Talk:Elizabeth Kucinich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggested Improvements

1. The article would be greatly improved with more information on her background and youth. Hers is certainly a compelling story whether she was born in a slum, some palace, or the middle class suburbs. Was her father a plumber or a peer? It is obviously relevent and interesting to her biography.

2. The phrasing regarding her citizenship status is incorrect and clumsy, but I don't have a suggestion. None of the first several first ladies were born American citizens; there was no such thing as American citizenship when Martha Washington, et. al. were born. However, given the ambiguities of Natural-born citizen, I'm not sure what the correct phrase would be.--TjoeC 15:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

66.188.134.160 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3. I'd like to suggest removing the "FLILF" comment, it's very inappropriate and rude.Ragreen 18:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I removed and reworded some questionable content.

• Why is it notable that she left school on 1996, what is it you are trying to say?
• Why is her living in a shack notable?
• Why is it notable to state that she is the "British born third (and current) wife"? The current statement is redundant. If she is his wife then it is pretty obvious that she is currently his wife. It is stated shortly after that she was born in Britain, we don't say married to her American born husband.
• The inclusion of "some 31 years his junior" is weasly and only serves to point out that she is younger than he.

Arzel 04:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Arzel

Sorry, I only tried to revert the top part. I don't know what happened. Yes, I think it is notable for an article on a possible presidential candidates wife to include which (third) wife she is and the age difference in their marriage (31 years). These are facts, they are not pov and they belong in this article. If your problem is wording we can change it around. Turtlescrubber 13:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We should put the number of wife information in the body of the article. We should really have an exact date of birth, or something along those lines. To say "some 31 years" is not very encyclopedic and in anycase should be included in the the main Kucinich article simply stating birth dates or current ages or age when married. By stating the years different it implies that there is something wrong with them being married and seems to be used for political purposes. Arzel 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

the age difference is uncommon, and perhaps that's the reason why it was included, not because it implied there was anything wrong with it. The Jackal God 23:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Is she a US citizen now? Registered Republican? Wikiak (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Article name

All the sources linked to suggest that she calls herself "Elizabeth Kucinich" not "Elizabeth Harper Kucinich", including her MySpace page and the videos on it (e.g. "I'm Elizabeth Kucinich") and her husband's campaign site.

Names in the form first-name + maiden-name + surname are extremely rarely used by UK women, who generally use either just their husband's surname all the time (e.g. Gordon Brown's wife is "Sarah Brown"), their maiden name all the time (e.g. "Harriet Harman", current Secretary of State for Equalities and several other things, who never uses "Harriet Dromey"), or both in different fields (e.g. Tony Blair's wife who is "Cherie Blair" when she's being his wife and "Cherie Booth" when she's being a barrister). A few will combine their maiden name with their husband's, but almost always hyphenated and generally both spouses use the double-barrelled form. But hardly ever is the US style used.

Since the woman herself is using "Elizabeth Kucinich", surely the article should be at that location? If there are no objections I'll move it after 48 hours. Timrollpickering 11:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Her "beauty" in pop culture

Since there was already a Jon Stewart joke on the page documenting "her beauty" as "fodder for satirists and pundits", I added the use of her in a Daily Show sketch. I was reverted saying "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this is hardly meaningful." If this is true, then the existing remark about the sponsoring organization being "bored" has no place either. Somehow mentioning her appearance's role in popular culture both is and is not "indiscriminate" and meaningless.

On these grounds, I again included my addition, but was reverted with no explanation other than "I disagree". Care to give a more thorough argument than by fiat?--Loodog 19:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the first one has much relevance either and should probably be removed as well. What you added clearly should not be included in a BLP. So what if TDS did a sketch on her, it is not relevant to her personally, and there is really no context for including it here. Arzel 20:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, it could be argued that the most notable fact about her, the one by which most people have come to be aware of her by, is her appearance. But, either way.--Loodog 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If she were not married to Kucinich I doubt she would have an article at all, so I would argue that this is what makes her not notable. Arzel 23:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be an article about her "beauty in pop-culture" it's the ONLY reason why I came looking for this topic in wikipedia, it usually never disappoints with that kind of information. - Gobbledgookie 8:20, 26 November 2007

Tongue piercing

As the independent ref makes clear the tongue piercing is a part of her persona (CNN etc) and therefore is notable and relevant and should not be removed. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break, what relevance, if any, does the fact that she has a tounge piercing have? It is purely Trivia, and has no place within a BLP article. She is also wearing a ring, has pierced ears, probably is wearing underwear, may be wearing a necklace most of the time, probably likes the color blue, she may even like to skip, or run, or walk backwards. The point is that this kind of information adds nothing to the article. Arzel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Give you a break? The article has made clear why it is significant, especially given the CNN interview, and she is clearly happy with this, so no BLP issues. . There are no articles making prominence of the fact that she wears a ring or whatever, nor were your hypotheticals discussed on CNN, see our policy on reliable sources and it clearly does add tot he article or it would not appear in multiple reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with Squeak. She states that it's "a part" of her to the point where being first lady wouldn't change it.--Loodog (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are both missing the point. To say that her tongue peircing is important is to make some general statement about tongue peircings in general compared to other peircings as related to her personally. I'm saying it shouldn't matter, and it is not encyclopedic, rather it is TRIVA. So I ask how do you incorporate this fact into the article in such a way that it reads appropriately? Because simply stating that she has a tongue peircing adds nothing to the article. Arzel (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am making no general statement about anything whatsoever. We have no reference she even has other piercing and it is the fact that it is sourced that makes it important. We work with sourced material, we do not engage in original research, how can it be trivial when it has shown itself to be notable in so many reliable sources and therefore your claim that it adds nothing to the article is untrue and merely your opinion, and we don't not write articles basing ourselves on the opinions of wikipedia editors. The only argument you have given is your original research that she may have other piercings and they may, in your opinion, be equally relevant, a statement you have not backed up with sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a non-relevant issue, and nothing more than a triva item. There are many people that have peirced tongues, the only reason this could be of an issue is if she were to be first lady. The fact is that this has not been a story, and is not really a story now, even though she has been married to Kucinich for some time now. If you can find some additional sources that make this a primary issue or something that she is known for then it must be removed, if for no other reason that it is undue weight regarding the entire body of work that she has done. Arzel (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide what is relevant, that is determined by citations. I encourage restoration of the deleted information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.14.94 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree and have restored it. We the editor writers do not determine content and original research is no substitute for citations, nor is there nay doubt that the cited material proves notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I can see both sides on this one, but particularly in the context of the source does this seem more than arbitrary trivia.--Loodog 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like trivia to me at all. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is triva, and completely irrellavant to her or the article in general. We the editors do determine weight when putting stuff into an article, so quit putting it in. Arzel (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant; it should remain. Look: her only bit of notability is that she's married to a congressman who is a longshot presidential candidate combined with being easy on the eyes. If she wasn't attractive, she would have no more attention given to her and be no more notable than the spouses of most of the presidential candidates (Clinton excepted). Take away her looks,and no Wikipedia article would ever have been written. And for better or worse, the tongue-stud is one of the facts that's intriguing to those who have any interest in her. Basically, if the tongue-stud doesn't belong in the article, the article probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The basis for both is coming form the same place. Given that there's interest in the stud, and the information about it is accurate and sourced, it should stay -- TJRC (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, please stop telling other editors to quit putting in referenced and notable material merely because you do not like it and when your arguments (perhaps she has other body piercings) are riddled with original research. This material must remain as highly relevant. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is interesting or triva doesn't nessecitate that it be included. I must remind people that this is a BLP no a gossip page. Her tongue peircing is a matter of trivia that a few bloggers and reporters have commented on, it is by no means the most notable aspect about her, nor is it even remotely unique for women her age. By inclusion in this article as such it is given undue weight according to the whole body of work that she has done. Furthermore it is not presented under any context, rather it is presented as trivia within the article. If you can find some way to present this information in an informative way with due context then feel free to include it, but we must abide by the criteria of WP:BLP when inclusion of minor trivia is being mentioned. Please do not put this information back into the article without some semblance of context as I am simply following policy of BLP's Arzel (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As nobody agrees with you I suggest you stop disrupting wikipedia to make a point, though I have no point is,. She is happy to talk about it in public so know BLP concerns and it was the opener in a major UK newspaper, The Independent, so not trivial either. I wilsee if I can put it in abetter context but pleas elave in tillI do so (very shortly). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no point to make, other than following general WP policies, which some here feel like they can ignore. This is a non-encyclopedic piece of triva, which has no place in the article. It is very much undue weight given her other contributions, and fails via BLP concerns. Please READ WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE AND UNDERSTAND What They mean. This is really getting tiresome that several editors seem to have no idea of they mean. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP says nothing about UNDUE weight. BLP just says "get it right" and remove anything that doesn't have a reliable source with it. We have a reliable source here. The allegation that she has a tongue piercing is not tenuous. BLP is not the issue.--Loodog (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Arzel: nothing in those references suggests removing this datum. If you believe otherwise, please explain. In the meantime, please stop removing the paragraph unless/until you can establish a consensus for its removal. -- TJRC (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not how concensus works. Nevertheless I have reported it to the BLP noticeboard for an official ruling. Arzel (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason the tongue piercing is notable is because she's the only spouse of a US presidential candidate who has one. Something that may be considered ordinary for other women her age is definitely not ordinary for spouses of US presidential candidates. It's part of what makes her unique and interesting. The Washington Post ran a very long story (full page) in the newspaper today about her, and the tongue piercing is as interesting as it is informative. Article link here. 67.103.26.13 (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant unencyclopedic information. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and does not generally include information about an individual's fashion taste. --Strothra (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The page keeps changing. No more reversions until we have consensus here.--Loodog (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Because of the constant changes and reversions on this article, I've put a 24 hour protection on it. Please sort this matter out by consensus here, not by constant adding and removing the same material each time. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reported this to the BLP noticeboard for an official ruling. Arzel (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get any opinions from BLP that say anything other than the fact that it's a content dispute. This isn't a BLP matter as there is nothing remotely libelous here. This is purely a content dispute. However, I will note that generally consensus needs to be established for inclusion of disputed material, not exclusion. --Strothra (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor, but from WP:BLP - Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.

From WP:UNDUE- Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

From WP:NOT - Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. - and - As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In addition to other sections of this policy, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply (specifically see #5 within that section, News Reports) - News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause.

Now look at the integral parts of what is being put into this article.

1) She has a tongue piercing.

This by itself is purely triva, is not notable and violates WP:BLP. There are several trivia items about her that one could potentially include, the inclusion of this one gives undue weight to this one minor aspect about her personally.

2) When asked if she would remove it in the event that she became first lady, Kucinich replied that she considered it too much a part of her to do so.[2]

This is speculative, and violates WP:NOT

When put together this gives a poor representation of who Elizabeth Kuchinch is, we are saying that she is mostly known as being the wife of Kuchinch and having a tongue piercing? I encourage people to really read through WP policies and see how this is presented in a way which denogrates Mrs. Kuchinich and violates one of the five pillars of "Do no harm". Arzel (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What, in particular is speculative about this? It reports a statement that she made. There's nothing particularly negative about having a toungue piercing, which she openly admits to having. This seems like it's more about your personal hangups than any Wikipedia policy. Further, there is no Wikipedia policy against trivia, which is not a well defined term, regardless. The BLP section you refer to basically exists to protect the privacy of marginally notable individuals. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence as to this violating WP:BLP. However, in regard to you citing the part that states, "editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability," I did make this argument before (see above) and agreed with it. It is simply a commentary on her fashion taste and not relevant to her notability or the encyclopedic nature of the article. Further, as to the comment directly above - she is only a marginally notable individual. --Strothra (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

She's a public figure. The kind of caution we would apply regarding a marginally notable private individual doesn't really apply here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Her husband is barely a public figure, she certainly is not. The media coverage concerning her is trivial at best. Moreover, even if this information did not violate this part of BLP, there is no evidence that this in any way adds to her notability or that is encyclopedic. --Strothra (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since her appearance is at least partially the reason for her notability, I don't see how this isn't relevant to that. Further, please define "encyclopedic." -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If she were notable because of her apperance, then she would have had an article prior to beign married to a presidential hopeful. This article was created in Feb 2007, and they were married in 2005. Her primary notability at the time was being the wife of Dennis Kucinich, her appearance has been a political issue since he declared himself a presidential candidate. Arzel (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add this from WP:BLP

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.

I hardly think that her tongue is relevant to her notability. Arzel (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You admit that "her appearance has been a political issue," but you think that it shouldn't be in the article? I find that odd. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me a moment to boggle that a United States Congressman and serious candidate for President of the United States (where, in this case, "serious" means taken seriously enough to have raised a couple of million dollars in campaign funds) is considered "barely a public figure." I don't know if Strothra's familiar with First Amendment law (which is where the public figure distinction arises), but the best-known case in this area is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan; the public figure there was a police commissioner. I think a Congressman and presidential candidate is somewhat more a public figure than a local cop.

And so is his wife, to the extent that she thrusts herself into the public spotlight, by participating in his campaign, granting interviews (such as the one in which she is being quoted here).

The reason she's getting a lot of press attention (i.e., is notable) is a combination that she's a potential (long-shot, I admit) First Lady, and she's perceived as particularly attractive. See my comments on December 4, above. It is not her appearance, in and of itself. The one correct thing you've said is that if her notability were merely for her appearance, she would have gotten an article without being a presidential candidate's spouse. But that's not the premise, so your conclusion is wrong. -- TJRC (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You make the assumption that she is a public figure. She is not a well known public figure, I suspect most people have no idea who she is. Furthermore she is not running for any public office. Thus your logic is weak at best. In anycase there is still the issue of undue weight. In response to Chucky Rice, she is not a political figure, she is the wife of a political figure. The simple facts remain that this violates several WP Policies, and wikilawyering is a futile effort at best. Arzel (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My point was, that DK was a shut-out from the start and will continue to be. He's not at the fore of any serious discussions of presidential hopefuls in the States. His wife is even more trivial - someone who the media has spotlighted because of her attractiveness. Yet another example of how American politics is little more than a spectacle to keep the masses distracted. The bottom line, however, is that, regardless of WP:BLP, simply mentioning the piercing does nothing to support claims of notability. --Strothra (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Arzel: no, I didn't make the assumption she's a public figure. That's the outcome of my analysis, not an assumption. Strothra: Whether Kucinich actually has a chance to win is not relevant to the discussion. I do agree with you that if she weren't attractive, the media would not have spotlighted her. Or, to put it another way, her attractiveness coupled with her husband's candidacy and her status a s (longshot) potential First Lady is the basis for her notability. -- TJRC (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Kucinich is a contender for the Democratic nomination and as such has been included, shoulder-to-shoulder, with other contenders in all the major democratic presidential debates. Whether a spouse is "notable" is, of course, ultimately a judgment call. I'm afraid Arzel's "suspicion" of what "most people" know is not sufficient criteria to determine notability. The fact that the Washington Post ran a full page story on her should carry more weight than Arzel's "suspicions." If Elizabeth Kucinich is not notable, then why would any other spouse of a presidential contender be considered notable unless it was for some other reason? The truth is they are notable to the extent that people think they are. The fact that major news outlets considers them notable enough to cover ought to justify their notability. It doesn't seem right that when something or someone is considered notable by many that a few people who disagree should carry the day. When you haven't heard of someone that others consider famous, does that mean they're not "famous"? Maybe to YOU it does, but not everyone else. 128.220.251.100 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm going to have to side with Arzel on this one. The information in question is one statement with no real significance. In other words, I see it as being trivia. The sentence about her being a vegan also appears to be trivia to me. Either it needs to be expanded with meaningful information that shows why it needs to be on the page or it needs to be removed. Furthermore, I still think this page has no place on Wikipedia at all. Xe7al (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please add {{Commons|Elizabeth Kucinich}} to the "External Links" section. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculation of Future Events

Perhaps this is a better way to view this situation. There are two possible outcomes at this time for Dennis Kucinch; 1) Elected President 2) Not elected President.

Under 1 there are two options;

A) Elizabeth has a tongue piercing, in which case this becomes triva and is really a non-issue. It is tabloid journalism if anything, which is something that WP is WP:NOT

B) Elizabeth removes her tongue piercing, in which case it becomes a complete non-issue.

Under 2 it doesn't matter, because now the speculative information is pointless.

I really don't see how so many people are completely ignoring several WP policies regarding this issue, it is clearly covered under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball which also goes into depth regarding BLP issues.

As such it must be removed. Arzel (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of WP:CRYSTAL you think this violates. That policy has no application here. We are not speculating on what might happen. We are merely reporting Kucinich's statement of her own plans. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we still on this issue? No, we are not a crystal ball, what counts is that the tongue piercing is notable now. If it becomes unnotable in the future it could then be maybe removed though even without having a pierced tongue the fact that she has one now and it is notable now will likely make the keeping of this issue a continuing reality. Anyway, it is your judgment that the tongue-piercing is trivial, that is not backed up by the refs and if you can find refs saying it is trivial I suggest you bring them here. Otherwise I suggest we assume it is not trivial. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:CRYSTAL - Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Please tell me how this is notable. Arzel (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but her tongue piercing is notable now, its inclusion has absolutely nothing to do with the future. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles are to be writted with future stability in mind. Dennis Kucinich is polling less than 5% in all polls. It is virtually guarenteed that it won't happen and thus violates WP policies, not to mention it is in violation of several anyway. You don't get to pick and choose what to follow or not follow. I am following WP policy, I would ask that others do so as well. Arzel (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Notability isn't determined by what may or may not happen in the future. That's the whole point of WP:CRYSTAL. It's based on what is covered by third party sources now. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And that makes for a notable person deserving of an article and with the tongue piercing included. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have said it before and will say it again. This is entirely speculative. Her husband is not going to be president. He is way behind in the polls, and unlikely to get any support in Iowa. As such it is a non-sequetar regarding what she might do in the future if he is elected. If he actually had a chance, and this was a subject of discussion regarding his chance then it might be worth including. Arzel (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, her having a tongue piercing is only notable in the context of her husbands presidential aspirations. Outside of that it is purely minor triva which has been given undue weight. Arzel (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparent consensus on tongue-piercing

Arzel, you are the only one that objects to this material. Despite your efforts, I would say that a general consensus has been reached. Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems nobody agrees with you [1] here either. Maybe you can shop for another forum? Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems maybe you should wait a while before making comments like that. I see someone else agrees with me. Arzel (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you as well. I see there are other places on Wikipedia where you have a problem listening to consensus as well. Quel suprie. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not go stalk someone else? Arzel (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to content, I really can't see the problem with leaving the information in.--Loodog (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, we should get the focus off the contributors and onto the content. The one point I thought could be of help is that if her husband didn't become president (which seems likely) then her notability and thus the wow factor of the piercing would also drop. I disagree. Even without the extra attention of all this her husband is a career politician and is presently a member of the US House of Representatives. This seems to make her one of the more famous people in the US with that distinction. As a suggestion I would be much more excited to see the energy of this debate instead turned toward expanding the rest of this article so this one sentence was simply an item amongst many more interesting ones. Benjiboi 07:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While I will state for the record that I agree with Arzel, I do agree that the focus needs to be on content. --Strothra (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to respectfully disagree with Benjiboi on her notability after the election. We have 535 members of Congress in the US, and most (maybe all, for all I know) are married. We don't have articles on all of their spouses, because for the most part, they aren't notable in their own right, i.e. apart from being married to a member of Congress. There's nothing special about Elizabeth Kucinich. She's got a heightened profile now solely of her looks coupled with her status as the spouse of a presidential candidate. Once that latter qualification falls away, I would not consider her notable. And because Notability is not temporary, I would suggest that this is an insufficient basis for notability even now.--TJRC (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either so best not to speculate on any alleged future unnotability. Her Englishness is also a part of her notability as is her tongue piercing (in the context of her) which I note Arzel is still removing without any reason, indeed this continued effort looks like disruption to me18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

Actually, to Arzel's credit, he last deleted this material in his January 4 edit. I restored it shortly afterward, and it's still there now. After my edit, Arzel instigated discussion here and on WP:BLPN, which I think is appropriate given his position, and he has refrained from any further edits on the article. I disagree with his position here, and am a little annoyed with him for being a bit abrasive on my talk page, inappropriately trying to have the discussion there instead of here where it belongs; but I don't think he's being disruptive. -- TJRC (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I explained my comments on your talk page. It appeared that you were ignoring my comments and simply making changes without consideration. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But I was dealing with this issue with Arzel before Christmas and was surprised he had brought it up again at all in the article. What do you mean by "which I think is appropriate given his position". Thanks, SqueakBox 19:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree TJRC, to a point; you and I might not share such a high notability marker for Elizabeth Kucinich but I think many others do. Not only for her own work but also for her marriage to one of the most visible members of the US House of Reps. And the folks of Essex sure seem to embrace her as well. I think this article needs to greatly expand and we might see a real biography emerge from behind the sparkle of her tongue jewelry. Benjiboi 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My role here is certainly not to be disruptive. I wholeheartly believe this is a violation of BLP issues in addition to being undue weight. While I agree it is interesting and has been reported in reliable sources, the focus on her choice in jewlery smacks of gossip and sensationalism. I must remind people that this is a bibliography of a living person, and the focus on this specific issue is absurd. I would say that those that insist on it being included are being the most disruptive as they have not given any reasonable reason for inclusion, other than it has been reported (wikipedia is not an encylopedia of everything) and she is notable because of it (absurd in extreme, provide a similar example I emplore anyone). I have believed since the first time I removed it that I was doing so within concordance of policy regarding WP:BLP and WP:CRYSTAL. Arzel (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree in that it is obviously a source of great interet and indeed one of th articles on her opens talking about it; references her first seeing one, choice of jewelry and closes discussing Americans reactions to it. I also know that wikipedia is an organic wiki where articles grow and adapt. The fact that this subject has been discussed to this length on talk page; that it has repeatedly been added many times after removal and that the Bio subject herself and her high-profile husband all seem to not mind it being known or discussed seems to suggest that its inclusion is merited and not considered to violate WP:Bio. As long as we deal with the item neutrally and dispassionately I think it's fine. Benjiboi 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Benji. WP:BLP isn't a catchall; it only requires that sources be cited and libelous information that is not properly attributed be removed. Body jewelry/modification certainly is not something that could/should be removed with "WP:BLP concerns", as there are none. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No Arzel is not the only one by a long shot. It caused me to start up an account to weigh in. What possible relevance does the fact that she has a tongue piercing have? Its jarring to see it in such a small article. Is that all anyone has to say? This is a human being whom you have entirely reduced to a single body modification? Thats all that is important to you guys? Furthermore *why* is it so important to you guys that you are willing to fight this hard to make sure it is so prominently featured in such small article? And I also notice that you have not seen fit to contribute anything else.

What I would expect is to see a "Trivia" section and include other tidbits like "likes horses" etc. .. with tongue piercing at the bottom. I am sorry but in spite of the protestations that "She brought it on by mentioning it" this is clearly meant to be pejorative.

I will try to balance this out by looking for other trivia so that a trivia section can be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJDJ1973 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea. Before spending time on this, please read WP:Trivia sections. The edit you propose is likely to get reverted. TJRC (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhh...read a little lower in your own link (personal life) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Practical_steps

Also re-reading what has already been removed, there are clearly people here with pejorative intent. RJDJ1973 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Do what you want. I'm just letting you know: Trivia sections are discouraged, and edits that introduce them are likely to be reverted. Personally, I have no problem with a trivia section. It often provides a useful place to provide a catch-all area in an article to capture facts that would otherwise not be included in the article. I agree that integrating the facts into the article is a better approach, but that's not always practicable, and having a trivia section is, in my mind, better than losing the information. That said, 1) that's not WP policy; and 2) the dis-integration of already integrated material is a bad idea, apart from the existence of a trivia section; so you can expect your proposed change to be reverted. TJRC (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it is now clear she won't be the first lady, what she would or wouldn't do serves no purpose and has been removed. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems someone has returned it to the page. I have to side with you on this and say it has no place here. Xe7al (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship status?

Just wondering--does anyone know if Elizabeth Kucinich is an American citizen? I think her citizenship status is worth noting in her article (given that she's a British-born wife of an American congressman/presidential candidate).

Given how long they've been together, I figure she probably isn't a US citizen yet (if she even wants to be one), but since she's a congressman's wife, I'm sure she could be a citizen for the asking. (Congressmen can sponsor naturalization, and even if Dennis doesn't want to sponsor his wife, I'm sure any other congressman would do it as a matter of professional courtesy.) -- Narsil (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't marrying a citizen make you one?--Loodog (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It makes it relatively easy to get permanent resident status (a "green card"), and then citizenship--but you still have to jump through some hoops to do it. Besides, she may not want to be a US citizen, she's already the citizen of a perfectly good country. OTOH, if she wants to be a citizen, the process would be a whole lot faster for her than for an ordinary spouse-of-an-American, because she'd be sponsored by a congressman. -- Narsil (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kucinich's beauty is notable

• Kucinich's beauty is asserted in every article that has been written about her and every interview she has conducted: WaPo, The Hill, MSNBC, ABC, Daily Mail, Cleveland PD, and the Daily Show.
• Many of these sources make a point of emphasizing her beauty. Specifically, this WaPo article says that the public and the media have an obsession with it.

Unlike the tongue stud, which is a matter of fashion and taste, her general beauty is an important element of explaining her notability. Shii (tock) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be a redirect

Mrs Kucinich is notable for no other reason than being Mrs Kucinich, nothing more. On that basis she does not need her own article and this article should be a redirect to Dennis Kuchinich. – ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's survived AFD twice already. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete this article

Kucinich will never win the nomination of the Democratic Party, and if he ran, let's say, for the Green Party in the next Presidential election, his wife still doesn't warrant an article because no other third party candidates (Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, David Cobb, etc.) have articles for their wives. I'm sure she has a great education and has done good charity work, but Elizabeth Kucinich is not notable enough to warrant a WP article --Tocino 06:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Why should she have an article when plenty of congressman's spouses don't;? She hasn't done a thing to warrant it. BenW (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an anti argument - they all should have one - get working. --IceHunter (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think shes noticed because of how active she is whith her husband Dennis and people think shes note worthy enough. If people want other congressmen's wives then they should do it then. The sad thing is that the drive by media wont let Dennis win.

Some people become famous by association. Elizabeth is such a case, and, because she is now a famous public figure, she certainly deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.175.8 (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability

I just want to know why she warrants her own article when her only claim to fame is being married to Dennis Kucinich? Most Congressmen don't have articles on their wives unless they are particularly notable. BenW (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, myself, but look at the header on this page. It's been up for deletion twice, and survived both times. TJRC (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Concensus can change and 2., both AfD's were made before her husband's candidacy was reduced to irrelevancy. I would support deletion.--Loodog (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think third time's a charm, go for it. Again, I'd support deletion, myself, but I think you'll get shut down to a chorus reciting WP:NTEMP. TJRC (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Any insistence that the subject of this article is not "notable" would appear to be drastically at odds with the fact that she has been the subject of articles in, for example, The Washington Post, ABC,Daily Mail, Cleveland PD and the London Sunday Times. Such Googlably apparent evidence renders any such suggestion somewhat otiose. Wingspeed (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but those only support the WP:INHERITED "Argument to avoid". The simple fact is that if she weren't Kucinich's spouse, there's be no straight-faced argument for notability. And the spousal relationship is smak-dab in the middle of WP:INHERITED. That being said, I'm obviously the minority, so I believe another afd is just tilting at a windmill. TJRC (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you guys. I just put the notability tag on this article, and I'll put it up for deletion again. Considering that most of the comments in the last deletion said to keep it because she's attractive, I think it should be applied for again. Xe7al (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

She is notable because she is covered by the media, mainstream and otherwise. Few candidates' wives are to the same extent. And I think everyone knows it is because of several factors that some people seem uncomfortable addressing here-- her attractiveness, her red hair, her perceived 'wildness' (hence the piercing focus), and the big age gap with Kucinich. Maybe all those reasons are sad reasons for someone to be notable, but that's reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.90.86 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete this article.

Don't delete out of spite. Until Google starts a wiki and archives everything Wikipedia is what we have, and articles should never be deleted - only more should be added. Don't say other wives don't have one - ADD ONE THEN - we need to preserve knowledge for the future. She's the (intelligent) wife of a presidential candidate. Of course she should have a page. --IceHunter (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's basically "I like it" which isn't a reason to keep an article. However notability is a reason to keep it. If you want to contribute to the deletion discussion, please do so at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Kucinich (3rd nomination). – ukexpat (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While IceHunter's opinion is not couched in policy, I think they are trying to articulate a valid point of view, i.e., that the wives of significant presidential candidates are likely to be notable enough to support an article.--Milowent (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

-->AFD discussion.--ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

can that third afd please be THE LAST one this article ever gets? Longevitydude (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can guarantee that. Off the top of my head, I know of one article which had almost 20 AFDs before it finally got deleted. 128.237.241.39 (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And which article was that? Robert K S (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

i think there needs to be a limit on how many afds an article can have. 65.0.46.233 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)