Talk:Kate Kelly (feminist)

notability

There is absolutely no question of notability, when she's been mentioned in all kind of national and international media. So the statement of "Puffery" associated with edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kate_Kelly_(feminist)&oldid=614026921 is ill informed or disingenuous. I've added many of those changes back in. Sanpitch (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Move?

I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to have this article at Kate Kelly (Mormon feminist) or Kate Kelly (Mormon activist) or something of that nature. The "Mormon" part seems to be a very significant part of her notability, and that might help people looking for the right person at the disambiguation page Kate Kelly. The only problem I could see with this is some people might object to the title since she is technically no longer a member of the LDS Church, but I think we definitely have enough precedent here that non-LDS people can be safely called "Mormon", and it wouldn't surprise me if she still identified as such. Also, we have the "notability is not temporary" rule, and she is definitely notable as a Mormon activist regardless of current affiliation. Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with the move, based on the reasoning you state here. However it may become a contentious point at some time in the future, so I'd think we'd need to document a very wide consensus, with as many editors as possible, before the rename is done. Maybe bring in as many of the (at least semi-active) participants in the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject as possible, and other interested parties, so we can put this to bed without the naming becoming a big drama. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm inclined to think that a small local consensus here is just fine for the move, and then iff it becomes contentious at some future time we can ask for wider input. I don't want to make a big deal of this to fix a problem that I'm not sure exists yet. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just do it formally through WP:RM, and if the rename goes through this will ensure that a new formal RM will probably be necessary to change it back. If there's a risk of controversy now or in the future, that can be a good reason to use the formal process. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's a better idea than mine. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the importance of her Mormonism to her notability and think the suggestion of Kate Kelly (Mormon Feminist) is preferable to both Kate Kelly (Mormon activist) or Kate Kelly (Feminist) KMH000 (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have heard from a blogger in the Mormon feminism movement that the trend is that after some time a of activism within the church, the very-active feminists disassociate themselves from the Mormon church. In this case, it seems obvious that to Ms Kelly, her participation in Ordain Women was worth more to her than her membership; i.e. at least in some sense her feminism was more important to her than her Mormonism. I'm fine with the name as it is, but will not oppose it if the consensus is to move.Sanpitch (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Mormon Church is not all there is to Mormonism. It is entirely possible to disassociate oneself from the LDS Church and still be a "Mormon". There are cultural Mormons, jack Mormons, less-active Mormons, fundamentalist Mormons, independent Mormons, and more. Judging by her post-excommunication interviews, Kelly clearly considers herself to be a Mormon still, so I don't understand why we would question a person's religious self-identification, especially when it is repeated by reliable sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, except with the implication that I question her self-identification. I agree that the world is not black and white (i.e. it's not Mormon vs Gentile), nevertheless we need to quantize sometimes to simplify. So the question is, in the specific two-dimensional plane (Mormonness vs feminism) that is a slice of Kate Kelly's life, are both equally important, or is Mormonism more, or is feminism more important? Which of the two labels or both do we apply? It seems to me that the feminism dominates, and that her Mormon background comes out good enough in the article such that there's not a need to move the article to explicitly state her mormonness. Sanpitch (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the two have to be considered separately or in competition, since Mormon feminism is a "thing". She's not notable for doing anything in garden-variety feminism—only in Mormon feminism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, probably leaning towards there being a consensus against the move. In any case, this article ain't going anywhere for the time being. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Kate Kelly (feminist) → Kate Kelly (Mormon feminist) – As discussed above, the "Mormon" aspect is a very significant part of the subject's notability, and its addition would help to further disambiguate her from the 6 other "Kate Kelly"s listed at Kate Kelly. For those with concerns about her no longer being a member of the LDS Church, I would point to Wikipedia's policy that "Notability is not temporary" which is why we have articles like John Smith (Washington politician) even though he is no longer a politician. Also see the discussion above on why we tend to go with peoples' self-identification. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC). ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. She's not notable as a garden-variety feminist, but she is notable within Mormon feminism. The "Mormon" in this context could be interpreted as describing either the religion of the person or the type of feminism the feminist espouses. I think regardless of which is chosen, the word is aptly used here. Post-excommunication, she still self-identifies as being Mormon, and one doesn't have to be a member of the LDS Church to be Mormon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support, verbatim as Good Olfactory; seems a particularly elegant solution by User:Adjwilley to improve both the disambiguity and also recognizability of this article. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support, as her faith is very associated with her feminism in sources. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but following WP:CRITERIA and WP:D, disambiguators should be precise and non-unique. This would be the only article disambiguated as (Mormon feminist). Mormon feminism may have large differences with mainstream feminism, but it's still a subset thereof. Is the proposed title more informative? Sure, but the job of titles is to be as precise and concise as necessary for identification. Kate Kelly (excommunicated Mormon feminist from Arizona) would be informative and "further disambiguate" (unnecessarily) from people of the same name as well. Lacking another article on a feminist named Kate Kelly, the proposed disambiguator is over-precise, though by all means have it and Kate Kelly (Mormon) as redirects. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

But specifically this is an intersect of two notabilities. (Mormon) (Feminist) will also redirect here. This is not a case of (singer-songwriter) nor (singer actor). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey In ictu oculi, I didn't understand this at all. Could you phrase your response to BDD in different words? Sanpitch (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think what he is saying that that she is notable for both being a Mormon and a feminist so both should be listed in the title since being Mormon is a major aspect of her notability. I don't think that is necessary though since I am sure that there are several articles of feminist that are known to be Christians but we don't use (Christian Feminist) for any of them nor is this common practice.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@BDD, moving to Kate Kelly (Mormon) has a low probability of success due to the fact that by many standards she is now an ex-Mormon. (Not saying it's a bad idea, just that it's probably not gonna happen.)

@67.68.162.11, It's not that she's a notable feminist who happens to be a Mormon. She is notable because she is a Mormon feminist, and (unfortunate as it is) the thing that pushed her into Wikipedia's range of notability was her excommunication from the Mormon church, not unlike some of the so-called September Six. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sanpitch, Yes 67 read correctlythat's what I'm saying. That this would be the only article disambiguated as (Mormon feminist) may not be for long Mormon feminism is probably going to end up with more articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose For the reasons listed by BDD above. Sanpitch (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Are there other women named Kate Kelly that are noted for being feminists and who are not Mormons? If so then I would support. Red Slash 07:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I requested the move is because I was having a hard time finding the article on her myself. I paused for a while over Kate Kelly (Idaho politician) because of Idaho's proximity to Utah...all I knew going into it was that she had been excommunicated from the LDS Church, which is why I was expecting to see something "Mormon" related in the parenthesis or disambig description. I didn't think to look for "feminist" though in hindsight it kind of makes sense. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I understand wanting to keep things concise, but as with all things, we need to find a balance between what is concise and what is helpful to the reader. Obviously moving it to Kate Kelly (excommunicated Mormon feminist from Arizona) is a bad idea, as it adds little helpful information at the cost of verbosity. Adding the single word, as proposed here, adds a lot of helpful information in one word. Shorter isn't always better, otherwise, we would move Jason Brown (figure skater) to Jason Brown (skater) because figure skating is a subset of skating, and there aren't any other Jason Browns noted for being skaters. Of course, one might argue (correctly) that figure skating is its own "thing", to which I would reply, "So is Mormon feminism." ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you intitiate this move request? Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. BDD summed it up just how I would. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Following BDD and WP:NCDAB, "feminist" is sufficiently precise without the need of extra disambiguation. czar ♔ 04:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CRITERIA. Our disambiguations are generally optimized for brevity rather than descriptiveness. Kaldari (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mormon/former Mormon

Anonymous editors keep adding the words "former" or "ex-" in front of Mormon, deleting the word "Mormon", and so forth. Can we agree that post-excommunication Kelly should still be described as a "Mormon", not a "former Mormon", and certainly not an ex-Mormon? For starters, one doesn't have to be a member of the LDS Church to be a Mormon, and probably more importantly, Kelly has given numerous interviews since she was excommunicated stating that she still considers herself a Mormon and has no intention of leaving the faith. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, we can't, because even if you *think* someone can still be a "Mormon" even once they were kicked out of the church whose nickname that is, and even if someone thinks that herself, you and she can falsely think that all you want -- and you can falsely think that being a Mormon doesn't have to mean being a member of the church, but it doesn't change the fact that the person is, in reality, *not* a Mormon, as per actual church policy.

Just like I could attend a Baptist or Catholic, etc., church, and say I was a "Baptist" or "Catholic," but until I had actually participated in their baptism, I would *not* actually be one of them. The same would go for if they kicked me out! The same goes for the "Mormon" church, known officially as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the "LDS Church" as the preferred short name. Not a member of the LDS Church? Then not an actual Mormon no matter what anyone besides the church claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.21.140 (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

To maintain a neutral point of view and not favor any one church over another, we have to regard religion as largely a matter of self-identification. If someone says "I am a Mormon", then most sources will report that the person is a Mormon. For instance, Mormon fundamentalists are generally not members of the LDS Church, many of them having been excommunicated and many never having been members at any point, but they self-identify as Mormons and sources consistently call them Mormons. If you read the article Mormon, the term is certainly not limited to members of the LDS Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Huhhhhhh... you guys always think you have the "upper hand," don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.21.140 (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not clear on what you mean—either by "you guys" or by thinking "we" have the "upper hand" in something. I'm just setting out what I think about the issue in question. I'm not in league with anyone else in presenting my opinion and no other user has commented in this section. Of course I think I am correct—most people with an opinion do. The important thing is what the consensus of editors is on the issue and what the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia would dictate or suggest. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

To reply to the original question above, I believe it is appropriate to continue to use 'Mormon' to refer to Ms Kelly. Sanpitch (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone who is excommunicated is no longer a member on church records. Some have left comments that she self proclaims herself to be Mormon. That doesn't make her a member. Anyone can self proclaim they are something but it doesn't make it true. Since she was excommunicated she is no longer a member of the Mormon church. LXX3 (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It is made very clear that she has been excommunicated from the LDS Church. The challenge with the above comment is it the view that one has to be a member of the LDS Church to be a Mormon. Granted, that is the largest and most well-known denomination in the Latter Day Saint Movement, but it does mean that being a Mormon and being a member of the LDS Church have to be, or are, one and the same. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The term Mormon as applied to an adherent to the religion was original a pejorative term, and is even today discouraged by members of the LDS Church. Conversely, it has been embraced by many persons and groups that follow Joseph Smith that are not aligned with the LDS church. The notion that the term would only apply to LDS members is counter-indicated. GCG (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Photo

I have permission from a photographer (Maralise Peterson) to use her photo of Kate Kelly on this page. The photo is not copyrighted. I, however, have no experience loading photo files to Wikipedia. I tried reading over the guidelines/tutorials, but I'm still struggling and I don't want to incorrectly load/attribute the file. Can I send the photo to someone to load or get some guidance on how to properly add the photo to the page? KMH000 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh... wouldn't you also need KATE'S permission?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.21.140 (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not seek the permission of living people to use a photograph of them. The policy on images of living people is here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images. We need to avoid using photos "out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed". These concerns don't apply to the photo in question, so the only outstanding issue is permission from the copyright owners, which appear to have been appropriately dealt with. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The uploader at Commons is fairly self-explanatory, so maybe try that. Here's the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard If you have trouble with that, shoot me an email and I'll work on it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the push in the right direction. It's up now, I hope I managed to follow the directions correctly. Let me know if I missed something. KMH000 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@KMH000: It looks pretty good. If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend forwarding a copy of your email correspondence with the photographer to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a link to the uploaded image URL. They will certify that there actually is permission from the author, which will prevent people from coming by later on and tagging the image for deletion because of missing permissions. There are detailed instructions on how to do this at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS under the heading "If you are not the copyright holder". Thanks for tracking down the photo by the way ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Views on patriarchy in the LDS Church

I have reverted edits which added the LDS church's views on patriarchy to this section. This section is about Kelly's views, not a place to outline the church's stance on patriarchy and gender roles - those would belong in another wiki. KMH000 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I was about to make the exact same change for the same reason when I saw that it had already been done. Thanks! Sanpitch (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Laptop Gate

This is an important issue to many in the Mormon/Ex-Mormon community. Google it if you don't (1) understand the full relevance or (2) the scope of the issue. It's made local news as the previous edit mentioned and caused a huge rift on social media (facebook, twitter, reddit) not only amongst her detractors, but also amongst those who supported her (myself included) during her advocacy and excommunication.

Many of us in the advocacy community believe that personal monetary gain for advocacy is wrong. Whether you or I believe that or not is immaterial but it's at least something relevant for a person thinking of joining Kate's cause.

And if you believe this is a case of "believers" waging a character attack, then look no further than the top of the reddit exmormon page to see that many, on both sides of the issue, are extremely bothered by her actions.

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/33j408/seriously_kate_kelly_using_her_fame_to_get_free/ http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/33noou/kate_kelly_the_whole_fung_point_of_this_thread_is/ http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1566750 http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=37896 http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=38480 http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=13990848

KUTV says in this tweet that the story is "currently burning up their website." https://twitter.com/KUTV2News/status/591351095949131776

Should this take up her entire wikipedia page outlining every detail? Of course not, but I don't think you can argue in good conscience that this isn't a noteworthy event. People want to know about this and it'd be a shame if it wasn't included in her wiki page. Riboflavin6969 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)riboflavin6969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riboflavin6969 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree.Bigxii (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)bigxii

I agree as well KathyKellyExMo (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)KathyKellyExMo

As a former follower of Kate and believer in her fight for equality, I was sickened to see that she was using her position for personal gain. I believe in the principles she stands for, but cannot, in good faith, support her after she made a mockery of the entire movement with this laptop stunt. This is a well documented (see links above) event that people deserve to know about if they are considering supporting her. GolfBuddy13 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)GolfBuddy13

I have been following Kate Kelly and Ordain Women almost from the beginning. While I am sympathetic to her cause, I've been on the fence about whether Mrs. Kelly is the right face for the movement. The laptop controversy has finally solidified my views that Ordain Women needs a change in leadership in order to effectively advance our objectives. This was a terrible lapse of judgment by Mrs. Kelly and Ordain Women supporters deserve to know about the poor leadership we have at the helm. After all, poor leadership is what we're fighting against in the LDS church, right? How can anybody take our criticism of LDS church leaders seriously if we hide legitimate criticisms of our own OW leaders? Buuffalo (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Buufalo

I agree with the sentiments already shared here. Heck, I even donated a little to the gofundme page as I am a good friend of Ms. Kelly and her husband Mr. Kelly. My work up on the hill has led to our paths crossing a time or two. In fact, the last time I spoke with John Boehner he brought up the Kate Kelly case since he knows I am a devout Mormon but also not unsympathetic to her as a human being. However, after I put more thought into it I realized that her gofundme was in bad taste so I contacted gofundme directly and they changed my name to say anonymous. This section belongs on this page simply for the discussion that it has created online, all along the Mormon corridor (Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado), in the great state of Texas and even here in the DC area. Thanks. JohnHaddow (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)JohnHaddow

I am a current follower of Kate Kelly. Even through the laptop fundraiser. I still believe in what she does and think she's a great example. That being said, the requests to keep the reference to her go fund me campaign off this page seem petty and like censorship. Those of us who love her still do and are proud to have donated. But trying to hide that it happened and caused a lot of social media discussion isn't what Kate would do. She's all about open discussion and freedom of information.Disgruntledninja (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Along with the frustration that current or former followers may feel and the firestorm across social media, this still needs to maintain a neutral, balanced view. This isn't the place to try and "show her followers her true colors" or any such thing. This page shouldn't be something that is written to try and attract people to her cause, nor should it then be used to draw people away from her cause. This has nothing to do with censorship or petty feelings. With WP, there are issues such as wp:recent that assist in really determining whether something is notable in the long term. Same with issues of OR leadership and all that other "stuff." This isn't intended to discount the expressions of frustration above. I agree that it seems quite tacky and in poor taste, but that is a secondary issue to the article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@ChristensenMJ, couldn't the same be said of the entire article? Except for the recent news regarding the gofundme.com fundraiser, Ms. Kelly has not been in the news and has done nothing of note since her excommunication. She has not further advocated her cause, nor done anything of note, with the exception of this "laptopgate." In short, it would appear that her cause and excommunication were an event blown up by the idea of recentism. If recentism is the standard, then this entire article fails and should be deleted. If indeed, Ms. Kelly is noteworthy enough to be entitled to page in the first place, then he actions that garner recognition from the television and print media, deserve a small but neutral section on her page- whether or not she or her detractors agree or disagree with the context of the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.239.136 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree, in fact I believe last summer there actually was a nomination for deletion, but the outcome was to keep. Recentism doesn't necessarily fit her overall efforts and the coverage generated and its associated impact. Recentism can potentially fit when on a given couple of days it generates the emotion, views and chatter of this week. In the long-term context, it may or may not be notable. I am not saying one way or the other. Not defending or detracting. The comment about the neutrality of the section is as important as anything. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the discussion on neutrality, but again, as long as the article itself stands, the notable news should be allowed on the article. If everyone wants to revisit the discussion on whether the article in its entirety should stand, by all means, reopen that discussion. But again, if she is noteworthy enough to have a page then this event is noteworthy enough to include. Just look at the full page of a google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=kate+kelly+laptop&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 This includes a print/television media source, reddit, and blog/message boards on both sides of the issue discussing it. A short concise statement that her gofundme.com fundraising campaign for a personal laptop created a media stir amongst her followers and detractors should be allowed- especially given citations to legitmate media sources. The removal of such an entry smacks of protectionism and not neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.239.136 (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Print and media sources typically qualify as reliable sources, while blogs/message boards and reddit do not. And please note that after an addition was made, I made some updates and left the information, so while I still don't think that having a page automatically makes anything that happens with her notable, protectionism is entirely irrelevant in my case. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your source characterization except to point out that blogs have been cited legitimately in a litany of other wiki articles. However, I'm fine with only leaving citations to the KUTV article. With that being said, I did review the edit history and it appears that you did remove it for "recentism" which I have already discussed at length above and to which I think you have to agree is only applicable to the article as a whole and not a sufficient justification for deletion of this sub entry. And one other user removed it to ensure only verified user edit living biographies and pending this discussion. If "recentism" is the only issue for why it should not be put up I see no reason to not allow a neutral entry as follows:

==GoFundMe for personal laptop== In April 2015, Kelly came under fire on social media after setting up a online campaign wherein she solicited donations so that she could buy a MacBook Air laptop to be used for her "gender justice work, both as an activist & professionally.". After initially asking for enough money to purchase an 11" laptop, she upped the goal to 13" plus extra money to purchase a protection plan for the laptop. The online funding campaign was closed two days after it was established.

I agree that blogs/message boards typically are not valuable sources. However, in this case, there is no reliance on blogs or reddit or anything -- to the extent that a blog or reddit would be linked, it would be simply to show the responses to her GoFundMe on social media (the news article was about Kate Kelly's GoFundMe campaign along with the ensuing response on social media). --Electrolytes1234 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No. The heading used in the article was a farce and it's obvious there's some sort of organized (either WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK) campaign going on here. Read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Also, please read WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM - personal comments about the subject are not acceptable here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

See SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riboflavin6969. Bahooka (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This page appears to be experiencing an edit war. Emotions are running high, with some eliminating any contribution they don't like, and others using the page as a soap box. A better approach may be to build consensus through contributing with fact-based evidence. The evidence suggests to me that there have been some controversial actions that should not be hidden, but the use of 'laptop gate' appears excessive. I contributed, what I think is a more balanced view. If any of the claims are inaccurate, please let me know. But the edit--undo--edit--undo eternal regression seems unhelpful. Vermilioncliffs (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your contribution violated WP:BLP policy, by containing unsourced negative statements, by citing unreliable sources (blogs) for similar statements, and by engaging in editorialising WP:OR to make further negative statements. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies before making further edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your sources are poor (politely speaking) and you misrepresented at least one of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It seems that the discrepancies arose between her interviews with (I think) a reputable paper (Salt Lake Tribune), the washington post's reprinted letter from her bishop (reputable I think), and her blogs. I can't vouch for the blogs, but she hasn't disavowed them otherwise, so they seem to represent her portrayal of the situation. I eliminated what I thought was my more balanced approach to "laptop gate". I still think it should go in there somewhere (it got state-wide press coverage), but not sure whether it merits creating an entire 'controversies' section, and probably not a 'laptop gate' subsection entry. Vermilioncliffs (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The letter is a primary source and needs a secondary source for weight and interpretation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% with NeilN here. We need high quality coverage in secondary sources to craft neutral coverage of this "controversy", if it really is one. A flood of brand new accounts, all saying pretty much the same thing, need to be treated with an approriate level of scepticism. A very high level of skepticism, in this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Disciplinary Actions

This wiki page needs considerable improvement. Also, please be consistent: there are numerous improper or unsourced citations that remain in the current article, apparently without any scrutiny. First, the first sentence has a quote without any reference. It also cuts off the sentence without any indicating ellipses. I have updated there. Second, in the second paragraph she describes her excommunication as a violent act, and uses the language of 'abusive and manipulative'. A good page should include some references and explanation as to what was involved in these acts. I have attached and briefly referenced some of the language as pertaining to those proceedings. Vermilioncliffs (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015

There is written at the beginning that there are over 400 profiles on Ordain Women. In fact recently there are over 600. Thanks for editing. 46.13.76.26 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a (preferably secondary) source for that number? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Large Edit June 27 2016

There was a very large edit on this date (June 27th, 2016) that really reduced the size of this page. It was made by someone without a username and does not justify why such a bulk of the page was deleted. I would like to undo that action unless anyone has reason to object or has any more information as to why that happened to justify letting the deletion stand? KMH000 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Founder vs. co-founder

Despite the claim made in the edit summary, there are a number of newspapers in and outside of Utah that have referred to Kelly as a "co-founder" or "one of the founders" of Ordain Women. Here are a few:

• Ordain Women's Kate Kelly loses last appeal; husband to resign from Mormon church, Salt Lake Tribune (same article also picked up by AP and in national news so there's a lot of duplicates)
• Mormons launch online push to ordain women to the priesthood, Salt Lake Tribune (calls her "one of the founders")
• ‘They’ve Kicked Me Out of Heaven’: Meet Kate Kelly, the Mormon Feminist Who Was Excommunicated by Her Church, Vice

A quick google search of "Kate Kelly" "co-founder" and "ordain women" turns up these and several other. Therefore, I am restoring the longstanding text. There are some other tweaks to the recent large edits that IMO are also warrented to align with policies on BLP and recommendations like OVERCITE, so I imagine this discussion will likely become broader. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll add another source, the "Ordain Women" website itself - Kate Kelly and Ordain Women in the New York Times, which refers to Kate Kelly as "a founder of Ordain Women". Certainly english definite/indefinite articles are weird, but I still think there is enough evidence to say co-founder, or one of the founders, or a founder. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)