Jump to content

Talk:Jesse Jackson/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Jackson about Obama!

My now reinstated version is within NPOV and based solidly on the source. If you want to change it do so, but DON'T write a personal editorial or similar. Stay with the facts and the source and don't try to put more weight in as there is. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind telling the rest of us what you're talking about (and why it needed it's own section to state whatever it is)?Wikisurfer61 (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Please look into the recent history of the article. That might answer part of your question. Also, to your respond to my comment above: Look at the date and take a look at my edit (at the article) I made yesterday. Also it was slightly altered [just some words] it was and is in my opinion a NPOV compromise in which I put quite some time and thoughts in it. I wasn't happy about the minor changes to it but they where not enough reason to "kick in" about them. My intention is to have a stable version in there that makes everyone happy who is willing to stick to the source and compromise on their own believes, as I did too. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It works for me, seems like only the facts are presented and it does not seem biased. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems funny that so many here object to simple statements of fact, and seem to scream NPOV whenever content is changed to reduce the impact of THEIR biased edits!Wikisurfer61 (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't include me regarding your comment (and I don't think so) but just in case you do, please let me know so I can improve my NPOV-understanding. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about those who keep reverting edits without checking the source material first. Those who think that NPOV means that nothing which could be viewed as either positive or negative about a person can be stated in an article, rather than meaning that the editor's viewpoint or bias should not be apparent. We can't list a boneheaded statement made by a public figure? And instead we must pretend that the statement wasn't ever made?

Or worse yet, some add wording that implies that a perfectly reputable news source is lying about the event. So, by that logic an article about Hitler can't list any of his bad qualities, but must only present a sanitized version of historical facts?

Those who remove a statement such as "Jackson later apologized" and the related source, but leave in editorial comments such as "the statement was apparently made in reference to..." Apparent to who? (No refences given either, of course...)

Then they remove perfectly good print sources and add in some MSNBC video hit piece which I couldn't even finish watching because the bias and venom in it made me sick! But of course the person spitting the venom wasn't expressing a POV at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisurfer61 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But LotLE has to be right because if you look at all his contributions he has to be right no matter what. He will not even take the edit by Floridianed above which is completely non biased. But he is a complete loser and spends all his time on wiki, so he must be right. Maybe we can arrange for him to give Jesse a blow job when he comes to CT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.222.40 (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the numeber one question now is if Lulu would swallow, I would be willing to place money that he is a swallower. Especially if that gay pic he has on his profile is a picture of himself. What a loser!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.222.40 (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. You guys/girls made your point so it's time to stop here as you already went to far by real low-level attacks. I agree with the basics of your comments but there's no need bash a user in such manner. That's not how to react in WP and violates the basic guidelines. Strong words are discouraged when it comes to criticize one and I do that too occasionally but there's a certain limit. So please don't go there again. It's just not helpful. And Wikisurfer61, thanks for your words and clearing this up. Cheers, --Floridianed (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being the sandbox monitor, Floridianed!Wikisurfer61 (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sandbox monitor" sure sounds funny but I take it as a complement (and I might even add it to my user page). :)
Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think, Floridaned and Wikisurfer61? Should I go to the trouble of getting a civility block against 76.19.222.40? Has this IP address been used much? And with a similarly abusive tone? LotLE×talk 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears the user has been appropriately warned, but in any case, article talk space is not the place to discuss it. All editors, please remember to focus on the content, not the contributors. --Clubjuggle T/C 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding to Controversies section

I don't think pulling material that's been incorporated into the main article and splitting it into subheadings in Controversies, as Wikisurfer has done recently, is a good idea. No time to edit right now, but I will jump back into this discussion soon. dfg (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, especially per WP:AVOID#Article structure. It is particularly bothersome that the information about the Michael Richards issue was pulled out of a section that had little, if anything, to do with controversy and placed in a controversy section. My feeling is that the Richards info should be restored to it's previous location, and that we work to integrate the contents of the Controversy section into the rest of the article. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that guys. I agree with both of your comments, and my goal here it to try to get rid of the controversies section altogether. You'll notice that I restructured a couple of things recently and that was in an attempt to sort out some of the items that just didn't seem to fit where they were. The resulting "controversies" are kind of the left over items. I was hoping that for instance we could then incorporate the remaining controversies into the appropriate sections above. Maybe the part about the Extra-marital affair and his daughter by Karin Stanford could be added to the Family section? Also, the Civil rights section ended in 1984 and I see that Ward3001 followed my lead and moved the Michael Richard story there. Also the Jena 6 comments could be appropriate there as well. I think that most of his activities since his running for office could be categorized as either "Civil Rights" "International" or "Political" activities. The Duke University part could also be incorporated into the civil rights section, could it not? And eventually the entire Barack comments could be moved to Political as having to do with the 2008 presidential campaign.

That's where I was headed, but if you guys would like to try to work some of these extraneous snippets into other sections of the article feel free to do so!Wikisurfer61 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the other thing that bothered me, and that I was trying to get rid of, was that whole "Other activities in the 1990s" "2004 presidential election" "Current activities" sequence where some of the current activities go back prior to the 2004 election. That section seemed to be a catch-all which needed to be separated out. Doing it by topic (civil rights, international, political) rather than by blocks of time seemed to be the best way to do it.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think that the "Remarks about Jews" section under "Controversies" could be worked nicely into the "1984 presidential election" section as I seem to remember that it figured largely in the debate during that political season...Wikisurfer61 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just kinda funny that you did quite the opposite of what the template on the "controversial" section suggested. I'm sure you meant good but the bullet bounced somehow back. Anyway, we'll fix it as we have to do anyway. Maybe I come back here (after I left because of those senseless edit-warring). Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I was going through the article and noticed several things that seemed to be miscategorized. I'm sure that my editing skills aren't that good (as far a how to move things around and format them) so I just kind of stuck that there, as I was getting too tired to finish it off! It had been pretty quiet around here, but sure enough, as soon as I did that all of you guys popped out of the woodwork to straighten me out!Wikisurfer61 (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikisurver61. Of course it's "quiet" when there are no edits made. Why should anyone say anything at such point? So don't wonder that you get feed-back when you made edits. That's how it works! Though I appreciate your effort. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed the stuff about the Power Rangers, because I couldn't Google up anything reliable (WP copies and message boards comments, mostly). Sounds very urban legendish, but if someone can find a source for it, have at it. dfg (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Good catch Dfgarcia! I have seen that there for quite a while, but now that you mention it I can't find any source for it either. Snopes doesn't even mention it, which is odd since it's been around for quite a while. Many of the references to it seem to be plucked straight from the JJ page on Wikipedia.

Anyone want to tackle adding the Jena 6 back into the section on "Civil rights activities?" It was removed a while back, and the small fragment remains in the "controversies" section, but it should be put back where it belongs. Then that will pave the way for adding the Obama remarks to the political section later...Wikisurfer61 (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Very impressive work on this article, Wikisurfer. Kudos for incorporating the Controversies material and organizing the article. If you spread your efforts like these around the rest of this place more (and yes that's an admission that I looked at your contrib history), I think Wikipedia would be the better for it. dfg (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Just want to chime in with my own congratulations and approval for Wikisurfer's excellent edits. Getting rid of WP:CRITicism sections is always good, and the edits flow well within the overall (mostly chronological) flow. LotLE×talk 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've actually done a ton of editing in the last couple of years but admittedly, never this much to one page, but for the last couple of years I couldn't remember my password so I did them all without logging in. Recently I figured out how to do that again, and also how to stay logged in on my computer, so now my edit history will probably grow exponentially!Wikisurfer61 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm admitting things, I'll admit also that part of the problem was that I couldn't remember what my user name was either so that made it kind of hard to figure out what my password was!Wikisurfer61 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Called Obama a nigger

How is this not mentioned, you could use N word used by Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.154.168 (talk • contribs)

Uh ... try reading the article. Ward3001 (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Alleged comments at World Policy Conference

Considering that the only source is Amir Taheri, who has a history of publishing false information, I think this section is getting far too big. It's clearly giving undue weight. —KCinDC (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Only a few sentences deal with Taheri's claims (which are certainly suspect). The rest deals with reactions to the article and Jesse Jackson's strong denial of Taheri's comments.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC))


2008 presidential election

The article "On November 3, 2008, Jackson was present at the Obama victory rally, waiting for Obama to appear. In the minute before Obama spoke, Jackson was in tears.[48]" should read November 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali-sama (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the reference used [48] cites an article from last year. The citation needs to be corrected. Ejnogarb (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

== jessejackson.com ==

Someone posted this website. However I don't want to click on it. What does it have? Is it one of his websites? YVNP (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

it sappears to be a porn site or something?? I tried to viisit it upt buit was some kind of "only 18 years or old thing" which to me highlights sually porn sites or other things that I dont want anyone to se a t my working place where I work very easily Smith Jones (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

education section

Understand the rationale for the original statement after checking the article, but could be reworded more clearly - currently carries implication that neither claim of racial biases by Jackson is true/supported by evidence from the espn article. Recommend that it be reworded and divided into two separate claims - one of racial bias on the sports team, and another on racial bias on the part of the speech professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki fighter99 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverend???

Is there any reason he is not being referred to as Reverend Jackson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.47.15.10 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Affair

Is a Rev or minister in Baptist Church a priest? I have certainly seen Jackson in priestly robes. Would not having an extra-marital affair and the birth of a child from it usually result in a Christian priest or minister being defrocked? So the question is why was Jackson not defrocked, and why is he allowed to keep the Rev title when he is in reality rather Irrev? 217.42.59.21 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be mention of Jackson spitting in white people's food

This should be in there because it is a significant (albeit disgusting) event. Will someone please add it for me? I am unable to edit the article because I am new and this article is protected.

Here is the passage to insert with the citation:

As a young adult, Jackson worked as a waiter at the Jack Tar Hotel in his hometown of Greenville, South Carolina. According to a 1969 Life Magazine article, "[j]ust before leaving the kitchen he would spit into the food of white patrons he hated and then smilingly serve it to them. He did this, he said, 'because it gave me psychological gratification.'"
The citation is: Pekkanen, J., "Black hope, white hope," Life Magazine, November 21, 1969, pg. 68.

And while you're at it, break that long passage about his education into paragraphs. Mcfly007 (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This quote from Jesse Jackson should be in the article.

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"There is nothing more painful to me than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

People magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Scientific American, and The Washington Post all have the quote.

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit "Firearms protest and arrest"

{{editsemiprotected}}

I note that the section titled "Firearms protest and arrest" contains the line "Jackson and others were protesting the fact that the gun store allegedly had been selling firearms to local gang members ..." Use of the phrase "the fact that" is confusing at best (since it is followed closely by "allegedly," and possibly misleading. Additionally, the cited reference does not support this contention as either a "fact" or an "allegation."

Please consider the following line instead:

"Jackson and others were protesting due to allegations that the gun store had been selling firearms to local gang members ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.181.112.203 (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2009

 Done --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 18:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"For low-income women"

Medicaid is for low-income women only, so it did not affect everyone; see Hyde Amendment for citatations that support this. I would add them myself, but it's semi-protected. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Hyde Amendment bans any HHS money from going to pay for abortions. - Schrandit (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
How does that disagree with what I said? 69.121.221.174 (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The Department of Health and Human Services does a good deal more than just medicaid. - Schrandit (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Called Al Sharpton

Oct 21, 2009 MSNBC's Contessa Brewer Called Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. I mean they are both phony ministers, but one has a really bad hair cut the other is a homosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.28.187 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This comment should be deleted or, at the very, least refactored. I mean, it's obviously trolling, and it violates BLP as well. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Interracial Relationships

What exactly is his position on the issue? I remember reading that Jackson opposes interracial relationships (specifically, he claimed sometime in 06-07 that it was a crime for a white man to have even a crush on a black woman). However, I keep googling that line now and I can't find it anywhere (the only hits I get are from sites talking about his "nuts" quote, and it's quite frustrating). I'm positive he said that, I just can't find a source for it anywhere. Could someone please help me out here? It really should go in the article, since it seems a little unusual that a self-proclaimed civil rights leader would oppose IR relationships. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Political Activism -- Neutrality Disputed

The neutrality of the paragraph under "Political Activism" section referencing to the "Hymie Town" incident is disputed. Please add a Neutrality Box under that section headline, I don't have the ability to because it's a semi-locked article.

Jtkalehua (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Jtkalehua (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lebron James

AN IP keeps adding a section on this latest controversial comment that Jesse made - if we included every controversial word that he uttered we'd have a rather long article. This smacks of recentism and although it is referenced, it does not seem to me at this time to have reached any level of importance to Jackson's whole life. This is his biography, not a place for anything he says that people like or don't like - or the media covers - to be added. If somehow this story moves up in importance to Jackson's life story, we can include it then. There is no rush, there is no deadline, we are not the news. Of course, others may disagree, and that's what the talk page is for. Tvoz/talk 17:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head here. You mention that you'd have a long article if you included all controversies. It seems to me that controversy has been the Rev.'s most well known achievement. Not including all of them--or at least references to them, sell short his contribution to politics and popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.34.173 (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Clinton as first black President

I noted in this article that Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton "the first black President." Its seems that this should be noted, in this article about Jackson. Thanks. IBensone (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My addition has been deleted. It seems to me that one of the key points of interest in Mr. Jackson is his historic run for the presidency, in which his race was a major issue. Therefore, there is a tie-in with Bill Clinton being considered "the first black President", since this would have been a fulfillment of Mr. Jackson's original mandate. Can we therefore please include this fact? Thank you. IBensone (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You're being silly and the reversions by other editors are warranted. What Toni Morrison said was figurative in nature and not relevant to this article. The goal Jesse Jackson was trying to accomplish was quite literal. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

open mic?

did he say anything against democrats or republicans? Thank you. --Roxburyheads1 (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Jesse Jackson, half-length portrait of Jackson seated at a table, July 1, 1983 edit.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jesse Jackson, half-length portrait of Jackson seated at a table, July 1, 1983 edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 8, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson in 1983
Jesse Jackson (seen here in 1983) is an African American civil rights activist and Baptist minister. Jackson came to prominence with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, working closely with Martin Luther King Jr., but he clashed with King's successor Ralph Abernathy and left the organization to form Operation PUSH. Jackson was unsuccessful in both his 1984 and 1988 attempts to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Since then, he has remained active in the African American community and is seen by many as one of America's most important black leaders.Photo: Warren K. Leffler, USN≀ Restoration: Fletcher
Archive – More featured pictures...

Request that birth name should be Robinson, not Burns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.30 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} If his father's name was Robinson, then it shound be his, too.

209.86.226.30 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

References please. Robinson was only his biological father. Materialscientist (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably not noteworthy, but...

In the South Park episode With Apologies to Jesse Jackson, there is a shot of a newspaper with Randy Marsh "apologizing" to Jesse Jackson. Underneath that image, there is about 3 paragraphs of text that appear to come straight from this article.--Rockfang (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

References

I see that you have rearranged the citations at Jesse Jackson as well as done some editing. Can you please return the citation detail to the first use rather than all at the end. I have never seen the all at the end format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have recently put the full citation detail in the references section. The citation formats are identical to before. The cites look the same to the reader, and future cites can be added with the full detail after the first instance, if desired.
I made this change because it removes edit window clutter, making the article easier to edit for substance and typos, and making it easier to verify the sourcing. Also, placing the full cites in the references section eliminates the need to later move them around whenever the first instance of the cite changes. My edit summaries were: same content but list-defined references WP:LDR to facilitate editing & cite checking - full reference is in ref list rather than in article text and finished LDR, no change in content. Here are the diffs that show what was done,[1], and [2].
There has been an objection to this change which I am moving from my talk page to here. Now that I have set out my reasoning in some detail, I feel further discussion will resolve any issues. --KeptSouth (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I have put these comments in chronological order. I have never seen references formatted like that. It is my understanding that the full reference does not have to occur first. in the article. I see no other reason for this type of formatting. People are use to dealing with references among other text to edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree that the full cite need not be the first instance, but I find that a lot of people move cites around for that reason. I should not have mentioned it, b/c that is a side issue.
The main reason for use of LD refs is to make editing easier by removing clutter from the edit window. WP:LDR I also feel it makes it easier to check cite formatting and verify sourcing. LD refs have been used since September 2009, and were added for the very reason that some editors do in fact have trouble navigating the forest of long cites that can occur in the middle of article text. Though I understand you did not want this change, I don't see how the article is now harder for you, or for anyone to edit. The formatting of the cites is the same as before, except where I have checked them and found a few dead links. Please discuss this a bit further, and I am sure we can reach some sort of accommodation short of reverting everything.--Regards-- KeptSouth (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Note on recent changes

This diff shows basically what was done. The end result is that the content is mainly the same, a bit expanded in the first two sections, and a bit better sourced there. I also re-ordered some of the material that was previously scattered in several sections, not changing that content very much, and placing it mainly in under "Later political activities" in chronological order. I also found a few factual errors such as this one. which leads me to suspect that more checking of sources will reveal a few more errors or distortions. --KeptSouth (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

1980 Right to Life ballot

After quite a bit of searching, I am still unable to verify that Jackson ran on a Right to Life ballot line in 1980. In fact, I have found information that indicates the table below, which was previously in the Jackson article, is likely inaccurate in several respects. According to an August 27, 1980 article in the NY Times, Right To Life Party Won't Slate Reagan, the Right to Life party nominating committee met in a Knights of Columbus Hall in Queens in August 1980, talked by phone with Ronald Reagan, then voted to endorse Ellen McCormack for president. She was the only one who ran on the Right to Life Party line, and appeared on the ballot in at least three states, New York, New Jersey and Kentucky. In addition, the info now in this article on Jackson states that the voting was done at a "presidential convention". There is no way some 118,000 people fit into a Knights of Columbus hall. Therefore this information, which was previously sourced to an open wiki (ourcampaigns.com) is likely inaccurate, so I have removed it and placed it below. If anyone has a WP: Reliable Source that shows Jackson ran for President in New York State on the Right to Life ballot line, then by all means, you should add it back to the article with the source. I should note that despite the removal of this unsourced information, the article still makes it clear that Jackson changed positions on the abortion issue.--KeptSouth (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

New York State Right to Life Party
Presidential convention, 1980[citation needed]
Candidate Votes %
Ellen McCormack 79,609 67.33
Ronald Reagan 34,293 29.00
No candidate 2,729 2.31
Jesse Jackson 1.606 1.36

The Bloody Sweater

Wow...talk about losing history down the memory-hole -- it's like an article about Nixon without mentioning Watergate. (Well, maybe not that bad, but still....) --Froglich (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It was a publicity stunt. I really think the sweater is only relevant among people who really, really hate Jesse Jackson. --68.14.74.126 (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

How is there no Controversies Section

Seriously, Jessie Jackson has a lot of supporters and a lot of detractors, has been in many situations generally considered controversial. This article makes it sound like Jessie Jackson is completely mainstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.85.123 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's start the ball rolling - how about HUD Chicago, marital infidelities. Anyone else got any topics to add under this heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandondene (talk • contribs) 11:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree - Jackson has been a very polarizing figure; an honest entry article should reflect that. The various incidents should be pulled out into their own section, IMHO. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

An honest entry should reflect that, yes, but this site has a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.133.219 (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


Jesse Jackson: Black Hope, White Hope - Nov 21, 1969 LIFE - Vol. 67, No. 21 "Jackson talks about himself at these meetings. Once he told of his days as a waiter at the Jack Tar Hotel in his hometown of Greenville S.C. Just before leaving the kitchen he would spit into the food of white patrons he hated and then smilingly serve it to them. He did this, he said, 'because it gave me psychological gratification.'" http://books.google.com/books?id=1VAEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA67&ots=AfnbIGSt5z&dq=%22jesse%20Jackson%22%20spit%20in%20white%20%20food%20jack%20tar%20%20%22Black%20Hope%2C%20White%20Hope%22&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false 64.203.10.167 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Jackson is made of Teflon, nothing sticks. How about a report on his awful (overheard) comments re Candidate Obama during the last Presidential election? About the (now) President he said "He talks down to niggers, I'd like to cut his balls off." Cutugno (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This problem is not specific to the Jesse Jackson article. I've been a regular reader, seldom contributor, to Wikipedia since it started. In recent years I have seen most all biographical entries become strongly bias with POV. Maybe they are afraid of libel suits but the result is so extreme as to be comic. If you want a glance at an extended, free campaign ad check out the Hugo Chávez article. 24.136.247.51 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, no controversy section on Jessee Jackson? Seriously? Isn't this site supposed to have no political or racial bias? 24.179.151.176 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Policy suggests that controversies should not be put into a separate section, but written into the general presentation of the topic. Are there any particular controversies you find to be missing from the article?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

How about the time when he smeared MLK's blood on his shirt, and then went on TV and claimed that King had died in his arms?

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2014

also known in today's society as a race baiter.

24.254.227.34 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015

In 2014, Jackson began a campaign for diversity in the tech sector through shareholder activism. His efforts, were extremely blunt, and are widely credited with successfully pressuring Google and other technology giants into releasing their diversity figures. The companies had previously fought media requests for the figures. The campaign, called the Rainbow/Push Silicon Valley project has led to vastly increased relevance for Jackson. reference: http://www.ibtimes.com/twitter-releases-its-employee-diversity-figures-after-jesse-jackson-coalitions-demand-1637420 Happystin8 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere does the cited material suggest that the campaign has 'led to vastly increased relevance for Jackson'. Anastrophe (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jesse Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jesse Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The header of the table showing the 1990 election results that made Jackson a shadow senator for the District of Columbia links to an article that does not give information about that office. Shadow congressperson is apparently the correct article for that information at present.

Specifically, the final table in the section Electoral History, with the heading "Shadow Senator from District of Columbia, 1990" currently links to United States congressional delegations from the District of Columbia but should link to Shadow congressperson. 209.179.88.51 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Done  — Ammarpad (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Parkinson's diagnosis

On Friday, Nov. 17, 2017, Jackson spoke publicly about his struggle with Parkinson's Disease, with which he was diagnosed several years ago.Maccb (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jesse Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson's July 19, 1988 speech contradicts what's here.

"Jesse Jackson is my third name. I'm adopted. When I had no name, my grandmother gave me her name. My name was Jesse Burns until I was 12." This Wikipedia article says he got ONE name change, when he was one year old. Someone needs to correct this, as he probably knows best. 98.14.15.215 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Jackson v. MPI Home Video

Apparently his July 1988 speech was very widely reported and had some success in triggering activity in commerce and courts, should the article have a section about it? https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1874492/jackson-v-mpi-home-video/ Nemo 06:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesse_Jackson/Archive_3&oldid=1136841585"