| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
Systemic bias
In general, Wikipedia articles regarding black people tend to be of lower quality. This is due to the systemic bias inherent in the Wikipedia community. The typical Wikipedian is a white male technocrat[1]. This bias is natural since people tend to edit articles based on their own interests. I too being black am biased as I have great interest in articles relating to blacks. That said, this article on Jesse Jackson is a prime example of this bias and is one of the most frequently vandalized pages. This article should be up for consideration for semi-protected status.
Jackson is seen as a controversial and somewhat polarizing figure; and since Wikipedians are predominantly white, he is unlikely to get much love here. Jackson has been in the public eye for the last forty years and has practically been involved in almost every major civil rights dispute and many minor ones too. Often he is involved in issues that have nothing to do with blacks like the Terri Schiavo case, Jill Caroll, and Slobadan Milosevi. Flawed as he may be, African Americans still consider him as the most important black leader. Known for his impromptu rhymes, his articulate and eloquent speeches, he is arguably one of the most gifted orators alive today.
Yet despite all this, edits to this article seem to be confined to vandalism and references to anti-semitism. I believe that the Jackson controversy heading adequately handles his mis-steps, and there is no need to repeat them at different points in the page as is sometimes the case. Repeating it compromises the quality of the article. I believe that there is a lot more useful information about Jackson that can be added to this page, but because of the systemic bias, editors just focus on what they dislike about the man. I could also make the same case about the article on Al Sharpton.
As mentioned earlier, there is no need to repeat issues already mentioned in the article. Repeating the same stories over and over again compromises quality.
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias systemicbias.
See: JESSE JACKSON: AMERICA'S DAVID by Barbara A. Reynolds &
Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson by Kenneth R. Timmerman.
A neutral tone is the one thing that this article doesn't have.
During the late 1990s, it was revealed that Jackson's sons and Jackson himself would protest against large businesses until the businesses "paid" a donation to one of Jackson's tax exempt corporations.
On several occasions, Jackson publicly opposed a major corporate merger until one or both of the merging companies "paid" a donation to Jackson's tax exempt corporations.
Are those facts?
"...declaring blacks as the new slave owners of whites and giving reparations to all blacks..."
I'm not sure, but this looks like vandalism to me. I think that it needs to go (a supporting point of his 1988 Presidential platform).
Or, more strictly, are those relevant facts? I sense the prosecutor trying to defame character, perhaps without paying sufficient mind to Jackson's political goals. An entry on Jesse Jackson hardly deserves to leave out his politics. (Else why not write an entry on Steven Spielberg without discussing film?)
There was a book recently published outlining how Jackson has profited from his activities. I think that the author published a series of articles in the Chicago Sun-Times or Tribune exposing Jackson's unstated "for profit" motivation. None of these articles gained national news coverage. There was also a recent Wall Street Journal article on this. NOTE: I said article and not editorial.
A brief outline of Jackson's political goals is to be added later.
Jackson is an interesting character:
- He campaigns exclusively for unions, liberals, and big government in order to help the downtrodden, discriminated against, and other little guys.
- He has used this to become a multi-millionaire and get his son Jesse Jackson, Jr. elected to congress.
Is he an "entrepreneurial liberal"?
While I don't care for some of Jesse Jackson's antics of the last few years, I do think that the article should be more neutral.
apology
The article claims that Jackson never apologized for the reference to Jews as "Hymies." This article in Time Magazine: http://www.crm114.com/jesse/antisemitism1.html, linked to from this page, which is extremely critical of Jackson: http://www.crm114.com/jesse/antisemitism.html says that he did. I'll change this unless there's a disagreement on whether this constituted an apology. Fpahl 06:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is he really 7'7" tall?
I saw a police mugshot of him, and his head was at the 7'7" level (mugshot at rotten.com library). I find that hard to believe; he looks like an average-sized person on television. --69.234.194.35 23:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's seventy-seven inches (minus the hair, probably seventy-six). That's 6'4". Tall, but not Harlem Globetrotters tall -- John Fader 23:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This interview mentions his being "tall." I guess that he's built like GWB, who also looks squatter on TV than he is in person. -- John Fader 23:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jackson & MLK
The following appears under entry: "He claims to have been at King's side in Memphis when King was assassinated, April 4, 1968, though critics such as Kenneth Timmerman have contended that Jackson embellished his account."
There was a newspaper photographer's picture taken immediately after Dr. King was shot. It shows Dr. King lying on the second floor walkway of the motel and Jessee Jackson on the first floor looking up toward him. I've seen the picture reproduced later. Anybody know where we can get a copy? It would be meaningful here. Also, Timmerman (whom I have not read) may have made statements about Jackson and MLK's assassination, but so did Ralph Abernathy, MLK's second-in-command and heir as head of SCLC. A quote from him would be meaningful. Johnwhunt 19:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Timmerman's source was on Barbara Reynolds, who wrote Jesse Jackson, the Man, the Movement, the Myth. It's a fact that Coretta Scott King says nothing publicly about Jesse Jackson and did not endorse his presidential bid. Jackson didn't just "embellish"; he flat-out lied, claiming that MLK had died in Jackson's arms.
Schiavo
The part about his involvment in the Terri Schiavo saga needs to be expanded because it's probably the biggest, if not the most controversial, thing that he has ever done. A photo of him holding hands with Terri's siblings would help.
Name Changing
It is mentioned in the article that Jesse Jackson's real name is actually Jesse Louis Burns. I'm curious to know when Rev. Jesse Jackson changed his last name from Burns to Jackson. --Willis835 10:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- So nine months later, I'll answer "1957". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality Problem
The Early Life section is poorly written, and neutrality is few and far between. It speaks about him spitting in food but glances over his civil rights accomplishments during the 1960s.
Judging by the edits to this article there are many editors who dislike rev jackson. Wikipedians are intitled to their own personal opinions but hopefully wikipedians will and should edit articles objectively with minimal personal bias.chifumbe 03:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
See also
How exactly did he talk?
I have heard references to Jesse Jackson's style of speech. What is this style? I've never heard of it!
It's called "mumbling like an idiot." Politician818 07:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Semitism
This article is under Category:Anti-Semitism, yet the only reference in the article to anti-Semitism or Jews is that he once referred to Jews using a disparaging term. Is this categorization based on this sole incident? This seems to me insufficient, one way or another.--Doron 11:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I've commented out this category, unless perhaps someone can add contents that better justify the inclusion of Jackson under this category.--Doron 13:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that the discussion at Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Ahmadinejad.2C_Mahmoud_in_Anti-Semitic_category makes it clear that we agree that one untoward comment is good enough. -- Who is we. there is no we in wikipedia. all decisions should be based on facts not on opinions.68.211.197.252 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please review WP:POINT. Disruptive editors are regularly blocked. Jayjg (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Instead of making threats, try to address the issue. Why is Ahmadinejad in the Anti-Semite category but not Jackson? I think that it is a valid question. What are the qualifications? Who decides? YOU? --68.211.197.252 06:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please review WP:POINT again. Several times, if need be Jayjg (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are Ahmadinejad and Henry Ford in the Anti-Semite category but not Jesse Jackson or Mahmoud Abbas? Still waiting --68.211.197.252 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the anti-semitic people category, for reasons outlined by Doron above. Jll 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm new here, so I don't know what the argument has been about. However, I would like to say this. One comment, especially one that is followed by an apology, is not enough to include someone in the Anti-Semite or Anti-whatever categories. In my opinion, there has to be a pattern. Being apologetic after one or even more than one comment does not warrant inclusion. If, however, they aren't apologetic, they can be lumped into those categories. Another barometer is policy. If they advocated or passed legislation against groups like Jews or other minorities, then that would obviously warrant inclusion into the Anti-Semite category. As far as I know, he made one comment that he was sorry for. How many times in your lives have you made an off-hand comment that insulted someone? There is no justification for including Jackson in the Anti-Semite group. Please do not allow your personal political beliefs to prejudice the article. In general, labelling someone as Anti-anything is serious and should not be taken lightly. Comment added by Jps57
Wiktionary defines anti-Semitism as "discrimination or hatred against Jews"[2]. The only reference in the article is that he made a few disparaging remarks over twenty years ago, with an apology afterwards. I really don't see how this could be conclusive evidence of anti-Semitism. Jll 09:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- How is it not? People in the past have "made mistakes" and apoligized for them but that doesn't automatically clear them of their crimes. The Nazis apoligized for killing the Jews during WWII but we don't turn our backs and completely forget about it. Do we? The fact of the matter is, he said Anti-Semetic things which makes him an Anti-Semite. Apology or not. Puckmv 04:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It at most make him someone who at one particular moment said something anti-semitic, and it makes him someone accused of being an anti-semite. So, if I say something anti-semitic here -- "Jews Suck!" -- does that mean I'm an anti-Semite? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does, Jpgordon.Politician818 23:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC) If someone were to say, "Black people suck," would he be a racist? Of course. So why is it somehow okay to dislike Jews?Politician818 23:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Hey, Jp, are you Jesse Jackson? Your grammar is very bad. I'm just wondering.Politician818 23:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- See, what you're talking about here is your opinion, your conclusion. No, I'm not an anti-Semite. I'm someone who, for some reason or another, said "Jews suck." It's a conclusion on your part that this utterance means that I am an anti-Semite, as it would be a conclusion on my part to assign the label "racist" to the person you were describing. They might even be reasonable conclusions -- but we don't get to make conclusions of our own, or express opinions of our own, in Wikipedia articles. (Me? Jesse Jackson? that's just weird.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's a question of definition. An Anti-semite is defined in the dictionary as "someone who hates or discriminates against Jews", or words to that effect. It is not "someone who said Anti-semitic things". Having said anti-semitic things might be an indication of anti-semitism, but a person's behaviour has to be looked at as a whole to determine what they think - just because many apples are green does not mean that everything that is green is an apple. And as jpgordon says, that decision is not one that Wikipedia contributors can make for the purposes of writing Wikipedia articles. Jll 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, all of you need to grow up. It's pretty obvious to me that every one of you arguing for or against this has a political agenda and a narrow set of beliefs that color your perspective. You have to understand that, during a lifetime, people say stuff like this. No one is perfect. Can you honestly tell me that you've never said anything like what Jackson said in your lifetime? I understand the historical significance of anti-Semitism, but I reject giving Jews special treatment in this regard because Jews make overgeneralizations and stereotype against others like everyone else. If you set this standard, then a lot of Jews, Whites, Blacks etc... will be anti-something.
And I have to call out this ridiculous argument about the Nazis apologizing. First of all, Germany apologized. A lot of neo-Nazis still celebrate Hitler. Furthermore, Jackson's comments never implied any legislative actions against Jews. The two situations are obviously different. There is a tendency amongst Jews and Blacks and many others, to justify something purely on the basis of a historical incidence (like WW2 or slavery) that in no way reflects the extent of the current issue. What's also interesting is that groups like these tend not to be consistent, demanding one standard from others but not following their own standard. Jackson may well fall into such category. So do a lot of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jps57 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, bullshit. Please tell me what "narrow set of beliefs" and "political agenda" I'm representing here. I need to "grow up"? I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:NPA; your uncalled for condescension is, in a word, insulting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, what I said was not a personal attack. I merely made the point to avoid this thread going out of hand. You might want to read the rest of what I wrote, as you will find out that I am actually on your side. With respect to what you said, I find your comments to be irrelevent. You talk a lot about the difference between accused and conclusions, but you don't draw any lines yourself. If Jackson were to have made these comments more than once, our judgement w/r to his anti-anything would still be opinions. How about if he said it 1000 times? You have to draw the line somewhere, and judgements about a person's percieved anti-anything are inherently subjective. That is why different dictionaries have different defintions of different words. By your definition, it would be no logical stretch to say Hitler was not Anti-semitic because our judgement would be involved. This whole issue is about drawing the line. Some want to draw the line very narrowlly, forgetting that humans are flawed and make these types of mistakes once in a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jps57 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. I too found your assertion that I obviously have a political agenda, a narrow set of beliefs, and need to grow up as sweeping as it is insulting. There is no justification for attacking my integrity, open-mindedness and maturity here (or that of any other contributor), even if you think doing so might prevent the "thread going out of hand" whatever that means. Whilst I agree with the general thrust of your argument that judgements on what people think are inherently subjective; it is not up to Wikipedia contributors to make those judgements since original research and opinion are not permitted in articles. All we can do is use reliable sources, and no-one has been able to cite any which say that Jackson is anti-semitic. I also disagree that the meaning of a word depends upon which dictionary you look in (if that is what you meant by "different dictionaries have different defintions of different words"); almost all words have precise meanings. I looked up anti-semitic in four dictionaries earlier in the discussion just to be sure I knew what it meant and they all said the same thing. We don't live in a Through the Looking Glass world where `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Jll 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I took him off of the article List of Freemasons. I agree that it is not at all clear which J. Jackson is spoken of. I have cites of Jess, Rev. Jess, Jesse, Rev. Jesse, & Jesse L. If anyone can contribute to this at List of Freemasons, please do. And for my part, I will try to watch this closely, to keep things straight. I'm sorry for any perceived ill conduct on my part. Believe me, it was not intentional. Grye 21:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Current Activities
Removing references to 2006 activities from this section in the absence of any other references to recent activities makes no sense.
How is it vandalism to report that a former Presidential candidate has signed a declaration that compares the current President to Hitler?
I'm not sure that it's vandalism if he actually did it, but I consider Jackson to be a hypocrite for comparing Bush to Hitler while ignoring Clinton's Hitleresque murder of the Serbian people. Politician818 07:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
daughter Ashley
Apparently there's some question as to whether Jesse Jackson fathered a daughter named Ashley out of wedlock. Google turns up various sources that confirm this: [3] & [4]. FreplySpang (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, it looks like I have to fine-tune my Wiki-instincts a little. After I saw your removal, I searched ("Jesse Jackson" daughter Ashley), and authoritative sources told me so. Then I saw your links here. --Shultz III 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed this line from the "Early life" section: "He is known for being an American politician, civil rights activist, and Baptist minister." It is redundant, since the exact same thing is said in the introduction of the article. Stlom 03:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
This page is ever so frequently being vandalized. Is there some way of letting the vandals know that their edits won't last?chifumbe
Thank me
Everyone please thank me for cleaning up the grammar, not only in the article but in this discussion room. It looked like Jesse Jackson wrote the article before I edited it. Politician818 17:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not edit the comments of other editors even if their grammar and spelling are incorrect. Edits like this are not only unnecessary but are disruptive.
Monkeyman(talk) 13:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Why was some of the information that I put into this article taken out? I documented Jesse's rant against white men liking black girls. Whoever took that out committed vandalism. Politician818 01:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- No. It's a content dispute, not vandalism. And what do you mean by "it looked like Jesse Jackson wrote the article"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
By "it looked like Jesse Jackson wrote the article," I obviously meant that it looked like a mentally retarded person wrote the article. There were so many grammatical errors that I corrected. Jesse Jackson, of course, is mentally retarded. Just listen to him speak. And yes, it's vandalism. My content was documented. I'm adding it back in. You have no right taking out cited information.Politician818 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sure I do. It's called "editing". By the way, stick that stuff back in again and you'll draw a 3RR block. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, it's called vandalism. And you're the one who's going to draw the 3RR block. Cited information cannot be taken out. I used to try that with articles that I thought were bashing people whom I liked. I was told that as long as the information is sourced, it doesn't violate the neutral point of view. I will try to get you blocked if you do this again.Politician818 02:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry, but you just can't take out whatever you like from an article. There has to be a legitimate reason. Jackson said exactly what I wrote down, so stop it. Stop it. Stop it! As far as the statement that I wrote down about him being a Christian minister, I have no idea what your problem with that is. He is a minister. Pointing this out when referring to his adultery displays his hypocrisy without flatly stating it. The readers will decide on their own what to think. "Married since 1962" does not need to be written, as everyone already knows that he's married.Politician818 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC) You must at least explain why you've edited a statement out.Politician818 02:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry, JP, but you're not going to win here. If you take that information out again today, you'll be violating the 3RR rule. Have a nice day. Explain why what I put in is bad, or no dice. Sorry. You must work in Jackson's front office.Politician818 04:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I hope I'm not disturbing what's obviously an affectionate, respectful discussion. Politician, your edit was inappropriate for a number of reasons, and violated WP:NOR, which is a policy you may want to review. Your language above is also very likely to see you blocked if it continues. Please try to tone things down a little. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, let's review this. Here's what Politician818 wants to insert:
Recently, on CNN's Paula Zahn Now program, airing on April 17, 2006, Jesse Jackson (referring to the situation in North Carolina where a black stripper accused members of the Duke University men's lacross team of rape) stated, "...And the idea of white males fantasizing about black women is -- is quite old, quite -- and quite ugly, and now quite illegal." [5] Jackson's statement contradicts his past feelings in support of interracial dating and marriage.
Besides the obvious question of what relevance this has to anything, there's the original research of the "contradiction" you are pointing out. Who is coming to the conclusion that there's a contradiction? And what NPOV purpose is served by including this example of Jackson talking apparent nonsense? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
JP, thank you for finally explaining what your problem is. Of course what Jackson said is relevant. This is an article on Jesse Jackson. If Jackson puts his foot in his mouth, it is relevant. A cited statement does not violate NPOV. I learned that fact the hard way when I tried to edit cited statements out of the article on Michael Savage. As far as whether or not Jackson contradicted himself, are you denying that Jackson used to be for interracial marriage? Do you want me to cite a source saying that he used to be for interracial marriage? Liberals like Jackson have always referred to conservative whites from the south who opposed interracial marriage as "racists." Evidently, it's "in" for a minority to be against interracial marriage, though. Or maybe it's that white men can't have black women, but black men can have white women with Jesse. It's pretty obvious to me that if Jackson is now saying that it's "illegal" for a white man to fantasize about a black woman (What the hell does he mean by this? It's perfectly legal to fantasize. What an idiot!), then he is obviously against white men dating black women. He wants "whitey" to keep his hands off black "property." Perhaps Jackson needs a translator, since he frequently says things that make no sense. Do you know what Jackson meant? I honestly don't see any violation. Please elaborate further, and we can work out a compromise. However, I will get the statement in the article. Liberals who hate Michael Savage have a bunch of negative quotes about him in his article, so I think that it's fair for a conservative like me to get in negative quotes about Mr. Jackson, as long as the quotes are cited by a reputable source.Politician818 23:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
JP, I tried to take some negative comments about Michael Savage out of his article, yet they were all put back in, and I was told that as long as the quotes were sourced, I couldn't do anything about it. So it doesn't violate NPOV to include an idiotic quote by Jackson. Could you further elaborate on how I'm violating NPOV or NOR? If you don't, I'm just going to put the quote back into the article.Politician818 03:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's simple. Ignoring for the moment the question of the notability of Jackson's quote or its appropriateness in whichever section it was added to, and simply assuming for the moment that it is notable, relevant, and properly placed, the only remaining problem that I see is the statement - which is a claim - that "Jackson's statement contradicts his past feelings in support of interracial dating and marriage." Your response may be "well, that's obvious", but so is a lot of original research. I happen to agree - if Jackson really did formerly argue for interracial marriage, and is now lambasting white men who desire black women, then he is indeed, in my opinion, contradicting himself. However, you and I and my uncle Bob are not notable or reliable sources, so our claims that Jackson is contradicting himself constitute original research. Since it's so obvious to you and to me that Jackson is contradicting himself, it should not be hard to find a notable and reliable 3rd-party source who has noted the contradiction. Then it's simply a matter of changing the write-up to "Commentator x notes that this statement contradicts Jackson's earlier statements regarding interracial couples." Does this explain it? Cheers, Kasreyn 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kasreyn is right here. Lacking any 3rd-party source, this "claim" is Original Research. That's why I removed that sentence a few days ago.--WilliamThweatt 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note that now that the claim is sourced, it has once again been removed as "cherry-picked" and "out of context". I don't specifically dispute these, I'd just like to point out that Politician818 is pretty new to Wikipedia, and this must be very frustrating to him; it must seem that every time he passes one hurdle, another is erected.
- Kasreyn is right here. Lacking any 3rd-party source, this "claim" is Original Research. That's why I removed that sentence a few days ago.--WilliamThweatt 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I do not feel the quote is non-notable. If it has been taken out of context, I don't see how. I've read the transcript, and it seems to me a fairly typical example of Jackson, who is smart but not very good at speaking extemporaneously, fumbling his lines and getting tongue-tied. This happens to the best of 'em on TV political shows, where the anchors try as hard as they can to disrupt and confuse the guests to goad them into making some mistake. How is that non-notable in an article on a man who makes his living as a speaker and politician?
- Furthermore, it shows him reading race into a situation which others may not have considered had a racial aspect. How is that also not notable? It failed to note that Jackson offered to pay the girl's tuition, which was a generous deed, so that was a flaw in the write-up. If the claim is that the quote was too short and was too easily misconstrued, then the simplest and best solution is to quote a larger amount in order to make the context plain. Respectfully, Kasreyn 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, Politician818 appears to be discussing now, rather than continuing the edit war, which I really wish people would knock off. We can talk this one through. You answer your own question "how is that non-notable" in your previous sentence: "this happens to the best of 'em". If it's that common for the general class of speakers and politicians, why is it notable for Jackson? Regarding reading race: certainly he does that, but that quote doesn't quite show that. Later on in the interview it becomes a lot more clear that he's doing exactly that. It shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source bemoaning Jackson's penchant for (as they'll likely say) "race-baiting", and the entire incident (though not this quote) is a good example. But we can't give that quote (or any quote) as a controversy simply because we happen to think it's controversial; that's exactly where we need find some sufficiently notable pundit making this point. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, it shows him reading race into a situation which others may not have considered had a racial aspect. How is that also not notable? It failed to note that Jackson offered to pay the girl's tuition, which was a generous deed, so that was a flaw in the write-up. If the claim is that the quote was too short and was too easily misconstrued, then the simplest and best solution is to quote a larger amount in order to make the context plain. Respectfully, Kasreyn 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The quote
Perhaps User:WilliamThweatt would care to explain what encyclopedic function the unexplained, contextless insertion of that quote serves? If it's such a big deal, certainly someone of interest has commented upon it. Otherwise, including it is a POV insertion -- put there previously to emphasize that he says some real dumb stuff sometimes; it doesn't feel particularly encyclopedic, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- First off, Jpgordon, I'd like you to realize that you are not speaking with Politician here. I agree that his form of "debate and discussion" was not productive and doesn't help the cause of Wikipedia. So let's keep this civil. Having said that, even the proverbial broken clock is right twice a day and I think Politician's quote belongs here.
- First of all, it's a properly source is properly cited, so it's not Original Research.
- Secondly, I didn't re-include the last sentence of Politician's original editing...that was his judgement & editorializing and, therefore, Original Research so I left it out.
- Thirdly, this is the "Criticism and controversies" sub-section. This is a sourced controversial public remark that Mr. Jackson made which serves to demonstrate to the reader a side of his character that they may not otherwise be familiar with. My end purpose (as yours should be) is to advance to the goals of Wikipedia by giving the reader (who may or may not know a thing about Mr. Jackson) a complete encyclopaedic article describing all sides of his public persona.
- Fourthly, there is no ground for claiming POV. I'm sure you know that "POV" stands for "Point of View". I have not interjected my personal beliefs, feelings or commentary anywhere in this short paragraph, only facts that can be easily verifiable. This very short section doesn't make a POV, it just gives facts that the reader can use to develop his own views...that's what a good encyclopaedic article does. You and I may not like that Mr. Jackson says such things; but the fact remains that he does...and the reader deserves to hear them in a fair and balanced way.
- I do not usually contribute to these kinds of articles or get involved in these kinds of controversial disputes but I noticed the article while doing Recent Changes Patrol with Vandal Proof and I happened to have watched the program in question and heard Mr. Jackson make the remarks, I have also heard them talked about and seen them written about a great deal. I am happy to leave the quote the way it is now and move on to another article. But if you insist on removing it, I will have to stay here a while and greatly lengthen this section with more quotes and references to the remark. (After reading that back, it sounds confrontational...I don't mean it to be. I'm simply saying that, personally, I'm satisfied to leave the quote as it is even though there is far more material that could legitimately be included about this).--WilliamThweatt 16:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Was my question incivil? My apologies if it was; I seem to be coming off snarkier than I intend to today. Now, regarding POV. It's not correct that simply because a statement is factual, that including it is not POV. Given that there are a myriad of facts that can be included in an article about Jesse Jackson, the selection of which facts are to be included (in other words, editing the article) can be POV or NPOV. As an obvious example, if Ted Kennedy included nothing but references to Chappaquiddick and the misbehaviour of his relatives, it would all be factual, but the selection of facts would be utterly POV. In this case, it's a matter of including a single dumb thing Jackson said (and it's an odd choice, considering how many dumb things he has said) with no context; since, as you say, it's been written about a great deal, it should be simple to find a verifiable reliable source to put it in a context that either makes some sense out of the seemingly nonsensical statement, or shows it as part of a pattern of race-baiting (as one of the players' attorneys said, according to Paula Zahn during the same interview.) In isolation, though, it's just "Jesse Jackson said something weird", to which my reply is "And this is news -- how?" --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Apology gladly accepted, friend (although I was more-or-less trying to set a civil tone, not necessarily indicting your question). I agree with just about everything you say, especially the part about selective inclusion of quotes and that it's not "news" to either you or me that "Jackson said something weird". But one of my points that seems to have gotten lost in the length of my last post was that not everybody who comes to Wikipedia will be familiar with Mr. Jackson and it may not be news to them...we are writing to a broad audience, not just political/media junkies like ourselves. :-) Also, this isn't supposed to be "news", it's supposed to be encyclopaedic (I'm sure I don't need to tell you that, but I'm just laying the premise for my next point). There's a big difference between "news" and an encyclopedia. "News" reports 1st-hand, or 2nd-hand, info and, by its nature, is supposed to be new or revealing content. An "encyclopedia" is a 3rd-hand source that chronicles the first two. (This is a summary of WP policy on "Reliable Sources" and "Verifiable Sources") This quote is a chronicle.
- Was my question incivil? My apologies if it was; I seem to be coming off snarkier than I intend to today. Now, regarding POV. It's not correct that simply because a statement is factual, that including it is not POV. Given that there are a myriad of facts that can be included in an article about Jesse Jackson, the selection of which facts are to be included (in other words, editing the article) can be POV or NPOV. As an obvious example, if Ted Kennedy included nothing but references to Chappaquiddick and the misbehaviour of his relatives, it would all be factual, but the selection of facts would be utterly POV. In this case, it's a matter of including a single dumb thing Jackson said (and it's an odd choice, considering how many dumb things he has said) with no context; since, as you say, it's been written about a great deal, it should be simple to find a verifiable reliable source to put it in a context that either makes some sense out of the seemingly nonsensical statement, or shows it as part of a pattern of race-baiting (as one of the players' attorneys said, according to Paula Zahn during the same interview.) In isolation, though, it's just "Jesse Jackson said something weird", to which my reply is "And this is news -- how?" --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, as stated in the policy and discussion on pages such as WP:NPOV, the remedy for just such a situation as this (a claim of selective inclusion of quotes) is not to delete the quote (provided it is properly cited), but to attempt to "balance" the article by including either a response from the person (in which he apologizes, explains, qualifies or defends his remarks) or a citation from another source that sheds a different light on the statement. I don't think the quote, as currently written, is POV. You apparently do, therefore the burden is on you to provide balance, not simply delete (others might say "censor") the quote.--WilliamThweatt 17:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Others might indeed say "censor", but those others badly misunderstand the concept of "editing". My problem isn't the POV of the quote; my real problem is the utter lack of context. Why is this quote important enough to be added to the article? What does it tell the reader about Jesse Jackson? I mean, there's a difference between controversial statements and utterly stupid statements. My problem is that the only comments I've seen about this utterance have been on blogs; I haven't yet found anyone worth citing about it one way or another (which makes sense, since the statement was incoherant, and the only real response to it is "buh?") --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- "What does it tell the reader about Jesse Jackson?" The whole point of NPOV is that we don't decide what it tells the reader about the subject, that's not our concern. As long as it's accurate and properly cited, it's supposed to speak for itself. Leave it to the reader to decide what the quote reveals about Mr. Jackson.--WilliamThweatt 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, certainly we don't want to interpret it -- that's what Politician818 was doing, and which you quite properly omitted. But everything in an encyclopedia is supposed to further inform the reader about the subject; in what way does the quote inform the reader? As I've said, absent of context or commentary, it's just a weird statement. Given that our articles are highly selective -- we don't have full-fledged biographies of our subjects. Our collective editorial judgement determines which details of a person's life to include, so we often discuss (as we are here) whether an isolated fact, out of a lifetime's accumulation of trivia, is worth including. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- "What does it tell the reader about Jesse Jackson?" The whole point of NPOV is that we don't decide what it tells the reader about the subject, that's not our concern. As long as it's accurate and properly cited, it's supposed to speak for itself. Leave it to the reader to decide what the quote reveals about Mr. Jackson.--WilliamThweatt 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Others might indeed say "censor", but those others badly misunderstand the concept of "editing". My problem isn't the POV of the quote; my real problem is the utter lack of context. Why is this quote important enough to be added to the article? What does it tell the reader about Jesse Jackson? I mean, there's a difference between controversial statements and utterly stupid statements. My problem is that the only comments I've seen about this utterance have been on blogs; I haven't yet found anyone worth citing about it one way or another (which makes sense, since the statement was incoherant, and the only real response to it is "buh?") --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, as stated in the policy and discussion on pages such as WP:NPOV, the remedy for just such a situation as this (a claim of selective inclusion of quotes) is not to delete the quote (provided it is properly cited), but to attempt to "balance" the article by including either a response from the person (in which he apologizes, explains, qualifies or defends his remarks) or a citation from another source that sheds a different light on the statement. I don't think the quote, as currently written, is POV. You apparently do, therefore the burden is on you to provide balance, not simply delete (others might say "censor") the quote.--WilliamThweatt 17:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Jp, Michael Savage commented on Jesse Jackson's quote. That's where I learned of it.Politician818 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
So that contradicts your statement that nobody else is talking aobut Jesse's idiotic comments. That's where I learned of it. I would never be caught dead watching CNN. Savage had the audio played on his radio show.Politician818 06:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say nobody else is talking about it, I said I haven't found anyone worth citing about it. If you have some verifiable reliable sources, please bring them to the table; that you "heard something on the radio" doesn't amount for much -- we don't insert everything people hear from some guy on the radio into articles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Duke rape scandal
I read the paula zahn article and there was a lot more said apart from the quote. The quote taken alone would appear to have bean cherry picked to make jackson look bad. In order to include the quote I believe more information regarding the duke scandal and jackson's involvement should be added to provide context and to be fair and objective. Secondly the statement did not cause any controversy in the media. few media outlets reported it so it can hardly be deemed controversial. If anything what is controversial is the issue of upper class white ivy league students hiring low income black strippers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's hard to hire high income strippers of any color in Durham, I suspect. And, as Zahn pointed out in the interview, there's no indication that they asked for black strippers; it's just who showed up. (Probably illegal for the stripper agency to discriminate on the grounds of race, come to think of it.) But yeah, I wish I'd realized that "cherry picking" is the right description for the inserted quote. (The rest of the interview is pretty weird too.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oops! If I had seen this section down here I would have replied down here, not commented above. Kasreyn 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)