Talk:Jesse Jackson/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Systemic bias

In the controversies section it mentions nothing about racism claims even though many people do suspect it in some of his works. Perhaps that should be addressed.

In general, Wikipedia articles regarding black people tend to be of lower quality. This is due to the systemic bias inherent in the Wikipedia community. The typical Wikipedian is a white male technocrat[1]. This bias is natural since people tend to edit articles based on their own interests. I too being black am biased as I have great interest in articles relating to blacks. That said, this article on Jesse Jackson is a prime example of this bias and is one of the most frequently vandalized pages. This article should be up for consideration for semi-protected status.

Jackson is seen as a controversial and somewhat polarizing figure; and since Wikipedians are predominantly white, he is unlikely to get much love here. Jackson has been in the public eye for the last forty years and has practically been involved in almost every major civil rights dispute and many minor ones too. Often he is involved in issues that have nothing to do with blacks like the Terri Schiavo case, Jill Caroll, and Slobadan Milosevi. Flawed as he may be, African Americans still consider him as the most important black leader. Known for his impromptu rhymes, his articulate and eloquent speeches, he is arguably one of the most gifted orators alive today.

Yet despite all this, edits to this article seem to be confined to vandalism and references to anti-semitism. I believe that the Jackson controversy heading adequately handles his mis-steps, and there is no need to repeat them at different points in the page as is sometimes the case. Repeating it compromises the quality of the article. I believe that there is a lot more useful information about Jackson that can be added to this page, but because of the systemic bias, editors just focus on what they dislike about the man. I could also make the same case about the article on Al Sharpton.

As mentioned earlier, there is no need to repeat issues already mentioned in the article. Repeating the same stories over and over again compromises quality.

I must agree that i see alot of bias in Wiki articles from all sides, lets remember that history is somewhat subjective, especially when it is such a polarized figure. It is a very hard task to seperate fact from fiction in such cases.D-cup 20:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

See: JESSE JACKSON: AMERICA'S DAVID by Barbara A. Reynolds &

Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson by Kenneth R. Timmerman.

A neutral tone is the one thing that this article doesn't have.

During the late 1990s, it was revealed that Jackson's sons and Jackson himself would protest against large businesses until the businesses "paid" a donation to one of Jackson's tax exempt corporations.

On several occasions, Jackson publicly opposed a major corporate merger until one or both of the merging companies "paid" a donation to Jackson's tax exempt corporations.

Are those facts?

"...declaring blacks as the new slave owners of whites and giving reparations to all blacks..."

I'm not sure, but this looks like vandalism to me. I think that it needs to go (a supporting point of his 1988 Presidential platform).

Or, more strictly, are those relevant facts? I sense the prosecutor trying to defame character, perhaps without paying sufficient mind to Jackson's political goals. An entry on Jesse Jackson hardly deserves to leave out his politics. (Else why not write an entry on Steven Spielberg without discussing film?)

There was a book recently published outlining how Jackson has profited from his activities. I think that the author published a series of articles in the Chicago Sun-Times or Tribune exposing Jackson's unstated "for profit" motivation. None of these articles gained national news coverage. There was also a recent Wall Street Journal article on this. NOTE: I said article and not editorial.

A brief outline of Jackson's political goals is to be added later.

Jackson is an interesting character:

He campaigns exclusively for unions, liberals, and big government in order to help the downtrodden, discriminated against, and other little guys.

He has used this to become a multi-millionaire and get his son Jesse Jackson, Jr. elected to congress.

Is he an "entrepreneurial liberal"?

While I don't care for some of Jesse Jackson's antics of the last few years, I do think that the article should be more neutral.

This is an interesting piece about Jesse Jackson. http://www.judicialwatch.org/5792.shtml Kf4mgz 21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Around 1995 I was challenged by a friend to tell her from which seminary Jackson earned his D.Div. degree, and which denomination ordained him minister. I scoured the net and learned only that Jackson had never completed a single class at any school of divinity, and that if any denomination had ordained him, it was one he had started himself. Apparently he had been calling himself "The Reverend" Jackson without any right to do so. Nowadays he seems to be claiming to have been ordained a Baptist minister. If he is, it's an honorary ordination only, as the Baptist Churches supposedly only ordain people with D.D. degrees who have been "called to" (hired by and instituted into) a church willing to ordain them. In Jackson's case I wouldn't doubt that some church somewhere might have given him this title, but the ordination would be in violation of church policy as Jackson has no educational background deserving of the title.

And, um, D-Cup, I have no systemic bias. Many many black people snort in disgust at the suggestion that Jackson and Sharpton are worthy of being community leaders, and would prefer African Americans go elsewhere to find examples of high character instead of turning to these two shakedown artists.

apology

The article claims that Jackson never apologized for the reference to Jews as "Hymies." This article in Time Magazine: http://www.crm114.com/jesse/antisemitism1.html, linked to from this page, which is extremely critical of Jackson: http://www.crm114.com/jesse/antisemitism.html says that he did. I'll change this unless there's a disagreement on whether this constituted an apology. Fpahl 06:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is he really 7'7" tall?

That's 77 inches, 6 foot 2 and 1/2 inches, look real close near the top of the numbers to the left.

I saw a police mugshot of him, and his head was at the 7'7" level (mugshot at rotten.com library). I find that hard to believe; he looks like an average-sized person on television. --69.234.194.35 23:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's seventy-seven inches (minus the hair, probably seventy-six). That's 6'4". Tall, but not Harlem Globetrotters tall -- John Fader 23:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This interview mentions his being "tall." I guess that he's built like GWB, who also looks squatter on TV than he is in person. -- John Fader 23:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jackson & MLK

The following appears under entry: "He claims to have been at King's side in Memphis when King was assassinated, April 4, 1968, though critics such as Kenneth Timmerman have contended that Jackson embellished his account."

There was a newspaper photographer's picture taken immediately after Dr. King was shot. It shows Dr. King lying on the second floor walkway of the motel and Jessee Jackson on the first floor looking up toward him. I've seen the picture reproduced later. Anybody know where we can get a copy? It would be meaningful here. Also, Timmerman (whom I have not read) may have made statements about Jackson and MLK's assassination, but so did Ralph Abernathy, MLK's second-in-command and heir as head of SCLC. A quote from him would be meaningful. Johnwhunt 19:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Timmerman's source was on Barbara Reynolds, who wrote Jesse Jackson, the Man, the Movement, the Myth. It's a fact that Coretta Scott King says nothing publicly about Jesse Jackson and did not endorse his presidential bid. Jackson didn't just "embellish"; he flat-out lied, claiming that MLK had died in Jackson's arms.

Just wondering when he "became" a democrat, or was he always? As MLK was a republican when he died, was wondering if Jackson was too and later changed or if he was always a democrat (which seems unlikely). D-cup 20:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

King was not a Republican when he died.

That is completely wrong. He most certainly was a Republican. Being a Republican doesn't mean that you can't vote for Democratic candidates. Primium mobile 17:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've searched for that photo several times and I've come to believe that it doesn't exist. There is the photo of MLK, Jackson, etc. on the balcony which most people believe was taken just prior to the shooting. It was actually taken the day before. Then there is the photo of all the men looking toward where the shot came from and pointing. That was taken right after the shooting, but doesn't include Jackson as he was not on the balcony that day.

From all accounts I've read Jackson was below when the shot was fired. Ralph Abernathy says that Jackson wasn't there, and he (Abernathy) is clearly in the photos himself, so he'd know firsthand.

Jackson went to the balcony after MLK was dead, and according to witnesses wiped some of King's blood on his shirt. Then he flew to Chicago, where he booked a spot on a news show. When on the show he wore the bloody shirt and told the story of how King had died in his arms. His story has been refuted by several who WERE actually on the balcony that day.

Interestingly, every time I try to make a correction to the page, it gets reverted, even though I post links to interviews with all of the witnesses! So much for objectivity...Wikisurfer61 (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not post links to your sources here and we can discuss them? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea... I'll have to dig back through the history to find them all and then I'll do that!

One other note: When Jackson returned to Chicago to appear on the Today Show, he first told all the other witnesses not to talk to the media, then he went and hired himself a PR agent. Then he made the rounds of the news shows, making himself the de facto spokesman rather than Abernathy or any of the others.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to an article in the New York Times which contains quotes from many of those who were there that day: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DC113CF93AA15752C1A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=5 I'll hunt down the others as well.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a relevant quote from the above article: "On April 4, 1968, Dr. King was assassinated as he stood on the balcony outside his room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. The gunshot set off a sequence of events that would drive a wedge between Jesse Jackson and many of Dr. King's followers.

Mr. Jackson was a floor below when the shots rang out; he and several colleagues ran up to the balcony. After the fatally wounded Dr. King was taken to the hospital, reporters converged on the motel.

And Jesse was saying, 'I was the last person in the world he spoke to,' recalls the Rev. Hosea Williams, an Atlanta city council member and former King associate who was also at the motel. I saw the blood on Jesse's shirt and I know Jesse had not been near Dr. King.

That night, Mr. Jackson flew to Chicago. The next day, he had Don Rose book him on two local television talk shows; he also appeared that morning on NBC's Today Show, wearing the same blood-stained turtleneck that he had worn the day before. He told reporters he was the last to talk to Dr. King, who died, he said, cradled in his arms.

But none of that is so, according to several King aides, who remain bitter about the incident and still ask why Mr. Jackson did not change his shirt."(UTC)Wikisurfer61 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you read the various accounts, it says that Jackson and others ran and hid behind a wall in the pool area when the shots were fired, then about 20-30 minutes later came out and went up to the balcony.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to a sermon by Rev. Billy Kyles, one of the two who were with MLK at the time of the shooting, which contains a lot of firsthand detail. (The other person present was Ralph Abernathy) http://www.explorefaith.org/homilies/20000403Excerpt.html Wikisurfer61 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Schiavo

The part about his involvment in the Terri Schiavo saga needs to be expanded because it's probably the biggest, if not the most controversial, thing that he has ever done. A photo of him holding hands with Terri's siblings would help.

I disagree that this is the most controversial, but I do agree that it could be explored more as it will most likely hold signifigance in the future.D-cup 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Name Changing

It is mentioned in the article that Jesse Jackson's real name is actually Jesse Louis Burns. I'm curious to know when Rev. Jesse Jackson changed his last name from Burns to Jackson. --Willis835 10:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

So nine months later, I'll answer "1957". --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And six months later I'll ask why?

His stepfather adopted him when he was 16. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding the "Sr.": Obviously nobody called Jesse Jackson "Jesse Jackson, Sr." for most of his life because the Sr. wasn't necessary until his son was born. As such, his name really is just "Jesse Jackson," with the "Sr" there just to differentiate (unlike Jr. which is normally included because it's formally part of his name). As such I've put the Sr into parentheses. --HowardW Feb 2, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Problem

The Early Life section is poorly written, and neutrality is few and far between. It speaks about him spitting in food but glances over his civil rights accomplishments during the 1960s.

Judging by the edits to this article there are many editors who dislike rev jackson. Wikipedians are intitled to their own personal opinions but hopefully wikipedians will and should edit articles objectively with minimal personal bias.chifumbe 03:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How exactly did he talk?

I have heard references to Jesse Jackson's style of speech. What is this style? I've never heard of it!

It's called "mumbling like an idiot." Politician818 07:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm ... that was uncalled for. I wish i could remember the exact name for his style but cannot at the moment but obviously it involves rhythmic cadence and grand hand gestures as well as good timing to incite emotion in the crowds. (Anyone help out? I know there is a name for it , sorry ...)D-cup 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This quip is a bit late but I believe the person who started this section called for it. Besides this isn't the article objectivity is half the fun of the talk page.Eno-Etile 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the question be "how DOES he talk?"

I've always thought that the cleft palate he has might have led to his unintelligible form of speech.

The only other explanation I can think of is that he's got a mouthful of marbles!Wikisurfer61 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

AND he had a lisp when he was young.76.175.154.140 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the original poster was asking about his rhetorical style, not for speculation on speech impediments. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 12:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then that would probably be "hortatorially" then, I suppose?Wikisurfer61 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

This article is under Category:Anti-Semitism, yet the only reference in the article to anti-Semitism or Jews is that he once referred to Jews using a disparaging term. Is this categorization based on this sole incident? This seems to me insufficient, one way or another.--Doron 11:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've commented out this category, unless perhaps someone can add contents that better justify the inclusion of Jackson under this category.--Doron 13:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow ppl actually like jesse jackson

I think that the discussion at Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Ahmadinejad.2C_Mahmoud_in_Anti-Semitic_category makes it clear that we agree that one untoward comment is good enough. -- Who is we. there is no we in wikipedia. all decisions should be based on facts not on opinions.68.211.197.252 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:POINT. Disruptive editors are regularly blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of making threats, try to address the issue. Why is Ahmadinejad in the Anti-Semite category but not Jackson? I think that it is a valid question. What are the qualifications? Who decides? YOU? --68.211.197.252 06:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:POINT again. Several times, if need be Jayjg ^(talk) 06:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are Ahmadinejad and Henry Ford in the Anti-Semite category but not Jesse Jackson or Mahmoud Abbas? Still waiting --68.211.197.252 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the anti-semitic people category, for reasons outlined by Doron above. Jll 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here, so I don't know what the argument has been about. However, I would like to say this. One comment, especially one that is followed by an apology, is not enough to include someone in the Anti-Semite or Anti-whatever categories. In my opinion, there has to be a pattern. Being apologetic after one or even more than one comment does not warrant inclusion. If, however, they aren't apologetic, they can be lumped into those categories. Another barometer is policy. If they advocated or passed legislation against groups like Jews or other minorities, then that would obviously warrant inclusion into the Anti-Semite category. As far as I know, he made one comment that he was sorry for. How many times in your lives have you made an off-hand comment that insulted someone? There is no justification for including Jackson in the Anti-Semite group. Please do not allow your personal political beliefs to prejudice the article. In general, labelling someone as Anti-anything is serious and should not be taken lightly. Comment added by Jps57

Wiktionary defines anti-Semitism as "discrimination or hatred against Jews"[2]. The only reference in the article is that he made a few disparaging remarks over twenty years ago, with an apology afterwards. I really don't see how this could be conclusive evidence of anti-Semitism. Jll 09:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it not? People in the past have "made mistakes" and apoligized for them but that doesn't automatically clear them of their crimes. The Nazis apoligized for killing the Jews during WWII but we don't turn our backs and completely forget about it. Do we? The fact of the matter is, he said Anti-Semetic things which makes him an Anti-Semite. Apology or not. Puckmv 04:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It at most make him someone who at one particular moment said something anti-semitic, and it makes him someone accused of being an anti-semite. So, if I say something anti-semitic here -- "Jews Suck!" -- does that mean I'm an anti-Semite? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does, Jpgordon.Politician818 23:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC) If someone were to say, "Black people suck," would he be a racist? Of course. So why is it somehow okay to dislike Jews?Politician818 23:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Hey, Jp, are you Jesse Jackson? Your grammar is very bad. I'm just wondering.Politician818 23:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See, what you're talking about here is your opinion, your conclusion. No, I'm not an anti-Semite. I'm someone who, for some reason or another, said "Jews suck." It's a conclusion on your part that this utterance means that I am an anti-Semite, as it would be a conclusion on my part to assign the label "racist" to the person you were describing. They might even be reasonable conclusions -- but we don't get to make conclusions of our own, or express opinions of our own, in Wikipedia articles. (Me? Jesse Jackson? that's just weird.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of definition. An Anti-semite is defined in the dictionary as "someone who hates or discriminates against Jews", or words to that effect. It is not "someone who said Anti-semitic things". Having said anti-semitic things might be an indication of anti-semitism, but a person's behaviour has to be looked at as a whole to determine what they think - just because many apples are green does not mean that everything that is green is an apple. And as jpgordon says, that decision is not one that Wikipedia contributors can make for the purposes of writing Wikipedia articles. Jll 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, all of you need to grow up. It's pretty obvious to me that every one of you arguing for or against this has a political agenda and a narrow set of beliefs that color your perspective. You have to understand that, during a lifetime, people say stuff like this. No one is perfect. Can you honestly tell me that you've never said anything like what Jackson said in your lifetime? I understand the historical significance of anti-Semitism, but I reject giving Jews special treatment in this regard because Jews make overgeneralizations and stereotype against others like everyone else. If you set this standard, then a lot of Jews, Whites, Blacks etc... will be anti-something.

And I have to call out this ridiculous argument about the Nazis apologizing. First of all, Germany apologized. A lot of neo-Nazis still celebrate Hitler. Furthermore, Jackson's comments never implied any legislative actions against Jews. The two situations are obviously different. There is a tendency amongst Jews and Blacks and many others, to justify something purely on the basis of a historical incidence (like WW2 or slavery) that in no way reflects the extent of the current issue. What's also interesting is that groups like these tend not to be consistent, demanding one standard from others but not following their own standard. Jackson may well fall into such category. So do a lot of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jps57 (talk • contribs) 21:27, June 4, 2006

With all due respect, bullshit. Please tell me what "narrow set of beliefs" and "political agenda" I'm representing here. I need to "grow up"? I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:NPA; your uncalled for condescension is, in a word, insulting. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, what I said was not a personal attack. I merely made the point to avoid this thread going out of hand. You might want to read the rest of what I wrote, as you will find out that I am actually on your side. With respect to what you said, I find your comments to be irrelevent. You talk a lot about the difference between accused and conclusions, but you don't draw any lines yourself. If Jackson were to have made these comments more than once, our judgement w/r to his anti-anything would still be opinions. How about if he said it 1000 times? You have to draw the line somewhere, and judgements about a person's percieved anti-anything are inherently subjective. That is why different dictionaries have different defintions of different words. By your definition, it would be no logical stretch to say Hitler was not Anti-semitic because our judgement would be involved. This whole issue is about drawing the line. Some want to draw the line very narrowlly, forgetting that humans are flawed and make these types of mistakes once in a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jps57 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. I too found your assertion that I obviously have a political agenda, a narrow set of beliefs, and need to grow up as sweeping as it is insulting. There is no justification for attacking my integrity, open-mindedness and maturity here (or that of any other contributor), even if you think doing so might prevent the "thread going out of hand" whatever that means. Whilst I agree with the general thrust of your argument that judgements on what people think are inherently subjective; it is not up to Wikipedia contributors to make those judgements since original research and opinion are not permitted in articles. All we can do is use reliable sources, and no-one has been able to cite any which say that Jackson is anti-semitic. I also disagree that the meaning of a word depends upon which dictionary you look in (if that is what you meant by "different dictionaries have different defintions of different words"); almost all words have precise meanings. I looked up anti-semitic in four dictionaries earlier in the discussion just to be sure I knew what it meant and they all said the same thing. We don't live in a Through the Looking Glass world where `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Jll 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would caution the use of anti-semitism here and perhaps instead mention the charges of such, as I assume they are well documented. It just seems like to easy of a label to throw out when it can so easily be blown out of proportion. It seems onbvious to me that these charges have existed, but they are just accusations and such, where as comparing him to Iranian leaders in his anti-semitism seems to be quite a stretch (One has been accused of it and the other has openly endorsed it, just seems like apples and dumptrucks to me.)D-cup 20:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Freemason

I took him off of the article List of Freemasons. I agree that it is not at all clear which J. Jackson is spoken of. I have cites of Jess, Rev. Jess, Jesse, Rev. Jesse, & Jesse L. If anyone can contribute to this at List of Freemasons, please do. And for my part, I will try to watch this closely, to keep things straight. I'm sorry for any perceived ill conduct on my part. Believe me, it was not intentional. Grye 21:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken. However, Jackson is a Prince Hall Mason. LINK GeorgeC 05:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Current Activities

Removing references to 2006 activities from this section in the absence of any other references to recent activities makes no sense.

How is it vandalism to report that a former Presidential candidate has signed a declaration that compares the current President to Hitler?

I'm not sure that it's vandalism if he actually did it, but I consider Jackson to be a hypocrite for comparing Bush to Hitler while ignoring Clinton's Hitleresque murder of the Serbian people. Politician818 07:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone remember Godwin's law? Neither president killed an ethnic or religious group based soley on thier membership in that group. The reasonings are largely political, not because of prejudices.

daughter Ashley

Apparently there's some question as to whether Jesse Jackson fathered a daughter named Ashley out of wedlock. Google turns up various sources that confirm this: [3] & [4]. FreplySpang (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like I have to fine-tune my Wiki-instincts a little. After I saw your removal, I searched ("Jesse Jackson" daughter Ashley), and authoritative sources told me so. Then I saw your links here. --Shultz III 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed this line from the "Early life" section: "He is known for being an American politician, civil rights activist, and Baptist minister." It is redundant, since the exact same thing is said in the introduction of the article. Stlom 03:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page is ever so frequently being vandalized. Is there some way of letting the vandals know that their edits won't last?chifumbe

Sadly that is the price you pay for an open flow of imformation, you get propoganda and lies as well. Thank you to everyone who tries to battle this.D-cup 20:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank me

Everyone please thank me for cleaning up the grammar, not only in the article but in this discussion room. It looked like Jesse Jackson wrote the article before I edited it. Politician818 17:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit the comments of other editors even if their grammar and spelling are incorrect. Edits like this are not only unnecessary but are disruptive.

Monkeyman^(talk) 13:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was some of the information that I put into this article taken out? I documented Jesse's rant against white men liking black girls. Whoever took that out committed vandalism. Politician818 01:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No. It's a content dispute, not vandalism. And what do you mean by "it looked like Jesse Jackson wrote the article"? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

By "it looked like Jesse Jackson wrote the article," I obviously meant that it looked like a mentally retarded person wrote the article. There were so many grammatical errors that I corrected. Jesse Jackson, of course, is mentally retarded. Just listen to him speak. And yes, it's vandalism. My content was documented. I'm adding it back in. You have no right taking out cited information.Politician818 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

- Sure I do. It's called "editing". By the way, stick that stuff back in again and you'll draw a 3RR block. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, it's called vandalism. And you're the one who's going to draw the 3RR block. Cited information cannot be taken out. I used to try that with articles that I thought were bashing people whom I liked. I was told that as long as the information is sourced, it doesn't violate the neutral point of view. I will try to get you blocked if you do this again.Politician818 02:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry, but you just can't take out whatever you like from an article. There has to be a legitimate reason. Jackson said exactly what I wrote down, so stop it. Stop it. Stop it! As far as the statement that I wrote down about him being a Christian minister, I have no idea what your problem with that is. He is a minister. Pointing this out when referring to his adultery displays his hypocrisy without flatly stating it. The readers will decide on their own what to think. "Married since 1962" does not need to be written, as everyone already knows that he's married.Politician818 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC) You must at least explain why you've edited a statement out.Politician818 02:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry, JP, but you're not going to win here. If you take that information out again today, you'll be violating the 3RR rule. Have a nice day. Explain why what I put in is bad, or no dice. Sorry. You must work in Jackson's front office.Politician818 04:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'm not disturbing what's obviously an affectionate, respectful discussion. Politician, your edit was inappropriate for a number of reasons, and violated WP:NOR, which is a policy you may want to review. Your language above is also very likely to see you blocked if it continues. Please try to tone things down a little. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's review this. Here's what Politician818 wants to insert:

Recently, on CNN's Paula Zahn Now program, airing on April 17, 2006, Jesse Jackson (referring to the situation in North Carolina where a black stripper accused members of the Duke University men's lacross team of rape) stated, "...And the idea of white males fantasizing about black women is -- is quite old, quite -- and quite ugly, and now quite illegal." [5] Jackson's statement contradicts his past feelings in support of interracial dating and marriage.

Besides the obvious question of what relevance this has to anything, there's the original research of the "contradiction" you are pointing out. Who is coming to the conclusion that there's a contradiction? And what NPOV purpose is served by including this example of Jackson talking apparent nonsense? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

JP, thank you for finally explaining what your problem is. Of course what Jackson said is relevant. This is an article on Jesse Jackson. If Jackson puts his foot in his mouth, it is relevant. A cited statement does not violate NPOV. I learned that fact the hard way when I tried to edit cited statements out of the article on Michael Savage. As far as whether or not Jackson contradicted himself, are you denying that Jackson used to be for interracial marriage? Do you want me to cite a source saying that he used to be for interracial marriage? Liberals like Jackson have always referred to conservative whites from the south who opposed interracial marriage as "racists." Evidently, it's "in" for a minority to be against interracial marriage, though. Or maybe it's that white men can't have black women, but black men can have white women with Jesse. It's pretty obvious to me that if Jackson is now saying that it's "illegal" for a white man to fantasize about a black woman (What the hell does he mean by this? It's perfectly legal to fantasize. What an idiot!), then he is obviously against white men dating black women. He wants "whitey" to keep his hands off black "property." Perhaps Jackson needs a translator, since he frequently says things that make no sense. Do you know what Jackson meant? I honestly don't see any violation. Please elaborate further, and we can work out a compromise. However, I will get the statement in the article. Liberals who hate Michael Savage have a bunch of negative quotes about him in his article, so I think that it's fair for a conservative like me to get in negative quotes about Mr. Jackson, as long as the quotes are cited by a reputable source.Politician818 23:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

JP, I tried to take some negative comments about Michael Savage out of his article, yet they were all put back in, and I was told that as long as the quotes were sourced, I couldn't do anything about it. So it doesn't violate NPOV to include an idiotic quote by Jackson. Could you further elaborate on how I'm violating NPOV or NOR? If you don't, I'm just going to put the quote back into the article.Politician818 03:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's simple. Ignoring for the moment the question of the notability of Jackson's quote or its appropriateness in whichever section it was added to, and simply assuming for the moment that it is notable, relevant, and properly placed, the only remaining problem that I see is the statement - which is a claim - that "Jackson's statement contradicts his past feelings in support of interracial dating and marriage." Your response may be "well, that's obvious", but so is a lot of original research. I happen to agree - if Jackson really did formerly argue for interracial marriage, and is now lambasting white men who desire black women, then he is indeed, in my opinion, contradicting himself. However, you and I and my uncle Bob are not notable or reliable sources, so our claims that Jackson is contradicting himself constitute original research. Since it's so obvious to you and to me that Jackson is contradicting himself, it should not be hard to find a notable and reliable 3rd-party source who has noted the contradiction. Then it's simply a matter of changing the write-up to "Commentator x notes that this statement contradicts Jackson's earlier statements regarding interracial couples." Does this explain it? Cheers, Kasreyn 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn is right here. Lacking any 3rd-party source, this "claim" is Original Research. That's why I removed that sentence a few days ago.--WilliamThweatt 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that now that the claim is sourced, it has once again been removed as "cherry-picked" and "out of context". I don't specifically dispute these, I'd just like to point out that Politician818 is pretty new to Wikipedia, and this must be very frustrating to him; it must seem that every time he passes one hurdle, another is erected.

Personally, I do not feel the quote is non-notable. If it has been taken out of context, I don't see how. I've read the transcript, and it seems to me a fairly typical example of Jackson, who is smart but not very good at speaking extemporaneously, fumbling his lines and getting tongue-tied. This happens to the best of 'em on TV political shows, where the anchors try as hard as they can to disrupt and confuse the guests to goad them into making some mistake. How is that non-notable in an article on a man who makes his living as a speaker and politician?

Furthermore, it shows him reading race into a situation which others may not have considered had a racial aspect. How is that also not notable? It failed to note that Jackson offered to pay the girl's tuition, which was a generous deed, so that was a flaw in the write-up. If the claim is that the quote was too short and was too easily misconstrued, then the simplest and best solution is to quote a larger amount in order to make the context plain. Respectfully, Kasreyn 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Politician818 appears to be discussing now, rather than continuing the edit war, which I really wish people would knock off. We can talk this one through. You answer your own question "how is that non-notable" in your previous sentence: "this happens to the best of 'em". If it's that common for the general class of speakers and politicians, why is it notable for Jackson? Regarding reading race: certainly he does that, but that quote doesn't quite show that. Later on in the interview it becomes a lot more clear that he's doing exactly that. It shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source bemoaning Jackson's penchant for (as they'll likely say) "race-baiting", and the entire incident (though not this quote) is a good example. But we can't give that quote (or any quote) as a controversy simply because we happen to think it's controversial; that's exactly where we need find some sufficiently notable pundit making this point. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A disgusting exchange that points out why wikipedia is useless for any subject that has even the slightest political element to it- the quote is accurate, sourced and relevant and let it has to be explurgated and suppressed. And I dont want to hear about how I should take my time to "make it better"- you have just wasted hours of Politicans time when he tried to do that.

The quote

Perhaps User:WilliamThweatt would care to explain what encyclopedic function the unexplained, contextless insertion of that quote serves? If it's such a big deal, certainly someone of interest has commented upon it. Otherwise, including it is a POV insertion -- put there previously to emphasize that he says some real dumb stuff sometimes; it doesn't feel particularly encyclopedic, though. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 04:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, Jpgordon, I'd like you to realize that you are not speaking with Politician here. I agree that his form of "debate and discussion" was not productive and doesn't help the cause of Wikipedia. So let's keep this civil. Having said that, even the proverbial broken clock is right twice a day and I think Politician's quote belongs here.

First of all, it's a properly source is properly cited, so it's not Original Research.
Secondly, I didn't re-include the last sentence of Politician's original editing...that was his judgement & editorializing and, therefore, Original Research so I left it out.
Thirdly, this is the "Criticism and controversies" sub-section. This is a sourced controversial public remark that Mr. Jackson made which serves to demonstrate to the reader a side of his character that they may not otherwise be familiar with. My end purpose (as yours should be) is to advance to the goals of Wikipedia by giving the reader (who may or may not know a thing about Mr. Jackson) a complete encyclopaedic article describing all sides of his public persona.
Fourthly, there is no ground for claiming POV. I'm sure you know that "POV" stands for "Point of View". I have not interjected my personal beliefs, feelings or commentary anywhere in this short paragraph, only facts that can be easily verifiable. This very short section doesn't make a POV, it just gives facts that the reader can use to develop his own views...that's what a good encyclopaedic article does. You and I may not like that Mr. Jackson says such things; but the fact remains that he does...and the reader deserves to hear them in a fair and balanced way.

I do not usually contribute to these kinds of articles or get involved in these kinds of controversial disputes but I noticed the article while doing Recent Changes Patrol with Vandal Proof and I happened to have watched the program in question and heard Mr. Jackson make the remarks, I have also heard them talked about and seen them written about a great deal. I am happy to leave the quote the way it is now and move on to another article. But if you insist on removing it, I will have to stay here a while and greatly lengthen this section with more quotes and references to the remark. (After reading that back, it sounds confrontational...I don't mean it to be. I'm simply saying that, personally, I'm satisfied to leave the quote as it is even though there is far more material that could legitimately be included about this).--WilliamThweatt 16:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Was my question incivil? My apologies if it was; I seem to be coming off snarkier than I intend to today. Now, regarding POV. It's not correct that simply because a statement is factual, that including it is not POV. Given that there are a myriad of facts that can be included in an article about Jesse Jackson, the selection of which facts are to be included (in other words, editing the article) can be POV or NPOV. As an obvious example, if Ted Kennedy included nothing but references to Chappaquiddick and the misbehaviour of his relatives, it would all be factual, but the selection of facts would be utterly POV. In this case, it's a matter of including a single dumb thing Jackson said (and it's an odd choice, considering how many dumb things he has said) with no context; since, as you say, it's been written about a great deal, it should be simple to find a verifiable reliable source to put it in a context that either makes some sense out of the seemingly nonsensical statement, or shows it as part of a pattern of race-baiting (as one of the players' attorneys said, according to Paula Zahn during the same interview.) In isolation, though, it's just "Jesse Jackson said something weird", to which my reply is "And this is news -- how?" --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology gladly accepted, friend (although I was more-or-less trying to set a civil tone, not necessarily indicting your question). I agree with just about everything you say, especially the part about selective inclusion of quotes and that it's not "news" to either you or me that "Jackson said something weird". But one of my points that seems to have gotten lost in the length of my last post was that not everybody who comes to Wikipedia will be familiar with Mr. Jackson and it may not be news to them...we are writing to a broad audience, not just political/media junkies like ourselves. :-) Also, this isn't supposed to be "news", it's supposed to be encyclopaedic (I'm sure I don't need to tell you that, but I'm just laying the premise for my next point). There's a big difference between "news" and an encyclopedia. "News" reports 1st-hand, or 2nd-hand, info and, by its nature, is supposed to be new or revealing content. An "encyclopedia" is a 3rd-hand source that chronicles the first two. (This is a summary of WP policy on "Reliable Sources" and "Verifiable Sources") This quote is a chronicle.

Also, as stated in the policy and discussion on pages such as WP:NPOV, the remedy for just such a situation as this (a claim of selective inclusion of quotes) is not to delete the quote (provided it is properly cited), but to attempt to "balance" the article by including either a response from the person (in which he apologizes, explains, qualifies or defends his remarks) or a citation from another source that sheds a different light on the statement. I don't think the quote, as currently written, is POV. You apparently do, therefore the burden is on you to provide balance, not simply delete (others might say "censor") the quote.--WilliamThweatt 17:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Others might indeed say "censor", but those others badly misunderstand the concept of "editing". My problem isn't the POV of the quote; my real problem is the utter lack of context. Why is this quote important enough to be added to the article? What does it tell the reader about Jesse Jackson? I mean, there's a difference between controversial statements and utterly stupid statements. My problem is that the only comments I've seen about this utterance have been on blogs; I haven't yet found anyone worth citing about it one way or another (which makes sense, since the statement was incoherant, and the only real response to it is "buh?") --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"What does it tell the reader about Jesse Jackson?" The whole point of NPOV is that we don't decide what it tells the reader about the subject, that's not our concern. As long as it's accurate and properly cited, it's supposed to speak for itself. Leave it to the reader to decide what the quote reveals about Mr. Jackson.--WilliamThweatt 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, certainly we don't want to interpret it -- that's what Politician818 was doing, and which you quite properly omitted. But everything in an encyclopedia is supposed to further inform the reader about the subject; in what way does the quote inform the reader? As I've said, absent of context or commentary, it's just a weird statement. Given that our articles are highly selective -- we don't have full-fledged biographies of our subjects. Our collective editorial judgement determines which details of a person's life to include, so we often discuss (as we are here) whether an isolated fact, out of a lifetime's accumulation of trivia, is worth including. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Jp, Michael Savage commented on Jesse Jackson's quote. That's where I learned of it.Politician818 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So that contradicts your statement that nobody else is talking about Jesse's idiotic comments. That's where I learned of it. I would never be caught dead watching CNN. Savage had the audio played on his radio show.Politician818 06:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say nobody else is talking about it, I said I haven't found anyone worth citing about it. If you have some verifiable reliable sources, please bring them to the table; that you "heard something on the radio" doesn't amount for much -- we don't insert everything people hear from some guy on the radio into articles. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Duke rape scandal

I read the paula zahn article and there was a lot more said apart from the quote. The quote taken alone would appear to have been cherry picked to make jackson look bad. In order to include the quote I believe more information regarding the duke scandal and jackson's involvement should be added to provide context and to be fair and objective. Secondly the statement did not cause any controversy in the media. few media outlets reported it so it can hardly be deemed controversial. If anything what is controversial is the issue of upper class white ivy league students hiring low income black strippers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs) 21:20, June 13, 2006

Well, it's hard to hire high income strippers of any color in Durham, I suspect. And, as Zahn pointed out in the interview, there's no indication that they asked for black strippers; it's just who showed up. (Probably illegal for the stripper agency to discriminate on the grounds of race, come to think of it.) But yeah, I wish I'd realized that "cherry picking" is the right description for the inserted quote. (The rest of the interview is pretty weird too.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops! If I had seen this section down here I would have replied down here, not commented above. Kasreyn 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really get what Chi is saying. (BTW, Duke isn't in the Ivy League, although it's certainly of Ivy League caliber.) I don't see Duke students hiring strippers as any more controversial than people being strippers in the first place. However, the morality of the situation is irrelevant, and please don't think that I endorse rape. I just personally feel that the stripper who has made these charges is lying.Politician818 08:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC) As far as Jackson's statement goes, it seems that his statement isn't "good enough" for this article because the media aren't making a big deal out of his statement. Well, the media aren't making a big deal out of his statement because Jackson is a liberal, and the liberal media will always protect their own. They don't report all the news. I think that it would be nice for Wikipedia to report whenever a famous person like Jackson screws up. If you think that I was cherrypicking, then maybe we can get more of his quote up there to keep things in context. Hey, if Wikipedia were to print his statement, then maybe Jackson would finally explain himself.Politician818 08:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC) I do feel that this quote by Jackson is relevant, as it does show an inconsistency on his part, as he is "on the record" as for interracial marriage as a liberal and civil rights activist (and I agree with his "on the record" viewpoint). However, this quote seems to contradict that, although the readers should decide if he has contradicted himself. Perhaps I will try to find some media outlet that has commented on what Jackson said.Politician818 01:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see in what way the quote says anything whatsoever about inter-racial marriage, anyway; but then, the quote is incomprehensible, so I guess it's easy to read whatever you want into it. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Politician, check out this Wikipedia-related site...it might be what you're looking for and the proper place to place such quotes: Wikiquote.org: Jesse Jackson--WilliamThweatt 21:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In the controversies section it mentions nothing about reverse racism claims even though many people do suspect it in some of his works. Perhaps that should be addressed.

You are as sick as I thought that you were!!!!

{Deleted per WP:BLP by Ramsquire 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

Very funny indeed, would appreciate if you signed your name to your comments though, especially one that is so damning, otherwise it can easily be written off as a sham. D-cup 21:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Women are not minorities

This article falsly claims that women are minorities. At 51% of the population, that is an untrue claim. After editing the article to reflect this oversight, my edit was immediately removed.

Minority in the american context denotes an unsubtle legal classification, rather than a proportianate percentage of population, actually. Yet another... quirk... of the legal system here.

Subject of a song

Grandmaster Melle Mel - Jesse. (M. Glover,R. Griffin, R. Isley, S. Robinson) I.Q. Music Ltd 1984 Lyrics encouraging people to vote Jesse. o

Hostage Negotiator?

In his Larry King interview (the one on 20 October, 2006) Jackson was introduced as a "hostage negotiator". I see no mention of hostage negotiation in this topic. What did he do, and when, to earn that introduction? -- Mikeblas 05:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

see statesman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs)

Hmm. POWs are considered hostages, then? -- Mikeblas 14:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Remarks about Jews

Added a section. I think this is more than enough for putting him in the Antisemitism cat. (Note: this does not mean he is an antisemite or that we're even implying he is, just that he's been involved in the issue). Thoughts? IronDuke 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The statements were made thirty years ago (1973-Era of Nixon) and although I do understand what you are saying about the category (antisemite), I believe that this is a poorly thought out category as you can have Rabbis and Holocaust Survivors lumped together with Neo-Nazis and hate groups. I dont think it is worth putting it on this particular article. Jasper23 16:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No matter what the category is supposed to be about, putting Jesse Jackson there strikes me as a thinly-veiled swipe at Jackson which I think does not belong in the encyclopedia. Please be sure to carefully read WP:BLP as well as the notice at the top of this page before editing this article again.

Atlant 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You think JJ is going to sue Wikipedia because we suggested that he was involved in an issue that touched on antisemitism? BLP has nothing, repeat, nothing, to do with this. IronDuke 16:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT HIS RADIO SHOW???!!!

He has a radio show called "Keep Hope Alive," which is broadcasted from Chicago. This should be listed under his current activities. Helping Michael Richards repair his image should also be mentioned under his current activities. Senita Fetibegovic 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be properly sourced

In reference to Kings death, "although Jackson was not on the balcony with Dr. King as he is reported to have claimed.^[1]."

"as he is reported to have claimed" is the first thing wrong with this. Jasper23 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The source was properly quoted and footnoted, but has been repeatedly removed!Wikisurfer61 (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you go:

Here's a link to an article in the New York Times which contains quotes from many of those who were there that day: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DC113CF93AA15752C1A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=5 I'll hunt down the others as well.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a relevant quote from the above article: "On April 4, 1968, Dr. King was assassinated as he stood on the balcony outside his room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. The gunshot set off a sequence of events that would drive a wedge between Jesse Jackson and many of Dr. King's followers.

Mr. Jackson was a floor below when the shots rang out; he and several colleagues ran up to the balcony. After the fatally wounded Dr. King was taken to the hospital, reporters converged on the motel.

And Jesse was saying, 'I was the last person in the world he spoke to,' recalls the Rev. Hosea Williams, an Atlanta city council member and former King associate who was also at the motel. I saw the blood on Jesse's shirt and I know Jesse had not been near Dr. King.

That night, Mr. Jackson flew to Chicago. The next day, he had Don Rose book him on two local television talk shows; he also appeared that morning on NBC's Today Show, wearing the same blood-stained turtleneck that he had worn the day before. He told reporters he was the last to talk to Dr. King, who died, he said, cradled in his arms.

But none of that is so, according to several King aides, who remain bitter about the incident and still ask why Mr. Jackson did not change his shirt."(UTC)Wikisurfer61 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you read the various accounts, it says that Jackson and others ran and hid behind a wall in the pool area when the shots were fired, then about 20-30 minutes later came out and went up to the balcony.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to a sermon by Rev. Billy Kyles, one of the two who were with MLK at the time of the shooting, which contains a lot of firsthand detail. (The other person present was Ralph Abernathy) http://www.explorefaith.org/homilies/20000403Excerpt.htmlWikisurfer61 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Extramarital Affair sources

Hey everyone.

The NYT article currently cited is only accessible for a $5 fee, but it's still a good source. Someone may be interested enough to pay. Anyway, sources don't need to be easily accessible to be cited; books are cited as well, so I don't really see the difference between the two cases. Otherwise, The Weekly Standard is a very reputable and mainstream magazine. I don't see what purpose is served by having a citation and then having "citation needed" immediately after it. Before reverting, please explain here, if possible.

Korossyl 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Korossyl,

I would just like to see one legitimate (non-partisan) source that is not behind a firewall. I am not familiar with the weekly standard but on the wiki page it says that it is a neo-conservative magazine. How about a Wapo, Wall Street Journal or other non-pov source. I am not saying that I disbelieve the reports but xtraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing and I would like to see this page as npov as possible. Jasper23 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jasper,
Well, that the Coalition paid Stanford large amounts of money in "severance packages" and "moving expenses" does not seem to be an extraordinary claim. It's pretty well-documented online -- here's a CNN story on it. Whether or not it was "hush money", of course, is controversial and completely open to debate, which is why the article currently states "many commentators questioned the legality of these payments." I believe this should be left in; it is a valid line of questioning, and a view shared by many. To back this claim up, however, POV sources are perfectly fine -- we only need to prove that many commentators do, indeed, say that. The Weekly Standard is the most reputable such source I could find, but there are a host of radio personalities (slightly less reputable) and blogs (less so still) that wecould also cite.
So, I guess what I'm saying is: if we need more citations on the actual payments, that's pretty easily done -- want to include the CNN link (for instance)? On the other hand, the "hush money" claim needs quantity over quality in sources, as we only need to prove that this is a widespread sentiment.
Any thoughts?
Korossyl 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was really just looking for a npov source for the monetary figures. Where is that CNN story? Your link goes back to the weekly standard. Jasper23 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the line in question "The Rainbow Push Coalition had paid Stanford $40,000 to relocate her to Southern California, in addition to a continuing $3,000 a month in support, and $365,000 in funds from Rainbow Push were also used to purchase Stanford’s house." I think we need some kind of proof. The weekly standard info doesn't quite fit this either. Jasper23 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry 'bout that. Here's the CNN story: [6]. Here's another one I found, also from CNN: [7]. The $365,000 amount is a little harder to come by, and for the time being, I'm only finding sources which I'm afraid you would find unacceptable. So, I propose that the figures be amended to reflect CNN, CNN be cited (alongside Salon), and I'll let you know if I find something mainstream with the $365,000 story. Korossyl 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources...I will do a rewrite later tonight. Really, the $365,000 dollar payment was bothering me and now it is some of the wording. Thanks for all your help. Jasper23 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it looks really good. After perusing sources, I've come to the conclusion that Jackson definitely did not buy Karin Stanford her house: she secured a >$200,000 loan before purchasing it. The rest of it was undoubtedly paid for with the money that Jackson had given her previously, but it's certainly not an additional expense.
As for "hush money" sources, I think the best one is the Weekly Standard, [8] (a better link than the one before). Here's one from the Independent, one of the UK's leading magazines: [9] (via FindArticles.com). Some others (a very small sample): [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Any thoughts? Korossyl 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think any of those sources are reputable enough for a bio article. Except for the Independent but it doesn't match the text.Jasper23 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved to talk page....

Extra-marital affair

Shortly after the contested election of 2000, it was revealed that Jackson (married since 1962) had an affair with a staffer Karin Stanford that resulted in the birth of his daughter, Ashley. The Rainbow Push Coalition had paid Stanford $40,000 to relocate her to Southern California, in addition to a continuing $3,000 a month in support, and $365,000 in funds from Rainbow Push were also used to purchase Stanford’s house. Many commentators questioned the legality of these payments and charged that Jackson was paying "hush money" to Stanford.^[2]^[3] This seriously damaged Jesse Jackson's credibility even among long-time supporters and for a brief time prompted Jackson to withdraw from activism.^[4]

The more I look at the sources the more I think that this may be pov pushing. As this is a living person bio this will stay out until it is sourced with reputable and verifiable sources and the text matches the source info. As it is now, neither is done properly. Jasper23 00:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, so that I can be allowed to find the sources. Please either add a {{fact}} tag to the information, and give editors a few days before removing it from the article or if you remove it to the talk page, keep the ref links attached to the talk page to assist editors in finding proper sources. The opening information "Shortly after the contested election of 2000, it was revealed that Jackson (married since 1962) had an affair with a staffer Karin Stanford that resulted in the birth of his daughter, Ashley" is easily verifiable, it was reported throught the mainstream media. It should be placed back in the article.

The information cited to the NY Times should also go back in the article as it is sourced. Also the information cited to salon.com is also reliably sourced.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some sources

1. USA Today opinion column that is supportive of Jackson, it mentions all of the situations we have here except the money payout. [15] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

2. And here is the CNN story on the affair as well, with monetary figures mentioned. [16]

3. Another story. [17]

I think it is fair to say that the all of the information can be sourced, so it belongs in the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing that before hitting revert on the page. Do you think I am acting in bad faith? Jasper23 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you're concerns about the weekly standard as a source is valid. I just thought you were a little quick to take all the information out. The NY Times link just expired recently, so it's fair to ask for an updated citation. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I tagged it on the 30th of november

[18] Jasper23 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops on my part. I only became aware of your concerns on the 6th when you posted on the talk page. And when I first came to the article a few months ago (I haven't been that active on it), the NY Times link was valid. I guess you did give the editors the week, and we were just asleep at the wheel. Kudos to you, for getting us to update the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Affair con.

This came out of the section. "Many commentators questioned the legality of these payments and charged that Jackson was paying "hush money" to Stanford^{[citation needed]}." It needs to be properly sourced and probably re-written before going back in. As it stands, someone needs to find sources of many commentator questioning legality and charging hush money from legitimate and reliable sources. It may just be easier to rewrite this and find a single legitimate source. Jasper23 20:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mother

Should we put who his mother is? ---Lazylaces-Helping Wikipedians since.. um.. for almost a year! Lazylaces (talk • contribs Riddle 13:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

POV TAG

Criticism section: Someone keeps putting in that rainbow push gave 365,000 to Karen to buy a house. If you read this talk page you will see that that is a false statement. I am tired of reverting this so the page earns a pov tag. Also the budweiser contr. needs better sourcing. There is obviously some pov pushing happening here. 70.134.88.189 07:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please define "better" sourcing. Also, instead of deleting the section in total, why not look for the sources yourself. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your burden and not mine. POV on a biography article is worse than nothing at all. As for "better" sourcing, how about multiple sources that can actually be accessed. Nothing wrong with a print sources but how about an accompanying internet sources. If this is a well established controversy that is suitable for this page, then it is not a problem. I am just trying to stop the slander. The edits made to the "affair" section were slanderous because they were obviously false and derogatory. The budweiser claims are hard to verify. Who removed the tag? It goes back on. 24.6.69.148 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hard to verify? All of the sources can be found at the library. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

inappropriate category in that it fundamentally violates WP:NPOV: no neutral, referenced definition of what exactly is is given and seems to be broadly applied to fit bias POV editors. I seriously doubt any such neutral definition that complied with WP:NPOV could be given. Furthermore, I have serious concerns about the way in which this category is being used: with a host of completely unsourced and potentially libellous information.none justify from the stubb such a cat can be applied in is also undue weight. Ann Couler says a lot more and no cat was added to her bio for this very reason.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversies/Criticisms

Under the controversies/criticism section should some discussion about the "race industry" be discussed? It seems that some believe that that Jesse Jackson makes race such a salient cultural topic that he only serves to ignite racial tensions, and actually, in totality, hurts those who he is trying to help. I cannot find articles to cite this controversy, but I know when I have listened to conservative talk radio, this issue has been discussed. Granted, this issue is debatable, but I think this might be a salient item to list under controversies and criticisms, considering it is just that. Does anyone else have an opinion or sources on the matter?--Remi0o 03:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one--Craigboy 03:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Education

Does anyone have information on his education? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 14:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A while back I properly sourced and added information on his education, but my links have been removed and the section edited into a sanitized version of the facts. For some reason, the two references cited (#4 & #5) come from Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push website and Jesse Jackson, Jr's Congressional web page. By what stretch of the imagination are these unbiased, verifiable sources?Wikisurfer61 (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To cite an example: The record shows (though my citations were previously removed) that Jackson at long last did receive a divinity degree in 2000, but contrary to what the page now states that degree was awarded to him on the basis of his life experience. It WAS NOT as is stated an "earned degree." Also, Jackson was "ordained" as a Baptist Minister in 1968, although he did not have a degree, and was not assigned to any Baptist congregation, in violation of church rules.

If this page is ever opened for editing again, I could go to the trouble to find all the sources again and post the information, but it would certainly be removed again and replaced with the unsourced and untrue version of the facts that is now on the page.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Shakedown artist

Has anyone looked at Jacksons' activities as a "shakedown" artist? I found this article: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50777. Is this worth exploring and including in the article? Jtpaladin 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Taliban

Nothing about the Taliban giving Mr. Jackson a call? 24.91.121.205 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

umm...i don't know if the national enquirer is what we'd consider a scholarly source. Strawberryfire 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Detrimental Editing Rampant

To whomever has the power here at Wikipedia: It seems appropriate that this article be locked down a little further. Over the course of April 12th 2007 (I haven't checked in the few days before yet), there have been a page-full of edits, many detrimental (probably more accurately described as vandalistic) to this article and no lasting changes returning the article to a higher standard. The controversial remarks about Jews were scrubbed entirely, tags like "shit stirrer" were added in, and some more crazy stuff has been going back and forth. Please consider, check out all of the revisions, etc. This is, right now, a controversial subject in general, due to the recent exoneration of the Duke lacrosse players (which Jackson had commented on) and due to Jackson's comments calling for action against Don Imus for making racist and sexist remarks. Insignificant1 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe something needs to be put in there regarding the Duke rape case and the exoneration of three innocent young men. Jesse Jackson helped the nation learn about this claim. Please include something regarding the exoneration of the Lacrosse players and Jesse Jackson's response to their exoneration. Unknownsecurity 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've semi-protected the page due to rampant vandalism in the last few days. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Accidental edit. The Don Imus controversy has led many vandals to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's articlesMuntuwandi 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Pov Tag

The hymie remarks are repeated in a section controversy section with no real purpose except to say that Jackson is a bad person. As for the budweiser boycott section I dispute that this is a real controversy and I would like to see a reliable secondary source with this information. As it reads now the two sections combine to form a hit piece. This is a bio article and should have higher standards than it currently does. The tag remains until these two issues are addressed. Turtlescrubber

A reliable secondary source? Several are cited in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

By secondary, I meant not archived text but some sort of electronic source. Personally, I have on way of accessing this information to verify it's truth and all I am asking for is some corroborating online or electronic sources. If this really is a huge controversy there should be at least some reliable electronic sources that back this up. My internet searches has turned up nothing in reliable sources and I seriously doubt the veracity of these claims. I think this section is a hit piece and I would like to see some verifiable electronic sources that back up these serious claims in some way. Turtlescrubber 19:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could always do a google search for more info. Here is a good summation from judicial watch. I would agree that if this were an isolated event, it would probably not be notable, but Jackson has been accused of using this tactic before on several occasions: threaten a boycot (SBC/Ameritech, Toyota, NASCAR, Pepsi, NYSE), get a donation, end boycot. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. However, if you read the source for judicial watch you'll see that the two stories don't exactly match. That is why I doubt the (text) source material that is in the article. Really, I don't mind this info being in here at all, as long as it is properly sourced and verifiable.Turtlescrubber 19:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Budwieser

I am having trouble with repeated attempts to delete seemingly referenced text in the Budweiser boycot section. We need to reach a consensus on how to handle this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Add one or two electronic sources. I have tried to verify this info but I can't. What I find online doesn't match what is in the article. I think the section doesn't match the sources. If electronic sources don't match the mysterious text sources, how do we know if it really is sourced. You have never even tried to explain the contradiction between the electronic and text sources, and seem to just want to keep it in because you probably don't like Jesse Jackson. Honestly, I don't either, but on wp:blp articles, derogatory information needs to be really well sourced. Turtlescrubber 23:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have merely been attempting to preserve the article. I don't have any knowledge about its accuracy. I don't have access to any of the references. If you feel they article inaccurately depicts the story, BE BOLD and write the corrected version.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Did anyone else notice that the picture is actualy that of Billy Dee Williams, or Lando Calrissian from Star Wars? Turd123ferguson 03:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

They just look alike. They're actually second cousins. --NEMT 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Shadow Senator

The link currently leads to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate, it should lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_senator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.254.114 (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

should it not also actually be mentioned in the body of the article that he was actually elected to the "shadow senator" office and what if anything he may have accomplished during his term?68.157.167.238 (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Primaries ?

That one really surprised me. Doesn´t Puerto Rico it´s off of all the american presidential elections ? It´s not part of the Union.85.242.239.68 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

shadow senator infobox

[moved from my talk page for input from others]: Infoboxes are encouraged. You are comparing a B-class article to Stub-class articles when saying other shadow senators do not have infoboxes. If info is incorrect either remove it or replace it (the latter being preferable).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony - I thought it would be better to discuss here than in edit summaries or off on various user talks: I am not at all against infoboxes, in fact I like them. The problem I had with this one is that it was redundant by repeating birthdate (and the date is wrong to boot), nationality and place of birth - I don't see the point in repeating those in a second infobox. And the box didn't fit properly (I mean physically fit) under the main Infobox. I mention the other shadow senators not because their articles are equivalent - you're quite right that those are stubs and this is not - but because there is no precedent for even taking the the "regular" Senator infobox and turning it into one for "Shadow" senator, as far as I could see on a quick look. I really don't object to it so strenuously, I just thought it was questionable, awkwardly fitted, inaccurate (which is of course fixable), and redundant. Now placing it in the middle of the article and fixing the date eliminates the physical sizing problem and inaccuracy, but what about the redundancy, and is it a proper use of an infobox to have it in the middle of the piece? We do have the navigation box along the bottom which serves the same purpose, but I'm interested in anyone's opinion on this - maybe someone from the congressional wikiproject or if there is one on infobox use. As I said, I'm not vehemently against it at all.

Of far greater concern to me is that the article is not really all that good quality - I think the subject deserves a more in-depth, better written piece. I tried to fix it a bit, but it still needs a lot of work. Tvoz |talk 21:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the subject is a great subject for a WP:FA or at least WP:GA article. The problem is that this guy generates so much disagreement it is hard to make much progress with the article. I have been involved in many articles with multiple infoboxes: (

Greg Skrepenak,

Ted Petoskey,

Whitey Wistert). Usually the subject has been an athlete with multiple careers. Jackson is very different. He is equally deserving of multiple boxes, IMO. Often I take great pains to remove duplicate info from a second box. Here I did not. Both Pamela Anderson and

Germany Schulz have mid article second boxes. There is no policy on them to my knowledge. Often times in a lengthy article links are repeated. I think when JJ gets redone properly it will be fairly lengthy and a mid article second box might repeat some info. However, it would not be improper to remove such info. I doubt shadow senators will get their own infobox and often we make due with close substitutes for infoboxes. I think this is an appropriate substitute.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to go along with that - I fixed the date and let's see how the article develops. By the way - I forgot to say that it didn't even have a section on Shadow senator or even reference to it in the lede or anywhere in the article other than the infobox and nav box before my revisions on jan 5 (unless it had been removed earlier for some reason that I missed)! I put it in prominently, although didn't have a lot to say about it - but that was another reason I removed the infobox originally. But again, I hope the article will be expanded - he's a rich and controversial subject - the best kind for a great article, in my opinion. Cheers Tvoz |talk 22:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

His Native American Heritage

Hi. Can any find anything on his Native American heritage because I have heard him mention it on t.v. in interviews and things of that nature, but it is over looked. So does anyone have any idea where a possible reference of his Native American heritage can be cited from??? ThanxMcelite (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite