Talk:Alphonso Jackson

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 23 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmoyer1. Peer reviewers: Wyhli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

added the update on the contractor issue. -Robotam 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cabinet Career Section

The section on his cabinet career says nothing about it. It only gives information on a controversial issue... shouldn't it have some other title? P!3r(3 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC) P!3r(3

Page Blanking

Be aware of deletion of information on this page; some of the edits are originating from servers at HUD. -RoBoTam^ice 19:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy and scandal

Please leave current events that may involve allegations at best for Wikinews until they come to fruition and become fact. Wikipedia should not be used to alleged instances, nor as a gossip column. Dryamaka (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, removed a line regarding an event that has yet to even occur. Please leave allegation, future events, and any other heresay for Wikinews. Dryamaka (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Added line regarding an event that has occurred, namely, his announced resignation. Not hearsay, not allegation. Reported fact according to WSJ, and cited as such, even if it occurs at a future date. 216.201.119.71 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed entry regarding Jackson's voluntary resignation to sound more fact-based. Dryamaka (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

I was referred here by the "political scandals" page because I wanted to read more about what this man supposedly did that ended with his resignation, but found this page to be entirely unhelpful. This page actually comes off as rather biased, with some odd focus on Jackson's accomplishments that are worded with praise, while the scandal that led to his resignation is sort of just hand-waved in about two sentences and are described as "false", which doesn't sound neutral at all.

I'm not really up to fixing the article myself and I doubt anyone will ever get to it soon...but this article is very slanted.

173.32.162.170 (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this too, and I did my best to restore some of the sanitized information. (One user repeatedly altered the article in Jackson's favor.) As for the complimentary tone of the rest of the piece, I agree that it's over the top.

75.162.4.49 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

added the update on the contractor issue. -Robotam 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cabinet Career Section

The section on his cabinet career says nothing about it. It only gives information on a controversial issue... shouldn't it have some other title? P!3r(3 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC) P!3r(3

Page Blanking

Be aware of deletion of information on this page; some of the edits are originating from servers at HUD. -RoBoTam^ice 19:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy and scandal

Please leave current events that may involve allegations at best for Wikinews until they come to fruition and become fact. Wikipedia should not be used to alleged instances, nor as a gossip column. Dryamaka (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, removed a line regarding an event that has yet to even occur. Please leave allegation, future events, and any other heresay for Wikinews. Dryamaka (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Added line regarding an event that has occurred, namely, his announced resignation. Not hearsay, not allegation. Reported fact according to WSJ, and cited as such, even if it occurs at a future date. 216.201.119.71 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed entry regarding Jackson's voluntary resignation to sound more fact-based. Dryamaka (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

I was referred here by the "political scandals" page because I wanted to read more about what this man supposedly did that ended with his resignation, but found this page to be entirely unhelpful. This page actually comes off as rather biased, with some odd focus on Jackson's accomplishments that are worded with praise, while the scandal that led to his resignation is sort of just hand-waved in about two sentences and are described as "false", which doesn't sound neutral at all.

I'm not really up to fixing the article myself and I doubt anyone will ever get to it soon...but this article is very slanted.

173.32.162.170 (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this too, and I did my best to restore some of the sanitized information. (One user repeatedly altered the article in Jackson's favor.) As for the complimentary tone of the rest of the piece, I agree that it's over the top.

75.162.4.49 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagreements with editor on edits and compromise

Let's all take a deep breath here. I said you should be ashamed; you hinted to others that my motives were racist--water under the bridge. And you're just as anonymous as I am on here. I have no personal opinion of Jackson; my only interest is in preventing misuse of Wikipedia. Just one of us has a vested interest connected to Jackson, and that's Ttellouc. On a separate note, could you please separate your comments into paragraphs for ease of reading?

A quick look at the page history shows that Ttellouc has, in fact, repeatedly deleted entire sections relating to Jackson's controversies. It also shows insertion of language aimed at downplaying criticisms. And it shows, contrary to Ttellouc's claim, I never deleted any links showing Alford's opinion piece. Your link, which I left in, was and is dead.

"Non-partisan" means not formally associated with a party. It is not the same a non-ideological. "Conservative" refers to ideology, not party affiliation. Human Events apparently does consider the NBCC to be conservative. Do you have any link to the NBCC promoting a liberal forum like they did a conservative one? Also, a HUD contract is a government program, plain and simple.

Here are my thoughts on your proposed edits.

1) I'm all for reliably sourced stats on minority participation, but broad statistics don't address the specific case mentioned in the controversies section. This is the whole reason I created the section on minority contracting that you rather unfairly used to play race victim. I do think we could rename it to something more positive-sounding like "Expanding minority participation," but the stats don't comment on the specific instance mentioned.

2) I would also support inclusion of Alford's comment if you can provide a working link so we can make sure it's being used accurately. As with the statistics, though, Alford's general praise of involving more minorities would not have bearing on particular instances of alleged misconduct. This, again, is why I favor a separate section. People reading will first see information related to his efforts at including more non-whites, then in the controversies section they will see the lawyer's statement in Jackson's defense. The two things would still be visible, but there wouldn't be the implication that general content on minorities addresses particular controversies.

3) A conservative magazine considers the NBCC to be conservative, so I don't find that label inappropriate. We could link to the Human Events article directly after the word "conservative."

4) For the sake of neutrality, the separate section needs to stay. Neither Alford's comments (which we can't see) nor statistics serve as refutation of specific scandals. Even if it could be conclusively proven that Jackson's goal was to promote minority involvement, that says nothing about whether he improperly gave or rescinded contracts to certain people. General information about minorities in contracting really should be in its own section. This way people will still see it without giving the impression that it is speaking to individual cases of controversy.

Finally, I also discovered some very old deleted information involving allegations of contracting impropriety with two of Jackson's friends, William Hairston and Michael Hollis. I do plan on including this information with links to news articles, so I want to give you notice to allow you the opportunity to respond. 75.162.6.6 (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that I should respond to you here too. I don't have a problem with you adding this information, it was there before. I just want to be able to include any contrasting citations.

How about we keep our dialog on this page only so we're not flying between different places?

As a show of good faith, I'd be willing to omit the conservative label to the NBCC (even though I think we both know where they generally, if not always, stand).

With regard to the Alford link, I see a few problems. First, the link is not to a news publication but the NBCC's website. It may very well have been published in an independent outlet, but I'd want to see proof of that. Second, it reads like a PR piece. Here's a quote: "Man! It was like he was sent directly from the heavens." Here's another: "It was like going to see Solomon." Here's a third: "There should be statues built of him in urban cities throughout the United States." This is laughable. I honestly want to have information about his role in promoting minority participation, but these two facts would usually count against using a source at all. If you can cite a more reliable place where Alford's piece was published, that would help a lot.

Most importantly, the Alford piece provides no comment on specific scandals. The closest it comes is when it talks about a vague conspiracy by the "white male faction" and the "formal white press." That doesn't count as evidence relating to a particular controversy. He does state that on one occasion when he observed Jackson he saw no political discussion, but this anecdote doesn't pass muster as defense against the individual allegations made.

I would absolutely be in favor including the statistics that Alford mentions, since I think they make a good connection to Jackson's lawyer's statement about striving to incorporate traditionally neglected groups, but we could use some independent confirmation of those figures. If we do include Alford's comments, though, which I'm not necessarily against, they really don't belong in the controversies section.

I also saw a video where Mr. Jackson talked about marching at Selma, Alabama in 1965 and getting bitten by a dog in the course of the protest. I know it's just a piece of trivia, but I thought it was a pretty cool that he did that. Should we find a way of including that remark? 75.162.6.6 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey again. Let me first say that this Jackson fellow has a neat history. I can understand your interest in him. Anyway, on to business. Although I think mortgage amounts reported by reliable sources are fair game, for the sake of cooperation I will remove them. I will also take out the label "conservative" from the NBCC.

But I think I also need to remove the information from the Countrywide article you added. BLP is quite clear in prohibiting self-published sources for info on living persons, and the website in the citation is the author's own. That said, the article seems to come from a legit journalist, and if you can find it published in a reliable source elsewhere, we could definitely use it (I would just like to change the language so it's not word-for-word).

So I'll do these three things right now. Here's what I'm thinking for the endgame.

1) Add a few sources to the opening paragraph after the sentence about his resignation (no content change).

2) Change the name of the "minorities" section. Plus, good news for you, I found a New York Times article that confirms Jackson increased the percentage of contracts going to minorities. That certainly should be added.

3) With regard to the contracting controversies section, what I'm thinking is that in the first sentence I'll mention that Jackson faced several allegations of malfeasance. Immediately after that, I'll note that none of the multiple investigations conducted resulted in any charges being brought. This way it makes a clear distinction between accusations and substantiated wrongdoing. And, really, this fact is the most effective counter-argument to claims of wrongdoing.

I do, however, need to add three contracting controversies to that section: one involving Hollis, one involving Hairston, and one involving Carl Greene of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. I will mention each of these briefly and be sure to include Jackson's or HUD's response. Please feel free to find more information related to these cases. Now, understand, I have a good friend who works with city and federal development grants, so I've heard plenty of stories about what a dirty game it can be--threats, accusations, lawsuits, etc. Therefore I will make an effort not to come off as promoting or endorsing critics. 75.162.6.6 (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with you not using word for word. I still reserve the right to add information to Jackson's BLP. I have not deleted any of your additions and you should do the same, as long as I have citations.

You would be using the term malfeasance which is not recorded in any publications, so let's stick to the newspaper accounts. No personal interpretations, especially since there were no substantiated wrongdoings or legal charges.

As far as the first paragraph is concerned, you can't have a better source than the Washington Post, so lets leave it be, since you edited it already anyway.

I had already sourced the minority contracting information, you deleted it on 29 September 2012 at 05:55.

Good on Hollis, Hairston and Greene additions, no problem. I do have additional citations for these cases.

I will search for an additional source(s) with the Countrywide issue.

Good to know that you have a friend in contracting. TtelliucTtellouc (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I only meant that it's proper WP form to restate information from sources into other phrasing to avoid copyright issues. Please don't take removal of that passage as a shady move. I'm fine with including it if published in an independent source. But since BLP says "never" use self-published sources, it shouldn't have been added.

The link you gave for the minority numbers was Alford's piece, which is not a reliable source for statistics. The New York Times article I found is.

Additionally, I didn't intend to require that the word "malfeasance" has to be used. However, the editorial staff of the Washington Post did indeed use the term referring to Jackson's alleged actions. Even if they didn't, the word simply means improper conduct so it would not be out of line.

I'm trying hard to be fair and generous. I already deleted two things you requested that are probably acceptable, and I've kept Alford's piece in despite not having it in a RS. So please don't think I have any ulterior motives. I only want to see that Wikipedia is fair and neutral. 75.162.6.6 (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think you have ulterior motives, wouldn't be dialoguing with you, if I did. Not to be picky, but the stat citations or the minority stats was ref>Stephen Ohlemacher["HUD says secretary's political contracting tale untrue: He claimed", Chicago Sun-Times, May 10, 2006</ref> I think it was one of your citations.

There aren't copywriter issues with newspaper articles. So, I understand your deletion of the financial writer, David Fiderer on the Countrywide Scandal Worst Than Whitewater article. You removed it pretty quickly, although I mentioned I was looking for the article in another citation outside his web blog.

Malfeasance- I still prefer to stick with newspaper articles and not opinion, editorials are considered opinions. Jackson allegations were cronyism and favoritism. Malfeasance is too strong.

Funny, I want to be fair and generous too. The policy on the loan amounts(personal finanial information with location on a living BLP came straight from Wkipedia policy. Okay, I am going to delete Alford's comments and with it, the minorities and government programs. But, include the stats from your Chicago Sun Times citation as they were prior to the deletion, right after the lawyer comments. I will still look for Alford's article in a better source to use his quote.

TtelloucTtellouc (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC) TtelloucTtellouc (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I should apologize for deleting your edit without first asking you. Regardless of BLP rules, you deserved the chance to take care of it yourself. Sorry.

There actually are very real copyright concerns with outside works, since they are the property of whoever published them and not public domain. We can't republish content in a way that appears to be our own words but isn't. Wikipedians take this pretty seriously.

You did misread the BLP page. It doesn't say home values shouldn't be used, it just says that they shouldn't be sourced through public records. The mortgage numbers were from news outlets (secondary sources), which is acceptable. Home values, income, etc. are included in plenty of other people's pages. The figures I agreed to remove were appropriate to include.

Let me address the Sun-Times link. First, I didn't add it. A previous editor included it, and I just put back in what you deleted. Second, the link is broken, so we can't verify its content. This means we can't cite it for statistics.

When we do include properly sourced statistics, it just seems biased to put them in the controversies section. The fact (and it is a confirmed fact, we agree) that Jackson increased opportunities for minorities doesn't address the accusations at hand. His lawyer's statement is fine because it's clear to the reader that the connection between the two things is being made by him. But if we put statistics directly after that, it would look like the article endorses the view that Jackson's accomplishments disprove or discredit the allegations, when the stats don't affect whether there was any misconduct.

Again, I never said we need to use a particular word. It's just that malfeasance is a general description for "wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official," according to Merriam-Webster. That's why I used it. I'm totally open to using other terms. Goodnight. 75.162.6.6 (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

75.162.4.49, this is not you with the Stephen Ohlemacher citation? After Jackson's comment, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) called for Jackson to resign. Jackson claimed he made up the story, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development stated that Jackson's statement was not literally true but instead "anecdotal," and meant only to "explain to this group how politics works in D.C."

Then the delete when I used it for the stats? Not you?

on the stats, why should we be concerned on the stats proving or disproving the accusations or allegations. The US Justice Department declined and closed the case. The Justice Departments actions in closing the case after a thorough investigation disproves the accusations and allegations of wrongdoing because the Justice Department Public Integrity Section did not bring charges. It is as though you want to step out of our legal system which determines guilt or innocence to influence an outcome that has been decided by US Justice. The allegations were the case, so they were discredited. I will add the stats right after the lawyer's statements. It just addresses the lawyers statements. This seems like you as adversary( pump up the negative) and me trying to add balance, plus find articles that are dead because the incidents happened years ago. Just as there are negative articles on the accusations, there are also articles that might be perceived as positive. Wiki does allow for balance. But I know, your interest is the integrity of Wikipedia and not a tabloid.

We can't republish content in a way that appears to be our own words but isn't. Wikipedians take this pretty seriously. That is exactly why I prefer to quote the writer with citations. Remember word for word. Keeps our bias conscious or not, out of it.

I've looked at other BLPs who faced controversies, I'm considering their format, such as Achievements and Controversies Heading TtelloucTtellouc (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you said sorry about the Fiderer delete, but I needed to find another citation for it to stick, I found one and added it. TtelloucTtellouc (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the early history on Jackson, items I had deleted on his Wiki with the passing of time. I placed the Philly Housing Authority/Carl Greene allegations,(for complete disclosure-also included a more recent major newspaper article with more information on the issue) and Hairston. For Hairston, I used the original citation. I did not get around to another one you mentioned, the recently deceased Michael Hollis. You'll have to do that one. I am busy, but might get to it a bit later. ttelloucTtellouc (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, another editor put in the Sun-Times link and didn't originally use it for stats, but since it's dead I will get a different source where Jackson or HUD said the story was fabricated.

There are some serious problems with your most recent additions. First, in the PHA secion you copied entire paragraphs from a news source and put them on this page. You can't do that. I mean it when I say the content needs to be restated in other words. That PHA section is also excessively convoluted in the way it's written. A much larger problem is the link to the court ruling, which is not visible when you click the link. We're fine with mentioning that a judge ruled HUD didn't treat the PHA differently, but if the link doesn't show the actual ruling, that part needs to be removed.

You probably didn't check, but the Fiderer link still does not show the piece on an independent site. It just directs to the homepage, so that paragraph needs to be removed until a reliable posting is found.

With respect, you also said something that is dead wrong. The DOJ not pressing charges does not disprove allegations. All it means is that they didn't press charges. I know it sucks that any clown can make accusations that get picked up by the press, but we have to report on what happened without stating conclusions that were not the case. If someone calls me a rapist (which I'm not), the police not charging me is, unfortunately, not proof of innocence.

I politely ask that you let me make several changes for you to review. If you think they're not fair, we'll fix them together. 1) I have to rewrite the PHA section. This is not personal. It simply needs to be phrased originally, made shorter and clearer, and the specific reference to the court ruling needs to be removed since it can't be seen at the link. 2) The Fiderer paragraph should be taken out until sourced independently. 3) I wish to add information on the Hollis and Hairston deals to the controversies section.

You have my word that none of this is trying to "pump up the negative." 75.162.6.6 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I write as someone who wants to prevent agendas on Wikipedia. You have demonstrated your willingness to manipulate Wikipedia for personal reasons, and I'm only trying to provide a check on that. DOJ not bringing a case does not prove innocence or disprove allegations. Period. This is not a complicated matter or my personal interpretation. We can't imply conclusions for the reader.

I have additions for the controversies section I'll be adding shortly. 75.162.6.6 (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"IG "report, link is dead . I think I mentioned DOJ declined the case.....ttelloucTtellouc (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Link to Washington Post story on IG report is working. The word "decline" does not possess magical properties that prove innocence. It would be unfair to suggest that no charges equals false accusations. For what it's worth, I don't buy into any of these complaints against Jackson. His confirmed history shows nothing but a well-intentioned person. But we simply can't reach a conclusion that isn't directly stated. 75.162.6.6 (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hope you're okay, I looked at other BLPs format and want to duplicate for consistency. No deletions. I did move the local housing authority controversies to one general category, but kept the headings. I do have additional information with citations for early career and HUD achievements.ttelloucTtellouc (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this whole thing wearing you out as much as it is me? I'll be honest, I just want it to be done with. I could whine about the format change, but I would like to be in agreement about the article as quickly as possible (me and the family want to watch Romney tonight).

Let me compliment your rewriting of the PHA section. It's much more clear. Could you just put the last three sentences in the same paragraph? The stand-alone sentence looks kind of weird.

My only remaining gripe is that we need an independent source of the Fiderer piece to include it. I've agreed it was written by a reliable source, and it's fine to include as long as it's on a reliable third-party site. Take care. 75.162.6.6 (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Multiple Comments

1. I'm making changes to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and guidelines for biographies, specifically:
   1. Include his full name, Alphonso Roy Jackson, in the first sentence.
   2. Put his date of birth after his full name.
2. Adding a bit about his participation in the civil rights movement. The article is a biography about a notable person. Let's make the article as complete as possible based on reliable sources. There is more to the man man than just his public service as Secretary of HUD.
3. Congrat's and thanks to Ttellouc and 75.162.x.x for agreeing to compromise and to work together to improve the article. 75.162.x.x, I hope you will register for a regular Wikipedia account. Until then, this will have to reside here:

		The Half Barnstar
		For cooperation and productive editing of Alphonso Jackson together with someone who holds a different viewpoint. Together, you demonstrate the best in Wikipedia and earn a full barnstar. Thanks, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You can copy that to your userpage when/if you sign up for an account. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Comments

1. I'm making changes to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and guidelines for biographies, specifically:
   1. Include his full name, Alphonso Roy Jackson, in the first sentence.
   2. Put his date of birth after his full name.
2. Adding a bit about his participation in the civil rights movement. The article is a biography about a notable person. Let's make the article as complete as possible based on reliable sources. There is more to the man man than just his public service as Secretary of HUD.
3. Congrat's and thanks to Ttellouc and 75.162.x.x for agreeing to compromise and to work together to improve the article. 75.162.x.x, I hope you will register for a regular Wikipedia account. Until then, this will have to reside here:

		The Half Barnstar
		For cooperation and productive editing of Alphonso Jackson together with someone who holds a different viewpoint. Together, you demonstrate the best in Wikipedia and earn a full barnstar. Thanks, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You can copy that to your userpage when/if you sign up for an account. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alphonso 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613120109/http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/2007-11-07.cfm to http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/2007-11-07.cfm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130119230451/http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/07/more-fallout-from-ap-story-on.html to http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/07/more-fallout-from-ap-story-on.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120319004250/http://www.clintonfoundation.org/news/news-media/120707-nr-cf-cci-pr-wjc-and-mayor-bloomberg-announce-partnership-to-green-buildings-across-new-york-city to http://www.clintonfoundation.org/news/news-media/120707-nr-cf-cci-pr-wjc-and-mayor-bloomberg-announce-partnership-to-green-buildings-across-new-york-city
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306113021/http://summit.operationhope.org/about/secretary-alphonso-jackson/ to http://summit.operationhope.org/about/secretary-alphonso-jackson/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)