This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kate Kelly (feminist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is absolutely no question of notability, when she's been mentioned in all kind of national and international media. So the statement of "Puffery" associated with edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kate_Kelly_(feminist)&oldid=614026921 is ill informed or disingenuous. I've added many of those changes back in. Sanpitch ( talk) 05:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to have this article at Kate Kelly (Mormon feminist) or Kate Kelly (Mormon activist) or something of that nature. The "Mormon" part seems to be a very significant part of her notability, and that might help people looking for the right person at the disambiguation page Kate Kelly. The only problem I could see with this is some people might object to the title since she is technically no longer a member of the LDS Church, but I think we definitely have enough precedent here that non-LDS people can be safely called "Mormon", and it wouldn't surprise me if she still identified as such. Also, we have the "notability is not temporary" rule, and she is definitely notable as a Mormon activist regardless of current affiliation. Thoughts? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 06:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus, probably leaning towards there being a consensus against the move. In any case, this article ain't going anywhere for the time being. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Kate Kelly (feminist) →
Kate Kelly (Mormon feminist) – As discussed above, the "Mormon" aspect is a very significant part of the subject's notability, and its addition would help to further disambiguate her from the 6 other "Kate Kelly"s listed at
Kate Kelly. For those with concerns about her no longer being a member of the LDS Church, I would point to Wikipedia's policy that "
Notability is not temporary" which is why we have articles like
John Smith (Washington politician) even though he is no longer a politician. Also see the discussion above on why we tend to go with peoples' self-identification. Relisted.
Favonian (
talk) 12:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC). ~
Adjwilley (
talk) 03:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous editors keep adding the words "former" or "ex-" in front of Mormon, deleting the word "Mormon", and so forth. Can we agree that post-excommunication Kelly should still be described as a "Mormon", not a "former Mormon", and certainly not an ex-Mormon? For starters, one doesn't have to be a member of the LDS Church to be a Mormon, and probably more importantly, Kelly has given numerous interviews since she was excommunicated stating that she still considers herself a Mormon and has no intention of leaving the faith. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone who is excommunicated is no longer a member on church records. Some have left comments that she self proclaims herself to be Mormon. That doesn't make her a member. Anyone can self proclaim they are something but it doesn't make it true. Since she was excommunicated she is no longer a member of the Mormon church. LXX3 ( talk) 06:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The term Mormon as applied to an adherent to the religion was original a pejorative term, and is even today discouraged by members of the LDS Church. Conversely, it has been embraced by many persons and groups that follow Joseph Smith that are not aligned with the LDS church. The notion that the term would only apply to LDS members is counter-indicated. GCG ( talk) 14:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I have permission from a photographer (Maralise Peterson) to use her photo of Kate Kelly on this page. The photo is not copyrighted. I, however, have no experience loading photo files to Wikipedia. I tried reading over the guidelines/tutorials, but I'm still struggling and I don't want to incorrectly load/attribute the file. Can I send the photo to someone to load or get some guidance on how to properly add the photo to the page? KMH000 ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Uh... wouldn't you also need KATE'S permission?— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.169.21.140 (
talk) 10:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted edits which added the LDS church's views on patriarchy to this section. This section is about Kelly's views, not a place to outline the church's stance on patriarchy and gender roles - those would belong in another wiki. KMH000 ( talk) 17:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This is an important issue to many in the Mormon/Ex-Mormon community. Google it if you don't (1) understand the full relevance or (2) the scope of the issue. It's made local news as the previous edit mentioned and caused a huge rift on social media (facebook, twitter, reddit) not only amongst her detractors, but also amongst those who supported her (myself included) during her advocacy and excommunication.
Many of us in the advocacy community believe that personal monetary gain for advocacy is wrong. Whether you or I believe that or not is immaterial but it's at least something relevant for a person thinking of joining Kate's cause.
And if you believe this is a case of "believers" waging a character attack, then look no further than the top of the reddit exmormon page to see that many, on both sides of the issue, are extremely bothered by her actions.
http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/33j408/seriously_kate_kelly_using_her_fame_to_get_free/ http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/33noou/kate_kelly_the_whole_fung_point_of_this_thread_is/ http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1566750 http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=37896 http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=38480 http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=13990848
KUTV says in this tweet that the story is "currently burning up their website." https://twitter.com/KUTV2News/status/591351095949131776
Should this take up her entire wikipedia page outlining every detail? Of course not, but I don't think you can argue in good conscience that this isn't a noteworthy event. People want to know about this and it'd be a shame if it wasn't included in her wiki page. Riboflavin6969 ( talk) 15:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)riboflavin6969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riboflavin6969 ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Bigxii ( talk) 15:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)bigxii
I agree as well KathyKellyExMo ( talk) 17:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)KathyKellyExMo
As a former follower of Kate and believer in her fight for equality, I was sickened to see that she was using her position for personal gain. I believe in the principles she stands for, but cannot, in good faith, support her after she made a mockery of the entire movement with this laptop stunt. This is a well documented (see links above) event that people deserve to know about if they are considering supporting her.
GolfBuddy13 (
talk) 15:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)GolfBuddy13
I have been following Kate Kelly and Ordain Women almost from the beginning. While I am sympathetic to her cause, I've been on the fence about whether Mrs. Kelly is the right face for the movement. The laptop controversy has finally solidified my views that Ordain Women needs a change in leadership in order to effectively advance our objectives. This was a terrible lapse of judgment by Mrs. Kelly and Ordain Women supporters deserve to know about the poor leadership we have at the helm. After all, poor leadership is what we're fighting against in the LDS church, right? How can anybody take our criticism of LDS church leaders seriously if we hide legitimate criticisms of our own OW leaders? Buuffalo ( talk) 16:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Buufalo
I agree with the sentiments already shared here. Heck, I even donated a little to the gofundme page as I am a good friend of Ms. Kelly and her husband Mr. Kelly. My work up on the hill has led to our paths crossing a time or two. In fact, the last time I spoke with John Boehner he brought up the Kate Kelly case since he knows I am a devout Mormon but also not unsympathetic to her as a human being. However, after I put more thought into it I realized that her gofundme was in bad taste so I contacted gofundme directly and they changed my name to say anonymous. This section belongs on this page simply for the discussion that it has created online, all along the Mormon corridor (Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado), in the great state of Texas and even here in the DC area. Thanks. JohnHaddow ( talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)JohnHaddow
I am a current follower of Kate Kelly. Even through the laptop fundraiser. I still believe in what she does and think she's a great example. That being said, the requests to keep the reference to her go fund me campaign off this page seem petty and like censorship. Those of us who love her still do and are proud to have donated. But trying to hide that it happened and caused a lot of social media discussion isn't what Kate would do. She's all about open discussion and freedom of information. Disgruntledninja ( talk) 16:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@ChristensenMJ, couldn't the same be said of the entire article? Except for the recent news regarding the gofundme.com fundraiser, Ms. Kelly has not been in the news and has done nothing of note since her excommunication. She has not further advocated her cause, nor done anything of note, with the exception of this "laptopgate." In short, it would appear that her cause and excommunication were an event blown up by the idea of recentism. If recentism is the standard, then this entire article fails and should be deleted. If indeed, Ms. Kelly is noteworthy enough to be entitled to page in the first place, then he actions that garner recognition from the television and print media, deserve a small but neutral section on her page- whether or not she or her detractors agree or disagree with the context of the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.239.136 ( talk) 17:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
==GoFundMe for personal laptop== In April 2015, Kelly came under fire on social media after setting up a online campaign wherein she solicited donations so that she could buy a MacBook Air laptop to be used for her "gender justice work, both as an activist & professionally." [1]. After initially asking for enough money to purchase an 11" laptop, she upped the goal to 13" plus extra money to purchase a protection plan for the laptop. The online funding campaign was closed two days after it was established.
No. The heading used in the article was a farce and it's obvious there's some sort of organized (either WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK) campaign going on here. Read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Also, please read WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM - personal comments about the subject are not acceptable here. -- NeilN talk to me 18:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This page appears to be experiencing an edit war. Emotions are running high, with some eliminating any contribution they don't like, and others using the page as a soap box. A better approach may be to build consensus through contributing with fact-based evidence. The evidence suggests to me that there have been some controversial actions that should not be hidden, but the use of 'laptop gate' appears excessive. I contributed, what I think is a more balanced view. If any of the claims are inaccurate, please let me know. But the edit--undo--edit--undo eternal regression seems unhelpful. Vermilioncliffs ( talk) 19:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. It seems that the discrepancies arose between her interviews with (I think) a reputable paper (Salt Lake Tribune), the washington post's reprinted letter from her bishop (reputable I think), and her blogs. I can't vouch for the blogs, but she hasn't disavowed them otherwise, so they seem to represent her portrayal of the situation. I eliminated what I thought was my more balanced approach to "laptop gate". I still think it should go in there somewhere (it got state-wide press coverage), but not sure whether it merits creating an entire 'controversies' section, and probably not a 'laptop gate' subsection entry. Vermilioncliffs ( talk) 19:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
References
This wiki page needs considerable improvement. Also, please be consistent: there are numerous improper or unsourced citations that remain in the current article, apparently without any scrutiny. First, the first sentence has a quote without any reference. It also cuts off the sentence without any indicating ellipses. I have updated there. Second, in the second paragraph she describes her excommunication as a violent act, and uses the language of 'abusive and manipulative'. A good page should include some references and explanation as to what was involved in these acts. I have attached and briefly referenced some of the language as pertaining to those proceedings. Vermilioncliffs ( talk) 20:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is written at the beginning that there are over 400 profiles on Ordain Women. In fact recently there are over 600. Thanks for editing. 46.13.76.26 ( talk) 13:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There was a very large edit on this date (June 27th, 2016) that really reduced the size of this page. It was made by someone without a username and does not justify why such a bulk of the page was deleted. I would like to undo that action unless anyone has reason to object or has any more information as to why that happened to justify letting the deletion stand? KMH000 ( talk) 14:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Despite the claim made in the edit summary, there are a number of newspapers in and outside of Utah that have referred to Kelly as a "co-founder" or "one of the founders" of Ordain Women. Here are a few:
A quick google search of "Kate Kelly" "co-founder" and "ordain women" turns up these and several other. Therefore, I am restoring the longstanding text. There are some other tweaks to the recent large edits that IMO are also warrented to align with policies on BLP and recommendations like OVERCITE, so I imagine this discussion will likely become broader. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 00:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll add another source, the "Ordain Women" website itself - Kate Kelly and Ordain Women in the New York Times, which refers to Kate Kelly as "a founder of Ordain Women". Certainly english definite/indefinite articles are weird, but I still think there is enough evidence to say co-founder, or one of the founders, or a founder. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 12:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kate Kelly (feminist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is absolutely no question of notability, when she's been mentioned in all kind of national and international media. So the statement of "Puffery" associated with edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kate_Kelly_(feminist)&oldid=614026921 is ill informed or disingenuous. I've added many of those changes back in. Sanpitch ( talk) 05:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to have this article at Kate Kelly (Mormon feminist) or Kate Kelly (Mormon activist) or something of that nature. The "Mormon" part seems to be a very significant part of her notability, and that might help people looking for the right person at the disambiguation page Kate Kelly. The only problem I could see with this is some people might object to the title since she is technically no longer a member of the LDS Church, but I think we definitely have enough precedent here that non-LDS people can be safely called "Mormon", and it wouldn't surprise me if she still identified as such. Also, we have the "notability is not temporary" rule, and she is definitely notable as a Mormon activist regardless of current affiliation. Thoughts? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 06:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus, probably leaning towards there being a consensus against the move. In any case, this article ain't going anywhere for the time being. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Kate Kelly (feminist) →
Kate Kelly (Mormon feminist) – As discussed above, the "Mormon" aspect is a very significant part of the subject's notability, and its addition would help to further disambiguate her from the 6 other "Kate Kelly"s listed at
Kate Kelly. For those with concerns about her no longer being a member of the LDS Church, I would point to Wikipedia's policy that "
Notability is not temporary" which is why we have articles like
John Smith (Washington politician) even though he is no longer a politician. Also see the discussion above on why we tend to go with peoples' self-identification. Relisted.
Favonian (
talk) 12:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC). ~
Adjwilley (
talk) 03:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous editors keep adding the words "former" or "ex-" in front of Mormon, deleting the word "Mormon", and so forth. Can we agree that post-excommunication Kelly should still be described as a "Mormon", not a "former Mormon", and certainly not an ex-Mormon? For starters, one doesn't have to be a member of the LDS Church to be a Mormon, and probably more importantly, Kelly has given numerous interviews since she was excommunicated stating that she still considers herself a Mormon and has no intention of leaving the faith. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone who is excommunicated is no longer a member on church records. Some have left comments that she self proclaims herself to be Mormon. That doesn't make her a member. Anyone can self proclaim they are something but it doesn't make it true. Since she was excommunicated she is no longer a member of the Mormon church. LXX3 ( talk) 06:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The term Mormon as applied to an adherent to the religion was original a pejorative term, and is even today discouraged by members of the LDS Church. Conversely, it has been embraced by many persons and groups that follow Joseph Smith that are not aligned with the LDS church. The notion that the term would only apply to LDS members is counter-indicated. GCG ( talk) 14:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I have permission from a photographer (Maralise Peterson) to use her photo of Kate Kelly on this page. The photo is not copyrighted. I, however, have no experience loading photo files to Wikipedia. I tried reading over the guidelines/tutorials, but I'm still struggling and I don't want to incorrectly load/attribute the file. Can I send the photo to someone to load or get some guidance on how to properly add the photo to the page? KMH000 ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Uh... wouldn't you also need KATE'S permission?— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.169.21.140 (
talk) 10:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted edits which added the LDS church's views on patriarchy to this section. This section is about Kelly's views, not a place to outline the church's stance on patriarchy and gender roles - those would belong in another wiki. KMH000 ( talk) 17:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This is an important issue to many in the Mormon/Ex-Mormon community. Google it if you don't (1) understand the full relevance or (2) the scope of the issue. It's made local news as the previous edit mentioned and caused a huge rift on social media (facebook, twitter, reddit) not only amongst her detractors, but also amongst those who supported her (myself included) during her advocacy and excommunication.
Many of us in the advocacy community believe that personal monetary gain for advocacy is wrong. Whether you or I believe that or not is immaterial but it's at least something relevant for a person thinking of joining Kate's cause.
And if you believe this is a case of "believers" waging a character attack, then look no further than the top of the reddit exmormon page to see that many, on both sides of the issue, are extremely bothered by her actions.
http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/33j408/seriously_kate_kelly_using_her_fame_to_get_free/ http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/33noou/kate_kelly_the_whole_fung_point_of_this_thread_is/ http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1566750 http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=37896 http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=38480 http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=13990848
KUTV says in this tweet that the story is "currently burning up their website." https://twitter.com/KUTV2News/status/591351095949131776
Should this take up her entire wikipedia page outlining every detail? Of course not, but I don't think you can argue in good conscience that this isn't a noteworthy event. People want to know about this and it'd be a shame if it wasn't included in her wiki page. Riboflavin6969 ( talk) 15:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)riboflavin6969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riboflavin6969 ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Bigxii ( talk) 15:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)bigxii
I agree as well KathyKellyExMo ( talk) 17:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)KathyKellyExMo
As a former follower of Kate and believer in her fight for equality, I was sickened to see that she was using her position for personal gain. I believe in the principles she stands for, but cannot, in good faith, support her after she made a mockery of the entire movement with this laptop stunt. This is a well documented (see links above) event that people deserve to know about if they are considering supporting her.
GolfBuddy13 (
talk) 15:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)GolfBuddy13
I have been following Kate Kelly and Ordain Women almost from the beginning. While I am sympathetic to her cause, I've been on the fence about whether Mrs. Kelly is the right face for the movement. The laptop controversy has finally solidified my views that Ordain Women needs a change in leadership in order to effectively advance our objectives. This was a terrible lapse of judgment by Mrs. Kelly and Ordain Women supporters deserve to know about the poor leadership we have at the helm. After all, poor leadership is what we're fighting against in the LDS church, right? How can anybody take our criticism of LDS church leaders seriously if we hide legitimate criticisms of our own OW leaders? Buuffalo ( talk) 16:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Buufalo
I agree with the sentiments already shared here. Heck, I even donated a little to the gofundme page as I am a good friend of Ms. Kelly and her husband Mr. Kelly. My work up on the hill has led to our paths crossing a time or two. In fact, the last time I spoke with John Boehner he brought up the Kate Kelly case since he knows I am a devout Mormon but also not unsympathetic to her as a human being. However, after I put more thought into it I realized that her gofundme was in bad taste so I contacted gofundme directly and they changed my name to say anonymous. This section belongs on this page simply for the discussion that it has created online, all along the Mormon corridor (Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado), in the great state of Texas and even here in the DC area. Thanks. JohnHaddow ( talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)JohnHaddow
I am a current follower of Kate Kelly. Even through the laptop fundraiser. I still believe in what she does and think she's a great example. That being said, the requests to keep the reference to her go fund me campaign off this page seem petty and like censorship. Those of us who love her still do and are proud to have donated. But trying to hide that it happened and caused a lot of social media discussion isn't what Kate would do. She's all about open discussion and freedom of information. Disgruntledninja ( talk) 16:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@ChristensenMJ, couldn't the same be said of the entire article? Except for the recent news regarding the gofundme.com fundraiser, Ms. Kelly has not been in the news and has done nothing of note since her excommunication. She has not further advocated her cause, nor done anything of note, with the exception of this "laptopgate." In short, it would appear that her cause and excommunication were an event blown up by the idea of recentism. If recentism is the standard, then this entire article fails and should be deleted. If indeed, Ms. Kelly is noteworthy enough to be entitled to page in the first place, then he actions that garner recognition from the television and print media, deserve a small but neutral section on her page- whether or not she or her detractors agree or disagree with the context of the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.239.136 ( talk) 17:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
==GoFundMe for personal laptop== In April 2015, Kelly came under fire on social media after setting up a online campaign wherein she solicited donations so that she could buy a MacBook Air laptop to be used for her "gender justice work, both as an activist & professionally." [1]. After initially asking for enough money to purchase an 11" laptop, she upped the goal to 13" plus extra money to purchase a protection plan for the laptop. The online funding campaign was closed two days after it was established.
No. The heading used in the article was a farce and it's obvious there's some sort of organized (either WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK) campaign going on here. Read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Also, please read WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM - personal comments about the subject are not acceptable here. -- NeilN talk to me 18:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This page appears to be experiencing an edit war. Emotions are running high, with some eliminating any contribution they don't like, and others using the page as a soap box. A better approach may be to build consensus through contributing with fact-based evidence. The evidence suggests to me that there have been some controversial actions that should not be hidden, but the use of 'laptop gate' appears excessive. I contributed, what I think is a more balanced view. If any of the claims are inaccurate, please let me know. But the edit--undo--edit--undo eternal regression seems unhelpful. Vermilioncliffs ( talk) 19:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. It seems that the discrepancies arose between her interviews with (I think) a reputable paper (Salt Lake Tribune), the washington post's reprinted letter from her bishop (reputable I think), and her blogs. I can't vouch for the blogs, but she hasn't disavowed them otherwise, so they seem to represent her portrayal of the situation. I eliminated what I thought was my more balanced approach to "laptop gate". I still think it should go in there somewhere (it got state-wide press coverage), but not sure whether it merits creating an entire 'controversies' section, and probably not a 'laptop gate' subsection entry. Vermilioncliffs ( talk) 19:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
References
This wiki page needs considerable improvement. Also, please be consistent: there are numerous improper or unsourced citations that remain in the current article, apparently without any scrutiny. First, the first sentence has a quote without any reference. It also cuts off the sentence without any indicating ellipses. I have updated there. Second, in the second paragraph she describes her excommunication as a violent act, and uses the language of 'abusive and manipulative'. A good page should include some references and explanation as to what was involved in these acts. I have attached and briefly referenced some of the language as pertaining to those proceedings. Vermilioncliffs ( talk) 20:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is written at the beginning that there are over 400 profiles on Ordain Women. In fact recently there are over 600. Thanks for editing. 46.13.76.26 ( talk) 13:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There was a very large edit on this date (June 27th, 2016) that really reduced the size of this page. It was made by someone without a username and does not justify why such a bulk of the page was deleted. I would like to undo that action unless anyone has reason to object or has any more information as to why that happened to justify letting the deletion stand? KMH000 ( talk) 14:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Despite the claim made in the edit summary, there are a number of newspapers in and outside of Utah that have referred to Kelly as a "co-founder" or "one of the founders" of Ordain Women. Here are a few:
A quick google search of "Kate Kelly" "co-founder" and "ordain women" turns up these and several other. Therefore, I am restoring the longstanding text. There are some other tweaks to the recent large edits that IMO are also warrented to align with policies on BLP and recommendations like OVERCITE, so I imagine this discussion will likely become broader. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 00:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll add another source, the "Ordain Women" website itself - Kate Kelly and Ordain Women in the New York Times, which refers to Kate Kelly as "a founder of Ordain Women". Certainly english definite/indefinite articles are weird, but I still think there is enough evidence to say co-founder, or one of the founders, or a founder. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 12:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)