Jasmine Crockett (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which was archived on 24 May 2026. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Why is there no reference to who were her parents? 69.178.93.170 (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It may be a good idea to include Reverend Dr. Joseph Crockett and wife Renee in this article? Easeltine (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2025 and 14 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stellarfreak2232 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Neoclassical4life, Cinammon Apple.

— Assignment last updated by Dr. Misty (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there any information about who Crockett is with in the photo with the Ukrainian flag in the article? I assume she is with some Ukrainian delegation, mission, or domestic advocates. Do we know anything about that? As of now, it really doesn't meet an encyclopedic standard to be included and the caption is not sourced. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The commons description says Jasmine Crockett with the American Coalition for Ukraine which seems to be sourced to the same tweet the photo came from. Its not at all clear who the people are though, the coalition is apparently over 100 groups so who knows if they're with one of those groups or the umbrella organization. Jamedeus (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will look through other commons photos and find a photo that is more relevant to the content of the article in that case. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just to close this, I deleted the photo. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think a lot of content was removed on the policy section, which is on her Zionist position. While poorely sourced, it shoul not have been removed all we had to do is get a better source. There is way too much commentary (and yes social media counts). on her Pro-Israel position which goes back some time. [1] Inayity (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I though support for genocide campaigns and the Israeli apartheid were quite ordinary for the United States Congress.Dimadick (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Those sources were not reliable. If there are other sources that back up those edits, then we should include that information. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Currently, the fourth paragraph on the page reads as follows:

"Crockett is noted in national press as one of seven Black women running for US Senate in 2026 whose wins could make US political history by increasing their representation in the upper chamber of Congress: Crockett of Texas, Robin Kelly or Juliana Stratton of Illinois, Pamela Stevenson of Kentucky, Priscilla Williams-Till of Mississippi, N’Kiyla “Jasmine” Thomas of Oklahoma and Catherine Fleming Bruce of South Carolina."

I don't think this is relevant enough to be the fourth paragraph on the page, and barely has relevance to be in the article.

From a policy perspective:

WP:UNDUE - This statement does not describe an action, office, legislative achievement, or defining aspect of Crockett's career. Instead, it places Crockett within a speculative category about a future election outcome. Putting this so high up in the article gives undue weight to a hypothetical.

WP:CRYSTAL - The paragraph hinges on hypothetical outcomes (“could make US political history”), not on verifiable accomplishments or completed events. Wikipedia generally avoids emphasizing speculative future impact, especially when it is not tied to concrete developments such as declared candidacies, campaign milestones, or election results.

WP:BIO - For biographies of living persons, early paragraphs should summarize the subject’s most notable aspects: offices held, major legislative work, leadership roles, and/or widely recognized political influence. Being listed amongst a broader cohort identified by one source does not represent Crockett well.

I could see a justification for this paragraph after primaries, and with more neutral language. But as of now, it's not right. Copying @ProfessorKaiFlai to justify. Rooves 13 (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY we shouldn't have things that aren't even in the article proper in the lead. Even with that considered, this article isn't about other Black women, it's about Jasmine Crockett. ProfessorKaiFlai, please gain consensus on the talk page before restoring this to the lead.
Relatedly, I'm also removing the "her announcement has gained widespread coverage" thing because... well, that happens with most officeholders. I've never seen it included in the lead, and unless it was somebody who was a complete nobody but then became notable because of their campaign I don't think it's really suitable. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:48, 25 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have restored it and would like to see more discussion and consensus before it is deleted againProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also,the assumption that every officeholder candidate who announces for office gets widespread coverage is categorically false. I am pretty sure the number of articles about Crockett is higher than average. You are welcome to do an article count and prove me wrong - I'm happen to stand down if proven so.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tag- I'll make a stab at addressing this on Christmas Day :-|

The original criticism was that the two citations were not from "reliable, relatively unbiased sources'. I ceded the source with less longevity but the latter has been a staple for more than 50 years - I think that argument is successfully refuted.

So the editor has shifted the argument: the subject of the increase in the number of Black women or women in general, should not be raised or given importance in the article, based on arguments presented from the following; WP:UNDUE WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BIO

Note that the paragraph was previously deleted entirely - so lets look at the arguments.

WP:UNDUE is about not giving undue weight to a point of view. The fact pointed out by the citation is that there have historically been few Black women elected to the Senate. That is a fact, not a point of view from the article cited or this editor. The relevance of this fact corresponds to the existence of Wikipedia articles on the subject of women and politics such as

• Women in the United States House of Representatives
• Black women in American politics - which are links in Crockett's page. The relevance is found as well in the existence of Wikipedia categories such as:
  • 21st-century African-American women politicians
  • 21st-century American women politicians
  • Female United States representatives
  • Women state legislators in Texas - also found on Crockett's page. The existence of these Wikipedia articles and categories suggest that legitimate news sources covering movement in these areas are justified. Unless by 'neutrality' and 'undue' we mean to remove these citations and not speak at all about potential historic changes even when they are discussed in the news.. WP:CRYSTAL does not mean ,in my view, that citations about historical facts harm the neutrality of the article. James Talarico's article, in the first paragraph notes that "he has been called a "rising star" among Texas Democrats." This citation, also from a legitimate news source, positions an aspect of Talarico's candidacy as an element of change, as does the citation about the potential of historic change in the number of Black women serving in the US Senate. This citation is also in the upper part of the article. WP:BIO the objection is that 'Being listed amongst a broader cohort identified by one source does not represent Crockett well.' - originally, there was more than one source, but the editor objected that the publication is not 'reliable and unbiased'. This despite the fact that that publication The Root, is 17 years old and has its own wikipedia article. Other articles may have covered it by now, and if so can be cited. Also note that Talarico's reference as a 'rising star' connects him to a broader cohort, though that cohort is not named. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is also listed with a broader cohort, referred to as the Squad, which at this stage has its own wikipedia page. Since some candidates referenced in the article have wikipedia pages, I thought it was appropriate to include them. I also noted that, say what you will about TikTok, but its post on this subject has garnered close to 800K views. Essence has a readership of 31M and The Root Magazine has a readership of 10M. So that suggests to me that the subject has garnered broad attention in major national publications means that the citation should be included in the Wikipedia article.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

The lead, per WP:LEAD is meant to summarise the important aspects of the subject's biography. The fact that there are seven Black women running for Senate is not an important part of the subject's notability; your argument makes a case for it being included in the body (which per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY should contain something before it's added to the lead). Your issue with the James Talarico page falls under WP:OTHERCONTENT; if you have an issue with what's on that page, you can edit it there yourself. I'm happy to move this content to the body, but it doesn't belong in the lead whatsoever.

Also, regarding I have restored it and would like to see more discussion and consensus before it is deleted again; you misunderstand Wikipedia policy entirely here. Per WP:ONUS, the onus falls on the person looking to **include** disputed content. Two editors have disputed your removal and you have not gained consensus to include, so do not revert this again unless you actually have consensus. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:15, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN refers to material without citation. I have provided a citation for the section. I for a full discussion, to allow more editors to comment before content is removed. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I ask for a full discussion ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also a proper response to WP:LEADFOLLOWBODY is to relocate to another place in the article, not deletion. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

ProfessorKaiFlai, you're again misreading policy. ONUS refers to any content that's been disputed, as this has. No mention of citations. As for LEADFOLLOWSBODY, that's literally what I did? I moved it to another section in the article. Until a discussion finds consensus, there is no consensus to include this, and the status quo is that it shouldn't be in the lead. That is what WP:ONUS means. Please self-revert now and restore this content where it was in the body. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

ok - I didn't see that it had been moved, not deleted. Sorry! You can undo if you like - that would be easier. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, will do. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

✅️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to thank ProfessorKaiFlai for a great, civil explanation of their stance. Having reflected on it for a few days, I'm very content with the current state of the article. I think the # of Black women running for Senate is important to include in the article, but only post-primary. That being said, the revisions done by Ser are great. If ProfessorKaiFlai is content with the changes, then so am I. Rooves 13 (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, and yes, an excellent civil discussion with you and Ser! I am content with the changes. This rule-based editor engagement is why Wikipedia will always stand head and shoulders over any AI impersonator.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2026 and 8 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eyardley (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Graceca0728.

— Assignment last updated by Kaley marie27 (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2026 and 8 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soriana.torres (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Banhjay.

— Assignment last updated by Dr. Misty (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been expanded significantly recently but I feel that there's also a lot of promo and that there are better ways to ensure WP:NPOV, especially in regard to the tenure section. I feel like there's also a lot that feels WP:UNDUE and that there are also an overdue amount of quotations from her and about her rhetorical style.

Thanks, Wozal (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

• NPOV/UNDUE issues seem to be mostly in the Tenure and Rhetorical style. In Tenure, the way it's written now reads like a list of recent events (a clear issue of RECENTISM). I'd suggest rewriting it so this section revolves around major events and milestones of her tenure.
• When it comes to UNDUE issues, Rhetorical style stands out. It's built around some widely circulated quotes rather than a wider (and sourced) independent discussion of her rhetoric. The way it's written now looks like a list of her viral lines than a proper writing of a biography section.
• Some sub-sections in Political positions are glaringly shorter than others. Some are only a sentence long, while others are more developed like the Israeli-Palestinian issue, which creates uneven weight when the section is read as a whole.

That's all I could think of right now. AdaCiccone (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply