Talk:Roseanne Barr/Archive 2

"Valerie Jarrett tweet and Roseanne cancelation" section
Other uses of "cancelation" are spelled 'cancellation' on Wikipedia. Both are recognized as correct but to match Wikipedia's article(s) for this word, it should be changed to 'cancellation' instead.

Also, this section should link to the show itself ("...ABC canceled Roseanne in response...") or mention "For further reading..." or "Also see..." linked to Roseanne for more details.

2600:1702:1690:E10:8427:828A:1CCA:A931 (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You may not be aware that English Wikipedia uses spelling consistent with cultural content when appropriate, and consistent spelling with whatever an article started with otherwise. So an article about Prince Harry is writtin British English, an aricle about Justin Trudeau in Canadian English, and, this being Roseanne Barr, it's written in American English. Hence "cancelation". ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Who are you trying to school? You need an English lesson. Your response is not logical. The English spelling is and cancelation is an alternative spelling. According to you, all instances of cancellation should be changed on Wikipedia to match YOUR spelling? Cancellation is English. I guess all the other examples on Wiki are wrong? Again, update and link the section was my point. That's what this topic is about. Not to have my time wasted with a poor spelling lesson. Do research before responding next time. My suggestion was to match it with other examples of the word on Wikipedia (being in US since it's an American show doesn't make it right). 2600:1702:1690:E10:8427:828A:1CCA:A931 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Both are recognized spellings; "cancelation" must be retained per WP:RETAIN unless a strong concensus develops to change the established spelling. "Other uses ... on Wikipedia" is not a recognized argument to change it—see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the section needs to be linked to the cancellation of the show and/or to the show itself. It can just be spelled differently twice within that section I guess. Simply adding an "l" because of a weak reason is not a legit argument either. It's really not a big deal either way, just shows more ignorance on Wikipedia! P.S. You both repeated what I already mentioned in my first comment. 2600:1702:1690:E10:8427:828A:1CCA:A931 (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RETAIN requires the earlier established spelling, not whatever you demand—and it has less to do with "ignorance" than it has to do wiht the fact that the article is a result of collaborative editing (or is a simple typo). Figure out which is the earlier established spelling and fix it, rather than kicking up condescending drahmah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You're projecting, that's what you both did, not me. And I find your logic interesting coming from users in two different countries. If I could change/fix it I would but i'm currently using an IP (by choice) and the article is restricted. Please tell me you're smarter than you're acting? How about instead of more petty replies that don't resolve anything, you just update what this request is about instead of making more unnecessary arguments about a moot point to make yourself seem right with invalid Wikipedia rules. I'm not impressed. My effort was just to improve the article not to have a muscle-flexing session/contest. Maybe someone will fix it since you can't!? Your behavior/attitude is beneath me. 2600:1702:1690:E10:8427:828A:1CCA:A931 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This comment's beneath you, too. Enjoying the drahmah? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Or in the alternative, we could spell the word how sources that are being used in that sub-section to support the content - the cancellation, the show’s cancellation, the show’s cancellation. All the sources seem to agree on the spelling being cancellation. Isaidnoway (talk)  08:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And for the record, IP, you're the one projecting. I never said "my" spelling is what we favour over all articles. I happen to spell it 'cancellation' myself, as I would if I were writing an original article. But I didn't start the article. I clearly said (per how Wikipedia actually works) that the spelling in an article (outside of quotes) is established based on how it originated and is likely to reflect the spelling system of the country from which the subject it originates. You claim that one spellig is "English" and the other a variant based on a Wikipedia article, which fails for our purposes (Wikipedia articles cannot be used this way per WP:CIRCULAR). There is more than one standard form of English in the world, something you do not seem inclined to acknowledge, if, indeed, you are aware of it. Please read more carefully and assume good faith on the part of others rather than indulge in emotional outbursts, it gets you nowhere. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Isaidnoway—no, the guidelines and policies are there to help us avoid arguing about these kinds of things (and there's no lack of prominent sources using "cancelation" regardless). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do routinely use sources to help guide us through content disputes (in this case spelling a word). The sources I cited are currently in use in that sub-section to support that specific content, I didn't see the TIME reference you cite being used in that sub-section or I would have included it as well. And if you go back to the earliest revision of this page (that I could find), September 28, 2002, the word cancellation was spelled with two l's. - After the show's cancellation, Roseanne went on to host her own talk show titled, appropriately enough, "The Roseanne Show." The show did not last long, and she has ventured back into the foray of stand-up comedy. Isaidnoway (talk)  09:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "if you go back to the earliest revision ... cancellation was spelled with two l's"—that is the only justification for using two ls, not this other horseshit that the policies and guidelines were developed to avoid. We do not change the spelling because the sources use a defferent spelling.  Period.  That is about the pettiest, most unproductive thing you could do with a Wikipedia article—aside from hammering away at it here on the talk page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Given her (relative) heat in the '90s and the series' tendency to grab headlines for trendsettingly frank depictions of normal bodily functions advertisers would prefer not to exist, I propose we view her and her show in the general temporal context of the Mortal Kombat universe rather than pin it down to the physical country it syndicated from. We could say she began her kareer in komedy at klubs. Or kontroversially grabbed her konsiderable krotch at the ball game. Then was kancelled after kriticism of her konspiracy theories. If her lawyers or fans complain about something they inferred, we can say we didn't technically imply anything, and we'd be right. It'd just be them misremembering the time Fox hosted the KKK. Any takers for ignoring norms and doing things my way? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Curious, I ran my findstrg on txt files I have saved in folders on American discussions about books, movies, politics, and other subjects scanning for cancellation and cancelation, I was not finding cancelation but I found cancellation frequently; after a long string of hits on double-ell in my folder of US Govt books of regulations, I am going to say that common American English usage is cancellation based on what I am sure single-ell fans will denounce as WP:OR. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Naaman Brown: Here you go. But the point is that we have guidelines and policies in place to avoid wasting time on things like this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you feel like it's a waste of time, but there are other editors who may feel like it's not a waste of time, and WP:RETAIN does not explicity forbid editors from discussing this issue, and then collaborating together to improve the content of this article. Isaidnoway (talk)  11:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Isaidnoway: WP:RETAIN exists because "discussing" these things is an objective waste of time that in no way improves articles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I just hope someone will finally link the section to ...ABC cancelled Roseanne... (because it has much more information about this topic) which was the point of this request! 2600:1702:1690:E10:6C8E:970E:3628:26D6 (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not an issue—the link doesn't display, so the spelling is irrelevant. We see this all the time with, for example, Colour, etc. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess no one knows how to direct this section to the Roseanne show renewal/cancellation article? After four requests, it's still not done yet is so simple to do... I'll just take care of it myself when i'm not using an IP! (and please spare me the sassy/disruptive remarks/responses and obsessive focus on the misspelling of cancellation) 2600:1702:1690:E10:8859:7830:A84A:3C7F (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't want people remarking on your horseshit, then stop calling an accepted, widely-used spelling a "misspelling". Fucking Christ. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I notice that WP:RETAIN has been mentioned a couple of times here, but please note that WP:RETAIN identifies an exception for topics that have "strong national ties" (a.k.a. MOS:TIES). That exception applies here. This was alluded to by ZarhanFastfire above. The topic of the article is an American person who has lived her entire life in the U.S. and is primarily notable for U.S. television appearances and political opinions about U.S. politics. The article should therefore use American English. I believe that implies that the article should use "neighbor" and "canceled". The question of "cancellation" versus "cancelation" is somewhat less clear. My understanding is that "cancellation" is the more common spelling in the U.S. as well as other varieties of English (although both spellings occur in the U.S.). The AP Stylebook (a U.S. style guide) prefers "cancellation". See this and this and this. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Tweet as reliable source?
I am not talking about the racist tweet, but about this: "A July CNN story reported she did not endorse Trump as she only supports herself for president—"I will be writing myself in in every election from now until I win."[100] In a now-deleted tweet to The Jerusalem Post, Barr revealed she voted for Trump." Remarkable! A tweet is enough to claim something? I have had numerous occasions where I have seen people been called back on using tweet as reference because it is not a reliable source. E.g. the Tommy Robinson case. Yes and I do think this has something to do with the content of certain tweets and the political colour of the majority of Wikipedia contributors and moderators. AntonHogervorst (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed (pardon my French). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"Allegedly" racist
has repeatedly reinserted "allegedly"; this isn't supported by the sources, which just say the tweet is racist - in some incidents like this, sources say "allegedly racist", but in this case they have not, and we cannot put our own opinion and add allegedly. I hope he can come and discuss this here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What is and isn't racist is a matter of opinion. Some say everything is, some say nothing is. In something like this, where the joker has denied knowing the butt of a joke was part-black, and simply resembled (in her inebriated opinion) a Planet of the Apes character (not a real damn dirty ape), the media opinion (albeit a vastly repeated one) must be attributed, at least to the media in general, per WP:SUBSTANTIATE and WP:YESPOV.
 * That said, I'm perfectly aware that appearing to deny, clarify or mitigate racism accusations will make Wikipedia appear racist to some. This should have no bearing on the article's future, for this attitude is tied to the hubbub and will dissipate when it does. Of course, if we're strictly about fitting in with the times for now, by all means go nuts with the unqualified "racist" way. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That the allegers don't refer to their own allegations as "alleged" is simply because that would look and sound really stupid, needlessly casting doubt on their own argument. Police and crime victims also don't enunciate that their side of a story is just their side of a story (because they think they're right), but uninvolved objective observers can, should and often do call it like it is, regardless of that natural omission. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We could avoid all this—we don't need to call it "allegedly" anything, nor do we even need to call it a "racist tweet". We could just call it a "tweet" that attracted ciriticism for its racism.  The way it's worded right now is broken—it says she posted a tweet and then was "defensive":
 * On May 29, 2018, Barr posted a racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett, a Senior Advisor to former U.S. President Barack Obama. It read "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj". Barr was initially defensive, and tweeted ...
 * Why was she "defensive"? Whoops!  Someone forgot to say it attracted criticism!  Easily fixed:
 * 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" and was widely criticized as racist.  Barr was initially defensive, and tweeted ...
 * I won't make the change myself—you can read Jytdog's attacks on me above to see why. Regardless, the text is broken and needs to be fixed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support for 's version as containing just the facts and reads quite encyclopedic in tone and nature. Bravo!  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine, too InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Just no. We do not substitute our own take on things in contradiction to the overwhelming view of reliable sources. When sources from Huffpo and MSNBC on the left to Fox News and Breitbart on the right call it a "racist tweet," that's what we call it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: On what planet could the wording be WP:OR? This is as facepalm-inducing as the calls above to change the spelling of "cancelation" to "cancellation" because "that's what the sources use! *derp derp*".  What next—toss MOS:LQ because literally no news source uses it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We appear to disagree. Perhaps it is time for an RfC with wider community involvement. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * SBHB: Disagreeing on a preferred wording is one thing; claiming the wording you don't prefer is WP:OR is a whole other thing. The claim is black-and-white false, and an RfC can't magically make a falsehood true. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support for 's version as containing many more of the facts while remaining concise and encyclopedic in tone. I've lost count of the number of RfCs discussing inclusion/exclusion of a small number of negative labels in WP:Voice (this and 'antisemetic' spring to mind). 'Racist' in this context means using insulting language or displaying insulting attitudes towards an individual or group. A million sources cannot make 'insulting' into an objective fact. A trillion sources could not make Meghan Markle an objectively beautiful woman or Citizen Kane into an objectively great film or a particular joke objectively funny. No one would even suggest adding those adjectives in WPVoice to the relevant articles - or, even sillier - say "show me the source that doesn't think MM is a beautiful woman". A source is a necessary, but not sufficient reason for inclusion and the notion that WP exists to inform as fully as possible also applies. 'Racist' language or attitudes run a continuum from the insensitive to the barbaric - not informing about the specifics denies the reader the opportunity to assess where on that continuum this lies - in their opinion. I agree that 'allegedly' is reduntant, 'criticised as' is sufficient - the reader is sophisticated enough to realise that neither criticism, nor praise are objective facts. Off-topic, but as a UK reader, I find it bizarre that alleging a political figure had association with an organisation connected with Islamist terrorism went uncriticised - apparently uncommented on - but comparing her appearance to characters in a film in which actors wear silly monkey costumes, caused outrage. I assume that it is the history of the 'primate' analogy that prompted such a fierce response. Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pincrete: the insult goes beyond the personal and is being read as "black people look like apes". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I understood the inference and wasn't trying to minimise the offence caused beyond the individual. Being compared to a primate is insulting - particularly given the history of use of the analogy. But being a public official accused of association with Islamism, doesn't seem to matter much! I find that bizarre. But we record what happened, not what we think about it. Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For those that are not from the U.S. or perhaps the younger folks here, this may be helpful  Gandydancer (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also helpful to consider how very little the Muslim Brotherhood has to do with terrorism, particularly in the English world. Even in the six places where it is designated a terrorist group, that's largely for ideological reasons. Your own government, Pincrete, recently acknowledged it's not been linked to any such nonsense in or against the UK, and has publicly condemned al-Qaeda for terrorizing Brits. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Making a racist tweet" instead of "sending a racist tweet"? Who 'makes' tweets? Odd verbiage. 2600:1702:1690:E10:8859:7830:A84A:3C7F (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've used Turkey's version, per our general agreement here to follow our NPOV policies and no sound argument for ignoring them. No strong feelings on the best verb we could use. "Transmitted" kind of sucks. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * We need an actual RfC on this.  The same issue is being discussed in the unfortunately-too-hastily launched RfC and it would be not good to launch another.   This matter is not settled but is not something to edit war over until we can obtain a good consensus on what to say here. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The text was broken and had to be fixed. You don't get to filibuster a fix because you have a particular ideological bug up your ass about the exact wording. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting to temporary fixes. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no reason it shouldn't last forever. Essentially, anyway; the verb is still up for grabs. Like Pincrete said, nobody can reach a magical number of sources that turns opinions into facts. Doesn't even work on uncontested or uncontroversial opinions (if such things are real). Your only hope for restoring unprovable allegations about a living person's tweet in Wikipedia's voice lies in changing the policies against that sort of thing. I'm not sure where you'd start an RfC that momentous, but it certainly isn't here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It should be "allegedly", there is no reference to race in the tweet. Most of Wikipedia reliable sources are strongly opinionated when it comes down to people supporting Trump. You are copying that opinion with the pretext they are reliable sources. But I've written this a few dozens times without any effect on Wikipedia because the majority of moderators is just as opinionated as the reliable sources they choose. AntonHogervorst (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've started drafting an RfC below.... Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC preparation for description of tweet
Now that the RfC has well-expired and there is no clear consensus from it, we should work toward arriving at consensus.

I propose that we have a series of small questions that set parameters, instead of concrete language.


 * 1) Should the tweet be named as a "racist tweet" or something like "a tweet that was widely described as racist"?


 * 2) Should we describe why the tweet is racist? (for example, all three versions proposed in the RfC above did so)


 * 3) Should we provide Barr's ... subsequent statements about the tweet itself? The immediate ones, the one where she apologized, and her subsequent youtube statement? If so, how we should source them?

With those parameters in place I think we can work out specific language.

Are there any other questions we should ask, or tweaks to these? Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Call it "controversial Jarrett tweet" without the race card. The wording needs to avoid the claim of "racist" now refuted because Barr insisted she thought Jarrett was white (see video: "'I thought the bitch was white' - Roseanne Barr on the Valerie Jarrett tweet - video"), as similar to the Trumpanzee jokes about Trump as a chimpanzee caricature. Many people are talking about the innuendo to play the race card, as a political attack on Roseanne Barr by falsely claiming a tweet she made was racist. In general, WP must avoid murderous text, as text which claims a person guilty of a murder, crime, bigotry, or racism, which is actually extremely difficult to prove. It's the reason WP tries to note a person was "convicted of murder" (pending appeal) versus claiming someone is a "murderess" regardless of how many sources continually repeat an unproven or debatable claim. Definitely, WP should note the many sources which claim the whole "racist" race card was played was to attack Barr because of her politics, and possible support with President Donald Trump. Plus, the claims of "racist" just do not add up, when the head writer of the show Roseanne was black, the entertainment head was black, and there were black actors in the show, and Roseanne's lines in the show refer to the recent black TV show and the Asian show, adding they said they're just like us, "so now we're caught up". WP has fallen victim to mobocracy over truth, and perhaps 60-70 WP articles have now spammed the "racist" race card which clearly seems to be a hatchet job. WP must understand the concepts of editorial judgment, and not merely echo the angry mob. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please respond to the question about framing the RfC. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)