Jump to content

Talk:Jasmine Crockett

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

Personal Life?

[edit]

Is she married? Dating? Children? 2600:6C5A:527F:8800:E7B7:BC2F:C55B:5D99 (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestors?

[edit]

Is she descended from Davy Crockett? 136.36.180.215 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Dispute over hate crime/Cochran allegations

[edit]

I'm re-inserting this into the article. It was previously removed on the grounds that the Tennessee Star is not a reliable source.

  • A previous discussion about the Tennessee Star explicitly declined to reach the conclusion that it is uniformly disallowed as a source on Wikipedia: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#Tennessee_Star_-_reliable_source?
  • The article has a real person's byline and the part cited here involved contacting Rhodes College and The Cochran Firm and quoting from their responses. There is a difference between a site that is promoting a political agenda and one that simply makes things up. In this situation, the latter is unlikely.
  • There is no source on any of Crockett's claims besides Crockett herself. The contents range from wildly improbable (she doesn't remember the name of the "heroic" attorney who took on her case and inspired her to go to law school) to the kind of thing that doesn't add up (not just one hate crime but a series of them, at the same college, that were severe enough to cause a legal proceeding, but somehow going totally unreported in any newspaper at the time) to outright impossible (the legal proceeding happening without any court records being generated). The Star's rebuttal of Crockett's claims is at least as credible as the claims themselves, and one should not be allowed to stand without the other.
  • I have described the Star by name as the source and labeled it "right-wing" in the article so that readers can be aware of potential bias. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to remove it again.
  • The RSN discussion did not reach a conclusion before it was archived, it died out like many discussions do. The commenters all agree that it is an unreliable source for contentious points in BLPs. Quotes from the discussion include It should be avoided at nearly all costs, Yeah this seems like the kinda source to avoid., and Probably should be avoided, and definitely not used for BLPs.
  • The "real person" in the byline puts his Twitter/X location as "MAGA Country". His Twitter feed shows a significant ideological bias and disregard of facts. He also wrote this piece in the past week which is full of inaccuracies.
  • While Crockett is the lone source we have here, reliable sources treat her credibly. The details she does share are consistent over time.[1][2][3][4] This article attributes the racism to her statements as opposed to a police report or other source.
  • The Star's rebuttal is not particularly credible to me, as they're pointing out that they don't have records of it from 20 years ago, not that this did not happen or is unlikely to have happened. The Star even gives good reasons for why they wouldn't remember it or have records of it if it indeed happened.
  • Where did you get that she "doesn't remember" the name of the attorney who helped her? I don't see that statement in any source. Is that your claim? She always says the attorney was a Black female. Or, that there was a legal proceeding with no court records? The Star just says that Crockett didn't file a police report, but acknowledges that another student might have.
– Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]