Talk:Jo Jorgensen/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jo Jorgensen 1996.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• JoJorgensen.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Notability

Saxones288 Regarding Hornberger being the candidate who has won the most primaries, Jorgensen was notable before the race started due to being the '96 VP candidate. If you want to argue that Hornberger should be considered notable for his activities prior to the current LP presidential campaign I would probably agree, but that's a different question from who appears to be the frontrunner for the LP nomination. --Okcgunner (talk) 18:18, 13 april 2020 (UTC)

Views

Why nothing about her views relevant to her campaign? Nicmart (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Jorgensen's Quotes regarding Biden and Trump are Relevant.

My edit:

Jorgensen opposes the war on drugs, calling both of her opponents "tainted on race". She has said Mr. Biden, despite his promises to heal “racial wounds,” needs to disavow the “racist policies he put in place, starting with the war on drugs”, and that Mr. Trump, while using clemency on “a token handful” of inmates convicted of drug crimes, has still left tens of thousands of drug-crime convicts behind bars. Jorgensen has called the drug war a "failed" policy, and supports abolishing drug laws, promising to pardon all nonviolent drug offenders on day one.

was reverted by WMSR saying that "This article is not about Biden". Interestingly, Mr. WMSR didn't say "This article is not about Biden or Trump". Biased? Dr. Jorgensen's quote is entirely relevant to her view on the drug war. JLMadrigal @ 17:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: First of all, please ping me if you are going to mention me. Second, her criticisms of other candidates really don't belong on her bio page. Perhaps her 2020 campaign page, but not here. Third, next time you are reverted (it happens to the best of us), engage in a discussion before you restore your edit, per WP:BRD. --WMSR (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I should also add that I don't appreciate the accusation of bias, and note that you were already told by a different editor that this content was not appropriate on her campaign page. If it is inappropriate there, it is certainly inappropriate here. --WMSR (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this would be an inappropriate use of POV quotes. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Someone should mention that according to her LP bio,

She took a break from her career to be a stay-at-home mom for her two kids. This info box contains no mention of her family. Gonna go down there (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That might not be a reliable source, but since you'd just be using it for basic personal information, it would probably be fine. Perhaps it should be asked about at WP:RS/N. Can you provide the citation? — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

"Political Positions" section needs better sources

Several of the points in the "Political Positions" section cite a single article on a website called "The Millennial Source" (whatever that is) that contains a whole single paragraph about her policy positions. (Despite the headline, most of the article doesn't even talk about her.) Which is to say that a lot of what's in the "Political Positions" section isn't supported by the source cited. I fixed a couple of them. A suspect some research could greatly improve this section. 68.175.114.59 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes

Under a certain unjust restriction, I am forced to explain why I reverted a misspelling. The word.was corrected and someone reverted back to its misspelled state after it was corrected. Maybe to gin up a false charge of edit warring. I dunno.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo

Personally I thought the one I added was better because she was looking towards the left, where the intro of the article is located. I think generally they try to avoid photos where the subject is looking to the right. The expression is also a little strange because she is looking to the side instead of straight ahead like the one I added. But that's just my two cents. Calibrador (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I rotated and cropped another photo from the same event that I think addresses both of our concerns. She's looking straight ahead and is facing the article's text in this one, her head is at less of an odd angle, and she has a more natural expression. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 04:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks very squished. I'll rotate it. Calibrador (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It might've been Wikipedia causing the squishing issue, but I think it looked a little off-center in your crop, so I moved it slightly over. Calibrador (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Calibrador, it was Wikipedia causing the squishing issue because I had just reverted to a previous crop and the preview was still displaying at the other size. But your crop looks much better, regardless, because the head is more centered. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 05:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

New infobox image

We should change the infobox image to this. It’s an official press photo, so it keeps in line with the infobox image for Gary Johnson, it’s a clearer and more detailed image, she’s actually looking at the camera, it’s slightly more recent, and it overall just seems like a better and more deliberate image to use for the article. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The Image Editor, I think the current photo is better. Infobox images for people that depict them doing what they are notable for are preferred. For Jorgensen, that's campaigning. Wherever available, Gage Skidmore photos are almost always preferred. See Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for examples. The campaign actually has shared the Skidmore photos, including the uncropped version of the one in use on this page. I uploaded the official portrait on the left for use in the nomination box at 2020 United States presidential election, for which official portraits are preferred. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I came around to the new photo and changed it, because it's higher-resolution and the scale is better suited to an infobox. The Skidmore photo still has some applications for which it's better, such as at 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

My proposal

Current image

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2020

Source for her danish parents: https://web.archive.org/web/20201106033928/https://twitter.com/Jorgensen4POTUS/status/1288081519156895749 Winnzy (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done ‐‐ Silikonz (💬│🖋) 07:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Letter in IPR

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: The article in IPR starts with the following: Yesterday 2020 Libertarian presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen sent out the following statement listing some of the comments she has received about her campaign and addressing the 2024 presidential nomination:, and the letter written by Jorgensen follows thereafter. It was a legitimate email; I was on the mailing list and I got it. IPR merely republished it. And they're not a self-published source. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Firstly, do not leave edit-warring templates on my TP when no edit-warring has occurred. The site claims Jorgensen sent out the following statement. But where is this statement? Has it been published by legitimate sources? Additionally, "IPR" is, in fact, a SPS. The site is published using WordPress, a very popular self-hosting company primarily used for blogs. Perhaps such a source can be used to make very basic, non-contentious claims in other articles, but not in this article--since this article must strictly adhere to BLP policy. As such, your edit violates WP:BLPSPS and needs to removed immediately. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, I think you need to brush up on the definition of edit warring. You made a WP:BOLD removal of long-standing content and were reverted, then decided to revert the revert instead of engaging in discussion. You can be edit warring without breaking WP:3RR. Also, it's not "my edit". Someone else added it. But I've just taken the time to look through RSN and found this thread, so I agree it can be removed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: I am well aware of the definition of edit warring. Per WP:BLPREMOVE & WP:3RRBLP, I had every right to remove a claim cited to a self-published source. I had no obligation to bring up the edit on this TP whatsoever. Even if I did break 3RR, this would not be considered edit warring. Please, I urge you to familiarize yourself with WP:BLP policy and especially our WP:BLPSOURCES policy. These policies are fundamental on Wiki. Thank you! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, the BLP exception only applies if the content is negative about the subject of the article. From WP:EW: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Unfortunately, that is incorrect. The sentence you quoted states: For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required. It's giving an example of what's not considered edit warring. Further down that article it clearly states: The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: ...7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. Claiming, without strong evidence, that Jorgensen was subjected to hate-filled messages by supporters of her opponents is clearly a contentious edit and needed to be removed immediately. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, you're saying the same thing I just said. The BLP exception applies to removing contentious content. We just disagree about what's contentious. Content taken from an email Jorgensen sent out to supporters doesn't strike me as contentious. From point 7 at WP:3RRBLP: What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. My point is, the extreme hurry you're in—"it needed to be removed immediately"—is unnecessary. The content was there for a month. I was perfectly willing to go to RSN to review the reliability of the source. Please, open discussions in the future instead of coming in guns blazing claiming you "have no obligation to bring up edits on talk pages whatsoever". Discussion-based consensus-building is a necessary part of editing Wikipedia. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Please, I discourage you from WP:LAWYERING. In fact, I was not in a extreme hurry, nor did I come in guns blazing, as you say. I merely reverted you twice to fix a clear BLP issue. You seemed to be the one coming in guns blazing after you hastily put a faux edit-warring template on my TP. I find such an action to be very aggressive, and I urge you to refrain from conducting such efforts in the future. I could have easily left the {{{Template:Uw-biog2}}} on your TP, but I decided such an action would be unnecessary and rude. I always look forward to consensus building, and I had every intention on coming on to this TP after you left your edit-warring template, however "contentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." If you ever see content in a BLP in the future that is even on the verge of being "contentious," and that content is unsourced or poorly sourced, it's your obligation to remove such content forwith. Again, I strongly urge you to thoroughly read our WP:BLP policy. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, I'm not going to be lectured by a new editor with 525 edits about how to correctly interpret Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP. The fact is, it's not a "clear issue", and regardless, you need to be willing to discuss when there's a dispute. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: I don't appreciate your aspersions. Unless, you have further concerns about the article, this discussion is over. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, I've been thinking about this—you are absolutely correct in your interpretation of WP:BLPSOURCES, and I apologize. I've gotten used to seeing IPR used in coverage of third parties. The large-scale cleanup may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)