Talk:Wendy Davis (politician)

Semiprotection

I think we should semi-protect this page due to the current ongoing filibuster. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Firebombing of her office

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)

Does their mental status really matter?Countered (talk) 10:52, 27 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)

I think it should be deleted altogether. Violent acts like that are fairly common in the USA. The one source doesn't mention anything very notable about it. The one shot I saw only had burn marks on the bottom of a door. Even if the building had its own article I would question inclusion. She wasn't even in the building at the time and yet we include it in her article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. It should rate a mention in her biography only if a reliable source details it had an effect on her or her policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Filibuster page

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)

Edit request on 27 June 2013

External links should include the usual template:

• Profile at Vote Smart

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)

I have gone ahead and done this even though protection of this article has expired. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion

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)

Could somebody with more patience than I put her elections in order?

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)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Screen shot

A past screenshot of this article is now all over the twitter-verse here. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ex-husband

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)

As I stated in the edit summary, your talk page, and my talk page, it was unsourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's true, give us some published sources for it. All you gave us was a link to something which never so much as mentions her name. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 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)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/19/Liar-in-Pink-Shoes-Wendy-Davis-s-Composite-Life is at least one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.242.111 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart.com is not a reliable source and you will not be permitted to turn this article into an argument that she is a "devious creep". Go blog somewhere. This is a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

CNN, the Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle have all reported that Davis divorced her husband 'roughly when the final [college] payment was due', and here husband allegedy infidelity on her part. She did not divorce at age 19, but rather age 21, and did not live in a trailer, but rather in the 'family home' after for a few months after the divorce. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/20/report-wendy-davis-life-story-more-complicated-than-compelling-narrative/?hpt=hp_t3)(http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140118-as-wendy-davis-touts-life-story-in-race-for-governor-key-facts-blurred.ece)(http://blog.chron.com/texassparkle/2014/01/wendy-davis-tells-a-life-story-that-doesnt-exactly-match-reality/) She moved into an apartment shortly afterwords. Additionally, she did indeed wear a catheter and back brace during her filibuster.(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/20/wendy-davis-governor-campaign-stumbles-mistruths/) The source may be inaccurate, but the fact is such claims have been made and reported on by numerous reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 03:58, 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)

Independent reporting by actual reliable sources is not parroting, and I have no objection to any neutral additions you might make to the article based on what reliable sources report, none of which call her a devious creep. And if someone lived in a trailer for a while, then they lived in a trailer. Cullen

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)

I can now see your comment. I don't know why it was not showing, must have been a cache issue. I agree that the adultery issue should probably be left out. But you should have made the point you are making here when you kept ripping it out of the article earlier. Also, many of the things that are listed as "facts" about her life have been in her article for a very long time now based simply on "self-published sources" such as campaign literature, her senate office, etc.--NK (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

SPS's can make claims about themselves, but not others. See WP:SELFPUB for more info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I removed the adultery claims.--NK (talk) 15:36, 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)

Nope, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are misusing WP:BLPPRIMARY. It reads that a secondary source may be used and you deleted that too. You can't have it both ways.

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)

If any reliable secondary sources say she was under oath then it can be added in. Otherwise, do not make interpretations of court records. And, as I've explained to you, the CNN cite was already at the end of the sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 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)

Russell vs. Davis in early life section

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)

To be clear, the reference to each person Wendy Davis and Jeff Davis need to be cleaned up. I understand the original intent to call Wendy Davis "Russell" but that reference breaks down at a certain point.--NK (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

just follow the second Ref. Texasgov14 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis News Reports related to her claims of self-support at Harvard, Age of Divorce, Living location and Employment

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://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/20/report-wendy-davis-life-story-more-complicated-than-compelling-narrative/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/21/wendy-davis-under-fire-for-flubbed-details-in-life-story/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140118-as-wendy-davis-touts-life-story-in-race-for-governor-key-facts-blurred.ece

http://blog.chron.com/texassparkle/2014/01/wendy-davis-tells-a-life-story-that-doesnt-exactly-match-reality/

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:

http://news.yahoo.com/wendy-davis-39-story-may-misstated-details-013300905--election.html;_ylt=A0oG7tmaVt5SICwAuJRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0bjdtaW80BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDEzMV8x

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.

What's your point here? These sources are already in the article or repeat information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Note the IP is continuing to add links above hours after I replied --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a blog. I am assembling all the public domain news references related to Wendy Davis' false claims, including the citation you removed relating to her claim of self support while at Harvard. So what is your point in making a comment about that? You ought to be adding the citations at the relevant sections of the article, not deleting them. After all you are an editor.

Citations already exist for all sentences. You might want to look at them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

http://blog.chron.com/texassparkle/2014/01/wendy-davis-tells-a-life-story-that-doesnt-exactly-match-reality/

First, that is a political advocacy piece, not a WP:RS. Second, that info is currently already in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he cashed in his 401 K and took out a loan to pay for her final year is NOT in the article. Your bolding of already in the article did not put that in the article. You actually have to type it in.24.2.242.111 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in plain English: "Davis paid for Russell's last two years at TCU and paid for his wife's education at Harvard Law School from 1990 to 1993.[11] In 1992, Davis took out a 10-year loan a to help pay her tuition, which was not paid off until 2003 and cashed out his 401(k)" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, for now.

Been a while now. [1] Might want to read more carefully. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN, for working to keep the article neutral, instead of an advocacy piece or a hit piece. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

I have incorporated some of your points into the article. That whole section however, needs the skills of a good copy-editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Liberal Denialism

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)

I think any anon IP editor using the phrase "liberal denialist spinbots" can be safely ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 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)

IP editors ranting about "liberal denialist spinbots" on multiple pages and "[an] embarrassment to entire nature of the Wikipedia project" without providing any indication of what they would actually change actually can be ignored. Laughed at the irony of your warning, BTW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2014

In the article it says she was divorced at 19, when actually it was 21*

Mac2809 (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The article states, "On May 22, 1984, Russell's divorce from Underwood became official, when she was 21 years old." Where does it say she was 19? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Article seems to be entirely missing the current controversy seems to be explicated in the wrong section of the article

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)

N2e, you need to read the "Early life and education" section a lot closer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now. I guess I missed it because nothing was in the "Campaign for Governor of Texas" section of the article, which is where I came looking after seeing several articles on this in the media.

So it seems to be in the wrong section then. Any 2014 controversy is not an event of her "Early life and education"; it is rather an event of Campaign for Governor of Texas. In other words, the controversy (in the news articles I read) is not about just which statements are verifiable and therefore ought to be reflected as reliably sourced verifiable and notable information, but is about the campaign narrative about various version of those facts, and what was later uncovered by the Dallas Morning News and other media outlets. It is the later topic that is controversial, and is (now) reliably sourced, verifiable, and notable—as evidenced by widespread media coverage—and so ought to reasonably be covered in a Wikipedia biographical article on a politician. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about that. What about cutting "Early life and education" back to only the correct facts (without adding her attempts to muddy them) and then writing about the controversies and discrepancies in "Campaign for Governor of Texas" in such a way that the earlier info is not repeated? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That would seem to be the approach that is best. Early life just has the summary of her early life etc. as reflected by the best and most reliable sources. Then, in the Campaign for Gov section, the story of the muddying/corrections/refutations/etc., all if and only reliably sourced and notable, is reflected as a significant part of her mid-campaign. Sometimes, Wiki guidelines seem to call for a special section for controversies (maybe a ===Level 3=== heading within the "Campaign for governor..." section, or maybe just integrated in prose into that section.

I do think that that would direct eyes coming to this article—as I did, looking for a balanced perspective on the news articles they are reading in the press—to the current controversy, well-summarized and presenting both sides of the brouhaha and its history as it unfolded. N2e (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I updated the Talk page section heading to reflect the scope of the discussion actually occurring here, since my first comment and the first response. N2e (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As NK has largely written the current section, I am pinging them for their input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned the controversy in the early life section. I think early on the consensus was that the story would not have legs and that it was a one or two day story. However, as time as gone by I think that it seems to be hanging around and it getting traction in the national media, not just Texas news media. I would not have a problem with breaking it out into a separate section. However, I would caution that it be done in a neutral manner.--NK (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Creating a separate section is probably the best route. I checked other articles whose subject is a politician that has been accused of distorting or misrepresenting their background, and in both cases (Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal) separate sections were used to address the controversy. The piece about Warren in particular seemed to be thoughtful and balanced, especially in light of the kerfuffle the controversy caused in Massachusetts.EdJF (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Once again, as has been pointed out several times to you. You can create the paragraph that you want put in the article. Be my guest.--NK (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Legal documents

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)

They're gone. And please check your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to include primary sources on points adequately established by secondary sources, although it does suggest that the editor pushing for their use is more interested in embarrassing the article subject than in complying with relevant policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent removal of education financing.

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)

Latest edits

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)

Thank you NeilN to continuing to watch. In my latest edit, there was a reduction in bytes largely because I reused a reference. Info was actually added to clarify and corrections to info were made as noted in the edit summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendy_Davis_%28politician%29&diff=596221431&oldid=596219622 A sentence was also shortened without changing it's meaning (minor edit). Iricova (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Exact quote from Slater article in Dallas Morning News as cited in the Guardian article that was used as a ref:

"Slater writes, "In November 2003, Wendy Davis moved out. Jeff Davis said that was right around the time that their final payment on the Harvard School loan was due. 'It was ironic,' he said. 'I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left.'" Iricova (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit by NazariyKaminski is not NPOV, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

I wouldn't characterize NazariyKaminski's edit as POV but if there is a dispute about the age, the article should state who is claiming what. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, each src has a POV was my point. NazariyKaminski was claiming that of the DMN as the only correct view and describe the attribution as "weasel words" and "editor interpretation" Iricova (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Also, the Dallas Morning News was the originator of the controvery and departed from the mainstream definition of single parent by not recognizing single parenting that results from legal separation. -- Iricova (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit by NazariyKaminski also appears to be along the same lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

As far as I know, marriage in the U.S. is ended by a divorce, not separation. So "married for 18 years" is accurate. NazariyKaminski's sentence probably reads better but that's just a personal opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It just seems to me to be somewhat misleading simply say "married for 18 years" when the process of divorce began after 16 years. The cited NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/magazine/wendy-davis.html notes "In 2003, Slater wrote, the Davises agreed on a divorce settlement", so already a settlement prior to 2005. Would it not be more accurate to say something like, "separating after 16 years" Iricova (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That whole section seems overly detailed to me but in keeping with that spirit, what about, "They remained married for over 18 years (separating after 16) and Davis would ultimately adopt Russell's daughter, Amber."? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• There has been a lot of scrutinizing of the details of her life. So why not just leave the years of the separation & divorce as is stated below to eliminate the redundancy? The length of the marriage and time period covered is already apparent by the years when separated/divorced just a two paragraphs below. Let the facts speak for themselves.
• Age that she married Jeff Davis also redundant when date of marriage is already given.
• Legal_separation. Also, as noted in the Guardian src, it was misleading to not make note of separation in terms of portraying her relationships & life circumstances.
• It's also implied in the NYT article that Amber was adopted around age 18 "Having been accepted to the University of Texas Law School in the spring of 1990, Wendy began looking with Jeff for a residence in Austin where she and their two children — Amber, who was 8 (and would be adopted by Jeff a decade later)". Just a sidenote, does not have much significance here.
• I agree with your suggestion although it still seems redundant to me. We can also move ref to Amber's adoption to end of the section discussing the custody arrangement e.g. "Amber had been adopted by Jeff but was an adult at the time of their divorce".

-- Iricova (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, what is misleading is that Davis has admitted that she took liberties with the facts of life story. Iricova's edits is whitewashing. After reading the section it is clear that Iricova has either completely removed various parts of the controversy or has worked to minimize the importance of the parts of the story. The controversy involves not just the process of the divorce, but it includes other parts of the story that she was widely trumpeting that has now been shown to be either falsely presented to Texas voters. There is no mention of: (1) her claim to be "single, teenage mother" which was one of her claims when in fact she was never a "single, teenage mother" because she did not get divorced until she was 21 and no longer a teenager, (2) the fact that she acted as if she was single from the Underwood trailer park years all the way through Harvard Law School when in fact she started dating Davis at 20 and married him at 24 and he moved her into a posh Fort Worth home, (3) her claim that she paid for Tarrant County, TCU, and Harvard all on her own work and scholarships and her inability to mention that she was married to an older man for 18 years who paid for large parts of her education, using his 401(k) and his earnings as an attorney, (4) she implied that she lived in a trailer in a Fort Worth trailer park for many, many years when in fact she lived in a trailer park for a couple of months, (5) she implied that she came from either low income means when in fact she was from a middle class family (her family started and owned a still operating dinner theater and her mother eventually worked her way into manager's position at Baum's--it was clearly not low income or based upon welfare), (6) she implied that her father did not provide any support to her after the separation and divorce between her father and mother but in fact her father provided her a job at the dinner theatre and introduced her to Davis, who eventually married her and paid for a vast part of her education and support--and provided her a job at his title company, (7) she implied that worked all the way through school when in fact there were many, many years where she did not work at all and Davis paid for everything--especially the Harvard years. . . on and on and on. Iricova has chopped it down and made the whole thing seem to be a small misunderstanding. I think the section (early life, marriage, school) should be edited down and all references to the controversy removed. Then there should be a new section in the 2014 Senate campaign section dedicated to this story. This story has been going on for months and it is time that it been given its own section. Right now, Iricova has engaged in a massive whitewash of the controversy and that needs to be fixed.--NK (talk) 09:48, 20 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)

I'm not sure whats wrong with Trumplump page if he doesn't respond; going to edit. Texasgov14 (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Texasgov14: Did you read the lead after you made your changes? It was a complete mess in terms of grammar, syntax, and style in general. Also, the source you removed is accessible, but even if it is not easily viewed, that doesn't make it less valid. If you have a source that you prefer and is easier to access, I have no problem with replacing it. Until then, there is absolutely no reason to make the changes you made. Trumplump (talk) 13:48, 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)

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)

@NeilN: why revert? Texasgov14 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

1) There's no need of a picture of her "acting as a politician" when we have a equally good, more recent picture of her. 2) There's no mention in the article about her "businesswoman" activities. People can call themselves whatever they want (e.g., philanthropist, diplomat, etc.) but we need independent third party sources to expand on these claims. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I said in the summary it came from her page at the texas senate.Texasgov14 (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Which is not an independent source. Have any newspapers covered her businesswoman activities? By the way, I added the picture you wanted to the Senate section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

the pic can stay, I'm concerned about links 1 and 3 which make no sense to me at all. why did you revert my lead in? for probably the 3rd time.hence 3RR. NeilN.Texasgov14 (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not even close. I reverted you once. Other editors have been (quite rightfully) undoing your changes [2]. Please discuss further before making them again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

sorry NeilN that wasn't you was it.Texasgov14 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

well somebody should say something. Texasgov14 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

as ive stated businesswoman is on her texas senate page.Texasgov14 (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you not understand what an independent third party source is? Who do you think provides the content for her page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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:

On June 25, 2013, Davis held an eleven hour long filibuster to block (Senate Bill 5) that brought national attention. A bill which aimed to further restrict abortion rights in Texas.) The filibuster played a major role in Senate Democrats' efforts to delay passage of the bill beyond the midnight deadline for the end of the legislative session. Which led to discussions of a run for Governor of Texas. On October 3, 2013, she announced she would run for Governor of Texas.

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)

why dont you fix it and not revert? Texasgov14 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current lede? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixing and reverting are the same thing in this case. And Neil is asking a good question. Why don't you tell us what your problems are with the current lead, and we can work from there. Trumplump (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

fantastic thanks, as noted above her businesswoman occupation is noted on her texas senate page right in the title. just by the examples @https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources, this makes it an independent source.

secondly citation 3 is talking about the voter id law; i dont know why this needs to be there, maybe you can help me with that.

and is citation 1 a dead link? i dont know what im supposed to do with that.Texasgov14 (talk) 17:18, 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)

(edit conflict) Cite 3 is used as a reference for her name. Cite 1 is an offline source (not all sources have to be online). And I've explained why Davis' own senate page is not an independent source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Salary

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)

That is simply not true. You are assuming that Robert Draper does not have other sources for what he wrote. You are making an assumption. Draper does not say that only one person told him about her inability to go to work. He even implies that the $40,000 salary was from her husband to to give her some cash because the Fort Worth city council positions paid so little. Draper is well-known reporter for a well-known reliable source, NY Times mag. Please stop reverting the information that is notable and reliably sourced. Also, please remember that you originally attempted to delete it under the false assumption that the information is, as you put it, "trivial", which of course is false: not going to work for four years and getting paid $40K for each of those 4 years is clearly notable and not trivial.--NK (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the entire quote:

When I asked one of the company’s top supervisors at the time what Davis did in her four years with Safeco, this person replied: “Nothing. She was never in a strategy meeting, a marketing meeting, an escrow meeting or a compliance meeting. I never once saw her on the premises of our office. There was no reason for Safeco to have her on the payroll.”

You are assuming there are other sources. And if this is so notable, please show us other biographies of politicians that state their salaries for their non-political jobs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the notability is based upon the fact that she held a job for four years and she did not go to work and she is looking to become the Governor of Texas. Notability is established. Also, you leave out of quote the full context. You deliberately choose to leave out of your argument here the fact that Draper also states that Jeff Davis just gave the job to Wendy Davis to compensate her for the low salary of the Ft Worth city council job. Since you choose to ignore that notable piece of information I will quote that here: The work consumed her. Because she was paid almost nothing and because Jeff Davis was proud of the mark she was making on their city, in 1999 he decided that his title company, Safeco, would pay her an annual salary of $40,000. Davis told Wayne Slater of The Dallas Morning News that she had been “a vibrant part of contributing to our family finances” during the decade after she graduated from law school. When I asked one of the company’s top supervisors at the time what Davis did in her four years with Safeco, this person replied: “Nothing. She was never in a strategy meeting, a marketing meeting, an escrow meeting or a compliance meeting. I never once saw her on the premises of our office. There was no reason for Safeco to have her on the payroll.” In this quote, Draper points out that Jeff Davis gave the job to her just to compensate her for the her city council work. That makes two sources and your assumption of just one source is now mute. If you want we can edit the notable information in the article with more notable information, where we point out that Draper talks about Jeff Davis's motivation for the salary, but no work. Now, that I have thought about it I think that is proper route. Instead of attempting to whitewash article we should put the $40K salary for no work in context with Jeff Davis's motivation.--NK (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Show me another BLP where we include an anonymous derogatory comment of this nature - or one where aspersions are cast on the way a family-owned business compensates family owners. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that WP:notable does not apply to content within articles. This is more about wp:npov and wp:blp, and my feeling is that it is inappropriate to include this particular claim. It seems kind of gossipy and it's not particularly noteworthy or well-documented, at least right now. Also, the word you were looking for is "moot". Trumplump (talk) 23:37, 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)

Good point, Collect. And I might add a great edit.--NK (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it amusing you're praising Collect for essentially the same edit I did. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that statement is not true. You and Wolfowitz attempted to remove the whole topic completely. Collect got it right, you didn't.--NK (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So: if it's good news for Ms. Davis, it stays. But if it's bad news, it must be removed. Got it. Thanks. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not only have you completely misunderstood and misrepresented and even reversed the situation, but your comment is nothing more than an attack on the good faith of other editors. -- 96.247.231.243 (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite of Early life section

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)

Again: so, if details place Ms. Davis in a positive light, you're all for leaving them in. But if details cast shadows, you remove them. OK. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are attacking the good faith of other editors and misrepresenting their actions. -- 96.247.231.243 (talk) 06:15, 26 March 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)