Talk:Jonathan P. Jackson

Kidnapper vs. Activist

I noted the deletion of most references to Jackson as an "activist," and am prone to agree that the term is an inaccurate descriptor of his actions. However, I feel that the term "kidnapper" alone doesn't encapsulate the politically motivated nature of the Marin County incident, even if it is correct.

I'm not big on "revolutionary" as a term either. Would adding the descriptor "radical" perhaps be appropriate? Or perhaps eventually having a section describing the impact of Marin County as seen by the Black Panthers and modern-day fringe activists (Detailing the idea of it as the "August 7th Rebellion" and all that jazz). Blu3vibe (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Also... retitling the page might be a good idea. I'm somewhat n00bish so don't know how to go about that Blu3vibe (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done I agree with most of what you have written. I think the best way to disambiguate the page is simply to add his middle initial. I have retitled the page as "Jonathan P. Jackson". Location (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jackson is listed as revolutionary and the source cited is a radical left publication that is extremely slanted toward one viewpoint and seems to condone violence in the cause of "revolution" which is not clearly defined. Jackson murdered several people in cold blood who were trying to help his cause and seriously injured others. None of these people were engaged in a revolution nor were they engaged in any political activity. Revolutionary is an inappropriate term as it connotes fighting for a cause when all Jackson did was murder two inmates who were trying to help him and severely injure others who had nothing to do with the release of the Soledad Brothers. Agree with above about changing "revolutionary" to "radical." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:5980:8FC0:E567:8252:1288:F691 (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is baseless nonsense. Removing the tag now. Cheers. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:4C7:A4AA:8695:7B21 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"None of these people were engaged in a revolution nor were they engaged in any political activity" Horse hockey! By kidnapping the judge trying to get his brother out of prison for allegedly being a "political prisoner" IS a political act. Also, how can you say that his occupation was a bodyguard? Whose body did he guard? Any proof that he ever worked at that profession. Kidnapper would be a better description.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a9b0:527f:14ff:ee19:e86b:a1cd (talk • contribs) 06:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

He worked security for Angela Davis. That's where the guns came from. "Bodyguard" is probably too pretentious for a seventeen year old, more like "volunteer rentacop" would be more accurate but yes, he did spend time in that field. 203.160.72.245 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

POV: Glorification of Lawbreakers

The article describes the kidnapping of a sitting judge as an attempt to negotiate freedom for a criminal.John Paul Parks (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

That's what happened. What is the POV concern? -Location (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This does appear to be a fairly direct representation of fact I see no decisions of morality one way or the other.--Jaycosby13 (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)