Jump to content

Talk:Matt Bevin/Archives/2017/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Matt Bevin

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by PrimeBOT (talk | contribs) at 14:21, 11 July 2023 (→Some Proposed Edits: Task 40: template replacement following a move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Criticism

Healthcare

It was brought up that CrooksAndLiars.com is probably not an appropriate reference – aside from the fact that he's a crook and a liar, the point is probably valid. However, someone operating off an IP address messed up the section, so I replaced it. If a more appropriate reference is found, perhaps that reference can replace the CrooksAndLiars reference. However, the content covering the point should not be removed – only the reference should be updated. Knowledge Battle 15:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." If this content needs to be added, you need to find an appropriate reliable source for it. Any site that refers to Bevin as a "teabag candidate" in the headline isn't likely to cut it. I'm removing this until and unless an appropriate source can be found. Also, your willingness to categorize the man as "a crook and a liar" calls into question your objectivity in editing this page. I just urge you to caution; that's all. It's hard to edit a page where you have a bias either way. I've done it, but it's hard sometimes. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Acdixon: You're right, I do have a bias against liars, and no, I don't think that the ability to identify an objective fact implies that I'm subjectively biased, or that identifying a fact questions my contributions in editing this page. First, the man stated that he would dismantle the system. Then, he stated that he never said that. There's video of him saying both of those things. Thus, the man lied. That's not a subjective bias, that's an objective fact. That's an even more explicit lie, than Obama's ignorant claim, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it", which earned "Lie of the Year" from Politifact. Obama's "lie" was an oversimplified and ignorant thing for him to say. However, for Matt Bevin to explicitly say something, and then literally and explicitly claim that he didn't say it, then although it doesn't have as strong of an impact as Obama's "lie", Bevin showed himself to literally be a liar. He can't even claim ignorance, like Obama did. Matt Bevin explicitly and unquestionably lied. Lie. There's literally no question to that, unless someone willfully chooses to be an ignorant, unintelligent airhead. Knowledge Battle 08:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Acdixon: Oh, and here's another reported instance of him being a liar, from just last week. This time, about his taxes. Liar. Objective fact. Knowledge Battle 08:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I do think you can make an objective case for Bevin lying. You just need a more reliable source, that's all. All you have to do is find a newspaper article or two that talks about it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgebattle: I didn't say Bevin didn't lie. I said a) you need a better source, which it looks like you've addressed; and b) I expressed concern that your eagerness to characterize him as a liar (true or not) may compromise your ability to edit an article about him objectively. (Note, this is not the same as saying you can't or shouldn't edit the article. It's just a caution that I myself have had to take to heart several times.) Example: In the "Lying" section of the article – which, by the way, I consider an unencyclopedic section title, independent of its veracity – you have included "Telling Kentucky Public Radio he had a private discussion with journalist Sam Youngman about his taxes." First, it's not immediately clear why this is a lie, until you read the cited article to see that Youngman denied that the conversation took place. Second, the fact that Youngman said the conversation never happened is not evidence that Bevin lied. Why is it not equally possible that Youngman lied? It's classic "he said, he said" and none of us are qualified to say who is telling the truth and who is lying in that situation. Third, is this even worthy of a mention in this article? Assume he lied and Youngman is telling the truth. Is it of lasting historical significance? In 100 years, when someone wants to know who Matt Bevin was, will they have primary interest in the fact that he lied about a conversation with a reporter? Is he the only one who has ever done this? Is the lie significant in some way? Contrast this with the bullet immediately previous, that he said he had always paid his taxes on time and then admitted he'd paid them late 30 times. This seems far more worthy of inclusion. For one, it's illegal not to pay your taxes on time. He was fined as a penalty for breaking the law and apparently, he claims he paid those fines as his civic restitution. Also, the number of instances makes this a more noteworthy lie.
This is where I think your bias could be coming into play. Because you primarily regard Bevin as a liar above all else, I think you've placed a bit of outsized importance on some of his lies. Not all of them are going to be worthy of mention. Same thing happened at the John Calipari page a while back. In the Controversies section, we had the incident with Derrick Rose, for which Memphis vacated a Final Four, juxtaposed with Calipari being caught on camera during a game calling a player by a profane epithet. One is encyclopedia-worthy and one is not. My goal is to get this article to GA status in short order, because Governors of Kentucky is currently a good topic, and it will lose that status if this article doesn't reach GA status in a reasonable amount of time. A GA reviewer will expect reasonable discretion about what is encyclopedic and what is not. Can we agree that the bit about Youngman is not particularly encyclopedic and should be removed? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Acdixon: Absolutely, and you've raised some valid points. While he may have lied about speaking to the reporter, it is still an unknown. And you're right, I'm definitely biased, because all I see is a man who keeps lying; as John David Dyche put it, a pathological liar. Being someone who loathes lying, and who sees a pathological liar, I am inclined to be biased against him in every case where someone is lying. While it's unknown of whether he lied about speaking with the reporter, considering all of his other lies (many of which I haven't included yet, because I was getting tired), it does seem highly probable that he was lying about yet another thing. That one probably doesn't belong, however. Knowledge Battle 03:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgebattle: Glad we were able to come to an agreement on that one. Clearly, we are of opposing opinions on Bevin, which means it may take longer to construct the article, but it will probably be a fairer article when we get done. I hope to continue expanding this article in the near future, and I'll try to discuss items of controversy here. Of course, feel free to bring it up here any time you feel like I'm not writing neutrally. I will mention that I intend to eventually integrate the content of the "Criticism" section into the article, approaching each issue chronologically and/or topically. I feel like it makes a much more coherent article that way. Hope that's OK with all concerned. Here's to many more productive discussions moving forward. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 02:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Acdixon: If you were to do that, I could foresee his supporters occasionally going in and removing unflattering details, here and there, or references, here and there, until someone looks at the unflattering details and says, "That's not well-supported, I'm going to remove it." Later on, then, some User: might add the details in, and other Users: might use faulty logic and say, "That's insignificant, or else it would've already been added." Knowledge Battle 00:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgebattle: And if I don't, his detractors could come in and add another bullet to the list of criticisms, no matter how insignificant the criticism, because it's just a bulleted list anyway. I did this same thing with Creation Museum, an article that is even more controversial, and the scenario you describe has not yet happened. Too many people on both sides typically keep these articles watchlisted to effect a whitewash or a hit piece. At least when criticism is presented in context, someone wanting to add criticism has to think where it logically fits with the other details of the person's life (i.e. consider it's overall significance to the article) before adding it. Also, I seriously doubt the article can pass a GA review with a criticism section that consists mainly of a bulleted list. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Acdixon: The points you've raised are more valid than mine. Knowledge Battle 15:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Acdixon: And... I just looked at your userpage. :-D It's not often that I get bested by a Republican. Not often that I get bested by a Christian. Not often that I get bested by a pro-lifer. Not often that I get bested by a southerner. You are all of these, and you've bested me. :-D Then again, I see that you're also a self-described computer "geek" (I'm stealing your "geek" userbox, btw) and that you're apparently well-educated, having a Master of Science degree – your personality and education level seems to explain how this just happened. Although I disagree with your ideologies, I can't hate a fellow geek. I wish you the best. Knowledge Battle 15:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgebattle: A little surprised it took you so long to look at my user page. I confess I looked at yours much sooner. I'm used to being in the minority on many of these issues, although growing up in a small Southern town, I must say I never thought I'd see the day when it was far more socially acceptable to be a geek than a Christian! :) I've been on Wikipedia a long time. Don't discount the experience factor. I wholeheartedly appreciate your comments. Although I am not always successful, I try to make it a point of pride to disagree agreeably. More flies with honey and all that. You've not been "bested"; you've just been exposed to viewpoints that you hadn't previously considered. No shame in that. I don't have as much time for editing as I did before I had children, but I'm quite proud of the Governors of Kentucky good topic, so I will be doing my best to get this page up to snuff before the end of the year, if possible. I welcome your feedback, as my typical editing style is to make large additions of content at one sitting. Makes it easy to get sloppy sometimes. I'm not above a correction or three. Best to you as well. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Acdixon: Well, considering we were debating an issue (appropriateness), and your opinion was better (even if it's based on experience), your opinion did win over. It sounds as if you're being humble, to which I'd say is useful when dealing with narcissistic and belligerent people, but it's also good to accept kudos from someone (like me) who's telling you that your viewpoint was better. I meant it as positive reinforcement, and now, I need to take it into consideration when editing in the future. You've learned from others, and I've learned from you, and I appreciate that.
(Unrelated to this article:) I wouldn't say that being Christian is socially unacceptable in the US, since 70% is still Christian. I stay up-to-date via the world wide interwebz on the happenings, and it seems like it's all just the same-old-stuffs – a fight over whether predominantly-Christian America should be progressively tolerant and helpful toward others, versus the (stereotypical Bible-thumping) conservative Protestant's "American exceptionalism". I know that many atheists are typically cool with religious people (and even have lots in their families), but get aggravated/angry with people who seem hateful or discriminatory (even if the perception is inaccurate), for what we consider as "no legitimate reason" (even though the reasons are legitimate to our ideological opposites). Obviously, there's a difference of views which are difficult to reconcile, but for me, it's a case of "hate the game, not the players". Although, if Trump or Carson win, I have no intention of going back during that time.
(Back on topic:) I've got the same editing style – do a bunch at once, when tackling an article. Makes it easier to focus. Anyway, thank you again for the insight on how to edit wisely. Knowledge Battle 17:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Military service

Bevin's biography says he was on active duty for four years. He joined the military almost immediately out of college in 1989. If he started his active service immediately, that would put him getting out in 1993. However, a profile in the Courier-Journal says he left the Individual Ready Reserve with the rank of captain in 2003. I'm not well-versed on military service. Is it possible that he was in the IRR from 1989 to 2003, being on active duty for four of those years and some kind of inactive or reserve status for the remainder? Or is it more likely that the C-J misreported the date of his separation from the Army by a decade? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 02:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Acdixon: I don't know anything about Bevin's service, but after 4 years active duty, most servicemembers do have 4 years reserve duty, whereby they could be recalled to active service at any point, and usually have periodic "refresher" training throughout that time period. Besides those 4 required years of reserve duty, it's possible that he chose to extend his time in the reserves, over the years. Knowledge Battle 08:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions

The first sentence under Political career states: "Bevin's fellow partner at Waycross, Chris Derry, founded the conservative-leaning Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions." Is this relevant in some way? Of the two sources cited for this sentence, one does not mention Bevin, and the other is a dead link. Is there any link between BIPPS and Bevin besides Derry, and if not, is this enough to merit a mention in the article? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 03:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Acdixon: If it's true, it sounds like it could be relevant. If, after further research, no search engines yield any results, it could be that Matt Bevin, himself, got on Wikipedia because he was yearning for something else to lie about. I would check Google. Knowledge Battle 08:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I never doubted the veracity of the statement. At the very least, Bevin knows Derry well, and Derry is the founder of BIPPS. This much I have confirmed. The question is whether the connection is relevant. So far, I'm saying "no". I searched both Newsbank and Highbeam, and between the two, I only got one hit with Bevin and BIPPS in the same article. It reported that Derry claims to have taken Bevin to Rand Paul's suite the night Paul won his Senate seat. Even that is a tangential connection. He knows, and is likely business partners with, a guy who founded a conservative think tank. So what? I don't think that's important. It's quite clear from the information in the article, and the information that will be added, that Bevin is pretty far to the right without this information. I'm inclined to remove this. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal Life

If Matt and Glenna have 6 biological children and Brittiney died in 2003 at age 17 (she was born Oct. 19, 1985 http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=14033506) and Matt and Glenna met in 1990 (http://www.mattbevin.com/about/), five years AFTER Brittany was born, then how can she be their biological child? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.206.141 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have heard, anecdotally, that Brittiney was Glenna's child from a previous marriage or relationship and Matt adopted her, but I have not yet found sourcing for this. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
By way of update, I spent a good bit of time specifically looking for clarification on this bit the other day. I can find no confirmation for the anecdote I've heard, and several outlets specifically call Brittiney Bevin's biological child. Perhaps the date of the Bevins' meeting has been wrongly reported, or perhaps (as I was told) they are very private about the adoption bit and that's why it hasn't been reported. Either way, we are limited by the available sourcing here. I'll keep looking, of course, and maybe the increased scrutiny on Bevin as governor will yield some new reporting on the subject. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
But, if she were indeed adopted, then she clearly is not their "biological child", correct? She would be Glenna's biological child (if the anecdote is true). But she would not be their biological child. 2602:252:D13:6D70:5072:C3C7:1027:C331 (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, but I cannot source the adoption story to any reliable source. In fact, the sources call her a biological child, even though the (also sourced) timeline of Matt and Glenna's relationship given in the article makes that impossible. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What's that 12.205.247.27 deletion?

I see IP 12.205.247.27 made some kind of change a few days ago. However, instead of someone undo'ing the change, it was actually removed. What happened there? That IP doesn't seem to have vandalizing habits - there are only a few edits from there. Knowledge Battle 10:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor's user contributions show it was unsourced opinion/vandalism in this case. —ADavidB 12:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Adavidb: Shouldn't it just have been undone? Knowledge Battle 00:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. I don't know who removed it or their specific rationale. —ADavidB 00:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The reasoning at WP:BLPREMOVE may have applied. —ADavidB 01:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I deleted it under WP:RD2 as grossly offensive material. As with many admin actions, that's a judgment call, but I thought it was pretty clearly beyond the pale, especially for a WP:BLP. Any admin can review and reverse this decision if they believe it was in error. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Image

This YouTube video by AARP Kentucky shows Bevin and Conway in a Kentucky Voter Guide. It is licensed under Creative Commons, so potentially a screenshot from the video could serve as an image for Gov. Bevin. MB298 (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Matt Bevin AARP.gif
Screenshot
Good find. I'm not a copyright expert, but that stands to reason. I made the hopefully-not-too-horrible screenshot to the right from that video. Think I'll run it by the image gurus to see if the permissions pass muster. If so, I'll transfer to Commons and include on the relevant articles. Thanks for bringing this here. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The current image shows Bevin with a kind of cartoonish expression. Could another screenshot from the video be used? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Be my guest. I didn't watch the whole video, but it can be difficult to pause at a time when you don't get a distorted expression (eyes closed, mouth open, etc.) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I have software for handling this (as I recently upgraded to Windows 10), but I'll put it on my virtual to-do list. Of course, if anyone wants to beat me to it, please proceed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@Stevietheman: Shouldn't take much. I literally paused the video where I wanted to take the screenshot, pressed the Print Screen button on my keyboard, pasted it into (a very old copy of) Photoshop Elements (but any program that will crop should work), cropped out the rest of the screenshot, and uploaded it. There is probably a better way, but I'm no graphics expert. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
If that level of quality is acceptable, I use a printscreen utility (Gadwin PrintScreen) that can do the same thing. And I can use GIMP to clean it up. I was thinking before about using an old video editor to take a snapshot of a frame, but I guess I was overthinking it. Thanks. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that all but the lowest level of quality is acceptable versus no image at all. :) Although I have had some folks contest that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Article size

I very much appreciate all the work that has gone into this article, but I'm left wondering how there can be an article of this size for a governor who's been in office for just a month. If this is taken to featured at some point, there will certainly be questions of WP:DUE so I hope there can be some review at some point to ensure this article is right-sized. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I share this concern. As the primary "expander", a few things are factoring into this phenomenon:
  1. I'm expanding based on a chronological review of source material from NewsBank. With this method, you have to make some judgments about what is worthy of mention before you really have the picture of its full impact. That leads to some bloat.
  2. This is a controversial figure, by most accounts. The article, when I started working on it, had a section called "Lying" – I kid you not – which is decidedly non-encyclopedic and, by my lights, non-neutral. I tried to integrate each item into the larger text, while providing context around each one, without removing any of them, lest I be accused of whitewashing. That may lead to some undue weight being placed on some aspects of the article.
  3. I'm trying to move quickly to get this article ready for a GA review, which it will hopefully pass, to preserve the Governors of Kentucky good topic, which contains 61 articles. It will be de-listed if I don't move expediently. I had hoped to have it ready for review by now, but life gets in the way.
Once 1 and 3 are finished, I'd like to take the article to peer review to identify some of the trouble spots that could be pruned or moved to other articles, like the relevant election articles. In the meantime, if you have suggestions about content to be reduced, I'd suggest mentioning them here for discussion. I dare not act unilaterally on them, for reasons stated above. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate all the conscientious work going on here for sure, and I appreciate your very reasoned thinking. I don't know if I can put in the time to do a full review, but perhaps I will spend some time soon and identify a few significant areas of concern. I'm just mainly thinking it would be unfair to previous governors to have this one be so much bigger. Kentucky has had controversial governors from both major parties, and it's too early to tell if Bevin's controversies will outweigh the others'. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed pruning

As concerns have (rightly) been expressed about the length of this article, I propose to eliminate the first paragraph under Political career, which primarily deals with Bevin's past campaign contributions and voting history. None of this seems to have materially affected his career. It may give some insight into his political thought process, but I'm not sure that is worth saving the information. Thoughts? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that I posted this 3 weeks ago, and no one responded, I've trimmed the content in question. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

As I continue to work on this article on-and-off, I think the first paragraph under "Governor of Kentucky" could also be scrapped. It details two promises that Bevin made after his election – addressing marriage licenses and shutting down kynect – that have subsequently been addressed with action and documented in the article. We would also lose a promise about charter schools that, as far as I know, has yet to be a major issue, and a bit about Bevin's continued refusal to release his tax returns. I'm not sure how big an issue the tax return thing is in terms of the overall article. If it isn't that big a deal, we could also lose the entire second paragraph under "Bevin's personal finances". Please share your thoughts on eliminating or pruning the first paragraph under Governor of Kentucky and/or the last paragraph under Bevin's personal finances. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Two weeks; no discussion. Done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Matt Bevin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 14:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

Initial comments
  • Images are all properly licensed
  • Article is stable
  • NPOV is good. At the end, I couldn't tell what your opinion of Bevin was, which is what we should be going for here.
Lede
Marriage and family
Business career
  • "After transitioning to the Army Reserve..." Maybe "After leaving active duty..."? Not necessary, I just think it sounds better.
  • "Bevin is also a partner at Waycross Partners..." Is this still true?
Bevin's Tea Party support
Result and aftermath
  • The first two sentences are kind of irrelevant, now that we know what happened.
    • I thought it was important to note how common the belief was that Bevin was so far behind he would, and should, drop out. If, after reading my rationale, you don't agree, I'd be OK with dropping it. The article is pretty long as it is. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 11:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I see your point. I was looking mostly for ways to trim some of the campaign detail, but I could go either way on this one. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I know it's being wishy washy to ask for suggestions about trimming the article, and then turn this one down, but that's what I'm going to do for the moment. I'll note this as a good place to start trimming, though. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm kind of shocked that the REINS Act has no article, but I can't find one either. Hopefully your redlink will inspire someone to create one.
    • Although I had not heard of it prior to reading this article, I was also surprised once I found out what it was. I've been on a bit of an article creation kick lately. Maybe I'll just take that matter into my own hands. Maybe. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 11:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll finish the rest of this tonight. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for tackling this one. I know it's a beast. If you have suggestions for shortening it, please share. There's already been some talk page chatter that it's too long, especially after we have to add information about 4 (or 8) years in office. I'm too close to the prose to prune it properly, I think. I'll try to stay on top of this review, at least. Been a busy few days, but I should have time tomorrow to attend to whatever else you find. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 11:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
2015 gubernatorial primary
  • In the first paragraph, you could reduce the first two sentence to "Bevin remained politically active after his defeat by McConnell, and an email to his followers calling on Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, a Democrat, to denounce new carbon regulations issued by the EPA fueled speculation that Bevin would seek the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2015 or Rand Paul's Senate seat in 2016 if Paul's expected presidential bid kept him from running for re-election." It's still a long sentence, so if you want to break it in two, that makes sense, too.
Result and aftermath
Governor of Kentucky
  • Eventually, if not right now, it might make sense to retitle the "Political career" section as "Political campaigns" or something, and raise "Governor of Kentucky" to a level-2 heading. Not sure if that's justified yet.
  • At some point, you stopped capitalizing Kynect. Not sure which is right, but it should be consistent.
  • That's all I have. It's a nice article, that will make a good addition to the collection. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Promoted
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox

Having been reverted by 1990'sguy, I'm bringing the matter to the talk page in line with WP:BRD.

The allegiance field was removed as the documentation of {{infobox military person}} (from which the parameter was originally drawn) indicates that its use is optional, and the original consensus for adding the parameter was for use in situations in which the subject's allegiance is not otherwise clear. An obvious example of an appropriate use for it is in a biography of a double agent. But when the subject's nationality is American and "United States Army" is listed under branch, there is no lack of clarity and the use of the allegiance field in this situation adds nothing.

While it wasn't addressed in his edit summary, 1990'sguy also restored the various icons that cluttered the infobox. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG indicates that flag icons should not normally be used in infoboxes, especially when it is a generally unrecognizable non-national flag such as the US Army's flag. MOS:APPROPRIATEICONS indicates the appropriate uses for icons, criteria which none of these icons meet. Graham (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

My view leans toward following the style manual and template documentation. —ADavidB 23:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I didn't see those guidelines until now, so I can see your argument. Because of that, I won't oppose you removing the icons and the allegiance field again. However I will add that while the situation in other articles should not be used to justify this one, it is still true that many, many other articles have the allegiance fields and the other icons in their infoboxes for military service, and in my opinion the articles look just fine. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

National politics section

I believe the recently added section on National politics is an inappropriate addition, at least at this time. Per WP:NOTNEWS, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I don't foresee these comments having enduring notability. If someone leads an armed insurrection against the government and cites this speech as their inspiration, then it merits mention. Even if the section stays, it is far too long, per WP:UNDUE, and it cites Talking Points Memo, an admitted left-wing source, to mis-characterize (in my opinion) Bevin's comments. I favor deleting the entire section. Failing that, it needs significant work if it is to remain. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This section is very UNDUE, and it almost looks like a press release. The left-wing source definitely needs to be removed. Either deleting or significantly shortening and fixing the section is good. There seems to have been a decent amount of media coverage, however (even though, when I do a Google search, it seems to be either local or left-wing outlets that are reporting it). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I reverted for now. The editor who added the info also made some other changes in the same edit that appear constructive, however I will let you make the decision for that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the challenge and consideration given to my first effort. I have reworked the former/now-renamed 'National politics' section. I hope the new name -- The 2016 presidential campaign, still housed under the Governor's first-term header so hopefully not confusing in context about whose campaign it refers to -- works. And I hope my efforts to bring more depth and balance to the section also help some here. I reversed the three smaller edits that had been made to my original edit; no explanations had been given and I couldn't see how they helped the article. I also added a couple of new bits to the article that caught my eye.

I have basically tried to reconstruct the gist and highlights of what was said from the various partial reports I found. TPM is still there as a source and certainly has some point of view embedded in it; but it's used mostly as a source for info and has video to back the words it reports though not the opinion. Beyond that, significantly, I've added a good deal from Breitbart.

The governor had a prominent national platform and spoke powerfully and extensively. The speech paragraph overall is probably not smaller than it was. But it's a pretty small part of the whole article. I hope I've done the words some justice. I'll leave it at that for now. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Some Proposed Edits

I am Communications Advisor for Governor Bevin. I would like to see some of the content on the Matt Bevin page deleted. Much of this is very old (cockfighting allegations) and not productive. Some of the content is overly personal and/or delves too far into Governor Bevin's personal past (High School info, how he supposedly met his wife. etc.) Would the editors of this page be willing to work with me to at least trim this page down and make it more pertinent to current events?

LukeAllen (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Chris Skates (Username LukeAllen)

 Not done Hi LukeAllen, thanks for your request. Wikipedia articles aren't about making articles more pertinent to current events, and anyone who has a Wikipedia article will have their life on it. Topics like the cockfighting allegations that may favour the subject must not be removed because they're 'very old' and 'not productive'. If you propose changes, I will certainly have a look at them or another volunteer, but please note that this article was rated good and your edits will need to be justified. If this was a LinkedIn profile, then I agree, it would be too personal, but it's an encyclopaedia. st170etalk 02:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Which image should be used?

  • Option A: Currently used in infobox, February 2017
    Option A: Currently used in infobox, February 2017
  • Option B: Formerly used in infobox, January 2016
    Option B: Formerly used in infobox, January 2016
  • Option C: March 2017
    Option C: March 2017

Personally, I don't have much of a preference, but I would support either option A or C. MB298 (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer C. It's the newest (thus, better than B), and Bevin is not making a somewhat awkward face (thus, better than A). --1990'sguy (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
C for me. —ADavidB 09:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
C looks most appropriate. I'm amazed a usable pic has been found. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
B or C. I've thought the facial expression in A was awkward from the time it was changed. Thanks for opening this discussion. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The consensus appears to be for image C, so I accordingly changed the infobox image. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_Bevin/Archives/2017/October&oldid=1164858750"