This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wendy Davis (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 |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think we should semi-protect this page due to the current ongoing filibuster. Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 00:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Notable enough to include in the article? I'm thinking not, since the accused is apparently a person with mental health issues, not a political attacker. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this section's content will ever expand to great enough length to warrant its own section, so it should probably be merged elsewhere, possibly the "State Senate" section. Thoughts? ComfyKem ( talk) 01:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This whole filibuster regarding the dead bill thing, is huge, it's a little too huge for it to not have its own article here. This is a feminist thing, this is a human body thing, this is a government thing, and this is a social media thing, and I think it is rightfully deserving of its own article. -- Matt723star ( talk) 21:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
External links should include the usual template:
Note: c-span only has a Vermont Wendy Davis currently, but that should soon be updated. 184.78.81.245 ( talk) 15:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wendy_Davis_2010.jpg
More opinions are welcome. ComfyKem ( talk) 16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Her elections are currently in reverse order. Our Manual of Style is quite clear that biographical articles are written in chronological order, and that tables of elections and results should be in chronological order as well. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
A past screenshot of this article is now all over the twitter-verse here. Bearian ( talk) 20:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Why was my edit about her ex-husband, Jeff Davis, removed? It is notable that he served on the Ft. Worth City Council before her and aided in her being elected to office. He is a prominent attorney and they divorced in 2003. Why leave that out? TexianPolitico ( talk) 15:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Wendy Davis' campaign issued new bullet at her campaign site, acknowledging she was caught is several lies, 1) she did not work her way through college, her husband whom she was unfaithful to, paid for her Harvard degree and she then divorced him 2 weeks after he paid the last tuition installment 3) She did not "live in a trailer" she stay with someone who lived in a trailer after she divorced her first husband (at 21)whom she used, 4) she divorsed at 21 not 19 which she claimed. She just used men, lied about how they helped her, tried to take credit for being a wonder woman, and wore a catheter to aid her "stamina" in a filibuster. She is truly a devious creep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 ( talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There are now several news sources parroting and corroborating the Brietbart News story Cullen. Since this is a neutral encyclopedia I'm sure you will make sure that the CNN and Washington Post citations are noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 ( talk) 04:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the ex-husband's adultery claims, there is no reason to include them (unless you are editing with an agenda) as all kinds of unproven claims can be made in initial filings. If this is the only source, and the final ruling did not mention it, then the claim should probably be treated as a WP:SPS. -- NeilN talk to me 15:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is the link to the FEDERAL COURT Transcription of of Wendy Davis' testimony where she made the false statements about paying for her own education. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/4am.pdf
Replace the CNN news article by A Killough of January 20, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 ( talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The Court document is a record of her comments. The CNN article is a report of her testimony. You intend to block the Court Record which does not have information related to her address etc which is the intent AND you erased the CNN citation referencing it. Her statements ARE a matter of public record. Stop Vandalizing the article under the pretext of editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 ( talk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Article incorrectly states "...had used to pitch herself to voters in Texas...", when she is still using it http://www.davis.senate.state.tx.us/ 2601:0:8A80:8AF:0:0:0:1002 ( talk) 06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
When I started editing the early life section, I just followed the existing usage of "Russell" to refer to Wendy Davis. It does become confusing. I think the suggestion that references be cleaned up is a good one.-- NK ( talk) 16:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
just follow the second Ref. Texasgov14 ( talk) 12:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
http://news.msn.com/us/wendy-daviss-biography-has-some-inconsistencies?ocid=ansnews11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 ( talk) 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/21/wendy-davis-under-fire-for-flubbed-details-in-life-story/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/21/why-wendy-davis-resume-issues-matter/
http://www.cbs3springfield.com/story/24502058/wendy-davis-story-may-have-misstated-details
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/wendy-davis-story-misstated-details-21605006
AP News service Will Weissert:
Reuters News, John Herskovitz:
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-democrat-davis-battles-suspicions-embellishing-life-story-222428107.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/wendy-davis-has-a-problem-with-the-truth-102497.html
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/01/24/wendy-davis-gave-custody-youngest-daughter-2005-divorce Michael Leahy
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/23/wendy-davis-texas-lies-biography-column/4806301/ Katrina Trinko
http://nypost.com/2014/01/24/wendy-davis-has-no-future-in-politics/ "Wendy Davis has no future in politics", Naomi Schaefer Riley, January 24, 2014
"Want to know why Wendy Davis will have trouble winning higher office in Texas or anywhere else in America? It’s not because she stretched the truth in her “from mobile-home-living single mom to Harvard Law grad” campaign biography, nor because her husband paid for her education, nor even because she placed a lot of value on her career. Nope: It’s because Davis, the Lone Star State senator who became famous for her filibuster of an abortion-limiting bill in Texas, lost custody of her children to her ex-husband."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/24/wendy-davis-tied-video-mocks-wheelchair-bound-greg/
Cheryl K. Chumley
This is a story about Wendy Davis' team mocking a disabled man.
From the Houston Chronicle:
“When she was accepted to Harvard Law School, Jeff Davis cashed in his 401(k) account and eventually took out a loan to pay for her final year there." by Kathleen McKinley, January 20, 2014
This section seems to be grossly unfair, misleading and factually at odds with CNN article cited. Mrs Davis had her daughters in Boston the first year of law school and her mother helped care for them the remaining two years when she returned weekly to see them. It also gives the clear impression that Mrs Davis was not a contributing member of the household during the years from 1993 to the divorce in 2005, when in fact she was gainfully employed during that entire time. The article also makes it sound like she had her parental rights stripped of her, when in fact she wanted to have her daughters finish being raised in the house they grew up in. jay ( talk) 06:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The conduct being committed on this article and talk page is abominable. Multiple neutral sources of encyclopedic content being cited but because the liberal denialist spinbots do not like, they keep removing it from both pages. An embarrassment to entire nature of the Wikipedia project. There is no moving the goalposts-it either is encyclopedic content from a neutral POV or it isn't and this one is not close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 ( talk) 15:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, Please do not attack other editors, as you did here. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
As if being an ip editor is inferior. Mission accomplished, purposeful ignorance in favor of a personal agenda. Doing the world a real service by framing facts to best suit your needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 ( talk) 20:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
If this problem was addressed months ago, there would not be continued pages of people trying to properly edit this page to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.4.211 ( talk) 23:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the article it says she was divorced at 19, when actually it was 21*
Mac2809 ( talk) 09:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Having read in the news recently about the controversy over the history narrative of Wendy Davis' past, I came to Wikipedia to read what I expected would be a balanced neutral-with-both-sides-presented view of the controversy. Instead, I find the article totally devoid of any mention of the controversy. Odd. N2e ( talk) 14:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
===Level 3===
heading within the "Campaign for governor..." section, or maybe just integrated in prose into that section.The consensus developed above appears to be one where it would be better to explicate the current controversy in the "Campaign for Governor of Texas" section of the article. Moreover, for a politician who is, now, in February of 2014, mostly known nationally by her campaign for Governor, that is an very empty section, and should be significantly expanded, which should balance the controversy with the many other aspects of her campaign, maintaining a WP:NPOV. So if some editor comes along and wants to do the work of expanding and better explicating the Wendy Davis governorship campaign, I believe that work would have a Talk page consensus behind it. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor removed the reference to two legal documents: (1) Temporary Restraining Order placed on Wendy Davis right after the divorce papers were filed, in 2003, Case No. 324 359765 03, Tarrant County, Texas, November 25, 2003 and (2) the final settlement order in the divorce between Wendy Davis and Jeff Davis, in 2005. In the Matter of the Marriage of Wendy Russell Davis and Jeffry Rowland Davis and In the Interest of Dru Amelia Davis, a minor child The editor claims, clearly incorrectly, that the documents were hosted "anonymously". That is simply not true. The first document is hosted by Erick Erickson of CNN and the second is hosted by so-called fact-checking service at the Austin American-Statesman. This documents are notable and available. Please do remove then again without a real discussion, a discussion where we discuss substance, not incorrect, factually challenged, assumptions such as the previous assumption that they were "anonymously" hosted or whatever.-- NK ( talk) 22:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Paulojohnson removed this stating the sources did not back up the content. The CNN source has this, "From there, she eventually put herself through community college, Texas Christian University, and Harvard Law School with the help of scholarship and loans" (emphasis mine). Can the language we use better reflect the source? -- NeilN talk to me 02:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
At first glance Iricova's changes look fine to me. Reminder that edit summaries are not really substitutes for the talk page when giving detailed reasons for reverts. -- NeilN talk to me 18:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit by NazariyKaminski is not NPOV, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wendy_Davis_%28politician%29&diff=596247190&oldid=596246722 There are differing opinions as to when single motherhood begins e.g. Guardian notes that she was separated at 19. It should read, the "According to the Dallas Morning News, Davis became a single mother when her divorce was finalized at age 21, not 19." as it is their opinion. Iricova ( talk) 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit by NazariyKaminski also appears to be along the same lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wendy_Davis_%28politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=596246722 Removing "married for 18 years" is not "whitewashing" as he claims. The details of the end of their marriage are more accurately described below. Even if divorce finalized after 18 years (2005), they were separated after 16.5 years (fall 2003). Iricova ( talk) 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to take a deep breath and consider what we are actually talking about. Politicians massage their personal stories all the time. In this case, she probably went farther than normal, and it's become a story, so it's worth noting. However, I would argue that it is unencyclopedic to dedicate so much space to detailing every particular aspect of her early life that she might have been less than clear about. It is particularly important that we be careful about issues like this given WP:BLP. Imagine some other politician or public figure who you know of saying that they got divorced when they were 19 instead of 21, or didn't specify how long they lived in a trailer park, and ask yourself how much space in their article you would dedicate to those mistakes. Trumplump ( talk) 13:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Trumplump: what was the damage? Texasgov14 ( talk) 13:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I dont see it that way. But I agree with the source thing. Texasgov14 ( talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
[1] has something to do with the texas voter id law, i dont know i cant read it, does anyone really care? because that would be a citation for the name she changed to... Texasgov14 ( talk) 15:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
References
Ok. First it seems that you are new to wikipedia, so please read the major policies. A lot of your behavior makes no sense or is downright disruptive, so it's important that you educate yourself. Second, the reason I am reverting you (and others are, too) is that your edits are of obviously poor quality and detracting from the quality of the article. Let's look at one of the paragraphs in the article when you got through with it:
There are parentheses where they don't belong, sentences that are difficult to understand, and sentences that aren't even complete sentences. None of these problems existed before your edits. If you can't see the problem, then you have a poor grasp of written English and should ask for input and proofreading on the talk page before you make any changes. If you can see the problem, please be more careful in the future. In the meantime, I see that you have inserted these problematic edits again without consensus and against the advice of multiple editors. This is disruptive and against policy. Please stop. I'll revert them once more and then refrain per wp:3rr. Trumplump ( talk) 16:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
References
FWStarTinsley10032013
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).why dont you fix it and not revert? Texasgov14 ( talk) 16:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
A citation is not required to contain a link. I can cite a book I just read, but it might be tough to link to it. The article in 3 notes her full name as it is shown on her drivers' license. As I noted before, I think you should read the major wikipedia policies to get a better handle on these things. Her Texas Senate page is the exact opposite of an independent source. I don't want to be insulting, but is your first language English? Trumplump ( talk) 17:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
NazariyKaminski, the views in the quote you're attempting to use are completely uncorroborated. We do not add accusations by unnamed people to BLP's. -- NeilN talk to me 20:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The contested quote is problematic, the rest of the NYT story, however, meets WP:RS and WP:BLP criteria. Collect ( talk) 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I did a complete rewrite of the Early life... section. Probably the biggest change in content was to remove any mention of the recent political controversy over her life story, because that really belongs in the section on her run for governor. This section should strictly be about her actual early life. I put a small paragraph about the issue in that section. I think it's best that it stay relatively small, because it's not that big of an issue in the grand scheme, and the more detail is in there the more likely we are to have edit conflicts. I'd suggest that any additions to that focus on its impact on the race going forward, rather than the specifics of what she got wrong or who said what.
Beyond that, the section was also a mess in terms of chronology, style, sourcing, etc. I tried to fix all of that while still covering the same information. As I wrote it, the section mostly just refers to her as 'Wendy,' which is kind of informal but is probably the least ambiguous choice for multiple reasons. I tried to write it so that a reader can follow her actual life story in an understandable, verifiable way. There was a lot to fix so it's probably still not perfect, and I am open to any constructive criticism. Trumplump ( talk) 16:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
100% correct Cirrus as anyone can see from this talk page and the edits, whatever casts her in a positive light is gospel and must be highlighted and even properly sourced material to the contrary is summarily editted out. Mind boggling that these edittors not only make it their full time job but that this behaviour is permitted to continue ad infinitum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.4.211 ( talk) 23:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@ NazariyKaminski: you seem to have a tendency to revert productive, good faith edits without good reason and without examining the results. Take your most recent revert of my work -- here's how the affected section stands now:
If you read it carefully, you may note poor quality, including spelling and grammatical errors. There is also a lack of verifiability/sourcing, for example in that the source never says that pieces of information "we[re] misunderstood by some," but rather that they were misstated or incomplete. As far as NPOV, I would argue that a general statement basically saying "but her kids still like her!" in spite of criticism is not particularly useful in the context of this encyclopedia article. None of these issues existed before yesterday, when they were introduced without discussion, despite the implication in your edit summary that there was consensus around that version. From now on, it might be best to come to the discussion page first, because I think this quick, needless reverting has been an issue more than once. Thanks. Trumplump ( talk) 21:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
A quote from the page: "Davis is the first female nominee for Texas governor since Ann Richards was defeated in 1994 by George W. Bush". This is, plainly and simply, not true. Kathie Glass was nominated and ran on the Libertarian ticket in 2010... and that is just the first woman nominee that comes to mind. 50.26.76.176 ( talk) 23:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.76.176 ( talk) 23:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM, WP:BLP - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
We need a section and contributions for, Wendy Davis' failure to win the Governor of Texas election. "The First Woman Nominated Since Ann Richards" is a harbinger of the result since it is the only silver lining she can derive from her campaign. There will be 100s of articles and news items related to her double digit slaughter in the polls in about 5 weeks so some effort should be made to organize an outline for her dismal performance. Title of propose section: Failed Gubernatorial Attempt. Subsections: Sugardaddy Husband, Derogatory remarks about Abbott's handicap, Blue the State incompetence/corruption, Obama's negative effect, Feminist Sleaze, Child Dumping, Witch Factor. There will be 100's of obituaries about her political life so the above represents a small selection of the categories of the reasons for her popularity implosion. The organization of the volume of ridicule will be tough to handle logistically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.239.21 ( talk) 20:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC) These are facts published by a news paper source placed here as reference material for all to consider. Not just here for NeilN to vandalize. So Stop erasing legitimate public news articles, quotes and references Recent arguments for her dismal performance published in the Washington Examiner October 29, 2014: The obituary is now being written... Title:"The spectacular self-emolation of Wendy Davis." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-spectacular-self-immolation-of-wendy-davis/article/2555426. Reasons as written in the Washington Examiner in quotes:
|
Given the attention it has had in the media, it needs to be part of this article. False accusations from NeilN aside (I copy/pasted from the articles directly), it needs to be in here. If the wording need to be adjusted slightly, fine. But please refrain from the personal attacks. 107.194.218.9 ( talk) 14:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, you need to STOP with the personal attacks. As I stated above I copy/pasted from the article. You've been around a while, you know better. 107.194.218.9 ( talk) 21:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Wendy Davis accused her opponent, in her 2014 gubernatorial bid, to be a racist. In a personal tweet through a twitter.com account she said the following: Greg Abbott won't say whether he'd defend an interracial marriage ban—troubling but not surprising from someone who defends a "poll tax." — Wendy Davis (@WendyDavisTexas) October 20, 2014.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2800654/texas-attorney-general-gop-gov-candidate-greg-abbott-won-t-answer-hypothetical-question-interracial-marriage-ban.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:384:F596:BF26:3D3C:D944 ( talk) 22:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/wendy-davis-last-hope-for-victory-12883370/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:384:F596:BF26:3D3C:D944 ( talk) 11:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Davis's opponent who is involved in an interracial marriage was accused of wanting to ban such an arranment by Davis in a tweet.
This article reads like pro-Davis puffery. 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 02:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Aaron Blake: [7]
and appears to be not a "random blogger" but someone who is an actual employee of the Washington Post. Collect ( talk) 20:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Means what? AFAICT, there is nothing to indicate she graduated with honours, nor does this appear to be anything more than opinion. Is top 50% "top"? Top 25% = "top"? If there is no clear meaning, and her biography makes no claim as to honours, does "top of her class" belong in this BLP? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Curious The first in her family to earn a college degree, she attended Tarrant County College, graduated top of her class at Texas Christian University and with honors from Harvard Law School. Senator Davis is a partner in Newby Davis, PLLC, a certified MWBE law firm, and serves as Counsel to Cantey Hanger, LLP as well appears to be an autobiographical claim - I can not believe that an actual uni would use "MWBE" where "MBE" was correct. Ditto A recognized leader on veteran's issues, education, law enforcement, transportation, and economic development, TCU Honors alumna Senator Wendy Davis — an attorney, business owner and former Fort Worth City Councilwoman — earned numerous honors for her first session in the 81st Legislature. which is pure PR wording. Can you find an actual reliable source cite that she graduated first in her class at TCU anywhere? Compare also the SPS at
[8] After graduating top of her class at Texas Christian University and then earning her law degree from Harvard, using the exact same phrase "top of her class". Also note "an avid runner and cyclist" appears in multiple places. Sorry - the signs are there that the claim is based on SPS material. And the TCU page appears to be PR and SPS - and is not a reliable secondary source for her being "top of her class" whatever that means. Please find a real genuine secondary reliable source for claims of that nature, which appear parenthetical at best.
Collect (
talk) 14:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
With the help of academic scholarships, student loans, and state and federal grants, Wendy became the first person in her family to earn a bachelor’s degree, graduated first in her class, and went on to Harvard Law School. is from her own campaign website. Again - this appears to be SPS. Can you find a source independent of her own press releases making this claim? Please? Collect ( talk) 14:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I eventually went on to TCU, graduating first in my class and becoming the first in my family to graduate college. I continued to pursue my educational dreams, going on to graduate with honors from Harvard Law School. I am the proud mother of two daughters, Amber and Dru. is from her personal LinkedIn page
[9]. Again - SPS, and so far assiduously looking only finds sources using her own autobiographical claims. "She began working after school at age 14 to help support her single mother and three siblings, according to her campaign website. "By 19, Wendy was a single mother herself, working two jobs to make ends meet in hopes of creating a better life for her young daughter."" is the CNN claim - ascribed, once again, to her "campaign website." Campaign websites are not RS for claims in BLPs. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 14:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Despite what the IP has claimed, there were no content deletions, major or otherwise. Three short subsections were combined into the first campaign section. -- NeilN talk to me 23:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
New section: Wendy Davis' Gubernatorial race Loss
Washington Post article: by Jay Root at Texas Tribune titled "Wendy Davis lost badly. Here’s how it happened." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/06/wendy-davis-lost-really-badly-heres-how-it-happened/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.239.21 ( talk)
Based on quotations contained in the above Washington Post article, Jay Root says that there are several explanations as to why Wendy Davis was drubbed.
Her loss was due to muddled messages, lack of connection via ads regarding her trailer trash story, general incoherence, confusion about the accuracy of her biography, and a terrible ad involving a wheelchair that backfired.
(Muddled Messages) "Thirteen months later, that unexecuted strategy sits atop a trash heap of failed tactics, unmet goals and muddled messages that helped doom Davis to an embarrassing defeat long before the voters rendered their verdict Tuesday night."
(Poor ad targeting) "When the curtain came down on Team Davis, the campaign had not aired a single English-language TV ad focusing on the Fort Worth senator’s up-from-the-trailer-park narrative "
(general incoherence) "Whatever it started out as, it bordered on incoherence in the waning days of the race."
(confusion about the accuracy of her biography) "...But not all of the details were accurate. She was 21, not 19, when she divorced, for example. And her husband’s role in paying for her Harvard education had been played down in the official campaign version, the newspaper noted."
(an ad depicting a wheelchair that backfired) Abbott strategist Dave Carney said that airing the expensive TV ad in the dead of summer was one of two gigantic tactical errors Davis made with her advertising campaign. The second, he said, was running the now-infamous “wheelchair ad,” which opened with an empty wheelchair and this jarring line: “A tree fell on Greg Abbott.”
The spot was meant to illustrate hypocrisy on the part of her disabled opponent — specifically, that Abbott sued after his freak accident in 1984 but later sided against victims who sought similar remedies from the civil justice system.
Carney recalls seeing the ad pop up on his phone at Terry Black’s Barbecue in Austin, where he was having lunch with Republican consultants Mark Miner and Rob Johnson.
“I thought my phone stopped because the wheelchair was sort of frozen in place,” he said. “We were all, like, this is crazy.”
By the time he got back to his office after lunch, the ad was well on its way to becoming a giant media firestorm, eventually causing even some liberal supporters to question the wisdom of it.
“It was such a self-inflicted wound, because if you had put a picture of Abbott in the wheelchair at the beginning of the ad, it would not have been an issue,” he said. “The empty wheelchair was the issue."
NeilN, you may delete the quoted material referenced to the Washington Post as you see fit. My synopsis is above and is based on the Washington Post Article.
Other people may want to chime in on this NeilN. Stop deleting large sections of text capriciously.
It's her new thing. Watching it for now until it becomes notable.
Hcobb ( talk) 21:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Wendy Davis is running for congress in the Democratic primary for TX-21: https://www.texastribune.org/2019/07/22/wendy-davis-congress-against-chip-roy/ Cody.berdinis ( talk) 16:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wendy Davis (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 |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think we should semi-protect this page due to the current ongoing filibuster. Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 00:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Notable enough to include in the article? I'm thinking not, since the accused is apparently a person with mental health issues, not a political attacker. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this section's content will ever expand to great enough length to warrant its own section, so it should probably be merged elsewhere, possibly the "State Senate" section. Thoughts? ComfyKem ( talk) 01:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This whole filibuster regarding the dead bill thing, is huge, it's a little too huge for it to not have its own article here. This is a feminist thing, this is a human body thing, this is a government thing, and this is a social media thing, and I think it is rightfully deserving of its own article. -- Matt723star ( talk) 21:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
External links should include the usual template:
Note: c-span only has a Vermont Wendy Davis currently, but that should soon be updated. 184.78.81.245 ( talk) 15:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wendy_Davis_2010.jpg
More opinions are welcome. ComfyKem ( talk) 16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Her elections are currently in reverse order. Our Manual of Style is quite clear that biographical articles are written in chronological order, and that tables of elections and results should be in chronological order as well. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
A past screenshot of this article is now all over the twitter-verse here. Bearian ( talk) 20:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Why was my edit about her ex-husband, Jeff Davis, removed? It is notable that he served on the Ft. Worth City Council before her and aided in her being elected to office. He is a prominent attorney and they divorced in 2003. Why leave that out? TexianPolitico ( talk) 15:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Wendy Davis' campaign issued new bullet at her campaign site, acknowledging she was caught is several lies, 1) she did not work her way through college, her husband whom she was unfaithful to, paid for her Harvard degree and she then divorced him 2 weeks after he paid the last tuition installment 3) She did not "live in a trailer" she stay with someone who lived in a trailer after she divorced her first husband (at 21)whom she used, 4) she divorsed at 21 not 19 which she claimed. She just used men, lied about how they helped her, tried to take credit for being a wonder woman, and wore a catheter to aid her "stamina" in a filibuster. She is truly a devious creep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 ( talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There are now several news sources parroting and corroborating the Brietbart News story Cullen. Since this is a neutral encyclopedia I'm sure you will make sure that the CNN and Washington Post citations are noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 ( talk) 04:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the ex-husband's adultery claims, there is no reason to include them (unless you are editing with an agenda) as all kinds of unproven claims can be made in initial filings. If this is the only source, and the final ruling did not mention it, then the claim should probably be treated as a WP:SPS. -- NeilN talk to me 15:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is the link to the FEDERAL COURT Transcription of of Wendy Davis' testimony where she made the false statements about paying for her own education. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/4am.pdf
Replace the CNN news article by A Killough of January 20, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 ( talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The Court document is a record of her comments. The CNN article is a report of her testimony. You intend to block the Court Record which does not have information related to her address etc which is the intent AND you erased the CNN citation referencing it. Her statements ARE a matter of public record. Stop Vandalizing the article under the pretext of editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 ( talk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Article incorrectly states "...had used to pitch herself to voters in Texas...", when she is still using it http://www.davis.senate.state.tx.us/ 2601:0:8A80:8AF:0:0:0:1002 ( talk) 06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
When I started editing the early life section, I just followed the existing usage of "Russell" to refer to Wendy Davis. It does become confusing. I think the suggestion that references be cleaned up is a good one.-- NK ( talk) 16:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
just follow the second Ref. Texasgov14 ( talk) 12:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
http://news.msn.com/us/wendy-daviss-biography-has-some-inconsistencies?ocid=ansnews11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 ( talk) 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/21/wendy-davis-under-fire-for-flubbed-details-in-life-story/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/21/why-wendy-davis-resume-issues-matter/
http://www.cbs3springfield.com/story/24502058/wendy-davis-story-may-have-misstated-details
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/wendy-davis-story-misstated-details-21605006
AP News service Will Weissert:
Reuters News, John Herskovitz:
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-democrat-davis-battles-suspicions-embellishing-life-story-222428107.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/wendy-davis-has-a-problem-with-the-truth-102497.html
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/01/24/wendy-davis-gave-custody-youngest-daughter-2005-divorce Michael Leahy
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/23/wendy-davis-texas-lies-biography-column/4806301/ Katrina Trinko
http://nypost.com/2014/01/24/wendy-davis-has-no-future-in-politics/ "Wendy Davis has no future in politics", Naomi Schaefer Riley, January 24, 2014
"Want to know why Wendy Davis will have trouble winning higher office in Texas or anywhere else in America? It’s not because she stretched the truth in her “from mobile-home-living single mom to Harvard Law grad” campaign biography, nor because her husband paid for her education, nor even because she placed a lot of value on her career. Nope: It’s because Davis, the Lone Star State senator who became famous for her filibuster of an abortion-limiting bill in Texas, lost custody of her children to her ex-husband."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/24/wendy-davis-tied-video-mocks-wheelchair-bound-greg/
Cheryl K. Chumley
This is a story about Wendy Davis' team mocking a disabled man.
From the Houston Chronicle:
“When she was accepted to Harvard Law School, Jeff Davis cashed in his 401(k) account and eventually took out a loan to pay for her final year there." by Kathleen McKinley, January 20, 2014
This section seems to be grossly unfair, misleading and factually at odds with CNN article cited. Mrs Davis had her daughters in Boston the first year of law school and her mother helped care for them the remaining two years when she returned weekly to see them. It also gives the clear impression that Mrs Davis was not a contributing member of the household during the years from 1993 to the divorce in 2005, when in fact she was gainfully employed during that entire time. The article also makes it sound like she had her parental rights stripped of her, when in fact she wanted to have her daughters finish being raised in the house they grew up in. jay ( talk) 06:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The conduct being committed on this article and talk page is abominable. Multiple neutral sources of encyclopedic content being cited but because the liberal denialist spinbots do not like, they keep removing it from both pages. An embarrassment to entire nature of the Wikipedia project. There is no moving the goalposts-it either is encyclopedic content from a neutral POV or it isn't and this one is not close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 ( talk) 15:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, Please do not attack other editors, as you did here. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
As if being an ip editor is inferior. Mission accomplished, purposeful ignorance in favor of a personal agenda. Doing the world a real service by framing facts to best suit your needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 ( talk) 20:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
If this problem was addressed months ago, there would not be continued pages of people trying to properly edit this page to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.4.211 ( talk) 23:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the article it says she was divorced at 19, when actually it was 21*
Mac2809 ( talk) 09:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Having read in the news recently about the controversy over the history narrative of Wendy Davis' past, I came to Wikipedia to read what I expected would be a balanced neutral-with-both-sides-presented view of the controversy. Instead, I find the article totally devoid of any mention of the controversy. Odd. N2e ( talk) 14:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
===Level 3===
heading within the "Campaign for governor..." section, or maybe just integrated in prose into that section.The consensus developed above appears to be one where it would be better to explicate the current controversy in the "Campaign for Governor of Texas" section of the article. Moreover, for a politician who is, now, in February of 2014, mostly known nationally by her campaign for Governor, that is an very empty section, and should be significantly expanded, which should balance the controversy with the many other aspects of her campaign, maintaining a WP:NPOV. So if some editor comes along and wants to do the work of expanding and better explicating the Wendy Davis governorship campaign, I believe that work would have a Talk page consensus behind it. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor removed the reference to two legal documents: (1) Temporary Restraining Order placed on Wendy Davis right after the divorce papers were filed, in 2003, Case No. 324 359765 03, Tarrant County, Texas, November 25, 2003 and (2) the final settlement order in the divorce between Wendy Davis and Jeff Davis, in 2005. In the Matter of the Marriage of Wendy Russell Davis and Jeffry Rowland Davis and In the Interest of Dru Amelia Davis, a minor child The editor claims, clearly incorrectly, that the documents were hosted "anonymously". That is simply not true. The first document is hosted by Erick Erickson of CNN and the second is hosted by so-called fact-checking service at the Austin American-Statesman. This documents are notable and available. Please do remove then again without a real discussion, a discussion where we discuss substance, not incorrect, factually challenged, assumptions such as the previous assumption that they were "anonymously" hosted or whatever.-- NK ( talk) 22:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Paulojohnson removed this stating the sources did not back up the content. The CNN source has this, "From there, she eventually put herself through community college, Texas Christian University, and Harvard Law School with the help of scholarship and loans" (emphasis mine). Can the language we use better reflect the source? -- NeilN talk to me 02:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
At first glance Iricova's changes look fine to me. Reminder that edit summaries are not really substitutes for the talk page when giving detailed reasons for reverts. -- NeilN talk to me 18:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit by NazariyKaminski is not NPOV, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wendy_Davis_%28politician%29&diff=596247190&oldid=596246722 There are differing opinions as to when single motherhood begins e.g. Guardian notes that she was separated at 19. It should read, the "According to the Dallas Morning News, Davis became a single mother when her divorce was finalized at age 21, not 19." as it is their opinion. Iricova ( talk) 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit by NazariyKaminski also appears to be along the same lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wendy_Davis_%28politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=596246722 Removing "married for 18 years" is not "whitewashing" as he claims. The details of the end of their marriage are more accurately described below. Even if divorce finalized after 18 years (2005), they were separated after 16.5 years (fall 2003). Iricova ( talk) 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to take a deep breath and consider what we are actually talking about. Politicians massage their personal stories all the time. In this case, she probably went farther than normal, and it's become a story, so it's worth noting. However, I would argue that it is unencyclopedic to dedicate so much space to detailing every particular aspect of her early life that she might have been less than clear about. It is particularly important that we be careful about issues like this given WP:BLP. Imagine some other politician or public figure who you know of saying that they got divorced when they were 19 instead of 21, or didn't specify how long they lived in a trailer park, and ask yourself how much space in their article you would dedicate to those mistakes. Trumplump ( talk) 13:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Trumplump: what was the damage? Texasgov14 ( talk) 13:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I dont see it that way. But I agree with the source thing. Texasgov14 ( talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
[1] has something to do with the texas voter id law, i dont know i cant read it, does anyone really care? because that would be a citation for the name she changed to... Texasgov14 ( talk) 15:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
References
Ok. First it seems that you are new to wikipedia, so please read the major policies. A lot of your behavior makes no sense or is downright disruptive, so it's important that you educate yourself. Second, the reason I am reverting you (and others are, too) is that your edits are of obviously poor quality and detracting from the quality of the article. Let's look at one of the paragraphs in the article when you got through with it:
There are parentheses where they don't belong, sentences that are difficult to understand, and sentences that aren't even complete sentences. None of these problems existed before your edits. If you can't see the problem, then you have a poor grasp of written English and should ask for input and proofreading on the talk page before you make any changes. If you can see the problem, please be more careful in the future. In the meantime, I see that you have inserted these problematic edits again without consensus and against the advice of multiple editors. This is disruptive and against policy. Please stop. I'll revert them once more and then refrain per wp:3rr. Trumplump ( talk) 16:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
References
FWStarTinsley10032013
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).why dont you fix it and not revert? Texasgov14 ( talk) 16:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
A citation is not required to contain a link. I can cite a book I just read, but it might be tough to link to it. The article in 3 notes her full name as it is shown on her drivers' license. As I noted before, I think you should read the major wikipedia policies to get a better handle on these things. Her Texas Senate page is the exact opposite of an independent source. I don't want to be insulting, but is your first language English? Trumplump ( talk) 17:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
NazariyKaminski, the views in the quote you're attempting to use are completely uncorroborated. We do not add accusations by unnamed people to BLP's. -- NeilN talk to me 20:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The contested quote is problematic, the rest of the NYT story, however, meets WP:RS and WP:BLP criteria. Collect ( talk) 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I did a complete rewrite of the Early life... section. Probably the biggest change in content was to remove any mention of the recent political controversy over her life story, because that really belongs in the section on her run for governor. This section should strictly be about her actual early life. I put a small paragraph about the issue in that section. I think it's best that it stay relatively small, because it's not that big of an issue in the grand scheme, and the more detail is in there the more likely we are to have edit conflicts. I'd suggest that any additions to that focus on its impact on the race going forward, rather than the specifics of what she got wrong or who said what.
Beyond that, the section was also a mess in terms of chronology, style, sourcing, etc. I tried to fix all of that while still covering the same information. As I wrote it, the section mostly just refers to her as 'Wendy,' which is kind of informal but is probably the least ambiguous choice for multiple reasons. I tried to write it so that a reader can follow her actual life story in an understandable, verifiable way. There was a lot to fix so it's probably still not perfect, and I am open to any constructive criticism. Trumplump ( talk) 16:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
100% correct Cirrus as anyone can see from this talk page and the edits, whatever casts her in a positive light is gospel and must be highlighted and even properly sourced material to the contrary is summarily editted out. Mind boggling that these edittors not only make it their full time job but that this behaviour is permitted to continue ad infinitum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.4.211 ( talk) 23:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@ NazariyKaminski: you seem to have a tendency to revert productive, good faith edits without good reason and without examining the results. Take your most recent revert of my work -- here's how the affected section stands now:
If you read it carefully, you may note poor quality, including spelling and grammatical errors. There is also a lack of verifiability/sourcing, for example in that the source never says that pieces of information "we[re] misunderstood by some," but rather that they were misstated or incomplete. As far as NPOV, I would argue that a general statement basically saying "but her kids still like her!" in spite of criticism is not particularly useful in the context of this encyclopedia article. None of these issues existed before yesterday, when they were introduced without discussion, despite the implication in your edit summary that there was consensus around that version. From now on, it might be best to come to the discussion page first, because I think this quick, needless reverting has been an issue more than once. Thanks. Trumplump ( talk) 21:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
A quote from the page: "Davis is the first female nominee for Texas governor since Ann Richards was defeated in 1994 by George W. Bush". This is, plainly and simply, not true. Kathie Glass was nominated and ran on the Libertarian ticket in 2010... and that is just the first woman nominee that comes to mind. 50.26.76.176 ( talk) 23:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.76.176 ( talk) 23:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM, WP:BLP - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
We need a section and contributions for, Wendy Davis' failure to win the Governor of Texas election. "The First Woman Nominated Since Ann Richards" is a harbinger of the result since it is the only silver lining she can derive from her campaign. There will be 100s of articles and news items related to her double digit slaughter in the polls in about 5 weeks so some effort should be made to organize an outline for her dismal performance. Title of propose section: Failed Gubernatorial Attempt. Subsections: Sugardaddy Husband, Derogatory remarks about Abbott's handicap, Blue the State incompetence/corruption, Obama's negative effect, Feminist Sleaze, Child Dumping, Witch Factor. There will be 100's of obituaries about her political life so the above represents a small selection of the categories of the reasons for her popularity implosion. The organization of the volume of ridicule will be tough to handle logistically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.239.21 ( talk) 20:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC) These are facts published by a news paper source placed here as reference material for all to consider. Not just here for NeilN to vandalize. So Stop erasing legitimate public news articles, quotes and references Recent arguments for her dismal performance published in the Washington Examiner October 29, 2014: The obituary is now being written... Title:"The spectacular self-emolation of Wendy Davis." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-spectacular-self-immolation-of-wendy-davis/article/2555426. Reasons as written in the Washington Examiner in quotes:
|
Given the attention it has had in the media, it needs to be part of this article. False accusations from NeilN aside (I copy/pasted from the articles directly), it needs to be in here. If the wording need to be adjusted slightly, fine. But please refrain from the personal attacks. 107.194.218.9 ( talk) 14:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, you need to STOP with the personal attacks. As I stated above I copy/pasted from the article. You've been around a while, you know better. 107.194.218.9 ( talk) 21:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Wendy Davis accused her opponent, in her 2014 gubernatorial bid, to be a racist. In a personal tweet through a twitter.com account she said the following: Greg Abbott won't say whether he'd defend an interracial marriage ban—troubling but not surprising from someone who defends a "poll tax." — Wendy Davis (@WendyDavisTexas) October 20, 2014.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2800654/texas-attorney-general-gop-gov-candidate-greg-abbott-won-t-answer-hypothetical-question-interracial-marriage-ban.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:384:F596:BF26:3D3C:D944 ( talk) 22:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/wendy-davis-last-hope-for-victory-12883370/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:384:F596:BF26:3D3C:D944 ( talk) 11:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Davis's opponent who is involved in an interracial marriage was accused of wanting to ban such an arranment by Davis in a tweet.
This article reads like pro-Davis puffery. 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 02:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Aaron Blake: [7]
and appears to be not a "random blogger" but someone who is an actual employee of the Washington Post. Collect ( talk) 20:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Means what? AFAICT, there is nothing to indicate she graduated with honours, nor does this appear to be anything more than opinion. Is top 50% "top"? Top 25% = "top"? If there is no clear meaning, and her biography makes no claim as to honours, does "top of her class" belong in this BLP? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Curious The first in her family to earn a college degree, she attended Tarrant County College, graduated top of her class at Texas Christian University and with honors from Harvard Law School. Senator Davis is a partner in Newby Davis, PLLC, a certified MWBE law firm, and serves as Counsel to Cantey Hanger, LLP as well appears to be an autobiographical claim - I can not believe that an actual uni would use "MWBE" where "MBE" was correct. Ditto A recognized leader on veteran's issues, education, law enforcement, transportation, and economic development, TCU Honors alumna Senator Wendy Davis — an attorney, business owner and former Fort Worth City Councilwoman — earned numerous honors for her first session in the 81st Legislature. which is pure PR wording. Can you find an actual reliable source cite that she graduated first in her class at TCU anywhere? Compare also the SPS at
[8] After graduating top of her class at Texas Christian University and then earning her law degree from Harvard, using the exact same phrase "top of her class". Also note "an avid runner and cyclist" appears in multiple places. Sorry - the signs are there that the claim is based on SPS material. And the TCU page appears to be PR and SPS - and is not a reliable secondary source for her being "top of her class" whatever that means. Please find a real genuine secondary reliable source for claims of that nature, which appear parenthetical at best.
Collect (
talk) 14:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
With the help of academic scholarships, student loans, and state and federal grants, Wendy became the first person in her family to earn a bachelor’s degree, graduated first in her class, and went on to Harvard Law School. is from her own campaign website. Again - this appears to be SPS. Can you find a source independent of her own press releases making this claim? Please? Collect ( talk) 14:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I eventually went on to TCU, graduating first in my class and becoming the first in my family to graduate college. I continued to pursue my educational dreams, going on to graduate with honors from Harvard Law School. I am the proud mother of two daughters, Amber and Dru. is from her personal LinkedIn page
[9]. Again - SPS, and so far assiduously looking only finds sources using her own autobiographical claims. "She began working after school at age 14 to help support her single mother and three siblings, according to her campaign website. "By 19, Wendy was a single mother herself, working two jobs to make ends meet in hopes of creating a better life for her young daughter."" is the CNN claim - ascribed, once again, to her "campaign website." Campaign websites are not RS for claims in BLPs. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 14:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Despite what the IP has claimed, there were no content deletions, major or otherwise. Three short subsections were combined into the first campaign section. -- NeilN talk to me 23:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
New section: Wendy Davis' Gubernatorial race Loss
Washington Post article: by Jay Root at Texas Tribune titled "Wendy Davis lost badly. Here’s how it happened." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/06/wendy-davis-lost-really-badly-heres-how-it-happened/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.239.21 ( talk)
Based on quotations contained in the above Washington Post article, Jay Root says that there are several explanations as to why Wendy Davis was drubbed.
Her loss was due to muddled messages, lack of connection via ads regarding her trailer trash story, general incoherence, confusion about the accuracy of her biography, and a terrible ad involving a wheelchair that backfired.
(Muddled Messages) "Thirteen months later, that unexecuted strategy sits atop a trash heap of failed tactics, unmet goals and muddled messages that helped doom Davis to an embarrassing defeat long before the voters rendered their verdict Tuesday night."
(Poor ad targeting) "When the curtain came down on Team Davis, the campaign had not aired a single English-language TV ad focusing on the Fort Worth senator’s up-from-the-trailer-park narrative "
(general incoherence) "Whatever it started out as, it bordered on incoherence in the waning days of the race."
(confusion about the accuracy of her biography) "...But not all of the details were accurate. She was 21, not 19, when she divorced, for example. And her husband’s role in paying for her Harvard education had been played down in the official campaign version, the newspaper noted."
(an ad depicting a wheelchair that backfired) Abbott strategist Dave Carney said that airing the expensive TV ad in the dead of summer was one of two gigantic tactical errors Davis made with her advertising campaign. The second, he said, was running the now-infamous “wheelchair ad,” which opened with an empty wheelchair and this jarring line: “A tree fell on Greg Abbott.”
The spot was meant to illustrate hypocrisy on the part of her disabled opponent — specifically, that Abbott sued after his freak accident in 1984 but later sided against victims who sought similar remedies from the civil justice system.
Carney recalls seeing the ad pop up on his phone at Terry Black’s Barbecue in Austin, where he was having lunch with Republican consultants Mark Miner and Rob Johnson.
“I thought my phone stopped because the wheelchair was sort of frozen in place,” he said. “We were all, like, this is crazy.”
By the time he got back to his office after lunch, the ad was well on its way to becoming a giant media firestorm, eventually causing even some liberal supporters to question the wisdom of it.
“It was such a self-inflicted wound, because if you had put a picture of Abbott in the wheelchair at the beginning of the ad, it would not have been an issue,” he said. “The empty wheelchair was the issue."
NeilN, you may delete the quoted material referenced to the Washington Post as you see fit. My synopsis is above and is based on the Washington Post Article.
Other people may want to chime in on this NeilN. Stop deleting large sections of text capriciously.
It's her new thing. Watching it for now until it becomes notable.
Hcobb ( talk) 21:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Wendy Davis is running for congress in the Democratic primary for TX-21: https://www.texastribune.org/2019/07/22/wendy-davis-congress-against-chip-roy/ Cody.berdinis ( talk) 16:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)