Talk:Jessie Street

Lack of citations

I notice that most of this article lacks citations of any kind. I'm interested in Street so I'm going to put some time into tidying up the article, and maybe some of the previous editors might go back and reference their work? MurielMary (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jessie Street. 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/20050615093159/http://uncommonlives.naa.gov.au/life.asp?lID=3 to http://uncommonlives.naa.gov.au/life.asp?lID=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050615093159/http://uncommonlives.naa.gov.au/life.asp?lID=3 to http://uncommonlives.naa.gov.au/life.asp?lID=3

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

remote ancestors

WP:NOTGENEALOGY dictates only limited use of genealogy. Verifiable and an editor's personal fascination with the connection are insufficient. We need a source that not only documents the relationship, but also shows that this particular relationship held special meaning for the subject - we don't get to decide this ourselves. Agricolae (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

In case this was too vague, let me be more direct. Unless you have a WP:RS biographical source that highlights the descent of Jessie Street from the Baronet Greys, then including the descent is a WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTGENEALOGY violation. We mention information in proportion to the emphasis given it in relevant sources - if they ignore a remote genealogical relationship, then we should too, no matter how much we personally are fascinated by the connection. Likewise, genealogical information should be used very sparingly, only when it directly contextualizes the individual. When a connection is important to the life of the subject, when the authors of published biographies of the subject deign to mention the relationship, or if there is reliable evidence that they personally hold a specific relationship to be important to them (i.e. mention it in an interview), then it can be considered (though it still may be giving disproportionate evidence to the connection). Otherwise, it doesn't pass muster. Ancestry.com, geni.com and other online genealogy sites exist to provide genealogical information about people. That is something that Wikipedia is NOT. Agricolae (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Red Jessie

I have added the fact that Street was known as Mrs Kenneth Street, as that was how she was known in the 1920s and 1930s when she was famous as a feminist and social activist (2000 Trove hits). The epithet "Red Jessie" must be later, as all I can find is Henry King's dog, the original Australian Kelpie. Doug butler (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)