This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician) 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 |
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on December 14, 2017. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reference ideas for Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician) The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
The Kentucky Center for Public Reporting - a creation of Louisville Public Media recently published the results of their detailed investigation into Johnson; I feel this is probably something we should use as a source. DS ( talk) 04:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
As this is a wiki-page, the article must stick to the facts. The facts are that his dead body was found and it is suspected to be a suicide. The fact is that this man had a criminal record and a history for making dubious claims. There is no evidence to support his claims that he set up a morgue near ground zero on 9/11, and there would be city, federal and state listings of such a thing. So based on that, we can not presume that his claims of 9/11 based ptsd is also true, though he may have had ptsd from some other event, nor has he truthfuly recounted any narrative around 9/11 that can be factually linked to PTSD. The facts are that this man is dead, he had a criminal record and a recent allegation of criminal conduct, his suicide note blamed 9/11, but due to his own bad behavior a great many reasonable adults will believe he took his life to escape justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C002:D83A:C4CC:B871:1603:18D ( talk) 21:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Activist: I'd like to discuss these reversions [2] [3]. Regarding Johnson's use of the title "bishop", I don't see the need to include "self-styled". While the KyCIR article may refer to him as "self-styled", most others I've seen (including The New York Times) simply present the title with no qualification. I took your rather direct suggestion to look up the word bishop in the dictionary. One possible definition is "a spiritual supervisor, overseer, or the like". Unquestionably, the people in Johnson's church saw him in this light. He also seemed to function as what I would call the "pastor" of the church, but his church may call it a bishop instead. If he were a member of a denomination where bishop is a formal office – like Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy – the qualifier would be warranted, but in an apparently self-governing, nondenominational church, I think they are entitled to bestow that designation on whomever they choose without us calling it into question with a qualifier. By the way, did you have a source for the assertion "Though he was never ordained"? The only in-line cite for that sentence is the NYT article, which doesn't even contain the word "ordain".
Regarding Johnson's postsecondary experience, why make the statement more convoluted than it has to be? He claimed to have a doctorate degree from Kingsway; officials there say he didn't. What both seem to agree on is that he took classes there, so that's the simplest thing to say. His false claim to have had a doctorate doesn't seem all that important to me in the overall scheme of his biography, and noting it brings WP:CLAIM into play. Further, you seem intent on weaving in the fact that Kingsway is not accredited. In fact, your recent edit omits the name of the college entirely, as though the fact that it is non-accredited is more important than the name of the college itself! And citing another Wikipedia article as your source is a violation of WP:RSSELF. To me, the article should state that Johnson took classes from Kingsway. Folks interested in finding out more about what kind of college it is can look it up. Ideally, they'd just click through to our article on the college and find out that it isn't accredited (if they care), but we don't currently have an article on Kingsway. Hopefully, someone can rectify that. In any case, shoehorning its non-accredited status in this article seems to me to run afoul of WP:COATRACK. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 19:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Well respected sources did question or even lampoon his taking upon himself the title of "bishop." That they all failed to do so every time, in every article, is to question that all his various ludicrous claims (I love the "raising the dead" part...his "Lazarus" routine) he made, since they all weren't exhaustively challenged by some reliable sources that issued other challenges in the very same articles, somehow confers legitimacy on those spurious claims. Your position defies logic. Activist ( talk) 17:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Bishop: A senior member of the Christian clergy, typically in charge of a diocese and empowered to confer holy orders.
synonyms: diocesan, metropolitan, suffragan, eparch, exarch; formalprelate
"a meeting of the bishops"
The Columbia Journalism Review had a story about the Kentucky Center for Investigative Journalism, and their story about Dan Johnson. Any journalist’s nightmare’: The Pope’s Long Con unraveled a web of lies, with tragic consequences They write: "Louisville Public Media created KyCIR, its nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom, almost four years ago to expose wrongdoing in the public and private sectors and to hold leaders accountable." -- Nbauman ( talk) 15:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to any other particular title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician) → ? – Based on the reliably-sourced prose in the article, Johnson was a religious leader since at least 1977, while he didn't become a politician until 2 January 2017, the same year he died. Further, the amount of the article concerning his religion is more than 1.76 times the size of the prose about his politics. I'm unfamiliar with the optimal nomenclature to use in this instance, reliable sources also referred to the subject as Dan Johnson (pastor), Dan Johnson (preacher), and Dan Johnson (bishop); I'm currently ambivalent about the specific target title. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad ( talk) 16:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
On 8 January 2023 at 14:36 UTC,
Roc0ast3r (
talk ·
contribs)
replaced the article's {{
infobox person}} with {{
infobox state representative}}.
I undid that change 141 minutes later,
saying, + re-modulization of {{infobox state representative}} […] which otherwise unduly emphasized his 245-day stint as a legislator (~8.7% of the article) over his 40-year religious career (~23.8–32% of the article)
. Roughly sixteen hours after that, Roc0ast3r
largely replaced their initial edits in contravention of
WP:BRD and with an
detailed explanation of Update infobox
.
Because that user did not begin the BRD discussion, I'm starting it for them, here. To explain my edit: the less-specific {{ infobox person}} is more appropriate for the Johnson article because when multiple infoboxes could apply (officeholder, clergy), using one infobox over another can emphasize the importance of one aspect of the biography over another (this is also the case of person vs. specific infobox when the latter was a minimal aspect of the biography). This biography isn't to suggest Johnson was a one profession while also (or to a lesser extent) another; he's a person to whom both apply.
I have now replaced the original infobox pending this discussion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
hate speech, Facebook posts, 'and general derision for African-Americans and Muslims'. For editors to say he was better known for a than b is original research; our job is just to summarize the sources. This particular summary, a biography, is roughly 23.8–32% about the subject's 40-year religious career, and approximately 8.7% about his one-year political career; neither warrants being the primary focus nor infobox. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
On 24 January 2024 at 07:23 UTC,
Mad Mismagius (
talk ·
contribs) changed the dates of Johnson's political tenure (from 2 January to 1 January), among other changes, all
without explanation. Especially peculiarly, they didn't change the cited prose in the article. While looking into the change, I found that the Herald-Leader source was actually referring to 2 January 2018, not 2017, so I found two additional sources (Assembly calendar itself & Northern Kentucky Tribune) which referred to the 2017 legislative tenure beginning on 3 January, instead.
On 24 January 2024 at 15:28 UTC, I made several changes to the article; of the date changes I duly explained + expansion (& date-corrections therewith)
.
It was 9.38 hours later when Mad Mismagius changed the infobox date (though, yet again, not the prose itself) back to 1 January, saying this time, Kentucky legislators assume office on January 1st, regardless of the day that the legislature convenes. See section 30 of the KY constitution.
I appreciate this editor's belated explanation, and am generally predisposed to agree with their conclusion, if not their methods.
Wikipedia:Verifiability says, All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
Mad Mismagius did not and has not cited the appropriate source(s) to support their changes, rendering them in contravention of policy and subject to continued reversion until a
reliable source is cited. Secondly,
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes says to keep in mind the purpose of an infobox:
to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article
. In this case, the infobox should reflect the cited prose of the article, which still refers to 3 January 2017, regardless of anything else. Infoboxes should simply be reflective of the prose, and shouldn't ever be contradictory (with the cited prose being superordinate).
I have updated the prose with a citation to a reliable source, and consequently the previous infobox change is now properly reflective. If anyone has any questions about any of this, please let me know! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician) 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 |
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on December 14, 2017. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reference ideas for Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician) The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
The Kentucky Center for Public Reporting - a creation of Louisville Public Media recently published the results of their detailed investigation into Johnson; I feel this is probably something we should use as a source. DS ( talk) 04:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
As this is a wiki-page, the article must stick to the facts. The facts are that his dead body was found and it is suspected to be a suicide. The fact is that this man had a criminal record and a history for making dubious claims. There is no evidence to support his claims that he set up a morgue near ground zero on 9/11, and there would be city, federal and state listings of such a thing. So based on that, we can not presume that his claims of 9/11 based ptsd is also true, though he may have had ptsd from some other event, nor has he truthfuly recounted any narrative around 9/11 that can be factually linked to PTSD. The facts are that this man is dead, he had a criminal record and a recent allegation of criminal conduct, his suicide note blamed 9/11, but due to his own bad behavior a great many reasonable adults will believe he took his life to escape justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C002:D83A:C4CC:B871:1603:18D ( talk) 21:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Activist: I'd like to discuss these reversions [2] [3]. Regarding Johnson's use of the title "bishop", I don't see the need to include "self-styled". While the KyCIR article may refer to him as "self-styled", most others I've seen (including The New York Times) simply present the title with no qualification. I took your rather direct suggestion to look up the word bishop in the dictionary. One possible definition is "a spiritual supervisor, overseer, or the like". Unquestionably, the people in Johnson's church saw him in this light. He also seemed to function as what I would call the "pastor" of the church, but his church may call it a bishop instead. If he were a member of a denomination where bishop is a formal office – like Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy – the qualifier would be warranted, but in an apparently self-governing, nondenominational church, I think they are entitled to bestow that designation on whomever they choose without us calling it into question with a qualifier. By the way, did you have a source for the assertion "Though he was never ordained"? The only in-line cite for that sentence is the NYT article, which doesn't even contain the word "ordain".
Regarding Johnson's postsecondary experience, why make the statement more convoluted than it has to be? He claimed to have a doctorate degree from Kingsway; officials there say he didn't. What both seem to agree on is that he took classes there, so that's the simplest thing to say. His false claim to have had a doctorate doesn't seem all that important to me in the overall scheme of his biography, and noting it brings WP:CLAIM into play. Further, you seem intent on weaving in the fact that Kingsway is not accredited. In fact, your recent edit omits the name of the college entirely, as though the fact that it is non-accredited is more important than the name of the college itself! And citing another Wikipedia article as your source is a violation of WP:RSSELF. To me, the article should state that Johnson took classes from Kingsway. Folks interested in finding out more about what kind of college it is can look it up. Ideally, they'd just click through to our article on the college and find out that it isn't accredited (if they care), but we don't currently have an article on Kingsway. Hopefully, someone can rectify that. In any case, shoehorning its non-accredited status in this article seems to me to run afoul of WP:COATRACK. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 19:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Well respected sources did question or even lampoon his taking upon himself the title of "bishop." That they all failed to do so every time, in every article, is to question that all his various ludicrous claims (I love the "raising the dead" part...his "Lazarus" routine) he made, since they all weren't exhaustively challenged by some reliable sources that issued other challenges in the very same articles, somehow confers legitimacy on those spurious claims. Your position defies logic. Activist ( talk) 17:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Bishop: A senior member of the Christian clergy, typically in charge of a diocese and empowered to confer holy orders.
synonyms: diocesan, metropolitan, suffragan, eparch, exarch; formalprelate
"a meeting of the bishops"
The Columbia Journalism Review had a story about the Kentucky Center for Investigative Journalism, and their story about Dan Johnson. Any journalist’s nightmare’: The Pope’s Long Con unraveled a web of lies, with tragic consequences They write: "Louisville Public Media created KyCIR, its nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom, almost four years ago to expose wrongdoing in the public and private sectors and to hold leaders accountable." -- Nbauman ( talk) 15:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to any other particular title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician) → ? – Based on the reliably-sourced prose in the article, Johnson was a religious leader since at least 1977, while he didn't become a politician until 2 January 2017, the same year he died. Further, the amount of the article concerning his religion is more than 1.76 times the size of the prose about his politics. I'm unfamiliar with the optimal nomenclature to use in this instance, reliable sources also referred to the subject as Dan Johnson (pastor), Dan Johnson (preacher), and Dan Johnson (bishop); I'm currently ambivalent about the specific target title. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad ( talk) 16:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
On 8 January 2023 at 14:36 UTC,
Roc0ast3r (
talk ·
contribs)
replaced the article's {{
infobox person}} with {{
infobox state representative}}.
I undid that change 141 minutes later,
saying, + re-modulization of {{infobox state representative}} […] which otherwise unduly emphasized his 245-day stint as a legislator (~8.7% of the article) over his 40-year religious career (~23.8–32% of the article)
. Roughly sixteen hours after that, Roc0ast3r
largely replaced their initial edits in contravention of
WP:BRD and with an
detailed explanation of Update infobox
.
Because that user did not begin the BRD discussion, I'm starting it for them, here. To explain my edit: the less-specific {{ infobox person}} is more appropriate for the Johnson article because when multiple infoboxes could apply (officeholder, clergy), using one infobox over another can emphasize the importance of one aspect of the biography over another (this is also the case of person vs. specific infobox when the latter was a minimal aspect of the biography). This biography isn't to suggest Johnson was a one profession while also (or to a lesser extent) another; he's a person to whom both apply.
I have now replaced the original infobox pending this discussion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
hate speech, Facebook posts, 'and general derision for African-Americans and Muslims'. For editors to say he was better known for a than b is original research; our job is just to summarize the sources. This particular summary, a biography, is roughly 23.8–32% about the subject's 40-year religious career, and approximately 8.7% about his one-year political career; neither warrants being the primary focus nor infobox. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
On 24 January 2024 at 07:23 UTC,
Mad Mismagius (
talk ·
contribs) changed the dates of Johnson's political tenure (from 2 January to 1 January), among other changes, all
without explanation. Especially peculiarly, they didn't change the cited prose in the article. While looking into the change, I found that the Herald-Leader source was actually referring to 2 January 2018, not 2017, so I found two additional sources (Assembly calendar itself & Northern Kentucky Tribune) which referred to the 2017 legislative tenure beginning on 3 January, instead.
On 24 January 2024 at 15:28 UTC, I made several changes to the article; of the date changes I duly explained + expansion (& date-corrections therewith)
.
It was 9.38 hours later when Mad Mismagius changed the infobox date (though, yet again, not the prose itself) back to 1 January, saying this time, Kentucky legislators assume office on January 1st, regardless of the day that the legislature convenes. See section 30 of the KY constitution.
I appreciate this editor's belated explanation, and am generally predisposed to agree with their conclusion, if not their methods.
Wikipedia:Verifiability says, All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
Mad Mismagius did not and has not cited the appropriate source(s) to support their changes, rendering them in contravention of policy and subject to continued reversion until a
reliable source is cited. Secondly,
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes says to keep in mind the purpose of an infobox:
to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article
. In this case, the infobox should reflect the cited prose of the article, which still refers to 3 January 2017, regardless of anything else. Infoboxes should simply be reflective of the prose, and shouldn't ever be contradictory (with the cited prose being superordinate).
I have updated the prose with a citation to a reliable source, and consequently the previous infobox change is now properly reflective. If anyone has any questions about any of this, please let me know! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)