Talk:Troy Jackson

Picture

Is there no available picture of Troy Jackson without a mask? 86.15.205.45 (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't look the best. I looked at c:Category:Troy Jackson (politician) over at our freely licenced image respository Wikimedia Commons and there are only pictures with a mask.

Someone could use their camera to take one and upload it themselves to Wikimedia Commons, or someone could contact him and get him to upload a better photo to Wikimedia Commons if he wants to. We can't take random images off the internet for copyright reasons. Commander Keane (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this image is just not very identifiable because of the mask. Does he have an official portrait or anything that has a creative commons license. 24.136.10.2 (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

See below....someone may be able to obtain an image of him at a public event. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Troy 07.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Image

MAINEiac4434 I was wondering if you could crop the image so we get a close up of Jackson without a mask on? 331dot (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll do you one better -- I'm attending an event with him next week and will try to grab a picture with him like I did with Platner. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

That would be great. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Overemphasis on social issues

I think this part of the introduction "Formerly socially conservative and self-identifying as anti-abortion, believing that abortion should be illegal in all cases except for rape or incest, he is now a staunch supporter of abortion rights. Similarly, he previously expressed opposition to LGBTQ rights, and in 2009 voted against a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine, before shifting later in his career" overemphasizes social issues. Jackson is primarily known for his favoring pro-worker, social democratic policies but these are not mentioned in the introduction. Thoughts on removing and/or shifting these sentences out of the introduction and replacing them with what he is more known for?--User:Namiba 17:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm personally ambivalent on whether or not it should be included in the lede, but I will note that John Kennedy (Louisiana politician) just has one sentence in the lede indicating that Kennedy used to be a Democrat, and no mention that he was a fairly liberal one. There's no mention of Barack Obama's opposition to same-sex marriage in the lede. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I very much do not agree. wp:lede says In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. Obviously to me this is one of the most important contents of the article.

Just look, as just one example, at the article just yesterday in the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/21/us/politics/troy-jackson-maine-senate.html

The title? "Once Anti-Abortion, Now a Progressive: The Evolution of a Maine Democrat." The subtitle? "Troy Jackson, who is expected to become his party’s nominee in the state’s marquee Senate race, has long been an economic populist, but his positions on social issues have changed markedly over time." And then you have a 42 paragraph article beneath it.

Or this CNN article. Just today.. "How Troy Jackson went from an anti-abortion Republican to the Democrats’ hope for defeating Susan Collins" https://krdo.com/news/2026/07/22/how-troy-jackson-went-from-an-anti-abortion-republican-to-the-democrats-hope-for-defeating-susan-collins/

Or this Maine article in the Bangor Daily News this week. "How Troy Jackson evolved on abortion" https://www.bangordailynews.com/2026/07/21/politics/elections/maine-election-senate-troy-jackson-abortion-same-sex-marriage/

I think it totally belongs. According to the rules here. Deleting it would make it look as though we are trying to hide what the New York Times and CNN and others highlight.

I do agree with you on a different point though. I think it would be good to, while keeping that, add other language to the lede about his favoring what you point to as pro-worker, social democratic policies. Would you like to add that? Or want me to try?

--~2026-40426-27 (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

No one is saying that this article should not discuss how his views have changed. But that doesn't need to be detailed to that extent in the introduction. It's not uncommon for any politician- or any human- to change their views for whatever reason. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes - that is why this is a discussion about wp:lede, and the first section. Whether or not you are right that what this relates to is as you say not uncommon, the key point is the one made by the long articles in major publications like the NY Times and CNN this week and local as well this week .. see above .. that devote themselves to just this. So better to follow what the reliable source press says i think than argue about whether we as individual editors feels something is usual. --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

What is notable about Jackson is not the fact that he has changed his views on various topics; it is the fact he was a state senate president and state level politician with significant coverage.

The article should follow the press, yes- but the lead summarizes the article itself, not the press. His views changing- aside from the fact that it's not unusual- is a very small part of who he is, such that, if it is mentioned at all, shouldn't have more than one sentence devoted to it. See WP:RECENT. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Right. I am not discussing whether or not it is unusual. But if you look at the media coverage, reflected in the article also but just the long articles in major and minor press this week, it seems possible that you and the press have different views as to whether it is notable. It's not just this week .. it's not a problem with it being recent .. and that relates to acts that are recent .. you pointed me to a policy relating clearly in its first sentence to "recent events", not NY Times and CNN articles that are recent. The fact that it is covered so deeply this week shows that it is notable even today. It is also covered in the past. https://www.pressherald.com/2014/05/11/democrats_split_on_social_issues_in_2nd_district_/ ~2026-40426-27 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Not opposed to having it in the lead section in some form, but I found the way it was written a bit awkward. Something briefer may be more suited to the lead. VintageVernacular (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. How about -- "While Jackson was formerly anti-abortion,, he now supports abortion rights. Similarly, though he previously opposed LGBTQ rights, he now supports them." --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Lumberjack vs. logger

Why was he changed from being a "logger" to being a "lumberjack."? Most press calls him a logger. Not a lumberjack. And he refers to himself as a logger. Not a lumberjack. Here, for example. Which is a term that was only predominant anyway decades ago. Unclear why anyone would even think it a good idea to have changed it from logger to lumberjack. --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never seen a source describe him as a lumberjack. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed! Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Educational background

If anyone cares to add it, I think this citation supports the sentence about his high school and college background. ~2026-40426-27 (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)