Talk:Sandi Jackson

Sandi Jackson has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 2, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 18, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Chicago alderman Sandi Jackson (pictured) transferred from Georgetown University Law Center to University of Illinois College of Law to be with her future husband, U.S. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.?

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

African diaspora

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hugfest?

In this section the word "hugfest" is used. That doesn't seem awfully encyclopaedic to me. Any comments? Fribbler (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugfest is a very well-known ^{[citation needed]} colloquial reference for the occurance. If you talk to anyone about the DNC hugfest or Jesse Jackson, Jr. Hugfest there is no confusion on what you art talking about.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugfest is not a word. Hugfest is not English. This is the English language Wikipedia. This article should be easily comprehendable to those who are not previously familiar with the event. Suggest adding "termed a "hugfest" by the press" or some such if you feel strongly about this term for some reason. Hugh (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Hugh[reply]

Opinion piece as source and independence

Thanks to all for your work on a Chicago alderman article.

[65] Simpson, Dick (2008-05-13). "Aldermen daring to challenge Daley". Chicago Sun-Times. Newsbank. Retrieved on 2008-11-15.

[84] Simpson, Dick (2008-10-03). "Tough times call for a strong City Council". Chicago Sun-Times. Newsbank. Retrieved on 2008-11-15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HughD (talk • contribs) 13:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source is an opinion piece, not a news article. The author Simpson is a commentator, not a reporter. This source is the basis for most of a paragraph on the subject's political "independence." The subject's "independence" is contentious. The subject is a living person and a Chicago alderman. Numerous reliable sources could be added to this article in support of the contention that the subject is not independent, but I don't think we should do that - I think we would better off avoiding the "independence" issue altogether. WP:BLP specifies immediate removal and that we should not be Talk-paging about this. If someone feels strongly about including this material in the article, please add an in-text attribution, but please understand that I plan to honor proportionality WP:NPOV unless it is removed altogether.

From WP:RS: "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. ... Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. ... Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page."

Thanks again,

Hugh (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Simpson is not a commentator. He is more of an expert on the occurrences on City Council than any writer ^{[citation needed]} because he is a former two-term (eight-year) alderman [1971-1979, 3 decades ago] himself. No further citation is needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson is a commentator. Simpson is not a reporter. His background does not change that. Not everything that appears in a newspaper is RS. Simpson's writing in the Sun-Times appears on the editorial page. His writing is not subject to the same vetting as news reporting. The two Simpson references are opinion pieces as defined in WP:RS and therefore not RS. I think we should delete both citations. Also, I don't think the statements in this article derived from those two sources are critical to the article. I plan to flag them as citation required, and wait a respectful period and then delete them. If someone feels strongly that the statements are important, alternate sources should be sought - or cite "in text" - "according to former alderman Dick Simpson..." Hugh (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Hugh[reply]

Blog comments as source

The source (currently ref 55) is to the "Talk Back" column from the Chicago Sun-Times. This occasional feature appears on the editorial page. It is a re-print in the hard-copy dead tree edition of the snarkiest comments from the Sun-Times' blogs. Blog posts are not generally acceptable WP:RS and blog comments are even more suspect. Not everything that appears in a newspaper is RS. These comments are not subject to the same vetting as news articles. The authors are not reporters. Also, I believe the statement fragment in the article derived from this ref is not important to the article. I plan to remove the ref, flag the phrase as citation required, wait a respectful period, and if an alternate cite is not found, delete the phrase. Hugh (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing this source in-text as "the Chicago Sun-Times" and "major daily" gives the reader a false impression of the weight to this content WP:UNDUE, WP:NNC, WP:RS. The current in-text citation gives the reader the false impression that perhaps the S-T editorialized on this issue, unless they chase the link. This source is not an editorial, neither is it reportage. Again, this source is a re-print of blog comments. I am not interested in a revert war on this.Hugh (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshoped Pictures

Is it at all odd to anyone else that the two pictures of Mrs. Jackson are the same except that one has Jesse Jackson Jr. photoshopped in or out? Maybe there is some other picture that could be used? --Nogburt (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sandi 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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. Hugh (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sandi 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) 12:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]