Talk:Jesse Jackson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Jesse Jackson, 2nd Prince Nana of the Agni

Reverend Jackson was recently given and enthroned with in a full ceremony, Michael Jackson's title of Prince Nana of the Agni People of the Ivory Coast. He is now the Crown Prince of the Agni People... should we not include in this article his new royal title? Lskr (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am removing this title from the introductory paragraph pending further discussion. Penthamontar (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have looked this over, and I think that the title should possibly be mentioned in the introductory paragraph, but not in the first sentence, because it seems misleading for this title to be in the first sentence, because of the relative unimportance of this accomplishment in comparison to Jackson's work as a minister and as civil rights leader. Please comment and discuss. Penthamontar (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC) He is a self-fish person who only thinks about himself. He has no right talking about discrimination, just look at the way he talks about white people. He is the most prejudice person I know. You just have to listen to his words and not his speech and you will see what I am talking about. He has know rights to say anything in the business world. People need to wake up and see what people like him are doing to us. We need to take this country back. Its not the talkers that helped build this country it was the Blue Collar person. That Person is all different shades and races. Those people did not care about who you were or skin color. Hard work is what made this countr, not from people who just shoot their mouths off. They need to be stop and let our country move on and somewhere in the future our country may be fixed. We need workers in government not talkers. Those talkers are people who have the money. The averege person does not understand that our government thinks that we are incompetent and we can not think for ourselves. We need to get people hired that will fight for us, the average blue collar worker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.143.220 (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1984 election

The article says that Jackson received 18.2 % of the primary votes in 1984, then goes on to say that he received 21% of the vote. How are both statements correct? Nightkey (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't researched it or anything, but in the current election cycle I've observed that there are primary states, caucus states, and some states have both. The primary election totals 18.2% are stated as the primary results, then his caucus wins are listed. I think that the 21% popular vote is probably the number of votes won in the primaries, plus the number of votes granted to him in the caucuses added together.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Remarks concerning Barack Obama

To those editors working on the recent section about Jackson's remarks about Obama, please read WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. Way too much coverage is being given, on what is essentially a minor event in the context of Jackson's entire life, and it should be cut down to one or two brief sentences at the most. On a related note, it is not good practice to have a section entitled "controversies" (see WP:COAT). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree that the Ann Coulter article is more active then this article? Or how about Pat Robertson? Then tell me, why isn't anyone else complaining about the title "Controversies"? No, i think the title should stay. WP:COAT is not a wikipedia guideline, just an opinion. I'll try to trim the section down a bit. dposse (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the section. It's now 8 lines long. I think it's fine the way it is now, if you consider that his comments about Jews is nearly three times the length. dposse (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is still way too much on this minor issue, and it is completely against the spirit of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. I will update the article with an appropriately brief version momentarily. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a bit extreme. You just removed every bit of infomation that explained what this is. You know what? Since this is such a minor issue, why don't we delete it altogether? Because you can't just keep two vague sentences and expect that to be it. dposse (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the existing text is a considerable violation of WP:BLP due to serious weight concerns, and the use of inappropriate sources like "YouTube". Consider how this minor incident will be viewed this time next year, or 5 years from now, or 10. It will be considered insignificant. Please self-revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that due to this story being in the American media as a major event, you are in a minority. Now, i agree that too much weight is being given to this. However, check the history. People will be trying to add more if we trim it, or readd it if we remove it altogether. Either way, an edit war is going to begin. YouTube isn't a perfect source, however, i believe it can be used if a secondary source backs it up...which we have from CNN and the New York Post. We need to edit this secion in a way that keeps the statement in, and has as many sources as possible so readers may research it further. Okay? dposse (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not okay, and a complete misunderstanding of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is an extremely minor event in the entire life of Jesse Jackson which is being way over-reported. This kind of treatment would be acceptable for Wikinews (apart from the use of YouTube, and arguably The Post, as sources) but not for a biography of a living person. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Then, let's remove it altogether. Please understand: i agree that this is being given too much weight, and it's a minor event. I'm just trying to prevent an edit war from people like USER:Wjmummert and IPs once the semi protection is lifted (which you can thank me for, by the way.) So, removing it is okay with you? dposse (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not necessarily the right approach. If anyone feels more detail is needed, they can build consensus here first before adding anything. Everyone should respect WP:BLP where it says:

The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

-- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You actually think regular people read that? Good luck trying to edit this article, considering the widespread media attention to this. Do what you wish. dposse (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs here at all, personally, and the fact that it is mentioned at all is pure [WP:RECENT]]ism. This is a non-event of the type that happens in politics and elsewhere all the time, and that the 24/7 media loves to pounce on to fill time on a slow news day (on Tuesday, the AP newwire carried an article headlined "Poll: Pet owners prefer McCain over Obama"). For context, consider it against the accidental broadcast of Reagan, during a sound check, joking, "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." If Jackson's gaffe is more significant than Reagan's, please help me understand why. Otherwise, this will be completely forgotten in a week at most and therefore does not warrant a mention in this bio. As a practical matter I suggest leaving the current two sentences in, if only to prevent editors for feeling the need to be "first" to add it, and then quietly removing it Monday or so when no one cares any more, but my true feeling is it shouldn't be there at all. The other option, of course, is to request page protection if edit-warring becomes an issue. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Clubjuggle. The issue doesn't actually belong in the article at all, but the practical approach is to let it sit for a few days to try to cut off eager new users from adding far more detail. Once the minor stories by bored newscasters have dissipated, we can remove the blip. LotLE×talk 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

put it in wikiquote - nutcutter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.240.230 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How is this not relevent? In 5 years, this will be even more relevent if Obama is president. Anyone trimming down this article should also go trim down Don Imus, Michael Richards, and Pat Robertson. If you do not, then you are a hipocrite. Jessee Jackson's whole "career" has been involving himself in the Black Community. So this comment mad about a future black (and white) president is VERY important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Shabazzz (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please make yourself familiar with the policies concerning biographies of living persons to understand why an extended tome on this minor incident would be inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please go and edit Imus, Robertson, Coulter, and Richards then. Or do your rules not apply there? Please make yourself familiar with the word "Biased". Malik Shabazzz (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather childish statement. I noticed this BLP issue while monitoring Special:RecentChanges and acted to sort out the problem. I'm not some special BLP-enforcer dude who goes around doing this on every BLP on Wikipedia. You cannot possibly call me "biased" if I choose to edit some articles and not others. You may also wish to familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL after you are done reading WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Childish? You're the one using the word "dude" mind you. Anyways, not that you are aware of the comments on the other pages, your integrity should allow you to go there and fix them. Otherwise, I will just consider you a biased hipocrite. Good day Sir. Malik Shabazzz (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, choosing not to edit the other articles violating WP polices, even after being notified about them, is a perfect example of bias. Malik Shabazzz (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. There are thousands of BLPs on Wikipedia. I can only do so much, and I prefer to stick with individuals I have some knowledge of. Try to assume good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, to contrast this with Imus and Richards, at least, there hasn't been the same amount of fallout, at least yet. Imus lost his job and Richards effectively ended his Hollywood career. At this point in time (event +1 day), it remains to be seen what kind of effect the Obama remark will have. Probably not much. In Robertson's case, it (9/11) was a public statement/declaration whereas this was not. dfg (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

can we at least say what the incident was related to? Its not like JJ was just attacking him randomly. This was all related to the earlier speeches on faith based initiatives and black fatherhood etc. As you can clearly see from the tape, Jackson had a rationale of sorts, at least in the beginning of his statements, at it was only later that he descended into vulgarity. So I think it might be prudent for all BLPs involved, for us to make clear in a summary phrase, what Jackson's original policy intent was in making these statements. I will start this process myself but please jump in... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(a) Why is it that Jackson's comments on Obama are deemed important enough that they are all over the media, yet, I can't read them at Wikipedia because some folks say they are "unimportant", "minor", etc.? It's perfectly obvious that some people want Jackson's words kept quiet because they don't reflect well on Jackson. IOW, there's censorship going on. And as other comments have noted, this is proven by the fact that regrettable comments by made by others are NOT trimmed. (b) I have another point to make as well. I've read about te policies, the "recentism" and so forth. My thought is: since Wikipedia is a continual work in progress, it's quite normal that recent and current events would be given more weight, since they are currently the object of public attention. later on, it's natural that they would be scaled back and trimmed (a little bit) but not drastically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.30.34 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the easy question: WP:NOT#NEWS. Maybe see Wikinews. LotLE×talk 19:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is the quote not available in the article? Can anyone point out the policy that says "Hymies" can be quoted, but not the recent quote made by Jackson? This seems very contradictory. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

wp:undue 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How is this wp:undue? I mean afterall Jackson said it. His quote should be available in this article. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Larkin (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether the controversy is given undue weight by its inclusion in the article, but I can see no justification for mentioning the incident without including the actual quote. If the goal is to give the section less weight by making it shorter, it seems to me that the quote itself should be one of the last things to be cut. --Benna (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

very incorrect, on numerous levels. The actual quote is so full of colliquialisms and gestures, that its verbatim use would in fact be the direct opposite of encyclopedic. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Colloquailisms, gestures, and antidisestablishmentarianism? Just because you toss out words such as colloquialisms, doesn't make your argument stronger. The fact is that this quote has caused a major news event relating to Jesse Jackson. It belongs in the article (albeit coupled with the facts surrounding the quote i.e. informal discussion, context & etc.) Find me the policy that says no colloquialisms. What makes you so afraid of this quotation? I mean after all THE Reverend Jesse Jackson said it.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is because there are racist people here who try to edit out everything derogatory (but true) about Sharton, Jackson, and the NAACP. They cite Wiki Policy that does not conform to what they are saying. It's funny I get more relevent and true information from TMZ than I do from Wikipedia in these cases. Malik Shabazzz (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

At least in my case, it's not even remotely close to accurate that I "want Jackson's words kept quiet because they don't reflect well on Jackson." Frankly, I don't particularly like Jackson. The quote is getting a lot of press right now, but in terms of documenting the major accomplishments, overall notability and general life story of Jackson, it's a complete non-event. To those who think this belongs here, I'll ask again: Why is this more important than Ronald Reagan's "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes," which was accidentally broadcast in 1984? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the WP:UNDUE statement. This is news because the American media has made it into a major event. If you look at it from an encyclopedic point of view, this is a minor event that is hardly notable. Unfortunately, sensationalism reigns supreme in the media. dposse (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - undue weight, irrelevant to biography. I've shortened it a little further but I think any mention is pointless. An unfortunate, but trivial, utterance. It might belong in an article about "hot mic" misstatements, but even there it would be a minor case and such material really is trivia. By the way, please no race baiting or accusations of bad faith editing, okay? Wikidemo (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, Jesse Jackson is an absolute authority in the black civil rights movement. He didn't just say that Obama talked down to blacks, the vulgarity of his remarks speaks volumes about the fact that Obama is considered by top representatives of the Afro-American community as an outkast, an outsider (possibly because he didn't go through the same generations of struggle as many Afro-American families being half white half 2nd generation Kenian immigrant) who should sit in the corner and shut up (cutting of his nuts is a pretty symbolic thing to say, it implies taking away the potency of Obama's current power). It's an important sign of the times and I think it's an outrage wikipedia won't publish the full quote, it's totally relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.155.174 (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The non-inclusion of the quote, based on the encyclopedic argument, makes the encyclopedia less than fully-encompassing and worthwhile. I understand limitations to the importance of the quote, but it should be in the article because of the massive discussion, media coverage, and significance of its content. The Reverend Jesse Jackson, a national figure, uttered this comment in relationship to the possible next president of the United States. Not including this quote contributes to a precedent of censorship in the encyclopedia. Eliminating the quote also severely limits the scoope of information available to the reader/researcher. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not. Plenty of original research there, anon. If you could ever possibly track down reliable sources that put forth the ideas you've written here, you have a threadbare foundation of an argument, the minimal relevance of it to Jackson's life as a whole notwithstanding. Right now, though, you got nada. dfg (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User Ward3001 and possibly others are going crazy with the "undue weight" stuff. Apparently now it's undue weight to state the name of the television program on which Jackson was set to appear. Please tell me the specific portion of WP:WEIGHT that this and other information violates, because I don't see it. This is ridiculous. If excess information on Wikipedia is really your concern, your time would be better spent trimming all the Pokemon articles. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in the first comment of this section, anything more than the briefest of mentions would violate WP:WEIGHT, and the whole thing is probably against the spirit of WP:RECENT anyway. Seriously people, this is a very minor event in the life of Jesse Jackson that will have been completely forgotten after a few months. Biographies have to be written with the scope of an entire life in mind, and there are an awful lot of you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. "Extensive" coverage of recent events belongs in Wikinews, not Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Any action that a person performs, which brings on a significant reaction, will be part of the biographical/encyclopedic reference. WP:Undue is a policy that states NPOV should be utilized in terms of the opinions surrounding the event, not the event itself. I agree that the mention of this quote should be limited and not discussed in terms of its positive or negative implications. Nevertheless, the quote is a major controversy in the story of the Reverend Jesse Jackson. The Reverend Jesse Jackson's popularized statements, admittedly sensationalized by the media, are relevant. The WP:Undue argument makes no sense with relation to the inclusion of the statements about Barack Obama. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains that the incident was not at all significant when taken into the context of an entire life. MSM reported the event and then moved on. This is a Wikinews thing, not a Wikipedia thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify, what specific part of WP:WEIGHT does this violate? That policy seems to be entirely about adding viewpoints, while here the issue is the addition of facts. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ClubJuggle beat me to it. (---empties clipboard---). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Scjessey. No one is "going crazy" with WP:WEIGHT or WP:RECENT "stuff". Please read those pages before edit warring. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is written from the long-term perspective, not the "news flash" details of a newspaper. This kind of problem pops up frequently in the bio articles of people who are currently getting a lot of press coverage. Some editors rush to add more and more information as if trying to get a newspaper "scoop", then usually things settle down and a 5 or 10-sentence section is reduced down to one reasonable sentence, or merged with another section. A month or two from now Jackson's comments likely will be a blip in the news events of his life. If it grows into something bigger, the section can be expanded. There is no rush to give every little detail of the event. Let the historical viewpoint play itself out. Ward3001 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, "Undue weight" does cover facts too, but I still don't think it's relevant here. The details being removed are straightforward ones that aren't trivial in the least, even by historical standards. If, say, 1000 years ago a politician was caught speaking ill of another politician, I don't think it would be unreasonable to want to know where it happened, to whom he was speaking, and what the full quote was. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

All that is available in the appropriate place already. No need to duplicate it here. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The content of Wikipedia is not contingent on the content of Wikinews. Should we go through Wikipedia expunging every fact that's already mentioned in a Wikinews article? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point, Korny O'Near . No one is saying that anything should be expunged based on Wikinews. Look, there is no rush here. This is not a newspaper. Wikipedia and the Jackson article will still be here a month or two from now and changed as needed. I doubt that the editors of Encyclopædia Britannica, including the online version, are breaking their necks to add lots of details about this recent event to their article on Jackson. Please, let's have a bit of patience and see what happens. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the arguments here agree that the quote is relevant. Yet, the quote continues to disappear from the section. Why is anyone so hell bent on eliminating these words from the article? It's almost as if the person who continues to eliminate the quote doesn't even believe that Jackson made this statement. This person strikes me as a Jesse Jackson fan who is making an attempt at self-deception. Give it up: the quote belongs in the article. All of the WP policies that were cited in oppostion to the inclusion do not apply here. Take the testicles statement out of your lockbox and return them to the article where they belong. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Edwin Larkin, please practice your mind-reading skills somewhere besides Wikipedia and confine your comments to the issues and not the contributers. My arguments are based on Wikipedia policy and not my opinions of Jackson. If you'll take two seconds to look at the version of the article after my last edit, you'll see that the quote was there after I edited. I did not remove it. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001 - you seem to have missed the comments of Scjessey above, who argued that the facts don't need to be here precisely because they're already in Wikinews. Anyway, your argument for "no rush" ignores the fact that you and others are equally rushing to remove information from the section. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we remove excessive additions that violate WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. If Wikipedia errs in the bio articles of living people, it's on the side of conservative editing. See WP:BLP as well as the other policies mentioned above. Such bio pages have higher standards than other articles. Any responsible encyclopedia does that, not just Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that the facts don't need to be here because they are in Wikinews. I said that Wikinews was the appropriate place for detailed coverage. Wikipedia should, at most, offer a brief summary of non-events like this. Remember that additional information is always available from the associated reliable source. When it comes to biographies, editors must make a case for adding or re-adding material - not the other way around. All BLPs are meant to be written from a historical perspective, and it is painfully obvious that this "event" will not be a major factor in Jackson's life. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just a flash in the pan. If in a year's time this quote has revealed itself to have had more significance that a mere faux pas (even a hypocritical faux pas), then by all means let's put it in. Meanwhile, let it be. JohnInDC (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what criteria you'd use to judge the statement's significance a year from now, and which of those criteria aren't already valid now. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's precisely my point. This is, right now, a blip. A little embarrassment. We don't put every little embarrassment into every biography of every living person (or every dead one for that matter). We leave room for the important stuff. There is every reason to believe that in a year this remark will be forgotten. If not - or if between now and then it begins somehow to loom larger in the long long life of Jesse Jackson - then let's put it back in. Meanwhile there are surely better things for us to argue about. JohnInDC (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Korny, what we will have a year from now is (and I'm sorry to overuse the phrase but it's important) historical perspective. Do you honestly think we always view events in history the same immediately after they happen compared to months or years after they happen? If so, then why is Richard Jewell no longer widely thought to be responsible for the Olympic Park bombings in Atlanta? Because things became much clearer with the passage of time, as they usually do. Ward3001 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But what if there's no consensus even a year from now? What argument would you use then to try to convince others that the quote should be removed from the article? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not my point. My point is that now we don't have the historical perspective, and now is what we are dealing with. If there is no consensus a year from now, we'll deal with that the way things are usually handled in Wikipedia. We'll discuss it, and if necessary post an RfC and/or seek mediation if the dispute is heated enough. But let's stay with the present time for now. By the way, I'm not arguing against the quote. I simply want the amount of detail and length of the section to be kept to a minimum until we see how things play out. My last edit did not remove the quote. It simply trimmed the section down. Ward3001 (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the principle of keeping things to a minimum until we know better - you could make the same case for keeping things to a maximum. Facts are sometimes removed from biographical articles if they're unsourced, because they be potentially slanderous and libelous, but that's clearly not the case here. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"You could make the same case for keeping things to a maximum": Korny, whether you "understand the principle" or not, it is Wikipedia policy. You're simply wrong in saying that WP:BLP, WP:RECENT, and WP:WEIGHT view the concepts of "minimum" inclusion and "maximum" inclusion equally. The policies don't just apply to libel. Please read those policies and guidelines so we don't have to keep repeating the same things over and over. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It has already been explained to you several times that adding extra information violates WP:WEIGHT. Either we include the basic minimum facts necessary to explain what happened, or we cut it out completely. This has been way overblown. I'd also like to point out that the edit warring over this has to stop, or the article will be given full protection. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

SCjessey, calm down. Your edits are at odds with what you're stating. You both included unsourced info and lengthened the section within the past hour. dfg (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, someone has put a tag on this section saying that it doesn't have a "neutral" tone! Does anyone have any idea what the specific complaint is? The section as it stands does nothing but state facts and list things which have actually transpired. The language used seems neutral and balanced.

SO, what's the problem? Does anyone know?Wikisurfer61 (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking a third time

In 1984, Ronald Reagan joked that, "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." His statement was accidentally broadcast over the air. If Jackson's gaffe is more historically significant than Reagan's, please help me understand why. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. In 1984 that gaffe got lots of press coverage. Now in Ronald Reagan's article it has a grand total one sentence and is used to illustrate his sense of humor. Ward3001 (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, because Jackson actually meant his statement (not literally, of course, but figuratively) and it wasn't a joke? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Missed the point again Korny. We're talking about historical significance of the gaffe, not whether the speaker meant the words that were spoken. A year from now, we'll likely see that Jackson's gaffe has no more historical significance than Reagan's. Ward3001 (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point, I answered the question. It seems fairly obvious that a statement made in earnest is more significant than one made in jest. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not fairly obvious. It depends on the historical context, which we do not yet have about Jackson's gaffe. See JohnInDC's comments below. Ward3001 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Point proven. In the Reagan article the quote is available for the reader/researcher. Thus, Jackson's statement should similarly be available to the reader/researcher. Even if the statement is a one-liner, a shade of humor, or an example of borderline retardation, it still should be available. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempted comparisons are not going to get us very far here. Jackson made a salty, angry and disparaging comment about a Presidential aspirant that - what? Reveals that Jackson and Obama differ on issues, and Jackson is unhappy about it. Compare Reagan's remark. The President of the United States - the man whose finger is on the button - "jokes" about annihilating his nation's greatest enemy? "Joke" or not, and setting aside whatever it may have revealed about his own private beliefs, it reflected a profound failure of judgment. This back and forth could be spun out forever - let's not, and just evaluate Jackson's comment on its own, in the context of his own life and biography. JohnInDC (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If Reagan's joke showed "a profound failure of judgment" - and who knows, maybe it did - then surely it deserves more than one sentence in Wikipedia. If I were you, I'd see about expanding that section in the Reagan article. It surely isn't a rationale for removing anything from this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I apologize, it looks like you agree with me on the basic principle, so never mind. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So let us close this angle of approach to non-inclusion; and reopen Jackson's statement and the purported policies negating its inclusion. Do we agree that undue weight is not an underlying argument for elimination of the statement? --Edwin Larkin (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not. It would make more sense to remove all mention of the "event" entirely from this BLP, actually, because giving a prominent section to a non-event violates WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama (again)

I don't care either way whether the general information appears in this article. However, if there is going to be a section, the quote needs to appear in it. 208.255.229.66 (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So you want all or nothing? --Floridianed (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said I wanted all or nothing. If there is to be a section called Remarks about Senator Barack Obama, the remarks should be in there. Otherwise, why title it as such? The statement under the section title is generic. IF the section is there, it needs details. It can be short, but the quote needs to be there. If the section does not even exist, however, it does not matter to me. I agree that in the long run the quote might not matter. But, again, I cannot emphasize enough, if the section is there, the quote needs to be in it. 208.255.229.66 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is logical, looking at it from at WP:WEIGHT angle. What isn't logical from the WEIGHT angle, however, is not including the quote. In that case, it should just be the quote in a single sentence.

What I find amusing and ironic is that of the 5 current sources for this "controversy" here + in Wikinews, the only one NOT to report a direct quote (about the nuts) is FOXNews. dfg (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My question was very simple to hopefully get an as simple answer but guess I asked for too much (or too little). Bye bye --Floridianed (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) - Not all that strange, really. Bill O'Reilly made a big deal about "exclusively revealing" the details on his show, so FOX didn't want to preempt his big moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, I added the remarks. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay! I pared it down to 1 sentence that includes the quote directly from our source, but removes the "faith-based" bit, because that is NOT in our source. 1 sentence does not seem to conflict with WP:WEIGHT and now we can wait and see how and if this plays out over the next days, weeks, months, whatever. dfg (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Folks, too many changes without enough discussion here. We can't say what the interview was about because our source doesn't say. We can't say why Jackson said it, because he didn't clarify and there are multiple theories out there. I can think of an OR reason to mention who he made the remark to, but for the encylopedia it's not germane. Please let's not have any additions of material to the article that aren't sourced. Meaning, in the current CNN source, or look for another one. Cheers, dfg (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

faith-based gestures and colliquilisms

ok, raise your hand if you've actually seen the tape of Jackson speak these things. If you're deleting mentions of Obama's faith-based speeches, then apparently you do not know that Jackson himself did say that in the full incident. Those who refuse to acknowledge the essential qualities of slang and, in fact, hand motions, which prevail in this quote, are seemingly refusing to acknowledge the concept of encyclopedic treatment. Those who continually say the encyclopedia NEEDS to give the full quote, are for some reason not posting the FULL quote when they add their recentist text.

Or to put it another way, the only arguments I have seen for departing from traditional summary style, seem to revolve around arguments like "full disclosure" and "complete context." Which is great but perplexing because I have yet to see the FULL quote from the incident get posted once. Cherry-picking the quote for its more salacious elements is of course totally unacceptable. This is entirely separate from the issue of the physical motions and facial expressions which Jackson makes throughout, some of which are arguably MORE vulgar than anything spoken. Try to accurately transcript that from video to text lol. The spoken words are bad enough, he uses some "ohhs," or maybe they are "ahhs" or god knows what else... again nearly impossible to bring up to neutral WP standards. Which why the clear resolution to this, is to write a BLP summary sentence or two, at least until, as others have noted, it continues to be a big deal in Jackson's life. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Jackson's fellow guest

Jackson's fellow guest, the one he was whispering to, is a man named Reid Tuckson; but some people think that information doesn't belong here. So who was Jackson whispering to - himself? The hosts of Fox and Friends (a show whose name is apparently also unmentionable)? His pet turtle? Readers will just have to guess. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Korny, please try to explain why the guest is important, when you've misspelled his name, he has no wiki entry, and your edit doesn't differentiate him from Adam. dfg (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

None of it is important, frankly, but if anything is important it is the fact that Jackson said something rude about Obama. He could have been saying it to Her Majesty The Queen and it would still be superfluous information for the paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

dfg - ah, right you are - it's Reed Tuckson. I think I explained why it's important to name him: so that readers know that it's not anyone else. And Scjessey - obviously I disagree. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"so that readers know that it's not anyone else"??? Korny, please try to listen to reasonable discussion! Do you want identification of Tuckson to include essential information, or just to make the section longer and help you to feel like you're winning this argument? Does it change the meaning of Jackson's comments if he was talking to Tuckson or if he was talking to John Doe? No, not in the least. I agree with the above editors that we are getting close to needing full protection on this article. Sad but true. Ward3001 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, this article isn't anywhere near needing full protection. There's no vandalism and there's no controversial material. Just quibbling about what minor details are relevant. dfg (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is more than adequate reason to protect a page. Ward3001 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed my mind based on Larkin either editing tendentiously or not following the talk page discussion. dfg (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I've wanted identification of him since the beginning - that was my first edit here. And yes, I think it does change the meaning of his comments whether he's mumbling it to himself, or dishing with the hosts, or talking to an associate, etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Korny, you've just admitted the specific identity of who he was talking to is not important. dfg (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Korny, please explain to us how our understanding of the phrase "cut his nuts off" hinges on identifying Tuckson. Please give us the specific differences in interpretation of the phrase if it is Tuckson compared to someone else. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

dfg - er, no I haven't. Ward3001 - to give one example, if he were whispering this to himself, one might suspect he was off his medication. My initial point remains - that some of you would rather keep this section as tiny as possible than allow in some basic facts to help readers understand the situation. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Korny, you evaded my question. I wasn't referring to whispering to himself. How does the meaning of the phrase change if he was talking to Tuckson or if he was talking to John Doe. Please give us specifics of the differences in how the phrase would be interpreted. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Name is not important. however, the fact he said it to someone else should be noted. Right now, the reader would be unaware if he said it to himself, the host, or even George Bush. M Shabazzz (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

M Shabazzz is correct. And Ward3001 - once again, please assume good faith; this is a discussion, not a courtroom. But to take another example, if the guest had been a Jackson ally like, say, Al Sharpton, that would imply some complicity on the other person's part, which would be quite noteworthy in itself. Unless the person's name is stated, readers have no way to know. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop assuming bad faith on my part by accusing me of treating this like a courtroom. If you put forth a position, you need to be able to explain it if you want to be taken seriously. The last time I checked, there was no Wikipedia policy against asking someone to explain his position. So, let's say he was talking to Sharpton rather than Tuckson. How does that change the meaning of Jackson's words? And please note that I'm not asking anything about Sharpton. The issue here is what Jackson said, not whether the other person was complicit. Tell me the differences in interpretation of Jackson's words as spoken to Sharpton rather than Tuckson. Ward3001 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a very reductionist view of information, to hold up each piece of data to that kind of scrutiny (why even include the date it happened on, by that standard?) but I'll play along: if he had been talking to an ally like Sharpton, it might indicate that his statement was more a declaration of intent that he really did want to get back at Obama in some way, rather than just stating his disapproval of Obama. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not buying that. "Might" is the operative word in your statement above. The only way we can know Jackson's intent (i.e., what is in his mind) is if he tells us. The words he said speak for themselves. We don't need to know whom he was talking to in order to speculate about his intent. The bottom line here is this: naming the person serves no purpose. It adds nothing to the section. Ward3001 (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe we should get rid of the "Fox News" part. That's pretty much just "filler" information that adds nothing to the section at all. It's no more important than the name of the guest, at least, and we obviously don't need that. PoTi (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I'm not a regular wikipedia editor, though I do have an account for that. I am a former journalist, however, and I can tell you that the rule is to include as much pertinent, factual, information as is necessary to tell the story. Sometimes, it's not very pertinent, but you include it anyway because it's a fact and it's simple to include. The fact that Jackson is talking to Tuckson is essentially a nonissue from a journalistic standpoint. On the larger issue of whether or not to include Jackson's comments about Obama, again, I'm rarely a wikipedia editor--I'm usually a reader. That being said, the reason I came to this page was to read about Jackson because of all the hoopla about his nuts-cutting comment. It's important to leave it in, in its proper context, otherwise you start to look like you're trying to hide something. As a living encyclopedia, it can always be paired down later when it's less important. Right now, it is important and it could take up 500 words for all I care. Maybe in 5 years it'll only be 12 words, maybe it'll be a 1,000 words because it marks the beginning of the end of Jackson's career. anonymous (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.149.81.4 (talk)

Journalism rules don't apply to Wikipedia, because we're not journalists and this isn't a news organization. dfg (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: WP:WEIGHT of Obama remarks

Aaaand, that's what happens when the talk page discussion doesn't keep pace with the article edits. Let's continue to discuss, and the tags come off once consensus is reached. dfg (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't the only one confused by the tag, as another editor removed it under the main NPOV reasoning. Here's what Clubjuggle stated on his talk page in response to my question:

WP:WEIGHT is part of the WP:NPOV policy document. If some editors feel the issue is being given too much weight and creating bias against the subject, and others feel it's being brushed under the rug to prevent bias against the subject and requesting or attempting expansion, that's a POV dispute. While usually the content of the text is at issue in a POV dispute, it can also be, as it is in this case, a dispute of POV-pushing in the form of whether and to what extent to cover a controversy. --Clubjuggle T/C 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

dfg (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, is this what usually happens after a page gets protected? People lose interest because they can no longer edit the article? dfg (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Would-be vandals and POV-pushers tend to wander off once they realize can't just dump their views into the article. Those interested in a true consensus stick around, take a little time to catch their breath, and then start to work toward it. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 05:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been much discussion on this front. Didn't we have an argument just a few days ago about how much weight needs to be given to these events? Or are all parties taking a wait-and-see approach to the ongoing media coverage? dfg (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

some users need to explain why the gesture is less important than the words

ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think the words are important either, from an encyclopedic standpoint. It's 24 hours later and the media have all moved on to Phil Gramm's "whiner" comment. In a year, no one will even remember this. Even so, mentioning the gesturing is completely unnecessary detail. It doesn't even tell the reader anything. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to explain why the gesture is more important then the words. I'm not sure if any media report even commented that he "angrily gestured". How is that even notable? Can you give a source or is this original research? Fancy-Cats, the consensus right now seen to be to either delete the entire section due to its undue weight, or to shorten it to just the basic details. And, because you couldn't take a few minutes to try to form a consensus, you decided to begin an edit war that caused this article to be fully protected. dposse (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

gawd if I am the only cause of the page protection than you guys must be even lamer than you look in print. PS- I agree the section should be trimmed down, but as long as we are using the full quote I will make sure the mention of the gesture is there too. Not only is it important, but it doesn't even need sourcing because its in the original!, lol kids. But no, i'm the vandal so please keep explaining to me why five words so obvious they fall under the umbrella of "not likely to be challenged," are anti-encyclopedic. Anyhoo, any admin who actually watches the tape will see the gesture, so I'm not very clear on why you think you can win an edit war on this lol. Long run, even a one-sentence summary of this situation will include mention of the stabbing motion, ten years from now, so again not real clear on why all the watery eyes from you editors today...72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Read the first sentence of WP:V to understand why your argument fails. FYI for concerned editors, User:Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats is the "secondary account" of User talk:72.0.180.2. dfg (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history. You were one of the main persons in the edit war. Second, be civil or you shall be reported to the Administration for flamming. Third, you haven't answered my questions nor have you fullfilled the requirements of the Wikipedia Guidelines i posted above to edit the article (as you requested below). dposse (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to describe the gesture without it being POV or original research, but if you see the angry, semi-crazed look on his face and the way he actually acts out "cutting his nuts out" it sure adds to the creepinees of the whole statement! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.154.140 (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that goes against nearly every wikipedian guideline, especially: WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It also must be notable and have reliable sources attached. It cannot be Original Research. You are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to feel creeped out by Jesse Jackson's movements or words. However, this is an encyclopedia. We cannot and will not have that here. If you (the IPs and/or Fancy-Cats) can agree to walk away, then we can begin to build this article into something better. dposse (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

please no more ridiculous lectures from the guy who seems to not acknowledge that things appearing in the video are in fact verifiable! Some hollywood types would say that videotape is in fact the most verifiable source of media... When you cite print media on WP, you read it first to see if its applicable. When you cite TV media, you instead watch it to determine verifiability, etc. So I will go back to one of my earlier questions here... raise you hand if you have watched the tape in fact. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not the guy saying it, it is the guidelines of Wikipedia: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. We cannot put something into this article just because we see it. That is original research. We must have reliable sources that verify that the thing in the video is noteworthy. dposse (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Initially, I was a bit taken aback by Dposse's suggestion for FancyCats to walk away (because I believe in building consensus), but I have to admit that my view has changed, given said user's unwillingness to acknowledge or discuss matters in terms of Wikipedia guidelines/policies, patronizing and mildly insulting language, and the rather bizarre non-specific request below to have a change made. I believe FancyCats may be being difficult only for the sake of being difficult. dfg (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

so sorry for trying to keep this page to the BLP mandates, buddy. I am mildly insulting to you, yes, because you and your other d-something editor keep throwing absurd wikilinks at me, like it somehow supports your apparent position of total misinformation for this page.

believe me I love assuming good faith as much as any other dipshit IP vandal, but I KNOW I ain't required to when people don't show ME the same respect. So imagine my feelings when you editors consistently delete the addition of approximately five words, without any justification of note, other than the low hurdles of verifiability (already met), notability (already met), and sourcing (only partially met). When I have give you 2 1/2 out of the three things you're asking for, and you keep accusing me of bad faith, instead of even attempting any compromise (other than my "walking away"), excuse me for sneezing, and not 'cause of the high pollen count. For the third time now peeps, please wait a couple days and see if The Daily Show is the only prime time broadcast specifically mentioning the gesture. Then we will know exactly how long the mention in article space should be. Personally I think the mention should be extremely short, like the whole section of the hot-mike incident. Mention the full quote, with gestures and expressions, and be done with it. We certainly don't need to start keeping a list of who criticized him and who didn't. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Absurd wikilinks? The links that i have given you are the guidelines of Wikipedia. They are the rules that have been formed after much discussion by the Wikipedian community. They are not "absurd", they are the necessary rules that every Wikipedian participant must follow so that we can create accurate, reliable, and infomational articles on notable subjects. You have not met notability guidelines yet. Blogs are not reliable sources. Are you seriously trying to use The Daily Show as a source? It's a satrical comedy show. It isn't a news organization. Take a few minutes and watch the news. There is no one in the media mentioning a "gesture". The entire story is being forgotten and in its place is the economy, bank failures, the war, ect. Jackson apologized, so unless something else happens, the media is not going to continue to talk about it. That very fact kinda supports the argument that this is a minor event that isn't notable, huh? I think it's time to try to form a consensus on this. dposse (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jealousy of Obama?

Is the real reason the master of the mic spoke this because he is upset about the sucess of a African American candidate for President of the United States other then himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatorman1997 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. My WP:CRYSTAL ball is broken. In any case, this page is for discussion of improving the article, not a forum for general discussion of the subject. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

From article:Jackson has been criticized for some of the remarks he has made about Jews and Jewish issues.Criticized by who?

From article:In both races, Jackson ran on what many considered to be a very liberal platform. Considered by who?

From article:The discrepancy has been cited as an example of the so-called "Bradley effect"Cited by who? Tjc (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "liberal platform" statement, but the other two statements, while needing clean-up, aren't necessarily weasel words. If you go to the source for the comments about Jews, the source describes widespread criticism. In such a case, assuming the source is reliable, it is not necessary to list those who are criticizing. Perhaps the statement needs to be expanded to explain how widespread the criticism was.

Regarding the Bradley effect, if you click the link to Bradley effect, you find sourced infomation describing one of Jackson's presidential campaigns as an example of the Bradley effect. Some would argue that it doesn't need to be sourced in both articles, although I don't have a problem with adding a "citation needed" tag.

So, regarding those two issues, I think it is overstated to say that "weasel words" are used, although need for sources or inadequate wording may be issues. Ward3001 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested tweak to Jackson/Obama passage

Currently the passage reads:

Before a Fox News interview on July 6, 2008, a live microphone picked up Jackson whispering to a fellow guest: "See, Barack's been, ahh, talking down to black people on this faith-based... I want to cut his nuts off... Barack, he's talking down to black people?" in an apparent response to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's recent speeches on values.[36] Jackson later apologized and reiterated his support for Obama.[37]

I suggest the following tweaks:

Before a July 6, 2008, Fox News interview, a live microphone picked up Jackson whispering to a fellow guest: "See, Barack's been, ahh, talking down to black people on this faith-based... I want to cut his nuts off... Barack, he's talking down to black people?" in an apparent response to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's recent speeches on values.[36] Jackson, who was widely criticized, including by his own son, Jesse Jackson Jr. (an Obama campaign official), later apologized and reiterated his support for Obama.[37]

Reasons:

1. Keep "Fox News" because we should be exact in our language, and although "television interview" would be just as acceptable as "Fox News" interview in order for readers to understand the context, "television" takes up even a bit more space than "Fox News", so there is no benefit to removing the name.
2. Readers justifiably want to know what the quote is that got him into trouble. It's short, so this should not be a WP:WEIGHT problem. The shorter the passage, the less WP:WEIGHT should even enter into it.
3. Jackson was widely criticized. It is always worth knowing when the subject of an article is widely criticized. It is also indisputable.
4. He was criticized by his own son, in public, rather harshly. How often does that happen? Valuable information that helps the reader see the differences between father and son, both prominent figures. How can that not lead to a better understanding of this subject? That should also be in the Jesse Jackson Jr. article.
5. The current length of this passage, or even the length as I've slightly added to it here, is certainly more important than the protest/arrest noted in the last paragraph of the "Current activities" section, which also has other information less important and revealing about Jackson than this event. In fact, I think this passage should be moved there and other parts of the "Controversies" sections also moved to the appropriate spots in the article: the affair passage can be moved into the "Family" section and the Hymietown passage as a sub-subsection of the "1984 presidential campaign".
6. I think it would be ideal to weave this into a larger section on Jackson's relationships with other prominent black leaders or maybe simply with Obama as Obama is becoming the most prominent black leader in the U.S. But unless we can put something like this in wider context, I don't see any reason to expand it further.

-- Noroton (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with using the phrase "widely criticized" iff a reliable source is cited. Except for Jackson's son, the only other critic identified in the sources is Al Sharpton. As the section reads now, "widely criticized" is not "indisputable". Ward3001 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the question mark. Jesse wasn't asking a question. I'll find a source if that is disputed. dposse (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ward. My understanding from reading the sources was that he made a public apology before much criticism could take place. If mention of his son's response is mentioned in this article, it should remain as brief as it is in Jr.'s article. Furthermore, the idea of intergrating controversy sections into the main prose is a much better idea than highlighting them, given this kind of devolution to edit warring about relevance and WP:WEIGHT issues. dfg (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

request page change

{{editprotected}}

hello admins, I would like to insert several words. Unfortunately they ARE controversial. So why did I waste all of your time with this template?? Because the words describe a factual event and not the interpretation of it. A quick glance at the source will show the proposed addition is accurate and factual. I know in advance that some might view this as too controversial for a editprotected change, but I also have a hard time believing the page should continue a to provide a factually inaccurate description of this event for the next week or whatever. If an admin is interested in actually resolving this issue instead of kicking it down the road a ways, they could watch the original source here, for about thirty seconds, and tell us what they see[1]. While a couple users are claiming "rough consensus," I'm just not sure those concerns override the BLP mandates of not providing incomplete or misleading biographical data. Thanks in advance for your time. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

ps- this is in regards to mentioning JJ's latest gestures, and not just his words, of this newest scandal, for the sake of clarity at least... (no clarity in my original request apparently lol). 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You have not specified what words you wish to insert or where to insert them. In order to request an edit, please provide the edit here. In addition, the video you have linked above is not "news" despite being from what some would consider a reliable source (MSNBC). It is an out-of-context video about an out-of-context event that O'Reilly aired, along with an interview piece with a talking head. Both the host of this piece and her guest had their own POV issues which are no better than O'Reilly's; two wrongs don't make a right. Finally, video is difficult to use as a source for articles on Wikipedia; I won't say that it can't be done, but it is questionable as it really represents a primary source rather than a reliable secondary source.  Frank  |  talk  10:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's difficult to discuss making a change unless the nature of that change is on the table. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

N Not done, see advice at CAT:PER.  Sandstein  13:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

and at this point I am not so worried about using the urgent-level editprotect thing anymore. Not that the daily show is an RS per se, but they mentioned the gesture themselves in specific terms- so it strikes me that probably the other editors will at least come around to acknowledging that the gesture "actually happened," which is all I was debating with some editors who apparently found a full edit protect neccessary. And who are drastically against mentioning the gesture as a part of the quote, at all. But again, no worries from me, the sources are beginning to pile up and it all comes out in the wash... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Show is a comedy program that was on vacation for two weeks. They make fun of everything. That doesn't make it notable. dposse (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

I tagged the controversy section with {{criticism-section}}. Per WP:CRITICISM and the corresponding section under WP:UNDUE, it is often considered poor encyclopedic writing to have a section just for controversy. Now, I realize that if anyone is controversial, it is Jackson; however, we might want to incorporate it into other section to give a more balanced approach (you will notice the George W. Bush article, for example, does this). It is simply not always good to have most of the article glowing, then give a brief cut and launch into the man in the controversies section. That is my opinion. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Having a section titled "Controversy" is common in Wikipedia (see: Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Louis Farrakhan, Bill O'Reilly, MSNBC, CNN, Ted Turner, ect). It's not a big deal. If you can merge it without messing up the article, then try it. If it's wrong, then someone will mention it. dposse (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it's commonly a bad idea that has caught on by lousy editing. Unfortunately, my own writing skills are not what other people's are, and I'm not sure I could handle the controversy on this page. Chrissekely (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, i wasn't saying that you'd be a hypocrite if you changed this article. All i'm saying is that it's not a big deal. It's not a huge Guideline violation or anything. It could stay there if we didn't have another option. If you can, however, come up with a better solution, then that's good. Anything to make this article better is good, right? dposse (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Making the article better should be a "big deal". Note that none of the articles you used as an example is a FA or even a GA. Maybe this page wouldn't be full-protected if the section at issue wasn't such a crap-magnet. dfg (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with NOT having a "controversy" section here (though I don't like them in general) is that any time something potentially controversial, or even just mildly critical, is mentioned in one of the main sections, even when properly sourced, it simply gets removed. There are those editing this page that will remove anything which is added that can be viewed as even slightly critical of the Reverend Jackson.

If anyone has been controversial in his lifetime... it would be Jesse Jackson. I think he lives and breathes to be controversial, so to eliminate any reference to controversy in an article about him is just silly. So, a properly sourced "Controversy" section makes perfect sense here, and would probably eliminate 90% of the malicious edits and undos in the rest of the article.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a disputed neutrality tag on the section about his comments regarding Senator Obama? You don't get more neutral than simply quoting a source word for word about what Jesse had said; it's simply reporting the existence of an event that is getting a lot of coverage in the media. There seems to be no opinionated statements in that sub-section regarding Jesse's comments, so I do not think the tag is appropriate. If no one has any objections, I will be removing it as soon as the page lock is lifted, as the tag is entirely unwarranted.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Jesse Jackson has built his name around controversy. That is how Jesse Jackson has become the person he is. The fact that you can barely find any of his controversial mishaps in his write-up shows an obvious bias in the manner in which Wikipedia has decided to present this article. Jesse Jackson is a controversial figure, he intends to be controversial. Jesse Jackson is currently one of the most controversial public figures, yet reading this Wikipedia article you would not know why. There is a problem with that. I see no logical reason why Wikipedia does not want this information to be known. This article is exemplifies where this site has gone wrong in terms of the original intent of the Wikipedia project.

You talk about Wikipedia as if there is one person who wrote this entire article ("Wikipedia does not want this information to be known"). Look around. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. If you don't like something in the article, you are free to try to make some changes. But one word of caution. Your tone suggests that you may have an agenda against Jackson (and that's fine), and Wikipedia must be balanced and appropriately weighted according to reality, maintaining a neutral point of view. Ideally, edits are made such that it is difficult to know the editor's personal opinions. If you feel you can improve the article based on reliable sources with these guidelines and policies in mind, then by all means, go for it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and this article has been edited, numerous times. Yet the powers that be remove incriminating information regarding Jesse Jackson. There is a problem with that. And after it has been removed numerous times why would anyone bother typing up information that is viewed negatively about him? In just this discussion page you can see the intent of the moderation of this site is to remove negative information on Jesse Jackson for what I believe to be irrational reasons.

You continue to talk about Wikipedia as something separate from all of the editors who contribute. The "powers that be" and the "moderation of this site" are all of the editors who contribute, not some "Big Brother" censor striking down every effort to change the article. If by "moderation of this site" you refer to administrators, they have no more control over this page than anyone else except in cases of obvious vandalism and abuse of policies. If attempts to add information have not succeeded, it's because no consensus occurred on this talk page to include the information. So I suggest that if you want changes, be more specific about what you want on this talk page. If a consensus emerges to include your suggestions then your edits are acceptable unless the consensus changes. But be prepared to negotiate and defend your arguments with reliable sources rather than your opinions. That's the way it works on Wikipedia. No one owns the article. Ward3001 (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not B-class -- should be downgraded

Three completely unreferenced sections: 2004 presidential election, Early life, and Platform. These need to be tagged and the article downgraded until they're cited. Rep07 (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We can figure that out after we deal with the current crisis. dposse (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison: Imus and Jackson

Look at the insane amount of information pertaining to the Rutgers Univeristy "Nappy Headed Hoes" statement from Imus. Don Imus and Controversial Rutgers Comments Compare this to the two sentences, barely inserted into Jackson's article, relating to the removal of Barack Obmama's testicles. There has to be a consensus here on the length of these types of sections. It is particularly annoying to see that a caucasian's insensitive comments receives 2458 words; whereas an african-american's insensitive remarks can only warrant a miniscule 69 words. What is this? Dare I coin the term Wikiracism? --Edwin Larkin (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For starters, as seen in the Imus article, his comments landed him on the cover of Time magazine. Once the same happens to Jackson (I'm not holding my breath), maybe your argument will hold water, and you could feasibly argue for some kind of perceived double standard here on Wikipedia. If you can't appreciate the difference in scale, I pity you. You seem to be confusing the standards for coverage by Western media with those of Wikipedia; the latter is an encyclopedia and tertiary source of information. My opinion is that your view is the racist one. dfg (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To add to what User:Dfgarcia stated, Imus lost his job over those comments and an entire long-running radio show was cancelled. The comments that Jackson made are, as User:Dfgarcia said, completely different in scale because nothing has happened to Jackson. It's a minor moment in his life. If you watch the news, you'd see that even they have given up about talking about it. It's already being forgotten. dposse (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with dfg and dposse. Comparing Imus' comments with those of Jackson's as if they are equal in insensitivity is absurd, and attributing the differences in the length of the two sections to the race of the speaker itself smacks of racism. Ward3001 (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But perhaps he has a point? Wikipedia isn't Time magazine, it's a collective on information. considering Imus really only had one controversial racist statement and Jackson has many (as noted in this article), maybe this controversy should hold a little more weight. Needs more sources first though.72.220.125.86 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jackson appeared to make a stabbing or cutting motion with his hands at the time he made the comments.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/politics/story.php?id=424380

fyi "all the young dudes carry the news" 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

or this one [[2]], please note that "blog-posts" from reputable print media sites are generally acceptable in political BLPs, ask Waster Time R if you "doubt me"... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

well I guess it made some wire service or something (totally not notable lol)... [3]... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally. It took you long enough to get a few sources together to back up your argument rather then rely on "just do it and get it over with". First of all, blogs are not reliable. It looks like you met WP:V and WP:RS guidelines. However, you haven't met WP:N gudelines. How is the gesture notable? I agree with the current statements from others that this entire event is not notable within the scale of his life. Like i said above, this is different from Imis. Imus lost his job, his long-running radio program was canceled, ect. The fact that his controversy made ripples that changed something in American culture is noteworthy. Jackson trash talked Obama, apologized, the Obama campaign accepted. Tell me, what large things have changed in American culture because of this? Is the media still talking about it? Is anyone still outraged enough that they're coming on tv to call for Jackson to be fired, for him to be sanctioned in any way? dposse (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

the RS policy says sources are unnecessary for text "not likely to be challenged." I still think, considering the gesture's explicit appearance in the video, that the concept of his body language in this event is encyclopedic regardless of sourcing, the RS's I found are just icing on the cake.

all that being said, I hope some editors understand that I know about recentism and all the rest... and I agree this event is a blip in JJ's life, the mention should be extremely small. If you read my earlier talk posts, you would in fact see me arguing for a one-summary-sentence style edit for this event. That is still the position I advocate. We should not be using the actual quote even, in the long run. I did add the full quote, before the protection, and that was simply because the editors attempting to force it into the article, kept using an incomplete version. So I felt that at least we should be accurate, even if the formatting was not what I felt was best in the long run. However you are right the furor has died down and we can perhaps go back to a more encyclopedic summary style entry. I just think that eventual shorter entry should use the couple extra words to summarize the gesture. I don't want a whole sentence or even a specific phrase. If we can do it without commas even that would be great, as part of the flow of the sentence. But something does need to be there. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson and the N word (Obama Comments)

I don't think that the comments are getting enough context in the article, such as the gesture. I'm pretty new to this, but the fact that Fox news is reporting that JJ might have said the N-word should also be put in. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25710121/ Chrisofgenesis (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To keep it short: "He said/she said"....! Another rumor to be spread without proof? This is NOT a blog or else so please come up with reliable sources that proof it to be more than a rumor and/or just another smear attempt before posting such accusations. That would be more helpful. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is getting coverage all around the world, it should be added. There are many articles on Wikipedia which use the word "alleged" when they talk about rumors that are widely spread. This is no different, and the amount of coverage is superior to the amount normally needed for this to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.222.40 (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You still didn't provide NOT EVEN ONE reliable source regarding your accusation so I consider it just an attempt to spread "smear" which won't be tolerated here. --Floridianed (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you happy now, jeez man, go outside once in in a while. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_on_re_us/jackson_n_word --Twlighter (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The article will likely stay protected for now, but I think this is worthy of inclusion when the article is unprotected, considering Jackson's role as a "civil rights leader" and his public denouncement of ANY usage of the word. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not alleged, Fox confirmed he indeed used the N word in a derogatory manner. This is relavent since Jackson is a primary leader in the movement against ANY use of the word and this show hipocracy. DeQuan Williams (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• FOX "confirmed" w/o providing the proof which they claim to have. Since the rest of the media is just reporting on this bases there is just one source (which refuses to make their proof public). To include this in the article the source(s) must be reliable w/o doubt and right now it's just not the case. If that's changing it can and should be mentioned here but till then it'll remain a rumor that still has to become a "proven" fact. --Floridianed (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If the line "Fox News reported that Jesse Jackson used the N-word in his remarks on Senator Obama but did not not air the tape," was put in the article, it would be verifiable, non-biased, and important. Fox News, for all the problems that I certainly have with it, is a relatively trustwory source. If it was a lie, JJ would've denied the allegation. No denial has yet appeared, and in any case, putting the information that Fox News reported such language still deserves entry. Chrisofgenesis (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Squeeze in for context: Since he [Jackson] didn't deny those allegations it certainly might be more likely that their are true [the allegations], but it's not a proof and we can't dare to write down our own conclusions here that are not more than personal opinions, and therefore plain POV by WP rules. --Floridianed (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can be included if presented in context.

Quote from the CNN-ref in the article [keep in mind that all sources are using the AP article]:

"In additional comments from that same conversation, first reported by TVNewser, Jackson is reported to have said Obama was "talking down to black people," and referred to blacks with the N-word when he said Obama was telling them "how to behave."

As it is presented now (in the paragraph) is wrong and misleading and has to be changed properly if it is meant to be included. --Floridianed (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the wording as is it implies that FOX news is not telling the truth, or is at least refusing to confirm what he said, which isn't the case at all. They've confirmed the language, said they won't release it because it wasn't relevant to what he was saying (re: his complaint about Obama talking down toe black people) and Jackson himself went on air and apologized for saying it, again without being specific, BUT not denying the report that he had used the word.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody add this, I am not registered. "Barack...he's talking down to black people...telling niggers how to behave." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2306300/Jesse-Jackson-forced-to-apologise-again-for-racist-slur.html --76.19.222.40 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama ,Jackson, Jena 6

I put in a segment noting that Jackson accused Obama of "Acting white" a year ago, in referance to the Jena 6 incident. Its verified, and builds context for readers when it comes to the Obama-Jackson relationship. It does not hypothesize or provide analysis, it is simply a factual statement related to his latest remarks. Chrisofgenesis (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"This occured less than a year after Jackson accused Senator Obama of "acting like he's white," in response to the [Jena 6] murder case." The Jena 6 had to do with a beating not murder. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dposse" obviously has a personal agenda if he is removing the information concerning the Jena 6. Although the word "murder" should have been beating, he/she failed to correct this but instead deleted the whole sentence. The section concerning Jackson is a complete disgrace to Wikipedia, go look at Don Imus or Michael Richards (a nobody). This section is a prime example of reverse racism. You have the so called leader of the black community calling the first African American presidential nominee of a major party who could win the presidency of the United States a nigger and it is only 5 or 6 sentences? Give me a break, and if you think I am a newcomer to Wiki you are wrong, I have been working on this site for the past few years when I lived in the UK. This is a prime example of the failings of Wiki if people continue to let this happen.--76.19.222.40 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Another little squeeze-in:

Your quote: "...calling the first African American presidential nominee of a major party who could win the presidency of the United States a nigger..."

Please read my comment above where I incl. the right quote. Your quote is "misquoted". Of course this can happen in a heated debate and therefore I'd like to point you to the true (quote). --Floridianed (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, the Jena 6 should be in this article. Its important to provide factual and unbiased information on the aspects of JJ that have made him so unpopular amongst some, and the verified, well known, in-context presentation of his Obama remarks and the Jena 6 are definitive of that. We can't be so invested into avoiding libel as to avoid truth. Chrisofgenesis (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Grossly undue weight

This ever expanding "try to create a conflict between Jackson and Obama" section is just hugely, grossly undue weight. I cannot imagine any motivation for this stuff other than efforts to engage in debate in the current presidential race (in which Jackson isn't a candidate).

Jackson has had a 40 year career, and has been a prominent figure in American politics for much of that time. Can anyone claim with a straight face that the course and notability of his life is affected by a couple offhand negative comments on one other politician to anything resembling the degree the length of the "Jackson says bad things about Obama" section would indicate?!

This whole thing doesn't merit a section. It doesn't merit a whole paragraph in another section. It might merit one summary sentence in the overall biography, but even that would be excessive WP:RECENTism. LotLE×talk 18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, LotLe, but try to convince those "hardliners" about it. --Floridianed (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The principle of writing an actual biography, and not an editorial-of-the-week that postures for political advantage should certainly override any "hardline". What makes it even sillier than other debates that have gone on (e.g. at Obama's article) is that I don't think the hardliners even care about Jackson one way or the other, they just hope to get in a convoluted "electioneering-by-proxy" here. LotLE×talk 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You said: "the principle of writing an actual biography, and not an editorial-of-the-week" and that is exactly the point some don't understand or just refuse to. Unfortunately we now have another (mostly) senseless thread (actually plural) as we had quite some at the Obama page. Seems to me it shifted to here by now and the whole thing started again. It's 99 % NOT about Jackson but about Obama [in the wrong place]. Gosh, I'm glad that Wasted Time R is taking pretty good care of John McCain's articles and wish someone came up to do the same thing about Barack Obama's articles. Wishful thinking I guess. --Floridianed (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Education

Sorry all, I forgot to include the education discussion when manually archiving (still new at that). Wikisurfer, the burden of evidence is on you to replace the referenced info with an unsourced claim about his degree. If there's a precedent for not using an individual's own page as a ref about his education, when it's not controversial, please cite it, because it seems a bit counterintuitive. Lastly, I removed the reference to Jesse Jackson Jr.'s congressional bio page...because I think at some point someone got the son confused with the father. dfg (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wikisurfer described the sources as "spurious". Wikisurfer needs to read the meaning of that word. A website should not be considered false simply because it provide's information about that person's education. Unless there is compelling evidence (which needs to be provided) to consider the information fraudulant, there should not be a knee-jerk reaction that the information is not trustworthy, especially regarding an academic degree. Ward3001 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at the article, and it's fine, but I think Wikisurfer is trying to spin the content to make it sound as if Jackson did not earn the degree in the way a normal student does. The source WS provided indicates that "At the time, he was only a few credits shy of completing his master's degree" [article] and based on 35 years of "life experience" [Wikisurfer] they awarded him the degree. I will try to assume good faith here (despite the "spurious" claim), but I am curious to see if WS will be willing to include the above context if it doesn't paint Jackson in such a negative light. dfg (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, shame on me for that, but Wikisurfer, why are you claiming that the Rainbowpush reference is incorrect, if both it and the source you've provided are saying essentially the same thing? Do you perceive some difference in the word "earned" that the rest of us are not? dfg (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do see a difference, an "earned" degree is normally associated with attending all of the classes required for that degree by the college or university (and completing the necessary coursework, etc.). Honorary degrees, degrees based on life experience, etc. are not "earned" degrees. Jackson's degree was apparently given as a mixture of the two. He had done most of the coursework, and the balance was credited to him on the basis of his life experience. So, no he didn't earn it as someone completing all of the courses would have, but neither was it an honorary degree. I'm trying to get some wording here that reflects that, and his web site doesn't attempt to do that at all, it just says that the degree was earned, so it's not really very accurate either.

As for using more of the wording in the article that would be fine, although it may be a bit too verbose (and I thought that we weren't supposed to directly quote other sources, anyway). Also in the article I think that they mis-spoke on one point because I find several other sources which state that Jackson was "a few courses short" of his degree, not a few credits short. One reference is an interview with Jackson and his wife from the 80's, and they were pretty clear about it at that time. Personally I don't find saying that someone was awarded a degree because of their life work to be putting it in "a negative light" as Dfgarcia calls it. In most cases I can respect a person's life work more than I can an earned degree these days, with the way the colleges are dumbing everything down.

As for using one's own website as a source for a Wikipedia article, the problems with doing that should be obvious to everyone. Maybe that's one of the reasons that Wikipedia is getting the bad reputation it has been for not being terribly accurate or reliable. It is at the very least a WEAK supporting citation, especially when there are so many other good citations readily available. So, no I can't give a precedent for not using a personal web site, but there are good, and logical reasons for not doing so. AND apparently it IS a controversial subject, since some are more careful with the actual facts, and checking of those facts, than others appear to be.

As for the "spurious" reference claim, listing Jesse Jackson Jr.'s website in an attempt to show the extent of the fathers educational background would definitely fit within the meaning of the word. Wouldn't it?Wikisurfer61 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a second citation which has extensive quotes from the school administrator who took the initiative in looking into awarding the degree. The article also lists the specific coursework which was unfinished, and describes the academic process which was followed prior to awarding the degree.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)