woman and try to discredit her. ~c~

In a 1991 People magazine interview, she claimed to have been an incest survivor, accusing both parents of physical and sexual abuse, charges which they have publically denied. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001683/bio  Just in case you don't believe it. Seminumerical 09:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How on earth did this get the title "Random Wisdom"? Conjecture, opinion, and heresay are not fact and certainly not wisdom. And on a side note, how does a member of the press "sneak" into a private session with a psychologist, as a bookcase perhaps?(DML)


 * Actually this is in The Independent from February 17, 1997: "Roseanne says that she has a condition called dissociative identity disorder which she describes as having a personality that's been "hit with a hammer and smashed, so all the emotions have been separated". The star, in therapy now for five years, says her personalities are so distinct that they have different signatures." — Mike  Allen   01:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup
I'm tagging this article for cleanup, as it reads like a tabloid article rather than an encyclopedia entry. I feel the emphasis should be more on her career than what Mick Foley says about her in his book (and I cannot for the life of me figure out why that was deemed relevent). -Fearfulsymmetry 02:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Roseanne is recovering from MPD with the help of the famous therapist Colin Ross. If you look on her web site, she discusses this. She is also mentioned briefly in the book, "Miss America by Day." The author describes an episode of MPD Roseanne went through when they were at a function together.

I note that the "official myspace page" external link actually goes to some random myspace page with no apparent link to Roseanne Barr. This should be replaced with a correct link, or removed if such is unavailable. 71.105.3.130 (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention at all of Rosanne's role in "The Larry Sanders Show" Seasons 3 and 4. I recommend adding that information as she was a significant enough character to be married to Larry and then divorce. 161.130.197.68 (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Proper name of article?
Barr legally changed her name to ONLY "Rosanne", with no last name, many years ago. This has also been the name she has used professionally for some time. It seems, then, inappropriate that this article be called "Roseanne Barr". I am going to go about changing that.


 * Please sign your comments. And you are incorrect. She legally changed her name back to "Roseanne Barr" in 2003, I believe, which is why she is now credited under her full name. Rhythmnation2004 01:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Late March edits
The edits from late March, begining with Jami86e's edit on March 23 to 67.186.128.242 on March 28, were reverted for several reasons: 1) There was blantant vandalism in several of the edits. 2) A (presumably) sarcastic merge was proposed. 3) The bulk of the edits by Treybien were mostly unecessary -- much relevant and important information was removed during these edits. There were a couple of worthy edits, but someone should shift through the different versions and pick and choose what seems appropriate for this article. -- 70.121.222.2 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Guess what?
Believe it or not, my Mom knew Roseanne when she was little! I have an uncle who goes by Barr (it's actually his middle name), named after Roseanne's father, who was a friend of my Grandpa.--Matau 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

READ Biographies of Living People Before you edit
If it appears here it better have a source that meets Wikipedia attribution guidelines. Dominick (TALK) 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

Not the best B-class, but a B class all the same.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 09:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives?
It says she was (or will be?) on Desperate Housewives... I didn't find anything about this online. Is this true? Or did someone get this confused with laurie metcalf? Angelatomato 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversies - Obama
Nothing on, I paraphrase, that "a vote for Obama is a vote for right wing republicans"? Surely this deserves notice. 76.186.118.246 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon.
She had a cartoon series on TV, around the same time as The Bedrock Flintstone Kids. I think it was called Rosie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It was called Little Rosie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.147.182.203 (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Roseanne Barr suffer a (temporary) facial paralysis ?
Somebody has put Roseanne Barr's name on the list of famous persons with Bell's Palsy. Talk:Bell's palsy I see no evidence in this article, and only limited evidence in a Google search. Can somebody clarify and, importantly, provide a reference? Power.corrupts (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's now sourced. — Mike  Allen   01:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture
Shouldn't there be a better picture for this page? It's not very recent at all and it really does not even show her. 67.175.55.85 (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Terrible picture. The worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia, in fact. Fuzzform (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The worst of it is that it'll stay there, since it's not fair-use. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll chime in also and say that the image may as well be of the back of her head. Wikipedia is not Myspace.  142.59.239.106 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversies
It appears this problem occurred earlier with an Obama-related quote from Barr, and is now occurring with the Israel-related quotation. But it seems to me that it's a bit of a fabrication to refer to something she's said or written as a "controversy" with only a reference to the quote. There's a lot of things Barr has said on her blog and elsewhere that MIGHT be controversial, but it seems the burden of proof for controversy should be some news story about the incident or something else actually establishing the relevance of the term "controversy" to the actual incident described. It's a controversial STATEMENT, sure, but has it actually sparked any sort of controversy? I think not. 72.155.172.233 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

-Wasn't there a bit of controversy back on July 26th 1990 during a baseball game where Roseanne Barr intentionally sung the National anthem off key in an attempt to be funny? I know this is a bit off topic from the other thing but I think this could be a bit noteworthy to put on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.140.152 (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

^^^This should be in the article!!^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.125.195 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * During the first few years her sitcom was on the air, Roseanne accused her father of sexually abusing her. I recall this used to be included in this article; it is now, however, mysteriously gone. This is fairly noteworthy, as it caused a huge controversy at the time, being as her family (including brother and sister) denied any abuse, while her sitcom family stood by her and believed her. It should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.180.97 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was removed with this edit. I do agree with you though. The fact that it was brought up again this year on the Oprah show proves that it may still be relevant. — Mike   Allen   05:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hysterectomy or Appendectomy?
Once again proving that Wikipedia sucks as a resource, the 'editors' have gone ahead and included her reason for canceling 'The Real Roseanne' show as being an emergency appendectomy; yet the article for 'The Real Roseanne Show' lists an emergency hysterectomy. Can someone correct this WITH CITATIONS?...I'm too tired to make yet ANOTHER Wikipedia correction today.207.172.166.181 (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This says a hysterectomy. That's what I'm going by, it's more reliable. Thanks. --MikeAllen (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Presidential candidate
Apparently there is a video out there in which a satirist portrays Roseanne as announcing that she is running for President of the United States AND for Prime Minister of Israel. Unfortunately, some credulous folks are taking these seriously, and keep trying to add her fictitious run for president to this article and that on the 2012 presidential election. Please keep an eye on this. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  21:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL Oh god. Thanks for the heads up.   Mike   Allen   21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Roseanne, she really is running for President of The United States of America, lol. She said so on her website and also posted a video along with it. She said "I am officially announcing that I am running for President of The United States of America; as well as Prime Minister of Israel - This is a two-fer!". I'm sure this is just another bizarre political statement of hers or a publicity stunt, but shouldn't there be a mention of it somewhere? She did go all the way to Washington, in front of the White House to announce it lol. http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog//roseanneforprez/   SashaJohn (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * After various false incidents over the years, we now require two verifiable citations to impartial third-party reliable sources (her own blog doesn't qualify) in order to list somebody as a candidate for POTUS. If it's reported in the actual news (as opposed to Twitter, political blogs and the like), it can go in. (And I don't think she's legally qualified to run for PM of Israel.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom Arnold
I actually know very little about Roseanne, but recently saw a documentary about "sitcom scandals" that suggested that actor Tom Arnold essentially took control of her life for several years, yet there is no narrative discussion at all about him. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahaun (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Socialist


Thismightbezach (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you got a reliable source we can use for this assertion? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * O'Reilly's show can be used as source (though not linking to the YouTube video). It ca be found here. — Mike  Allen   23:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it says she said she was raised a socialist, but when flat-out asked, declined to accept that label and claimed a lot of common ground with Sarah Palin. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Image
I don't believe the image is free. The source is just a mirror copy of her Wikipedia article and the author is "unknown". — Mike  Allen   00:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can she be both "jewish" and a follower of Jesus Christ?
That seems like a contradiction to me. Uucp (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it doesnt make sense to you, certainly does not make it untrue or even improbable. 98.244.116.15 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * St. Peter and St. Paul didn't see any contradiction there. Varlaam (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You've never heard of Jews for Jesus???

99.149.196.156 (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Melvin Kathleen

flashing rumour?
roseanne Barr was at some inogirel party, and quick flash or something pretty sure people did'nt like it. --Pabloviva22 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would that be relevant to her biography? — Mike   Allen   23:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * its on wikipedia, spitting and grabbing her crotch. --Pabloviva22 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes because it was in many, many reliable sources and it's something that is still talked about today. Even the President of the United States had something to say about it.  Anything else? — Mike   Allen   23:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Who created the TV show is disputed
These two sentences from the article

''In 1987, The Cosby Show executive producers Marcy Carsey and Tom Werner wanted to bring a "no-perks family comedy" to television. They hired Cosby writer Matt Williams to write a script about factory workers and then signed on the inexperienced Barr to play Roseanne Conner.''

Are taken directly from the citation, an Entertainment Weekly article. But, they are contradicted by the piece Roseanne wrote in the current issue of New York magazine, here, in which she says this:

''After my 1985 appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, I was wooed by producers in Hollywood, who told me they wanted to turn my act into a sitcom. When Marcy Carsey—who co-owned Carsey-Werner with her production partner, Tom Werner (producers of The Cosby Show)—asked me to sign, I was impressed. I considered The Cosby Show to be some of the greatest and most revolutionary TV ever.''

''Marcy presented herself as a sister in arms. I was a cutting-edge comic, and she said she got that I wanted to do a realistic show about a strong mother who was not a victim of Patriarchal Consumerist Bullshit—in other words, the persona I had carefully crafted over eight previous years in dive clubs and biker bars: a fierce working-class Domestic Goddess. It was 1987, and it seemed people were primed and ready to watch a sitcom that didn’t have anything like the rosy glow of middle-class confidence and comfort, and didn’t try to fake it. ABC seemed to agree. They picked up Roseanne in 1988.''

''It didn’t take long for me to get a taste of the staggering sexism and class bigotry that would make the first season of Roseanne god-awful. It was at the premiere party when I learned that my stories and ideas—and the ideas of my sister and my first husband, Bill—had been stolen. The pilot was screened, and I saw the opening credits for the first time, which included this: CREATED BY MATT WILLIAMS. I was devastated and felt so betrayed that I stood up and left the party. Not one person noticed.''

I don't know enough about Roseanne's career to integrate the New York comments appropriately into the article: if somebody else does, that would be great. I would think at a minimum the section should be rewritten to acknowledge that who created the TV show is disputed.

Sue Gardner (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm did you read the following sentences after that? I thought I made it clear in the article that the 'creation' was disputed. — Mike   Allen   06:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Books
Someone with more time than I should add Barr's three books in a "Books" section, please. I think they are all in there. Dualus (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, Mike, and congrats on getting it to GA while I was AWOL. Dualus (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Heritage
It says she's Jewish, but she's clearly Alaskan Native... you can tell just by looking at her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.138.64 (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proven why WP:OR and WP:BLP policies are in place. Thank you. — Mike  Allen   06:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

you're welcome? I don't understand..50.47.140.38 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Name Change
I know she went by Roseanne Barr, then changed it to Roseanne Arnold, then to just Roseanne. When did she go back to using Barr? This should be noted somewhere in the article 99.149.196.156 (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Melvin Kathleen

Presidential candidate
It would appear Ms. Barr is running for president. Something should probably be added to the article. Thanks,  R uby2010   comment!  15:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * She talks about it, has for some time now; but has done nothing whatsoever to actually indicate that she is running. Last I heard, she "announced" that she was running as the candidate of the non-existent "Green Tea Party." She has also talked about running for Prime Minister of Israel, with apparently about the same level of seriousness: i.e., none whatsoever. It's a running gag, not of the same level of notability as Pat Paulsen's old S.T.A.G. Party schtick. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please add under external links.

Eurasian?
There is an old debate about whether Russians are Europeans or Asiatics. But that debate applies to Russians proper, not Russian Jews. Jews were restricted to the Pale. Her ancestors were just plain old Europeans, not exotic "Eurasians". Varlaam (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where to put the following request for some editing of the article. I suspect that to say she is "The granddaughter of European and Russian immigrants" is probably incorrect, at least on one side of the family. If she is Jewish, as the following sentence in the bio states, then most likely at least some of her ancestors from Europe or Russia were Jews, in which case it would be more correct to say "The granddaughter of immigrants from Europe and Russia". Unless, of course, her ancestors from Russia were actual ethnic Russians, in which case no change is necessary. In the context of ancestry, the word "Russian" can only mean "ethnic Russian", and not "from Russia, irrespective of nationality" (you wouldn't say Freddie Mercury's ancestry is Zanzibarian just because he was born in Zanzibar, would you?). "Russian Jews" and "Russians" are two different nationalities living in the same country. Somebody with editing rights: please change the text to read "The granddaughter of immigrants from Europe and Russia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.217.252 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Mike  Allen   18:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Off-key anthem
Any particular reason why this features in the introductory section? Not really a defining moment in her career; I'm sure it would fit in just as well lower down in the article. Also, why isn't her (failed) 2002 reality program mentioned in the intro? --70.181.184.7 (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

CC roast
Tom Arnold lied he will be there. It's on the TV ad for the roast. Sean (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tweets
What about her controversial Tweets? Roseanne Barr calls most billionaires 'violent pedophiles,' drug addicts in latest Twitter rant

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/09/04/roseanne-barr-calls-most-billionaires-violent-pedophiles-drug-addicts-in-latest/?intcmp=features#ixzz25VzAM2Mo

Or this Tweet-Roseanne Barr: Members of the military and their families are ‘on the dole’ http://twitchy.com/2012/07/30/roseanne-barr-members-of-the-military-and-their-families-are-on-the-dole/

Her Tweet that she thinks people should get Cancer for eating at Chik-Fil-A- http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=16871422

--98.87.94.57 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding References
I am trying to cite web URLs roseanneforpresident2012.org but this page is protected so I cannot edit it. I work for Roseanne Barr / Full Moon High Tide Studios in El Segundo, CA.Lucyconlon (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Ruth McCartney

Roast
She recently had a roast on vh1 CCMore (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Error on Presidential Results
"Barr received almost 50,000 votes in the general election, placing fifth overall." Actually, she placed 6th. The referenced article is marked as (UPDATED). (Would change myself, but am not yet autoconfirmed)

Retsam19 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Retsam19

Error on Zimmerman Controversy
This article incorrectly identifies George Zimmerman as a police officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1F11:3FE:0:0:0:13D9 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This still needs to be corrected. 96.231.187.10 (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Add the Cosby tweet?
Ideally with the selfie involved. Don't wanna short this icon of American culture. Lycurgus (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Addition to the controversy> National Anthem paragraph
Barr first mocked this incident in Season 3, episode 1 of "Roseanne," in an episode titled "The Test" (aired Sept. 18th, 1990). When first appearing on screen she announces to the family "It's just a beautiful morning today, it makes me want to sing!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfancypantz (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Update presidential candidacy
I guess this page is protected? I can't edit it. Should update, has announced presidential candidacy for the 2016 race. http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/03/roseanne-barr-says-she-will-seek-the-peace-and-freedom-partys-presidential-nomination-again-in-2016/ announced March 2015 142.254.109.5 (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

2012 election results
The lede says she received over 61,000 votes, while the section on the presidential campaign says "nearly 50,000". Which is it? Jah77 (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Dead Links?
Either the content's been moved, deleted, or my browser doesn't work for the first two citations, possibly more. ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   19:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyedits
I am doing minor stylistic edits. Nowhere in English language literature are two "also"s justified in the same sentence, though they are sometimes found in teen fanzines, highschool essays and Facebook. Just attempting to make an informative article more encyclopedic. Rags (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017
This should be changed: Barr was followed by a film crew throughout her entire campaign, with documentarian Eric Weinrib directing, leading to questions about the sincerity of her campaign

To this: Documentary filmmaker Eric Weinrib produced and directed a movie about Barr's campaign.

The way the original sentence is stated is confusing and editorialized. Srnubo (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Political party
It seems she has said she is now a Republican. Yet this is not reflected in her infobox.https://mobile.twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/799757076801069056 SecretName101 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Roseanne Barr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203113806/http://genealogymagazine.com/roseannebarr.html to http://www.genealogymagazine.com/roseannebarr.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20235368,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20235368_2,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,626698,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150422191722/http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/roseanne-barr-going-blind/ar-AAboj9R?ocid=ansentwenn11 to http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/roseanne-barr-going-blind/ar-AAboj9R?ocid=ansentwenn11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Violation of BLP
Much of the personals section should be trimmed. It is contentious and has a tabloid feel to it, as if editors wanted to be provocative for its own sake.Decembermonday (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

New item for Controversies: Conspiracy Theories
Suggestion to add something like this

Conspiracy Theories

Barr is a longtime believer in conspiracy theories like CIA mind control and MK Ultra and is friends with the conspiracy theorist, Cathy O'Brien. Barr has supported the QAnon conspiracy, "The Storm" which details an alleged counter-coup by the Trump administration against the "Deep State".

Why isn't this being added? Just googling "monarch roseanne" returns videos of her in full conspiracy mode.--37.203.112.153 (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is an Update

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roseanne-barr-obama-adviser-baby-muslim-brotherhood-planet/story?id=55504982

Here is an update that ABC has released on the Roseanne Cancellation from ABC. They have also announced that Roseanne did a rant on Chelsea Clinton too along with the Obama Cabinet that lead to Disney/ABC ending Roseanne's show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:F9F1:88B:CBEF:178A (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/389766-donald-trump-jr-retweets-roseannes-conspiracy-theory-about

Update during the same time that ABC made the decision to cut the contract with Roseanne apparently Donald Trump Jr. Ran with the Roseanne conspiracy theories on Chelsea Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:0:0:0:9425 (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Earlier political stuff
I'm willing to debate this, but I think that her earlier political activism deserves a couple sentences in the lede. She ran for president twice, and received 60,000 votes in 2012; that's a highly significant part of her life. It also helps contextualize why her sudden shift to the Right (when Trump announced for POTUS) was taken as a more or less shocking surprise by the media. Steeletrap (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * am good with that. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Should we mention the specific "joke" in the lede"
I.E. Should we mention that the "joke" was Barr calling a black woman an ape? We could do this in just a few words, and it would help explain to the majority of readers who just read ledes, not whole articles, why the joke was perceived as racist. It seems like white-washing to leave it out; but I'm happy to listen to opposing arguments. Steeletrap (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. UNDUE and RECENTISM. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with user Jytdog for consensus purposes on this. MissTofATX (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX
 * Like I said above, indeed UNDUE to include more than what we have in the lead Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Steeletrap heaven (universe or whatever) forbid we not cater to people who [based on your assumption] only read the lead, and actively CHOOSE not to read more information in either a Wikipedia article or independently research information. Your logic here seems conflicted and counterintuitive. It appears that if one of your primary concerns was about people seeking out basic information, and those that chose not to read further independent information to digest information themselves (for whatever reason), despite the availability of information; That you would have tried to present fewer/or more simplified words (keep it brief), rather than overly/excessively detailed information in the lede? If that is your intent? Seems to be extremely disingenuous and insulting to readers that you not only assume people do not read, but also to try to process the information for them and attempt to skew information in favor of your own logic, vs. a neutral point of view/just the facts as is required by MOS:BLP.

MissTofATX (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX

Bizzare attempt to include unsourced information in a BLP

 * Despite having been reverted and having been given the reason why, User:Steeletrap continues to try to add detail to the lede (and possibly other areas in the article since this appears to be his M.O. without providing a direct source and citation. It’s really that simple. It may be relevant detail, and if it is, any editor should include direct in line citations/references. As per MOS:BIO and MOS:LEADCITE

“The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.”

MissTofATX (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MissTofATX What is unsourced? Her presidential run and earlier liberal political activism is sourced later in the piece. I have repeatedly added sources for the fact that her deliberately disrespectful rendition of the star-spangled banner was considered a publicity stunt. E.G. This from RS Detroit Free Press: https://www.mitchalbom.com/new-lyrics-solution-to-barrs-foul-bawl/. Please read that article and then we can re-add this to the article Steeletrap (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You have to modify the citation/reference so it can be used as an in-line citation multiple times (without creating a brand new reference) in the article. Saying it’s somewhere further in the article is not acceptable. Look up how to do that.

Also, Author Mitch Albom’s personal/commercial website/blog does not qualify as as an RS, because it is not an independent news source. It’s an opinion piece by an amazing author (one of my favorites actually), but it’s not journalism. MissTofATX (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC) MissTofATX, this is disingenuous. The article is from the Detroit Free Press and is archived on Albom's site. Steeletrap (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's another indirect reference inside of another reference. If you had put a direct link from the detroit free press, that would be more reasonable. Disengenious how? By the way....this is from the top result I get if I type: "Mitch Albom & Detroit Free Press": "Opinion and commentary from Free Press columnist Mitch Albom, author of "Tuesdays with Morrie" and host of ... Albom: Why we do things for others at Christmas."

@ User:SteeletrapWhat I'm hoping you'll eventually grasp is the difference in independent news journalism & opinion pieces. Opinions are a personal reaction to outside information, such as news. Newsworthy, especially items MOS:BIO are meant to be unbiased and neutral point of view. It would be misleading to say that one persons opinion on something is qualified as the truth of a majority of people (Such as, Roseanne has been widely criticized or she's well known as XYZ) and if you click the source, it's a random opinion of one person. Please also see What Wikipedia is not among other things, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. MissTofATX (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX


 * I agree that there is a BLP problem here. The content that was added may well be accurate, but it's impossible for the reader to verify without an inline citation that supports it expressly. It's not an accurate summary of the information conveyed in the body. Again, the information could well be accurate but it must be excluded without appropriate sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre effort to cut the lede down to one paragraph
A couple users are trying to purge any mention of Barr's "joke" or cancellation from the lede, on the grounds that this information is "duplicative." I don't have to explain the disingenuousness of this to you guys. (The whole point of the lede is to flag and summarize the most important information within an article; it is inherently duplicative.) Please keep an eye on this and be ready to revert. Steeletrap (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The person who keeps whitewashing the lede is User:MissTofATX. Her preferred version of the lede is one paragraph which makes no mention of Barr's recent controversies--controversie←s which have attracted more RS coverage than anything else in her career. Steeletrap (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not white washing. per the MOS Manual of Style/Lead section, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." It is supposed to be brief and concise summary. The article has all the detailed information. If all the information is still listed in the article, how is that whitewashing? MissTofATX (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX

The recent controversy should be included, however more than one sentence ish as in this revision is WP:UNDUE recentism - stuff on her other controversies can be included, but just that tweet itself is not worth an entire paragraph. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with many of the changes/cuts you made, Galob. Only disagreement: we must mention Roseanne's support of Trump prior to the joke, and her use of conspiracy theories/fake news on his behalf. This was extremely notable, and received thousands of RS mentions. Steeletrap (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason John Kasich and other public figures are calling on Trump to denounce Roseanne is that, because her support of Trump was so visible and widely discussed, Trump publicly thanked her for her support. I'm not saying we should mention that in the lede; but a brief mention of her support of Trump and use of fake news on his behalf is merited. Steeletrap (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in total agreement with Steeletrap on this issue. Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Cutting down to one paragraph sounds rather extreme, but I do think the lead section has too much detail in certain parts. In particular the national anthem episode merits one sentence, two at most. I mean look back through Roseanne's media coverage over the years; does that was one event really covered to that extent? No way. That level of detail is non-neutral. I also think the sentence about Trump's congratulations seems totally unnecessary. I just don't understand the point of it. We already say she veered right and supports Trump and his tactics. That seems sufficient. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, Just to clarify for you or anyone else that sees this in the future: as I was the person the original subject heading accusation was directed toward by: User talk:Steeletrap accused me of of trying to shorten the lede in an attempt to Whitewashing (censorship). Which was false. I explained to Steeltrap & others that I felt the lede should be brief and succint since the article expands on everything in great detail. So, there’s that. I’ve not sought to shorten the lede since, with the exception of unsourced information, things with odd wording that have already may have already had a consensus/or things that may cross a line in a Biography of a living person. But, I have made suggestions that people who want to change things seek a new consensus bring it to the talk page. MissTofATX (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX

"Racist tweet" NPOV
The description should be amended to "after she made what many found to be a racist tweet". There is no evidence I've seen to indicate Barr was even aware that Jarrett was not a caucasian woman. 109.125.18.180 (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good choice of wording, not because she may not have been aware "that Jarrett was not a caucasian woman" but because the wording "after she made what many found to be a racist tweet" conveys the variability in perception actually seen in sources. Some may have conceived the Tweet as being very racist and others may have conceived the Tweet as hardly racist at all. "Fox News defended comedian Roseanne Barr on Tuesday, after ABC announced that it had canceled her sitcom following a racist Twitter rant." The present wording in the article is unbalanced, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fox News downplayed it, but they described it as racist as well. (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/roseanne-barr-back-on-twitter-after-leaving-apologizes-to-cast-crew-after-abc-cancels-hit-show.html, http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/29/abc-cancels-roseanne-after-barrs-racist-tweet.html, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DapperAond (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, even fox news calls it racist. So we have a wide variety of sources calling it racist, with none I've seen so far dissenting with allegedly or something like that. That would support the current wording, in my opinion, since we use sources to determine how to describe things, per NPOV. Anyways, the wording proposed by the IP is quite poor, if necessary to change, "after she made a tweet widely described as racist" is far better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How is this preferable to "criticized as racist"? It's shorter and also takes no POV on whether it actually was racist. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Referring to her "racist tweet" is begging the question and definitely not NPOV. It would be better to accurately describe sources' reactions/perception, e.g. "widely criticized as racist" rather that to place the "racist" adjective in Wikipedia's own mouth. Felice Enellen (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We don't do "fair and balanced" or "balance journalism" where we put bizarre notions on par with the mainstream ones. We do NPOV which means we summarize reliable sources.  There is no mainstream voice that did not describe the tweet as "racist", and even Fox News described it as racist (Headline: ABC cancels 'Roseanne' after Barr's racist tweet. Hell even Breitbart said "racist tweet" in the bold lead just below the picture, as  Vice noted. This is blue sky thing. The "ape" meme for black people is typical alt-right trolling, and that is actually who Barr was dog whistling to in that whole stream of tweets from "CHELSEA SOROS CLINTON" onwards - the whole clinton/obama/muslim/whatever conspiracy theory QAnon spaghetti bowl. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog: So how is "criticized as racist" problematic? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The distancing is phony - She sent a racist tweet and was criticized for doing so. There is no debate in the real world as to whether the tweet was racist.  This is not something subtle where there are reasonable "sides".  This is a sky is blue thing. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to add that I am very glad that "Barr is racist" is not part of this discussion. The public discussion has been pretty decent about characterizing this specific behavior - this specific racist tweet, and not her.  The action was racist, though. For sure. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "She sent a racist tweet and was criticized for doing so"—right, so it was "criticized as racist". We are both speaking English, aren't we? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Above you said that formulation "takes no POV on whether it actually was racist." You are exactly advocating using distancing language, and that is a problematic. We do not bend our content to accommodate fringe views. That violates NPOV. That is the problem. Last summer we went through exactly this sort of thing on Richard B. Spencer and Jared Taylor over the first sentence of each article - the archives of each are full of discussions and RfCs and there was a big one at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_54. Here there is even less reason for debate. Nobody advocating for the distancing language has even bothered to bring sources justifying it.  I am not aware of any mainstream sources that did not say "racist tweet" and even Breitbart and Fox said "racist tweet".  The position that "racist tweet" fails NPOV has precisely zero support in RS. That is the problem with the language you are advocating for. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog is spot on and explained the issue extremely well IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog—This is absurd. "Criticized as racist" is NPOV language in an encyclopaedic tone, and your argument appears to be that it is inadequate because it's not shrill enough.  Was the tweet "criticized as racist"?  That it was, and that's what we report—the straight facts.  If that's too "distancing" for you in an encyclopaedic article, then perhaps you are far too politicized to be editing such articles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it is absurd. You have brought zero sources to the table. and are kowtowing to fringe advocates.  I will not be responding further, as this is pointless. We do not share assumptions or goals. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC))
 * "You have brought zero sources to the table and are kowtowing to fringe advocates."—What in the flying fuck is this?! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No need for weasal words. There's a broad consensus in the coverage that the tweet was racist. Landbroke99 (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I call BS on Jytdog. You have a goal, which is to have Wikipedia itself implicitly conclude that the tweet was racist, which has not been demonstrated or admitted, but is merely an opinion, no matter how widely held, rather than report that the reporting considered it racist, which is entirely accurate. This is not weasel wording, it is accurate and neutral. Your preference is classic Begging the question, ie. a fallacious approach. That is anything BUT a neutral point of view. A neutral point of view simply reports. I suspect you to have a personal agenda here, a personal wish for it to be called racist by the perceived authority of Wikipedia, rather than portraying history accurately. I question your motives. Felice Enellen (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are calling BS on WP's policies and guidelines not on me. Again, even Fox News and Breitbart said "racist tweet". It was a racist tweet.  The sky is blue. I do not understand the drama. People do racist things sometimes.  This one just happened to be very public and had big consequences for the person who did it. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Jytdog, they're clearly calling BS on you and your refusal to (a) consider common, neutral, encyclopaedic wording; and (b) your refusal to even acknowledge the question I've repeatedly asked you: show us a source that contradicts the wording "criticized as racist" (impossible, as all the sources criticize it as racist).
 * "" is not even an argument—it's only evidence of what we already know: the day-to-day news has different standards and policies than an encyclopaedia does. We do not parrot the wording in newspapers—for instance, if an article cites 100 sources, all of which used "America" to refer to the most populous nation in the Americas, we would still as a matter of course call it "the United States" in our Wikipedia article.
 * You're clearly politicized up to your ears and are clinging to the idea that those of us who support neutral wording are actually racists (you still won't retract that attack—your whole argument desperately depends on us all being racists). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to retract that nonsense, Jytdog? Are you calling half of America, including politically conservative Jews who support gun rights and are sick and tired of our people being oppressed and persecuted by Muslims, neo-Nazis? Why would Roseanne Barr try to attract the so-called "alt-right"? Are you so ignorant that you don't even know neo-Nazis hate Jews? Or do you already know this but are trying to smear pro-Israel Jews as being Nazis like a good little Democrat shill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.82.249.22 (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)