Talk:Stephanie Tubbs Jones

CNN

RETRACTED-CNN just informed she died.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What??--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC) what do you mean? They can't be saying someone died if they aren't certain!--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

CBS News just announced her death: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/20/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4367046.shtml

That report was in error: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijDA5bgxiHlTvS_r-SSjskS1Tq1wD92M6DOG1 --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Info about others

A recent change added the criminal history of her late husband. This seems a little off topic and prejudicial. I can't find any reference to the 59 trip paid for by lobbiests either. She has made a large number of trips, but only a fraction of those are paid for by lobbiest or corporations. The rest are by non-profits and political entities.

Also, there is quite a lot of information about her predecessor in congress, Louis Stokes. I think an interested reader could follow the link to learn about the Honorable Mr. Stokes. Just my 2c. [unsigned]

Fine with both, although some mention should be made about her husband with a redirect. CFLeon (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Better Know a District

Is it worth mentioning that she, like other congressmen from The Colbert Report's "Better Know a District" segment, was featured on the Report? Normally I wouldn't find that notable for Daily Show or Report guests, but maybe it would be worthwhile for relatively-unknown congressmen. Anyone else like this idea? --BDD 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. --waffle iron 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

August 19, 2008 - Edit needed

The text now reads, "On August 19, 2008, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones was taken to a Cleveland hospital after being found unconscious behind the wheel of a moving car." The car had come to a stop in a field when police identified the driver as the Congresswoman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DVet78 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Death

Being on life support is not dead. Edits claiming that she is dead are vandalism. No news reports have pronounced her dead.Dogru144 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dead -- http://blog.cleveland.com/plaindealer/2008/08/stephanie_tubbs_jones_has_died.html and confirmed by CNN. Also per CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/20/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4367046.shtml Kitchawan (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. Yahoo.com notes that there were erroneous news reports of her death. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

CNN has confirmed her death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.119.51 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

CNN has retracted it. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Everybody got it wrong, according to the news conference. She is NOT dead. She is in critical condition according to the doctors. 24.178.114.72 (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

CNN now says:

(CNN) — Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones remains in critical condition at a Cleveland, Ohio, hospital with limited brain function, but has not died, said Dr. Gus Kious, chief of staff at Huron Hospital.

Democratic sources previously had told CNN Tubbs Jones had died.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Perhaps we should redirect to I'm Not Dead. TJRC (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When Reagan was shot, there were reports he had died. ABC Newsman Frank Reynolds yelled "will someone get it right, let's nail it down" or something like that. Before he could swear, they cut out to a commercial and he was calmer after they came back. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not Dead?

I'm watching CNN right now, and a press conference said that she was in critical condition. mrholybrain's talk 18:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. Also this page should be semi-protected as there is a lot of anon vandalism. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Epic FAIL by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.103.245 (talk)

Not really. EPIC FAIL by CNN is more like it. They tend to be good at those. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of conflicting reports. It is possible she might have died, but the most official reports suggest she is alive (albeit critical). CrazyC83 (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

msnbc reported dead, then just retracted. I requested page protection until this can be sorted out. Sorry folks. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 18:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

ALERT! ALERT! If you can't watch TV and are only relying on the internet, you might not have the latest news! HkCaGu (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)*#1, dont be a dick.

• 1. 2, you cant cite the TV. We need the internet to catch up with the TV in order to properly cite the new info. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

While we can't cite TV, we shouldn't say that she is dead just because online sources haven't caught up yet. mrholybrain's talk 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_go_co/congresswoman_dies_media OwnerA (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to be fast

We're not here to scoop anyone. It's better to be sure of ourselves than to try to go fast. Friday (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this for now. I don't object if anyone undoes it as they see fit. Mainly I wanted people to calm down and tread carefully. Getting it right is more important than getting it fast. Friday (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Cleveland Plain Dealer had reported that she had died, along with Cleveland TV station WEWS. I think editors can be forgiven our mistakes, given that the sources themselves are rapidly being retracted and modified. -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Call CNN and tell them not to be fast then!--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why this should be protected. We are an encyclopedia, not a news source. There is no urgency, we are not here to scoop anything. CNN has been wrong before. When the sources have it right, we'll have it right. Support protection, smart move Friday. Keeper ǀ 76 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(2 Edit Conflicts) The page is fine, she is not dead. The protection is needed because some people have old sources that say she is dead. mrholybrain's talk 19:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear- I'm not trying to say anyone did anything wrong. People are just trying to be accurate. I just wanted to calm the edit storm for now, since we have varying sources. It's better for us to be a little slow on reporting a death, than it is for us to report someone as dead prematurely. Friday (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone with access should edit intro. Congresswoman Jones suffered an aneurysm on August 19, not August 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.54.3 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The date/time is probably reflecting whatever is the date/time at her location. For example, if she had been in Beijing, it may have been August 21 already. CFLeon (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's unusual to protect things in cases like this? I dunno. Anyway, I turned it down to semi for now. (Anyone feel free to change this as needed, of course.) Friday (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be becoming more common with items in the news. (sigh) CFLeon (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Super Delegate

I'm wondering why there's no mention of the fact that she was set to be a super delegate at the upcoming Democratic convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.53.150 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's 2 Super Deligates they've lost in the past week. Is this How Hillary's planning to get back? :) (It's a joke, Folks!!!) CFLeon (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Poor joke, considering both super delegates were Hillary supporters.24.187.134.112 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohio's 11th congressional district

Also has issues with people claiming her "death" has left the seat vacant. Let's keep an eye on it. Hazydan (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit request (replace dead link)

{{editprotected}} In the section "Cerebral Aneurysm," footnote 9, please replace the now-dead link http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/congresswoman.dies/index.html with http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ , which makes clear that the reports of death were in error. TJRC (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a more permanent link? The link you provided will age quickly. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't, but a link that will expire in a few days is better than an erroneous one. I assume the situation will stabilize soon enough, and then we'll have both better article text and a more permanent link. But for now, it's best to get rid of the dead link. TJRC (talk)

Here's a permalink: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/20/sources-ohio-congresswoman-dies-after-suffering-aneurysm/ PSUMark2006 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, PSUMark2006. TJRC (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 DoneThe article is now only semi-protected, so I've made the change.TJRC (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional dead link

In the section "Early life, Education and Family" footnote 5 appears to be a dead link. Is there an alternate permanent link to this reference or could we correct this broken link? T S Ballantine (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

another edit request

Some reports suggest that she has died, however a news conference reported she is alive, but in critical condition with limited brain function.[8]

should it be 'suggested'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.125.163 (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done by me. Kingnavland (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

She's not dead.

Out of respect, can Someone with editing authority change the past-tense references to Her current Congressional position to present tense? As I said, She's not dead. She remains the Congressional Representative from the 11th district of Ohio. She remains popular with Her Constituents. etc. Out of respect, I think all such references should remain present-tense until We have reason to change said tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinezfive (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Death report

Just throwing in a little info on this- the TV news stations around here had been saying she was alive and in critical condition. Both WUAB and WKYC have just now aired a special report that she has died. I'll hold off adding this, since the hits on g-news aren't reporting it as yet. If someone wants to add a line about the confusion around the announcement, here's a good link I've found: [1] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sources are again reporting Tubbs Jones' death, citing Hospital and Family confirmation of the report, including the AP (again), Bloomberg, and the Cleveland Plains-Dealer.dfuertges —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, source of the initial report (and AP news feed). This time, though, they cited a Cleveland Clinic official who placed the time of death at 6:12pm EDT on Wednesday. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Special Election

I have at least twice removed this text or similar:

"As of August 21, 2008, the Ohio Secretary of State had not yet determined whether a special election would be held, prior to the November 2008 general election, to fill the vacancy left by Tubbs Jones's death.[15] Ohio election law ordinarily calls for such vacancies to be filled by special election.[16]"

This violates many things about our policies, including WP:CRYSTAL, because it is opining about a possible future event, and WP:OR because it requires an interpretation of Ohio law. There is disagreement over this, such as that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply because it's not saying there WILL be something. I don't think that because we put in "no determination has been made" that we are avoiding prediction. That statement as written implies that there should be a special election, which draws a conclusion and definitely points a reader to such a conclusion. Because there's is no opinion that it WILL happen doesn't mean we are not running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. In addition, we are WP:NOT a news source; if we find ourselves having to put a date in an article to qualify what is being written ("as of August 21, 2008"), that is an excellent indication that the information doesn't belong in the article.

The facts of the situation are that Tubbs Jones died, and that her seat is now vacant. Whether or not the seat will be filled in the current Congress is a matter of pure speculation. If it is determined that it will be filled, the manner in which it would be filled is also a matter of speculation. Whether or not there will be two elections (the regular election and a special election) is also speculation. The timing of such things is...again...speculation.

Finally, this article is about Tubbs Jones, not her Congressional seat, so to the degree that any such speculation about her seat might be appropriate, it belongs elsewhere. However, a deletion discussion was already opened and closed about that; the result was to delete the article. (It was later recreated, but only as a redirect to the overall Ohio elections for November.)

 Frank  |  talk  22:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This part of what you say is true: "Whether or not the seat will be filled in the current Congress is a matter of pure speculation." A statement that the seat would be filled in the current Congress would be speculation. A statement that the seat would not be filled in the current Congress would be speculation. Both statements would violate WP:CRYSTAL.

The text being deleted has neither of those statements. It provides two factual statements: the SoS has not determined whether there will be a special election; and Ohio law generally calls for a special election. Neither statement is speculative. Both statements are properly sourced.

There is not a shadow of WP:CRYSTAL here. Readers of the article on Tubbs Jones may very well want to know, what's up with Tubbs Jones's seat? Will there be a special election? The fact that this is not yet determined is a fact that is not speculative and is on-topic for the article. TJRC (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There are very many things people might want to know when they read an article about anyone or anything in an encyclopedia. But that doesn't mean that we should have all the information in each article. If and when a special election is called, then an article would be appropriate, but even then we'd just link to that article from this one.

Do we put something in Barack Obama's article saying he might win the election and he might not? By putting both sides, we're not violating WP:CRYSTAL, but we're also stating something kind of obvious. What's the point?

To read the Ohio code and draw a conclusion from it is original research and technically legal advice, which are both against policy, and it is also using a primary source, which also should not be done.

I am not against some mention of the fact that the seat is vacant, but there is too much we don't (and can't) know for us to put more in an article. I believe the law simply states that the state decides how the seat is filled. Suppose someone is appointed to fill the term? That would mean there is no special election, even though the law "requires" it, and it isn't included in the wording that was in this article. If we try to cover all the possibilities that might happen, we are still running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL because we are seemingly authoritative, when in fact there may be alternatives we aren't including. We are here to report verifiable information - nothing more, and nothing less. We do not have anything verifiable that says what WILL be...we only have speculation. The fact that the speculation says there may or may not be a special election does not change the fact that it is speculation.

Back to the text that was removed, it has a "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" quality to it that I really think should not be allowed to stand. "...not yet determined whether a special election would be held, prior to the November 2008 general election, to fill the vacancy..." makes the assumption that the vacancy MUST be filled, or that a special election would be THE way to do it, or that such an election would necessarily happen BEFORE the general election. What if it is determined that a special election would be held AFTER the general election? It may sound crazy, but the point is we just don't know, and we don't have sources to tell us. We are drawing conclusions that are not supported by anything verifiable. (Notice I didn't say "facts" - we are about verifiability.) Even if someone writes an op-ed piece laying out a series of possible scenarios, it wouldn't automatically qualify as a source...because it's still all speculation.

I encourage more discussion on this point, or perhaps a request at WP:3O. We have two clearly differing points of view; perhaps some other opinions will move us forward.  Frank  |  talk  00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I also encourage more discussion. There clearly should be more than you and I discussing this. On your comments:

There are very many things people might want to know when they read an article about anyone or anything in an encyclopedia. But that doesn't mean that we should have all the information in each article. True, but it is highly likely that readers interested in this Congressman are interested in her vacancy and its status. It's highly material to the article.

Look, it's a big deal when a Congressperson dies in office. Many people wonder "well, what now?" It would clearly be a mistake to say "there will be a special election"; we don't know that. But we should not fail readers who come looking for this information to point out: yes, it's an important question related to this individual. No, the answer is not known. We'll just document that the answer is not known. To know that the issue is still up in the air, and to conceal that from the reader, so that he or she has to go looking elsewhere to try to find out the answer, when we have that answer as a verified fact, is just wrong.

Do we put something in Barack Obama's article saying he might win the election and he might not? Of course not. Not because it's WP:CRYSTAL, but because it imparts no information. When you write that a person is a candidate for President, that necessitates that he might win the election and he might not. The comparison you're looking for is "Do we put something in Barack Obama's article saying he's running for President, when he may not be elected?" And that answer to that, I hope, its "yes, we do." (Just checking; yes, we do have that he's the presumptive nominee.)

If and when a special election is called, then an article would be appropriate. A complete article on a special election is overkill. You pointed out a discussion to delete such an article, and I think that's the right decision. Had I been aware of that discussion, I would probably ("probably," only because with the article deleted, I can't actually see it to confirm) have supported deletion as well, merging the content with this article.

to read the Ohio code and draw a conclusion from it is original research... Have you read the statute referenced? There's no interpretation required. Even though it reads rather absolutely, the inclusion of "generally" in the summary of it avoids asserting that it is cut-and-fried. If the primacy bothers you, The Plain Dealer (the major Cleveland newspaper) has an article that says the same: [2]

I believe the law simply states that the state decides how the seat is filled. Suppose someone is appointed to fill the term? Again, you've not looked at the reference cited. "When a vacancy in the office of representative to congress occurs, the governor, upon satisfactory information thereof, shall issue a writ of election directing that a special election be held to fill such vacancy in the territory entitled to fill it on a day specified in the writ." There's nothing there about an appointment. Anything about an appointment would be guesswork and OR.

The fact that the speculation says there may or may not be a special election does not change the fact that it is speculation. No, you're misunderstanding, I think. What we're documenting is the verified fact that it is not settled. There is no speculation about that verified, material, sourced, fact. There is clearly no WP:CRYSTAL problem here. Verified. Material. Sourced. Fact.

Back to the text that was removed, it has a "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" quality If you have problems with the quality of the text, there's certainly no problem with editing it. Editing; not deleting.

...makes the assumption that the vacancy MUST be filled, or that a special election would be THE way to do it, or that such an election would necessarily happen BEFORE the general election. Again, you're misunderstanding. It is not making any such assumption. It is reporting the current status. If it reads to you like it is making that assumption, edit it to fix it. But don't delete it. TJRC (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are mincing words here, rather than sticking to what Wikipedia is and is not. Yes, I read the statute, but it is irrelevant. We are not in the habit (or policy) of writing original research on Wikipedia, and a state constitution is a primary document. Who is to say that there haven't been 50 court cases to clarify the meaning of the statute in question? In point of fact, there was one after James Traficant's seat was not filled, so it might apply in this case. The point is that we don't know. Also, although you put a cite in for the second part, it did not support the text it referred to; the article in the Plain Dealer does not say what Ohio election law calls for at all, and using the word "ordinarily" strikes me as violating WP:WEASEL. (The cite does say a federal appeals court ruling, but that muddies the waters rather than clarifying anything.)

Let me draw a parallel: When the US Constitution was written, black people were counted as 3/5 of a person each, women couldn't vote, Senators were picked by state legislatures, and the voting age was 21. If you reference the Constitution as written, those points are quite clear, and yet quite a bit of law and court precedent since then has changed things. I am not saying that has happened in Ohio. What I am saying is that we don't know and therefore can't write it here. Yes, the law seems to indicate that an election will be held to fill the current term, but it hasn't been scheduled, and we don't have sufficient reliable sources on the matter to write anything coherent or encyclopedic.

What's the rush to have all sorts of possibly-correct information in this article? When the facts are settled, then we can put them in. We are not Wikinews.  Frank  |  talk  12:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not intending to mince words. I'm attempting to draw distinctions and clarify. The most important distinction is this: there is a status for the process for filling the vacancy, and to the extent that that status is known and verified, it should be included. That is the primary point, and anything else is simply responding to your statements. That's not "mincing," that's responding.

The cite to the statute is moot, it's not cited any longer, in favor of the PD article. I'll stop beating that horse, and suggest you do the same. On the "rush," I wouldn't characterize it as a rush. It's providing as complete information as is verifiable at the time. Would you have suggested that the article on the 2008 Olympics not be edited until the Olympics concluded? The substitute you inserted had no references, and was completely unverified. The prior version, which I've restored, provides verification and opportunity for the reader to obtain more detailed information. Edit, do not delete. 15:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJRC (talk • contribs)

Third opinion

Thanks for listing this discussion for a third opinion. Having read through both sides of the discussion, I am left wondering exactly what the speculation of a possible special election has to do with the subject of this article. I beleieve that since Ms. Jones will be neither the incumbent nor a possible challenger, the information would be far more relevant in the Ohio's 11th congressional district article. This is a biography, and events happening outside of this person's lifetime, in which she will take no part, don't seem to be germaine. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as another outside opinion, I'm more sympathetic to TJRC's position here. What happens after Tubbs Jones death is absolutely relevant - William Henry Harrison#Impact of death is an example of a reasonably well-done "aftermath" section without which an article would be incomplete. So I'd say this is relevant to the topic. As for WP:CRYSTAL, that only applies if the speculation is *unverified*. News sources have mentioned the possibility of a special election, and even if there isn't one, it's relevant to mention that the seat stayed vacant until the next election. The Ohio law is also clearly on point, and not a leap at all to cite. SnowFire (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The point that is being missed here is that we are an encyclopedia, not a news source. It is inappropriate to compare the death of a member of Congress — barely a week later — with the death of a president, looked at through the long lens of history. The very idea that "speculation" can be "verified" flies in the face of the definition of the two words. Again, we are not a news source; I don't deny that there is speculation, but the whole point is that it is only speculation. And regarding Ohio law, again — it is a total leap to cite the Ohio constitution; see my point above about the US Constitution.  Frank  |  talk  12:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is decided that it belongs here, I would think that the only thing that would be approprite for this article would be a) if there is a special election - a brief summary with a hatnote to the article on the special election; or b) a note about the appointment/ongoing vacancy that results. Either way, and with all due respect for the deceased, vacant seats in Congress happen pretty regularly and just aren't all that important. The NJ 13th district seat sat empty for almost 10 months in 2006, and that was handled this way in that article. I still think it would be most appropriate in Ohio's 11th congressional district#2008 vacancy or something similar with a link from here. The story is no longer about the subject of this biographical article, and readers should be directed to an appropriate article for the information. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to both JimMillerJr and SnowFire for joining the discussion. This is definitely an improvement over Frank and me being the only editors in the discussion; even the editor who added the original text has not joined the conversation. Most of this is now moot since the special election has been called, but to mop up a bit....

Jim: I agree that it's material to the 11th District article; it's also material here. Many readers looking up Stephanie Tubbs may be doing so with the question in their mind "what is the status of Tubbs Jones's congressional seat." The point that, since she's dead, it's no longer her seat will not cross their minds. The obvious fact that she will not be in the election isn't on-point, either, because for all the reader knows, maybe a replacement can be appointed (as Frank suggested might happen). We can't expect all readers to already know the constitutional and statutory provisions on this. It's worth having here as well as in the 11th District article because many readers will have an interest without knowing what district Tubbs Jones represented; it may not even occur to them that there is such an article on that district (I know there's a link), or that the information would be there. It's material to the Tubbs Jones article because it addresses the issue: what's up with Tubbs Jones's seat?

Frank: I agree that Wikipedia is not a news source. It's a reference source. If this very same death had occurred a year ago, in a non-election year, there would be no issue. There would have been no controversy over whether there would be a special election with over a year left in the term, and it would be included. In this cycle, however, there was a small controversy. This article should document that the controversy exists, for the time during which it exists.

Jim: Related to this point, I would avoid an article dedicated to the special election. That's a point where it's more news than reference, and would go against the notability is not temporary policy.

Frank: There was never a reference to the Ohio constitution. I agree with you that that would have been inappropriate.TJRC (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[3]  Frank  |  talk  12:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. You're confusing the Ohio statutes with the Ohio constitution. There never was a cite to the Ohio constitution; that would have just been weird. Either the top-level most general authority (the U.S Constitution) or the bottom-level most detailed authority (the Ohio statute) would have made some sense; but an intermediate authority like a state constitution would be a very odd choice to cite if the other two authorities existed.TJRC (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is merely splitting hairs. It is a primary source, regardless of whether it is the state constitution or the state statutes.  Frank  |  talk  15:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephanie Tubbs Jones. 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/20070725184700/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)