Jump to content

Talk:Shirley Ann Jackson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 20 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): THawthorne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Talk Wikipedia Contribution: Expansion of Inspiration for Becoming a Physicist

•Bets117 (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)The “Talk Forum” comment which is already in place brings about points of inconsistency between the articles brought forth as sources. That is clearly the main point which would need to be addressed; however there are more possible changes that could be made to strengthen the content of the page. As a successful woman of color, Shirley Ann Jackson’s page includes plenty of professional career decisions and mentions of her success as an African American woman in the STEM field. I question the structure used in Jackson’s page seeing as there aren’t many other attributes mentioned. This leads me to believe that the only reason why Jackson has a page is to emphasize the difference between her and other physicist. They fail to provide the proper foundation, like the background and childhood information, with as much importance as the fact that she is a black, successful, intelligent woman of color in the STEM field. Jackson’s roots are just as important as the fact that she was a well-known African American, woman physicist. By giving us more background information from Jackson’s childhood, we are able to better understand the reasoning behind Jackson’s motive to become a physicist. It seems as if they attempted to touch on the subject by bringing up Jackson’s father briefly, yet they abandoned the idea. I believe that it is important to cover the basics in order to make it easier for the reader to follow along the storyline of a person’s life.[reply]

Article needs to be rewritten

[edit]

This article needs to be rewritten. It copies straight from the link specified and had numerous mistakes. I corrected a few. But much needs to be done. Эйрон Кинни 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some work has been done so as not to make it a direct copy, and credit was given where due. Any more improvements are welcome. Danski14 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much has been done to rewrite this to improve the sourcing and tone. Should it be more color-blind? Obviously it it historically significant that Dr. Jackson was one of the first black women to achieve the Ph.D in Phyisics, but I too cannot find any original work listing her as lead or secondary author in her field. I find it troublesome that the article tone is that before her tenure as President, she was well known for her wort in physics. Perhaps I need to look at a wider body of professional abstracts or an earlier time period. Can someone point to her body of original or collaborative work in more detail than " she worked at Fermilab or CERN?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subkiller (talk • contribs) 09:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

The article may not be great, but I can't see how she isn't notable. Just look at the article. I'm tempted to consider the notabiltiy template vandalism and remove it. —Ben FrantzDale 23:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course she's notable. Gzuckier 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

Hi,

I just removed the controversy section, which read

In March of 2008, Jackson used her authority as president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to censor artist Wafaa Bilal's on campus installation of a controversial anti-war piece. Jackson ordered the exhibit shut down. When it moved to an off-campus site, the city of Troy used code enforcement to shut down that site as well. Jackson has not commented on the issue since her initial act of censorship.

since it was unsourced. Feel free to re-insert a section on the controversy, but please, especially as we are dealing with a living person bio (see the links at the top of this page!), cite reliable sources (cf. WP:RELIABLE). Markus Poessel (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it is possible to source this, but it shouldn't be included, since nobody is sure if the decision was really Jackson's. More likely other administrators recommended the decision, or there may even have been Trustee board involvement. WE just don't know. Danski14(talk) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EMPAC

[edit]

Having the Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center as a separate second-level subheading in this article is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Additionally, the subheading for "Scientific career" also includes her career in administrative positions. I'm going to reorganize this article a bit within a few days, if someone doesn't get to it first. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, EMPAC does not warrant it's own section here. Shirley Ann undoubtedly had major influence on the project, but it is debatable and unclear how big of a role she actually played. Certainly other administrators, and the director of EMPAC, Johannes Goebel helped promote the project as well, as well as the campus planning team. I think we should reduce it to one or two sentences and merge with the previous paragraph. I would like to see some improvements on the EMPAC page, though Danski14(talk) 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I made some improvements. I think there's a sentence in the RPI section about a teach-in that doesn't belong in this article either. Also I ran across some heavily physics-related stuff in "Career" which probably should be pared down or made less technical. I'll be taking care of these issues in a few days if I don't hear any opposes. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salary

[edit]

Her salary is given in the first paragraph, along with a mention that it's the highest among American university professors. I don't think this information belongs in the lead. Dewey Finn (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Also the salary information is four years old, so it's not even current.) Dewey Finn (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is her salary even important, as high or as little as it may be? Who cares? Good example of how basically anything gets on Wiki these days.65.215.94.13 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pipes v. Jackson in Order of Succession

[edit]

Why does the article for RPI president Pipes list him as 20th, but for Jackon (after Pipes) as 18th? Can you 'editors' do a better job of listing your information here? It's bad enough Wikipedia is a poor source of information as it is.65.215.94.13 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a tricky point : it depends whether you count acting Presidents (Presidents who held office while a new President was being sought by the board of Trustees). It seems that most literature does not include acting Presidents in the ranking of presidents. I will change the Pipes article and check the other articles to follow this convention. Danski14(talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sections on the presidential guest house and the CLASS Initiative belong here?

[edit]

I don't think that the discussion of the presidential guest house (beginning with "Following the weekend, the Board of Trustees announced they would support construction of a new guest house on Dr. Jackson's property . . .") and the CLASS Initiative belong in an article about Shirley Jackson.

For one thing, it's inaccurate to say that the guest house is being constructed on "Dr Jackson's property", since as far as I know, she doesn't own the existing president's house. Second, this is really something that's not about her, but the university president.

Similarly, the CLASS Initiative is not about her, but about the university. If the CLASS Initiative is discussed anywhere, it should be next to the discussion of the [First Year Experience] in the article about the university.Dewey Finn (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Personally I think the issue with the house is an interesting saga. Since it is well cited, I don't see any reason to remove it, although it might be worth considering the tone of the section, which may be a bit antagonistic. As far as whether it is "her property", I'm not sure. That is a technical point that may need to be corrected and better explained. It is noted that the house "will be used for future presidents and is a long term thing". As far as the CLASS Initiative, I have removed that section. I don't think its accurate to say it was "Dr. Jackson's Initiative". Rather it was something studied and developed by the Jackson Administration and especially the Student Life office. And also, that section was almost libelous. It isn't fair to say the administration "broke promises", rather they made a few mistakes in a few cases during the transitional period into the CLASS program. I think whoever wrote that section was probably an angry parent who wanted to go on a rant. Danski14(talk) 18:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

[edit]

Since Shirley Jackson holds a doctoral degree in theoretical physics I think it would be relevant to provide a bibliography of her publications. Unfortunately I have been unable to track down anything she has published. Admittedly I think she has probably spent a significant amount of time in a more administrative role as well as her extensive work with governmental committees so her published works may be fairly minimal. As an example. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Brian_Greene Brian Greene contains a bibliography of his published works. According to http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108494 Jackson distinguished herself with published works. It seems like a short list would be appropriate. If no one objects I'll spend a couple of days looking for the publications and start compiling a list and I'll go ahead and add it in a similar style to that of the Brian Greene article. --Nimming (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Shirley Ann Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Shirley Ann 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) 10:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of False Narrative regarding Caller ID, etc.

[edit]

Regarding this edit I made. I think there may be some merit to the content that I removed, but I really don't think we can include it without violating the original research policy. Zagalejo^^^ 04:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid conflict with WP:NOR I removed the sentence "Consequently she could not have had any such role in enabling these advancements." But the rest of this material is wholly factual and serves an important purpose in deterring false information that has been posted into this particular Wikipedia article across many years. The absence of this section will invite reappearances of the false narrative, as you saw a few days afterward from an overzealous supporter. I know there are many citations here, but they are necessary to properly describe the scope of the false narrative, and to explain the actual timeframe for each of these inventions.Dglowny^^^ 23:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:NOTOR which explains that "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources." Likewise, "Routine calculations do not count as original research." This is exactly what I have done here in citing the conflicting claims, and the actual timeframes of the inventions in question. I have attempted to do so in a minimalistic way, and in the spirit of maintaining a neutral "just the facts" tone. Nevertheless, it ought not to be ignored, because even major news outlets frequently cite the false narrative due to its apparent ubiquity. Dglowny^^^ 05:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To help reduce WP:OVERKILL I removed roughly half of the previously-existing citations here, while leaving sufficient reference for each named invention to substantiate that they all occurred prior to Jackson's arrival at Bell Labs. This is not opinion, it is fact based on proven calendar dates. Jackson did not arrive at Bell Labs until well after all of these inventions occurred.Dglowny^^^ 05:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then to further minimize the visual impact of WP:OVERKILL I used the "citation bundling" technique to encapsulate several into a single footnote.Dglowny^^^ 08:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don’t think this meets the letter of WP:NOR. But I do recognize the usefulness of this content, so I’m not planning to fight over it. Zagalejo^^^ 22:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Unless I am reading this incorrectly somehow, the infobox says "Born: August 5, 2011 (age 9) Washington, DC, US" Obviously she wasn't born then so what is this date representing? Is this a typo or supposed to be the date for some other category? Apathyash (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the IP editor who fixed this.Apathyash (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solar home charging station

[edit]

Hi this is Patty Belleville Michigan and I was wondering if you had a black intercom encased by a copper receptive field with magnified which would be a fiber optics but in a magnification with a collector to collect it as though it is like a pill that you can put into the side of your car charge another one to take with you and use it as a future enhancement to vehicles so you don't have to rely on gas or cutting down on the grid for backup energy for the home could that be 174.247.208.162 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shirley_Ann_Jackson&oldid=1207772410"