Jump to content

Talk:Sheila Jackson Lee/Archive 1

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

Houston Press & Free Republic citations

The Houston Press and the Free Republic may use their Free Press rights to represent their POVs, but Wikipedia works on an NPOV basis. The number of citations from the HP gossip columns and weblogs is excessive, considering that they are so obviously partisan. Right now the material looks like it should be re-organized into a section " ==Houston Press campaign against SJL==". I don't follow Houston politics, but even so this appears to be overly reliant on references from her political opponents. -Willmcw 12:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw - you need to look at the links - especially the Free Republic articles - more closely. They were used as sources because in many cases the articles they contain are no longer online from the original source. One of them is an article from the capitol hill newspaper The Hill. Another is an article from the capitol hill newspaper Roll Call. A third is from the Houston Chronicle. These are ALL mainstream news sources and valid citations. Free Republic simply happens to be the location where electronic copies of the articles can still be found online.
You are also incorrect in your suggestion the Houston Press gossip column is the only source being used. Only three out of the nine news articles cited are to the Houston Press and the main allegation of the Houston Press stories - Ms. Jackson Lee's disruptive behavior on airlines - is corroborated in The Hill, which also published an account of the exact same thing. You should also know that the Houston Press is a liberal weekly alternative paper that agrees with Jackson Lee on most issues, so she's not simply taking heat from the right wing. I also do not see any weblogs in the links.
I do agree that there probably needs to be more biographical information on Jackson Lee to balance out the top of the article, but the "controversies" section needs to stay because she is a very polarizing figure in Texas. That being the case, the issue for editing in this article is not what needs to be removed but what could be added to the top section.Rangerdude 00:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE - I located one of the articles on The Hill's website and changed the link from freerepublic to the original. I also removed your edit that attributed the airline incidents to only the "Houston Press gossip column", which is not true, and added the reference to The Hill there. Will this satisfy your complaints enough to remove the tag? Also, if you agree that a more detailed biography in the top of the article is needed would you be willing to author it? Often the best way to balance the article is to contribute something new to it.Rangerdude

Thanks for your quick response and for finding direct sources. This article still has a strange tone, full of what look like cheap jabs. At the same time the substantial criticisms mentioned in the Houston Chronicle article are barely discussed. I will remove the NPOV tag from the article, though I believe the article still has a POV. Frankly, there are other people about whom I'd rather research and write articles. Though you may have strong opinions about the subject of the article it is still your responsibility as an editor to write a NPOV article. It's a struggle for all of us. Thanks for contributing. Cheer, -Willmcw 01:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Like many articles here, this one is a continuous work in progress. I concur fully that there needs to be more general biography to balance the whole of the article. The controversy section should stay though because it is in need of mention simply because she's so polarizing. I'll add what I can to each section as time permits, but as I said it's a problem that will resolve itself simply by expanding the articleRangerdude 06:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

QUEEN SHEILA

Why is no mention that Jackson has refereed to herself as a "queen" and deserving of all the grovelling of royalty? The only part of the article that is remotely critical is the part about the high turnover in her office. THAT is but the tip of the iceberg. As usual Wikipedia only tells us half the facts. No cool. --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:D870:FB0F:8A10:584D (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Gossip Columns

Describing the Houston Press as a "free paper" and its author as a "gossip" column is simply not germane to the citation. The latter term in itself and the former term in its use appear to have been added for no other reason than to convey a pejorative upon the Houston Press as a source - which constitutes a POV ad hominem, since neither piece of information has any bearing on whether or not the story occurred. Please remove these POV edits. Rangerdude 22:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are germane to helping the reader evaluate the veracity of the allegation. It directly bears on the usefulness of the information. If you can think of euphemisms for "gossip column" and "free newspaper" which are still accurate then I wouldn't object to using them. -Willmcw 23:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The Houston Press is already named in 3 different places in the article plus an external link. Naming it for each and every single piece of factual information taken from its pages is unnecessary and redundant. Rangerdude 02:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is not a factual piece of information, it's uncorroborated gossip. If the Press weren't used for so many allegations, then we wouldn't need to refer to it so many times. -Willmcw 03:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
It's been unchallenged in print for years and has specific corroborating interviews in the article. There's also no need to refer to the HP excessively since each and every one of their articles used is directly linked as a source. That is the point of footnote style source links - so any reader who wants the information can easily see where it came from with a simple click! Rangerdude 03:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keeping with her camera-friendly reputation, Jackson Lee is one of the few members of Congress outside of the leadership who seeks time for a House floor speech almost every day. The congresswoman's reputation as a "floor hog" has also given rise to a humorous betting game among Capitol Hill staffers in other member's offices in which quarters are deposited into a jar each time she speaks. The office staff in possession of the jar when a whole day goes by without Jackson Lee speaking wins and gets to keep the contents. [1]

The page that is linked as the source for this paragraph doesn't work. "Service Unavailable 404 Not Found". -Willmcw 22:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

    • I think this might work. [2] I do note that the attrib to Jackson Lee by the author is of the wink wink nudge nudge variety; this maybe should be made clearer in our article. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:59, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Jordan memorial

As written, this paragraph is simply POV. It's written as a statement of fact that this should be considered a critique of JL's "publicity seeking." But it cites no critical source. If you have a source that criticized her for this action, cite it. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in the article. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be content that was removed, and I found it interesting (I hadn't heard about it before). I don't really see what's POV about it, assuming the that the facts are correct. Lee sponsored a memorial, and some people got their knickers in a wad over it. I think that's interesting and notable in the context of this section. There is zero judgement contained in that paragraph of whether there is anything wrong with Lee's actions. Indeed, as I read it, I personally find it absurd that anyone should care about the phrasing. And that's exactly what is interesting in the theme of this section: that the Congresswoman's critics consider a very (overly, to me) wide range of her publicity to be "seeking." There's no reason to throw this down the memory whole just because (I assume?) you think some people are going to form a negative judgement of Lee from the paragraph. Perhaps just as many will think "give her a break!" Unless you are disputing that this ever happened at all, I contend that censoring the item would be implicitly POV - a judgement on the event. Our job is just to report that it happened and someone threw a fit (part of a history of people throwing fits re. things like this).--67.101.69.112 22:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, but the problem with the paragraph was that it simply stated that the event occurred, then placed it under a criticism section, with no actual citations about there having been criticism of the event. If the prose had said something like ... "Blah blah group criticized SJL for X," I would've had much less of an issue with it, but that's not what it said. Beyond veracity issues, apparently. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Did it happen? What's the source? -Willmcw 22:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
" "Barbara Jordan Memorial Service, Sponsored by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee" receives zero Google hits. Until we can find a source I'm removing it. -Willmcw 23:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. I had assumed the paragrah had originally been added in good faith, but if it doesn't show up in google at all, not even on a forum or anything, I'd say it's unlikely it was a controversy.--67.101.69.112 23:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Enron etc.

Will, I added that information back when I was trying to cut back on the amount of specious criticisms (I thought, erroneously I suppose, that Rangerdude would be assuaged by some real criticism). It was from a Chronicle article, I'll have to go dig the specific citation out of Nexis, but I'll do it tomorrow. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. When I looked at the Open Secrets reports for her campaigns, [3] and previous, the amounts did not seem huge, and many other contributors gave more. Also our wording implies that the corporation gave the money, when I assume we mean that its employees gave it. -Will Beback 05:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the tag because I found a large PAC payment on Open Secrets in 1994. We should probably still fix the wording, but otherwise it appears generally correct. Sorry for the bother, -Will Beback 11:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I just stumbled onto this page. The language and scope of it is much more that of a critical article than an unbiased encyclopedia entry. I think it needs to have a NPOV tag put back on, or at the very least, some substantial work needs to be done to moderate the tone of voice and slant. Notmyrealname 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Playing Race and Gender Cards

I just deleted this section as POV. The section cited two incidents, one of her accusing the chair of a subcommittee for cutting her off possibly because she is a Black woman, and the other of her accusing the local Republican party in Texas of dirty tricks with her photo. First off, the wiki entry for race card notes that this accusation is generally used to stir up controversy. It also notes that one uses this tactic to gain a political advantage. The hearing was on a rather obscure issue relating to NASA. Not exactly the kind of issue that involves issues of race allegations, nor would one gain an obvious advantage by invoking charges of racism. The citation used does not make it clear whether her charge was well founded or not. The citation for the second incident does not back up the claim made by the author of the entry, that the photo of her was part of a series. Further, the citation (Jackson Lee's website) makes it clear that it was SHE who accused the Republicans of "using the race card" by using a photo of her without identifying her, thus leaving the impression that a Black woman was supporting the agenda of the group of Republicans in the photo. Without further evidence to the contrary, her arguement sounds convincing. In any case, these two incidents do not appear to substantiate an accusation that Jackson Lee falsely accuses people of racism for political gain. Notmyrealname 03:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen

What's our source for the hyphen? The subject's Congressional website doesn't use one.[4]. -Will Beback · † · 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The google for this subject's website does: [5] 1ne 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
But I don't see anywhere on the website where a hyphen is used. I do see that her Congressional bio uses a hyphen[6] but not her campaign website.[7] Since the subject's two official websites both omit the hyphen that appears to be her preferred spelling. -Will Beback · † · 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
But her Congressional bio uses a hyphen. 1ne 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I mentioned that. But don't you think that the two websites she controls directly are more authoritative? -Will Beback · † · 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt she writes her Congressional website. 1ne 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd imagine she has more active involvement in those two websites than in her very short Congressional biography. What prompted you to make the move? -Will Beback · † · 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Her congressional biography. 1ne 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The official list of House Members prepared by the Clerk of the House includes the hyphen, as does the Clerk's List of Duplicate and Similar Names of Members. This list is prepared based on the Members' individual preferences, so I think it can be taken as authoritative. Newyorkbrad 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think what's going on there is that House rules require representatives to be addressed by the last word in the name, so she would be referred to as "Congressman Lee" rather than "Congressman Jackson Lee". So she's "Jackson-Lee" in official congressional docs but "Jackson Lee" everywhere else. I think this should reside under "Sheila Jackson Lee" since that's what she calls herself and how she's referred to pretty much everywhere other than the Congressional clerk's site.—Chowbok ☠ 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusion about moon landing

Is there anything about her confusing the Mars rover mission with the moon landings and wondering if the machine would land somewhere near where the astronauts put down? 66.234.222.96 (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this article should cover her entire life and legislative career, what's the significance of that error? Is it really worth devoting space to it in this short biography? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's worthy of note, especially since she's on the space subcommittee. Your argument would make sense if something else had to be cut to make room for it, but you know that's not how it works. —Chowbok ☠ 21:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide some reliably sourced links to this that explain its relevance?Notmyrealname (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that as a Representative from Houston, who is on the space subcommittee, and who doesn't know the difference between Mars and the Moon, it is VERY relevant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.21.222 (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Earlier in the article, it says she asked this in 2005, but in the gaffes section it claims she asked this in 97. This doesn't seem right.Damelch (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The source listed is a National Review posting in 2002 that says the quote happened 5 years earlier. I highly doubt the accuracy of that claim without an actual quote from the hearing. Rush Limbaugh picked this thing up about a week ago, and I have yet to find any credible evidence that it is true. Pathfinder landed on July 4th, 1997. She took office in January 1995 and was a very junior member in 1997.69.37.85.3 (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The links to this statement are circular and heresay. It should be removed unless there is a reliable, verifiable source. Aren't House subcommittee meetings transcribed? Sounds like RW bs.Yankee98 (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wording questions

Quoting the article (as it was 10 minutes ago) : "In the 2008 Presidential election, Jackson-Lee supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, but her Congressional district voted for Clinton's opponent Barack Obama by a margin of 90% to 10%. Jackson-Lee was subsequently booed by her constituents at her district's state convention."

Maybe this paragraph needs more attention to the wording and less flipping it in and out of the article.

Is the presidential election on already? Aren't the primaries before the election?

What was the order of events? When was the district vote held? When did Johnson-Lee support Clinton?

What is the significance of the congressional district vote? Is the District choosing a delegate for the Democratic convention?

How can a district have a state convention??

Wanderer57 (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The more important question is: Does this merit inclusion in a biographical page? I do not think it does. Some people booed her. So what? Notmyrealname (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Would we report that she had been applauded? I doubt it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There has been heated discussion and multireverts over this paragraph. The question is whether the issue is or is not high profile and controversial enough to be worth including.
Unless there is more press coverage than has been cited thus far, I tend to agree with Notmyrealname and Will_Beback.
My comments were from the POV of IF the paragraph is going to be used, it needs a bit of editing. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd also question the relevance of the subject supporting one canddate while the constituents support another. I can't recall ever seeing a similar note in any other congressional biography, and I watch a couple of dozen of them. Given all the issues here this material should not be retained. Thanks, Wanderer57, for raising the issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly the reason I even became involved in this Sheila Jackson Lee "booing incident" discussion. I noticed a handful of Congressional biographies that had been edited to include information regarding the supporting of one candidate while constituents support another and found such information to be irrelevant overall. To be fair, there has been MUCH disagreement on this issue.Smart Ways (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the consensus appears to be that this shouldn't be retained, so I'll go along with that for now, but I fail to see any Wikipedia guidelines that would say this material does not merit inclusion. If there are multiple verifiable and reliable sources stating this information[8][9][10] and multiple other prominent sources [11][12][13]discussing it, then what's the justification for leaving it out? Surely you can see that a politician being booed by members of her own party in her home district is much more notable than a politician simply being applauded. - Maximusveritas (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What I said above was "unless there is more press coverage than has been cited thus far, I tend to agree" (that the information should be left out). However, the sources that Maximusveritas listed do show broader coverage of the events in Houston, including a report in the L.A. Times. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Press coverage alone is not sufficient. It has to be notable somehow. The notability of the incident is not yet proven. If there are further actions/incidents/protests/etc., then it should be reconsidered. Otherwise this would be a case of undue weight.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Let me ask this. If the story of a District meeting in Houston had appeared (say) on the front page of the Washington Post, or the New York Times, would that press coverage alone have been sufficient? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That would depend on the story. The story seems to be about the Obama campaign, rather than some story that has significance for Jackson-Lee. Maybe that will come about. It's best to wait and see. If it's worth including now, it will be worth including later.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but your explanation isn't convincing. For one, the story is definitely about Jackson-Lee much more so than Obama since it has to do with her getting booed by Democrats in her own district and the significance is what that might mean for her future re-election prospects, though that wasn't explicitly mentioned. Also, I think you are misusing the principle of undue weight, which says we shouldn't give undue weight to minority views compared to majority views. There are no other views on this matter. It's simply a fact that she was booed and it is notable as evidenced by the large number of reliable sources discussing it. - Maximusveritas (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that its relation to her reelection prospects wasn't mentioned in any of the stories is exactly the problem. If there are any further stories about the significance of this in relation to her political career than I agree that it should be added. As a single incident, I don't think it is important enough to be included in this short biography.Notmyrealname (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheila Jackson-Lee's support of Hilary Clinton

Congresswoman,

Will you be watching and holding Mrs. Clinton accountable for using Karl Rove tactics in the primary against Senator Obama? Alot of Senator's recent comments and tactics have been pulled from the Karl Rove playbook. John McCain is also using these tactics as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.109.146 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous poster. This discussion page is for discussing the Shiela Jackson Lee Wikipedia article and not people's personal feelings toward Sheila Jackson Lee. In addition to it being the wrong forum, it's also highly unlikely that any member of Congress has enough time to sit around and read the discussion pages attached to their Wikipedia articles. I am sure there is a more appropriate forum in which you can address your concerns. Might I suggest sending an email to the Congresswoman's district office? Additionally, should you wish to contribute to an article about "Karl Rove's political tactics" and can do so in a NPOV manner, I'm sure you would be welcome to work on such a project. Furthermore, I would encourage you to create a Wikipedia account, learn about the "Five Pillars" (something I'm still working on) and sign your comments so that you can be fully involved in the community. I can only speak for myself but, to me, these "drive by" edits and comments tend to come off as less credible than those contributed by editors who have an account name with which to sign their edits and comments. It's really quite easy to set up an account. Smart Ways (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Also, can anyone shed some light on how to remove the formatting that the unsigned poster is using? It's really hard to read their comments. Thanks! Smart Ways (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That odd format is due to putting one or more spaces at the beginning of a line. I removed them. For example:

No space at beginning. 

Space at beginning.

It is better to use colons to indent, not spaces. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Political rating

Should this article and other articles about members of congress include the ratings given by numerous congressional watchdog groups such as the ACLU and the ACU?72.199.154.162 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. For practical reasons as follows.
If an editor added such ratings to this article (or any other article about a member of congress), some editors who didn't agree with the "rating" would argue for its deletion, or else add ratings from other watchdog groups for "counterbalance". I think that starting to add such ratings could create a "ratings war"
This problem could be avoided if there was general agreement on a list of watchdog groups whose ratings would be included in all such articles. However the chance of such an agreement being reached in the next five years is about one in a hundred million. :o) IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
However, if this is the case why are other promenent government officials ratings by various watchdog groups allowed, and not for this particular official?72.199.154.162 (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Two points: 1) Can you give a couple of examples where watchdog ratings are given in Wikipedia for Members of Congress? 2) I gave my opinion that it was not a good idea. I did not say it was never done or was not allowed. Wikipedia has many editors. Total consistency is not to be expected. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wanderer57's points. It's dangerous to start picking groups that bestow ratings, because each of them has an agenda and to be fair we'd have to include just abot all of them. Similarly, including particular votes is problematic. A senator may cast hundreds of votes in a session, and picking out individual votes for notice will tend to skew the POV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Than, should all politicians, keeping with this, have all ratings removed from their wikipedia articles, leasts those begin ratings wars?--207.114.206.48 (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that it makes sense to try to maintain some consistency between articles of representatives, especially where similar information is available for each. They all have to vote on the same bills, so it's silly, IMO, to list how X voted for Bill A, while in article Z listing how that rep. voted on Bill B, and so on. It'd be very easy to skew articles by picking ratings or focusing on individual votes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be best to give links to the rating groups. Americans for Democratic Action and the ACLU are probably good groups for giving you an idea as to how "liberal" a politician is, while the American Conservative Union is a good group for determining how "conservative" a politician is. Nevertheless, even giving links to these groups raises some issues:
  • Are there other liberal or conservative groups that rate politicians? Should those groups also be included?
  • Should ratings from organizations like the NRA or Handgun Control Inc./Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence, which rate politicians only on a limited number of issues, be included?
  • AFAIK, these groups only rate politicians serving in Congress. State legislators and governors are not rated.
  • Links at these organizations' Websites are subject to change. In fact, they (or the information within them) usually has to change every time a Congressperson dies, leaves offices, enters office, etc., as well as with each new session of Congress.
  • Many members (either the whole Congress, the entire membership of one house, or an entire state's delegation may be rated on the same page), so it may be difficult to locate one member's rating.
64.85.240.2 (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

I removed a couple of points from the Controversy section of the article, calling them trivia. Editor Rlogan2 restored them on the grounds they are controversial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheila_Jackson-Lee&diff=prev&oldid=233405917

I agree the points are somewhat controversial but I consider them too inconsequential to have in our article.

Other opinions please. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above -- one of the points that I removed and Rlogan2 restored is that Sheila Jackson Lee is included in the book "100 People who are Screwing Up America". I looked up in Wikipedia sixteen people who are named in that book.
Michael Moore, Al Franken, Bob Shrum, Latrell Sprewell, John Edwards, Michael Jackson, Michael Savage**, Sheila Jackson Lee**, Dan Rather, Ingrid Newkirk, Scott Harshbarger, Peter Singer, Matt Kunitz**, Roy Moore, Howard Dean, Ralph Neas.
Only three articles out of sixteen, those marked with **, mentioned the book. To me, this indicates that inclusion in the book is not very important.
(The sixteen names are those that appear in this interview with the book's author. http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/goldberg200507180814.asp )
Wanderer57 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
no worries, i can place the same fact and their respective numbers there too...the only reason michael moore doesn't have it is because it was removed and redirected to the michael moore controversy page..--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
!!! The point is that the editors of most of those articles did not mention the book, either because they did not think it important enough or because they never heard of it. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The point is also that including this reference to a non-academic polemical screed is a violation of WP:UNDUE.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are taking things out calling them "controversial" but is that really the case? The article reads like it is something that Queen Sheila's office would put out. Very biased in favor of the subject. Not cool. Put the things no so favorable to the subject back in. People have a right to know all the facts, not just the version of the facts the Left wants people to know. --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:D870:FB0F:8A10:584D (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

To add

Can we Add...

That she lied about what happened in the town hall meetings? That she planted people in the crowd? That she deliberately ignored one of her constituents and instead decided to talk on a cellphone?

I'm guessing that's going to get dismissed as "POV" even if it's 100% true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.87.66 (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheila Jackson Lee was Steven Slater's unruly passenger. (already tried to add this once but for reason unknown was deleted) Reference: http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2010/08/ok-heres-rest-of-story.html [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiseguy gossip (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A blog is not a verifiable reference per WP:SPS and as such cannot be used as a reference, especially not in a biography of a living person. That's why it was deleted. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source either, why not put it in. If she were a republican there would be no doubt it would be front page info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.176.109 (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, how hard can it be to find sources for this? 198.151.130.66 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2010/08/ok-heres-rest-of-story.html

Black hurricane names

This was the woman who suggested black hurricane names. We should add that.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=20096 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.236.6 (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. http://www.snopes.com/racial/language/hurricane.asp 70.251.30.2 (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Dailycaller article

Several attempts have been made to remove this. They have been incorrectly identified as removing a blog. No attempt at discussion has yet been made. So I would welcome anyone to actually discuss the material in question.Trilemma (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

First, you are the one wishing to add contentious material, so it's up to you to get consensus, not everyone else to justify to you why your edits are incorrect. Second, you're engaging in an edit war against all consensus. You've reverted this five times with no discussion until now, so complaining about a lack of discussion at this point is a bit over the top. If five experienced editors tell you that your edit is bad and nobody agrees with you, maybe you should consider the possibility that there is a problem with the edit rather than just repeatedly reverting. As for the edit itself, normally small sourcing or language issues could be worked out in discussion but the material and phrasing you are trying to add is such an obvious violation of WP:BLP and WP:RS that it's a non-starter. It's doubtful you'll get any support whatsoever from the Wiki community, even from those editors that agree with you ideologically. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Try to assume good faith instead of recklessly accusing others of ideological bias. Trilemma (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
As I've advised on your talkpage, please review WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK in addition to BLP; nobody is likely to dispute that Lee's hard to work with, or that she takes controversial positions, but your additions are clearly disproportionate. Controversial material must have multiple sources. Daily Caller is fun to read, but isn't something upon which I'd lean too hard. Given your removal of POV on budget negotiations from Lou Barletta, where your edit was appropriate and consistent with UNDUE and COATRACK, as well as recentism, I find it surprising that you are determined to add this content to Lee's article. Acroterion (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The Daily Caller is very similar in format to the widely cited Huffington Post. I not only cited that, but also The Washingtonian, which further establishes Jackson Lee's reputation as the most difficult member of Congress to work for. Here [14] is still another source establishing Jackson Lee's reputation. Trilemma (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
HuffPo isn't considered a very useful or reliable source either, so I wouldn't lean on them to support Daily Caller. There's nothing wrong with a carefully-written and meticulously-sourced section on her reputation in Congress; it can't read as disparagement, though, and cannot carry undue weight. Acroterion (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, I understand your points. I'd say that the three sources I have established are enough to warrant the inclusion of it; it's reasonable to scale it down from its current level to something more abbreviated. Trilemma (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, at this point, you're just shouting "I didn't hear that!" Three non-reliable sources do not make a reliable source, even if the language were changed from what you currently have which is completely disparaging. For WP:BLPs, blogs and opinion pieces are not reliable sources. At some point, you're going to have to face the fact that absolutely nobody agrees with you or thinks these edits are neutral. I agree with Acroterion's point above that, given how you correctly worked to prevent non NPOV edits from getting inserted into another article, it's surprising that you are working so hard to inject POV into this one. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Politico, The Washingtonian, and The Daily Caller are not non-reliable sources. Those are feature articles, not opinion blog entries. Trilemma (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the relevance? This is a biography, not an assessment of her personality. Also, the Politico article is hardly fact-based journalism. It does not cite any sources for the negative comments, although it does include the following on the record rebuttal: "I tend to believe all the members of Congress have a serious work ethic that some may deem a difficult one," said Michael J. McQuerry, communications director to Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat who has been repeatedly characterized as a difficult boss. "Demanding the best from your staff is not difficult to me but should be the norm for most if not all offices," McQuerry said. The article also claims that Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) "made a staffer cry." Should this be included in his Wikipedia entry? Notmyrealname (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

King Hearings

Should we add something about her request to investigate Christian extremist groups during the hearings? I think a sentence or two under the "controversy" section would be appropriate. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well first, do you have references from reliable sources which establish that this is indeed a "controversy?" --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a good question. To be clear, the article that mentions the "Vietnam" gaff never says "controversy." It just acknowledges the she received flack for her comments. If that's the standard for controversy, then her request to examine militant Christians, which has garnered criticism from the right, would meet that standard. Perhaps we should review the section and remove the Vietnam part if neither are appropriate. What do you think?Tommyboy1215 (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


I'm not an experienced editor so I don't really know what to do, but the Vietnam section is slanted at best. The source that is linked for it points out that she understood Vietnam just fine ten years ago, so its implausible that she genuinely thought North Vietnam and South Vietnam were separate. It makes far more sense that she was just saying "Vietnam" when she meant "Korea." Lange17 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Lange17

I agree--I frankly think the whole subject got way too much coverage in the article, and to avoid giving it undue weight, I removed the section. Feel free to let me know here if you disagree. Meelar (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination Lawsuit

A discrimination lawsuit filed by a former staffer is very clearly relevant to Jackson Lee's bio page. The notion that Looneypage is using, that it's "news" and thus should not be included, would mean that no article of a current living person would have in it any information about anything that is currently happening. It is an absurd argument. Trilemma (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, it seems that this page should also include information on other controversies like the King hearings, Lee's frequent invocation of racial bias against the President, and, of course, the discrimination lawsuit. While the details of the suit included on the page initially may have been too much, it should at least be noted. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Unless LM or someone else comes here to offer a rebuttal, I think the edits can go ahead and be made. Trilemma (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Notability to a biography does not stem from whether you personally find it interesting. It is determined by reliable third-party sources. Right now, we have a small mention on a website that reports on all matters related to members of congress. If this were a major issue, to the point that it was generally associated with her in news stories about her, then yes it would certainly be worth including. But right now it has nothing to do with her biography, it's not even a blip in the current news cycle. Celebrities and politicians get lawsuits filed against them all the time. It doesn't become part of their biography unless it gains some traction. That may indeed happen here, but right now, this is completely non-notable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Trilemma, are you ok with waiting to see if this becomes a notable story?
Loonymonkey, what about the King hearings? They received some press.

Tommyboy1215 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There's more than just one reference to it: http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&ncl=dJt3bQMwnFfskwM1Q1O5Ar9n5MOBM Trilemma (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Right. Your google search indicates an additional dozen or so references by right-wing blogs. That isn't surprising, considering she's a favorite target of the right. Additionally, Fox News picked it up for a day of course, but then they make a habit of repeating stories that appeared in the conservative blog-o-sphere that day, even if the larger media doesn't particularly care. Who knows, this might turn into a real biographical issue for her one day, but right now it's nothing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, The Hill and BET are totally "right wing blogs." LM, you are a dishonest hack and an ideologically biased editor,and it is transparently obvious. Go away and stop polluting pages with your bias. Trilemma (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Once again, you're way over the line with your personal attacks against other editors. If you have nothing relevant to this article to discuss, I guess we're done here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I'm not sure if this is significant enough to include, but I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Dumb slut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.26 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sheila Jackson Lee blames Russians, Wikipedia for leaked emails, gets educated by Wikileaks ----Arkitan 23/10-2016

Removal of material sourced to magazine's blog

An editor has removed some information saying wikipedia doesn't use blogs as sources. That is not exactly correct. The policy is a bit different if it involves a newspaper or magazine's blog. In this case the blog in question is a magazine's blog and the writer is the magazine's Washington Correspondent. As such it meets the policy requirements.

" Newspaper and magazine blogs, Policy shortcut:WP:NEWSBLOG Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals"

It goes on to say that care must be taken. Given the policy, I will revert the section sourced to the magazine's blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Why has this article been sanitized?

This person is pretty well known for saying some pretty odd things not to mention racial at times. How is it that all reference to these things have disappeared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.59.12.226 (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. She's said some crazy things, including calling the constitution 400 years old: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/12/rep_sheila_jackson_lee_says_constitution_is_400_years_old.html 167.220.26.142 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sheila Jackson Lee. 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.

checkY 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sheila Jackson Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sheila Jackson Lee. 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) 01:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

edit request re air travel incidents

According to The Washington Times, the woman in December 2017 whose seat Sheila Jackson Lee sat in on United Airlines, in addition to being a private school teacher and attorney, was a "human-rights activist."

I therefore propose that the sentence leading the second-to-last paragraph of the article be edited as follows: "In December 2017, Jean-Marie Simon, a private school teacher and, attorney, and human-rights activist, shared evidence that she was bumped from her first class United Airlines flight so Jackson Lee could take the seat." 24.240.216.183 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Washington Times also has long-standing WP:RS concerns. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but in this case, Jean-Marie Simon has declared on Twitter that the article is accurate in that she is, indeed, a human-rights activist. It follows that the WT can be relied upon for this claim. [WP:RS] does not say that accurate information from otherwise suspect sources cannot be used carefully; it's therefore not a bar to including this uncontroversial information in this particular instance. Resubmitting edit request as such. 24.240.216.183 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, here's a New York Times article about her human-rights activism work in Guatemala, and here's an Amnesty International blog post to back that up. Describing Simon as a "human-rights activist" is a far more reliable claim that Jackson Lee's quoted accusation of racism. 24.240.216.183 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Ick. Part of me just wants to remove this incident due to WP:Recentism. I'm hesitant to imply any blame to the Congresswoman. Given United's growing list of incidents of this sort, as reviewed by the Chronicle article. Simon "used 140,000 miles on Dec. 3 to purchase the first-class tickets to take her from Washington D.C. to Guatemala and back home." So, maybe she was bumped to coach because she "paid" with frequent-flyer miles, while the Congresswoman was paying cash? Apparently United isn't admitting this. We should note this in the article for balance against the implication that the Congresswoman, herself also surely a frequent flyer on this route, may have actively lobbied United for the seat (which she denies). But then Simon was flying home from Guatemala, where she wrote a book about government repression in the 1980s. Certainly fair to include this fact to balance the implied charge of racism. We can't explain this all in a sentence or two, but to get all the nuance of the incident in for balance, we risk unbalancing the biography with this one brief incident. Torn between expanding the coverage to ensure balanced treatment and removing it entirely. Worth waiting to get further consensus on the matter. Other opinions welcome. But the incident is also covered at United Airlines § Controversies and Customer Service Problems and maybe that's sufficient. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Jackson Lee issued a statement on Saturday afternoon saying: "I asked for nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary and received nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary."
Simon said she saw Jackson Lee board the plane with a flight attendant before all of the other passengers
Hmm, so being escorted aboard before all of the other passengers is nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary? wbm1058 (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Wbm1058:, I agree that we should wait a week or so to see if this story has any legs before committing to including/removing it. Already it seems to have disappeared from WP:RS and circulating mostly in openly-biased media - the only story about the incident I can find from after the OP's request is from The Washington Examiner, for example. As to boarding Congress-folk, I did see Ted Kennedy board a flight at Logan before the rest of the passengers with a staff member so maybe that's true? This was back in the early 80's though. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The airlines may do that to speed the boarding process. I imagine that if the member of Congress got on line with everyone else there would be a risk of slowing down boarding if other passengers tried to get into a discussion with their representative while on line. So, while this might be viewed as special treatment by other passengers, the airlines may just do this out of their own self-interest to get the plane out on time. On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine an airline bumping a frequent-flyer upgrade back down to coach to make room for another VIP frequent flyer of theirs, particularly one who might vote on legislative matters affecting the airline. So, it's quite plausible that Jackson didn't ask for any favors here. Of course, the airline wouldn't be inclined to admit to giving unsolicited favors. It's a bad idea lumping this in with treatment of staffers if there isn't solid evidence that Jackson did something here to influence the airline's behavior. Just an aside, and a coincidence since you mentioned Kennedy, I fondly recall watching him on the floor of the Senate back in the early 80s during a late-night session to get a bill passed before the Christmas holiday, from the gallery, using a pass I got from Mickey Leland's office. Better than Super Bowl tickets, and it was free! – wbm1058 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

Knowledge of Armed Forces

She could not tell the difference between the United States Marine Corps and the United States Army Johnallen035 (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific content you're recommending be added to the page, and you didn't provide any sourcing, so I'm declining this request. Marquardtika (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Separate article or placed in this article?

Per these articles from reliable sources [15][16][17] a Sheila Jackson Lee intern, Jackson A. Cosko, has been arrested for allegedly doxing/posting personal information on Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch in Wikipedia. [18] The doxing included their home addresses and phone numbers. He has been charged with "making public, or "doxing," restricted information, unauthorized access of a government computer, burglary, and other violations of federal law." Should probably go into the article since intern accused of the incident is from Lee's office and occurred via a server straight out of the US House of Representatives.[19] But, it may warrant its own article. Comments? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't use this article as a WP:Coatrack. Jonathunder (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

U.S. House of Representatives

Arrest Intern?

I suggest to add a paragraph about this significant arrest event. The suspect was Lee's Intern. The United States Capitol Police (USCP) stated numerous criminal charges. Which occurred during the high profile and widely covered hearing of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to keep the name of the arrested suspect anonymous for now. I also included sources about all of this.

On October 3, 2018 a 27-year-old House intern for Lee was arrested by the US Capitol Police (USCP). With numerous initial criminal charges. Including but not limited to, allegedly posting private, identifying information (Doxing) about multiple Senators. The suspect was fired after his arrest, according to Lee's chief of staff, Glenn Rushing.[1][2][3]
Sources

  1. ^ Shaw, Adam (2018-10-04). "Cops probe doxxing of GOP senators, as left-wing escalates confrontational tactics". Fox News. Retrieved 2018-10-04.
  2. ^ Folley, Aris (2018-10-04). "Ex-House intern charged with 'doxing' GOP senators during Kavanaugh hearing". The Hill (newspaper). Retrieved 2018-10-04.
  3. ^ "Former Senate staffer arrested for allegedly doxing senator". CBS/Associated Press. 2018-10-04. Retrieved 2018-10-04.

Francewhoa (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Lee, not the intern. Jonathunder (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
He was her intern, the doxing happened from the US House of Representatives server. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

Add Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX 18) is "routinely chauffeured the one short block to work--in a government car, by a member of her staff, at the taxpayers' expense."[1] 72.65.126.150 (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sheila Jackson Lee, Limousine Liberal

Re: Timothy J. O'Brien and Sheila Jackson Lee w/ Elwyn Lee

I wrote some comments regarding the Houston activist Timothy J. O'Brien and his conflicts with Sheila Jackson Lee and Elwyn Lee here: Talk:Elwyn_Lee#Re:_Sheila_Jackson_Lee,_Elwyn_Lee,_the_Fourth_Ward_redevelopment_in_relation_to_an_activist_and_his_master's_degree_funding

After some thought I decided that the specific accusations regarding O'Brien should likely not be stated in this article due to WP:WEIGHT (Undue weight) in that it would put too much emphasis on an aspect relatively insignificant to the overall body of work about Sheila Jackson Lee. Jackson Lee is a national-level politician, while the O'Brien affair is a local issue specific to Houston. In addition, O'Brien has since died and it will be unlikely there will be any further coverage on this issue not already covered in reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Correction Regarding Parents

Sheila Jackson Lee's mother, Ivalita Jackson was not an immigrant from Jamaica. She was born in St. Petersburg, Florida to Shepherd and Vannie Bennett and moved to NYC in 1940 at the age of 16 with her younger sister. Horror comic book artist, Ezra Jackson was Sheila Jackson Lee's father. [1]

Texasbelle4732 (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Jackson-Lee-mother-remembered-as-Renaissance-1709967.php

Financial disclosures

I note this here, at least for discussion:

"One of the most egregious paper filings is Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-Texas) 2018 annual disclosure. ... The first page of the assets section is impossible to decipher; the writer appears to have used a thick, permanent marker to fill in the tiny boxes. What’s more, every other column that indicates the dollar range of the investments and the annual profits is blacked out, meaning that the reader can only view investments that happen to fall within the ranges not obscured. Sludge repeatedly contacted Jackson Lee’s office to ask for a legible copy and did not receive a response. - https://readsludge.com/2019/11/13/ethics-committee-republicans-defy-committees-own-financial-disclosure-recommendations/

- -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021

Change ===Confederate flag=== to ====Confederate flag====.

Section 3.2.12 is erroneously marked as Section 3.3. 24.163.61.231 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done –Fredddie™ 05:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Arrest record?

This page seems to skip over anything bad from her past, but I'd think her getting arrested would be big enough to make it on to her page... Is it not? 97.83.76.186 (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Airline seating

I became aware of the dispute about the 2017 Christmas Eve flight seat cancellation and looked for any content anywhere that Jackson Lee had any generated any action involved in the cancellation of another passenger's seating that had originally been booked using frequent flier miles, save to be given the seat herself afterwards. The airline seated their passenger, after what it believed had been a cancellation by that traveler, in an Economy Plus seat and also that passenger accepted a $500 voucher to resolve any inconvenience. All prior content of the talk page had been archived by other editors before I posted this. Activist (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Congresswoman released ad telling supporters to vote on the wrong day

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4340445-congresswoman-released-ad-telling-supporters-to-vote-on-the-wrong-day/

I'm not sure if this is notable or relevant enough to be included. However, very recently, someone else was convicted for doing a very similar thing.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/influencer-mackey-conviction-hillary-7ca8f2bcb487a89f80a24029aeb3ee58

I'm on the fence on this one. What do others think?

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe this should be included. However, the ad she put out wasn't intended to persuade the other side to vote on the wrong day; her ad told her own supporters to vote on the wrong date. Self-sabotage but not criminal election interference. Visiblesmoggy (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee tells schoolkids that moon is a ‘planet’ and ‘made up mostly of gases’

Please add that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee tells schoolkids that moon is a ‘planet,’ as well as ‘made up mostly of gases.’ Here is one of many sources (this one from the NY Post): https://nypost.com/2024/04/09/us-news/sheila-jackson-lee-tells-students-the-moon-is-a-planet-made-up-mostly-of-gases/ 65.30.173.148 (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

For reference, this is under "Political views and statements" and "Gaffes" listed solely as "made up mostly of gases." This is important because the source currently on Wikipedia leads to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee giving a reply that she meant the sun, which is also not a planet. 65.30.173.148 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Portrait change

Sorry if I'm unaware but is there a reason the portrait was changed from 116th to 105th Congress? Lowkschwonz (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Usually it's standard that one someone has passed away the portrait is changed to show them in "Their prime" (See Feinstein), however I think having a black and white photo from the 90s is too far away. It should be a official portrait from around the 2010s. In addition it feels extremely disrespectful to change the image only 30 minutes after her death was announced. Whoever changed it should've waited an additional day. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. But with this discussion I think we should go ahead and vote. I decided to make another section to do that. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Gaffe - Confederate battle flag should be removed or clarified

The "gaffe" is that Jackson, along with 7 other representatives, used a presentation display with 17 stars instead of 13.

This barely seems like a gaffe, and at least it should be noted that Jackson was not (so far as the cited reference tells) the one who introduced the error and that other members missed it too. For example, we don't include this "gaffe" on Hakeem Jeffries's article, though he was also one of the speakers.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/247400-house-dems-display-incorrect-confederate-flag/ Mosi Nuru (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I decided to just remove it. It doesn't fit with the other incidents and, as you say, it isn't listed on other pols' articles. WP Ludicer (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Portrait vote

Obviously we need to reach a consensus on what image to use of Jackson Lee. Here are the reasonable options I have found so far. Please feel free to drop more suggestions.

Cast your vote
  • Option A
    Option A
  • Option B
    Option B
  • Option C
    Option C
  • Option D
    Option D
  • Option E
    Option E
  • Option F
    Option F
  • Option G
    Option G

Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

B or G would get my vote. I think a color photo makes more sense, then E feels perhaps a bit too recent and C + F are very close-up, so that is what my thinking would be to land at B or G. AddMLR (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I think G is definitely an excellent portrait since it shows her at a younger age, but also having a picture of her in color + in step with her usual hairstyle. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Option G completely. Option B would be fine but it feels too zoomed out honestly Lowkschwonz (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I also like G. Could be convinced on the black and white options (D&A). B&E are too zoomed out, C&F are too zoomed in. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm a little late to this, but agreeing that both B and G are good, with a slight preference for G. (The flag is good for someone significantly associated with her time in Congress, but as noted it's a little zoomed out.) CAVincent (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Option B would be the best photograph to use for this article. Catfurball (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sheila_Jackson_Lee/Archive_1&oldid=1255549881"