Jump to content

Talk:Laura Kelly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subject's notability

[edit]

It was questionable whether this person met notability requirements when she announced her campaign for Congress and now after she dropped out it is very, very clear she does not meet any notability requirements. This article needs to be removed from Wikipedia immediately. She has no accomplishments that qualify her for Wikipedia. Also, even she could read the tea leaves and see that she was going down to a humiliating defeat in November. No one really knows who she is and therefore does not meet notability requirements.--InaMaka (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State senators are inherently notable. -- Zsero (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Zsero: Your comment above is flat our wrong. Laura Kelly has NEVER held statewide office. The rules for notability for a politician are very, very clear and Kelly do not meet those very clear requirements. She has never held statewide office. For any political position below statelevel, it is required that she have tremendous media coverage, which she has never had. The only time she got any real media coverage is when she announced here foolhardy plan to run for Congress and then again when came to her senses and annouced her withdrawal from the race that was going to lose by a huge margin. The EXACT quote of the Wikipeida rule is: "1.Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges". Clearly she has NEVER held statewide office.--InaMaka (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your silly comment was true then Wikipedia would have an article about every single member of every state legislature in the United States and Wikipedia doesn't. What a crock!--InaMaka (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again. You seem to have missed the part about "members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature", even though you quoted it. If you think the guideline is silly, that's your problem. -- Zsero (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this aged badly. PerhapsXarb (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Kelly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

[edit]

Is there really no public domain photo better than this? If any Wikipedians know her, could you please try looking for one? Someone of this notability should have a photo better than this (same for Lynn Rogers), and also make 100% sure that official state legislative photos are non-usable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerhapsXarb (talk • contribs) 06:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas photos are not in the PD. I’ve been actively searching for a useable photo since she’s taken office. I’m in the process of finding contact information to see if we can use their official images. Corky 17:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any luck? No photos at all? Is fair use not appropriate for her page and Lynn Rogers? By the way, I haven't found anything prohibiting the use of official Michigan government photos, though I haven't seen almost any on Wikipedia at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerhapsXarb (talk • contribs) 05:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that keep getting deleted

[edit]

Whoever keeps deleting this addition, please stop. This is all relevant, factual, and properly cited information about Laura Kelly's response to the COVID pandemic as governor. She is in charge of overseeing vaccine distribution and unemployment compensation as the head executive of the state of Kansas. See for example Ron DeSantis page and lengthy discussion of his pandemic response. This information is completely reasonable to include.

These are the edits:

Vaccine distribution

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data tracker, as of February 2021 Kansas ranks 49th of 50 states in vaccine doses administered per capita.[44] State health officials have said the number of doses administered is believed to be higher than reported as vaccination sites have emphasized getting shots in arms over sending timely documentation to local, state and federal government agencies.[44] Kansas also ranks low in COVID-19 testing per capita, with Iowa and Idaho as the only two states testing at a lower rate according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.[45]

Kelly’s administration plans to give COVID-19 vaccinations to Kansas prison inmates before the general population, ignoring a call from the Republican-controlled Legislature to postpone their inoculations so that others can get them first.[46] Kelly and the health department say they are following the advice of public health officials and experts in vaccinating inmates in the second phase, along with people 65 and older, workers critical to the economy and others in group living situations.[46] Republicans in the state legislature and the state's Attorney General Derek Schmidt have argued that it’s wrong for convicted criminals, particularly violent ones and sex offenders, to be in line ahead of tens of thousands of Kansas residents with medical conditions putting them at risk of severe illness from COVID-19.[46][47]

Unemployment fraud crisis

According to the Kansas Department of Labor, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a 4-decade-old unemployment system, which it believes has allowed a sophisticated ring of criminals from overseas to exploit the system through information obtained from outside data breaches.[48] KDOL has not yet confirmed how much unemployment fraud has cost the state, but industry experts have estimated it could be as much as $400 million.[49] Another consultant who met with Kansas lawmakers estimated it could be as high as $700 million, finding that roughly 75 percent of all unemployment claims in the fourth quarter of 2020 were fraudulent.[50]

Kelly's Labor Secretary Delia Garcia, who led the state’s rocky response to the massive surge of unemployment caused by the pandemic, was forced to resign in June 2020 after her agency overdrafted the bank accounts of an undetermined number of residents. Garcia’s departure came less than a week after KDOL moved to “clawback” more than 4,500 duplicate benefit payments totaling $7 million, a decision that resulted in the overdrafted bank accounts.[51] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8090:1D40:DC9:4DED:6080:84FD:4445 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits of yours are correctly reverted. Some of the sources don't vent have a mention of Kelly and in general those edits are not relevant to the article. Please refer to Wikipedia:BLP . You are not having consensus to include this, so you need to stop reverting. In another note, use an account instead of anonymous. --FantinoFalco (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH because the sources don't mention Kelly. Other content is undue weight because it is not biographically significant; it may belong on Delia Garcia, COVID-19 pandemic in Kansas, Kansas Department of Labor but not here. Other content is both distorted and undue weight, like the vaccination priority scheme material that is stripped of context and also makes no sense (prisons are "group living situations" (congregate settings)) but this text bizarrely suggests that these are different nonoverlapping categories. Neutralitytalk 03:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

[edit]

Add new sub section under coronavirus response. The issue of Kansas' slow rollout of vaccines administered has been perhaps the top discussion point in the state the last two months and should be incorporated as an element of Kelly's response to the pandemic. Each article cited below mentions Kelly and her explanations and responses to reporter questioning at press conferences discussing he topic. None of it is opinion, it is all pulled from the cited sources.

subsection title: Vaccine distribution

Paragraph text: Kelly has publicly addressed Kansas' low ranking in vaccine distribution multiple times. Cite: [https://kansasreflector.com/2021/01/05/gov-kelly-kansas-last-place-covid-19-inoculation-rate-misleading-due-to-reporting-lag/; https://www.kwch.com/2021/02/05/kansas-governor-addresses-issues-with-kdol-vaccine-distribution/] As of early February, the state has vaccinated about 200,000 Kansans, but CDC data ranks the state 47th in the country for distribution, Cite: [[1]] up from 50th in January. Cite: [[2]] Kelly has said the state’s system, WebIz, has experienced glitches, so the CDC has not been receiving accurate information about vaccination numbers Cite: [[3]] and expects the CDC will have a more accurate reflection of Kansas’ vaccination efforts in the next several weeks. Cite: [[4]] Aggieville (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how is this relevant for BLP? This would be better in COVID-19 pandemic in Kansas. BLP is not a news blog --FantinoFalco (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is a major aspect of her tenure as governor not relevant? Look at any other governor's page and there is paragraph after paragraph on COVID response. DeSantis, Noem, Cuomo, Whitmer for example all have more extensive information regarding their response to the pandemic. Why mention COVID response at all if somehow her administration's vaccine distribution efforts are not relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggieville (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This edit is clearly controversial, and the page even had to be protected because of edit warring over it. The normal editing process also requires that if an edit is contested, there be a discussion (while staying mild mannered and polite) so that everybody can calmly argue their position and ideally reach a WP:CONSENSUS solution. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is this edit supposed to proceed forward? I am a new user making a good faith attempt to add a reasonable and relevant piece of information to a page, including addressing the concerns of other editors to present the information in a fair, balanced manner. There appears to only be about three other editors involved in this discussion who just continue to argue the information isn’t relevant. Why do three other people get to simply dismiss the information out of hand? Aggieville (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aggieville: Please see the section right above, Talk:Laura_Kelly#Edits_that_keep_getting_deleted, for why that information might not go here. Additionally, I'll give a few pointers: in general, articles should have a well defined and clear scope (WP:SCOPE); but we shouldn't delve on every thing that is possibly relevant, seeking only to summarise the most important information (WP:SUMMARY); and finally simply because something is in the news doesn't mean we should report it in full excruciating detail on Wikipedia (cause we're not a newspaper, WP:NOTNEWS). In this specific case, the information about the COVID pandemic seems a bit off-topic and too much, since this is a biography of Laura Kelly and not an article about the COVID response (see WP:RECENTISM - in 10 years, when this whole thing will have passed, the response to the COVID pandemic probably won't be a major aspect of this person's political career). Maybe you can reach a compromise with the editors in the previous discussion to include a brief mention (a sentence or two), though honestly if I were in your place I'd probably wait (after all, on Wikipedia, there is no deadline) to see just how significant the response to COVID will be in proportion to the rest of this person's activities - this might also be a case of "it's too soon to know". Additionally, I'd heed their suggestion of putting it in the more relevant topic-specific article, which is COVID-19 pandemic in Kansas. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My suggested edit is three sentences. You could arguably knock off the first sentence and not lose any substance. It’s a two sentence edit to add extremely relevant context to an existing section of her bio. Can you explain why we are including other aspects of her covid response at all if we are making the call that her administration’s distribution of the vaccine that will quite literally put an end to the pandemic is irrelevant? I don’t understand the standard set here. Lockdown orders and criticisms of the Trump administration are relevant but how many people the state is vaccinating and how it compares to the other 50 states is not? Aggieville (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lockdown orders and criticisms of the Trump administration are relevant but how many people the state is vaccinating and how it compares to the other 50 states is not?" Not in an article about Kelly (especially since those two sentences don't seem to be about Kelly at all) - as I said the proper place is most probably COVID-19 pandemic in Kansas. Anyway, since other editors expressed their opposition, it would be inappropriate for me to implement the edit (in any form) without first waiting for their input and further suggestions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Furthermore, quite a bit of that information seems to be very contemporaneous. Checking current data on vaccination by state it looks like the 49th place quoted in that article for February is already outdated. States like Idaho, Utah, Alabama, and Georgia do have lower vaccination rates. Not really sure what value such daily changing numbers would have in the BLP of a governor. --FantinoFalco (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed edit request

[edit]

Oops, I misread the page history, I thought this was protected because of sockpuppetry (however, given the SPA which immediately jumped to 3O, that might actually be the case). Either way, the request is clearly used here as an attempt to further a content dispute, so as purely disruptive content the removal should probably stand. Please have a polite and well mannered discussion to reach WP:CONSENSUS before asking for this again... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian, I have restored the edit request by Aggieville as well as the response it had received. Please note that WP:DENY is an essay, and that type of removal of talk page comments would only be appropriate for clearly disruptive content. Using an article's talk page as "an attempt to further a content dispute" is why they exist. There is certainly not a requirement for a new editor to reach "consensus" before they can request an edit on a talk page. The edit request is also significantly shorter than the content proposed by the IP editor in the section above, and appears to attempt to address concerns by two other editors in that previous discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wallyfromdilbert Sorry, mistakes happen. I was only citing DENY because I thought it was sockpuppetry; and then when I realised it wasn't the fact was the only answer that edit request was going to get was "not done: get consensus"; so... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, if you are going to close the edit request, I think you should provide your answer in that section as well, especially for a new editor who appears to be making a good faith attempt to discuss a content dispute. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laura_Kelly&oldid=1256152441"