Talk:Julia Hurley (politician)

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

I missing the part where she carved her name into a desk ;) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015214/Hooters-girl-turned-lawmaker-Julia-Hurley-carved-initials-desk-House-chamber.html But as biased as I know you guys I think this will not end up in the article altough it cause quite a stir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.203.30.178 (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Election of successor[edit]

User:Orlady33 (no known relation to me) and I seem to be engaging in a little edit war over this article. Rather than continuing to go back and forth on the article page, I'm starting a discussion here so we can lay our ideas out on "the table" and possibly get a third opinion.

The issue is whether it is reasonable and appropriate for this article to include a sentence indicating that Kent Calfee went on to win the general election in November 2012 after defeating Julia Hurley in the primary. It seems to me that this is a fact worthy of inclusion in the article about Ms. Hurley. The 2012 election process that concluded her term in office didn't end with the primary, and it's a fairly standard practice for an article about an elected official to identify the successor and tell how the person's term ended. (See William Donald Schaefer for an example of an article about an official who ran for re-election and lost the primary -- the article tells about what happened in the general election after Schaefer was no longer on the ballot.)

Orlady33 disagrees with me, saying that the fact that Kent Calfee won the general election has no place in Julia Hurley's biography -- and apparently should not appear in Wikipedia unless and until a biographical article about Calfee is created. I find this to be an absurdly narrow view of the scope of an encyclopedia article about a politician, but I would like to give Orlady33 an opportunity to explain their position. --Orlady (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be in the article. Hundreds, probably thousands, of articles about politicians make mention their predecessors and successors.--ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


No other Tennessee politician that had lost in a Primary has a news article or a reference to the person winning their General after losing in a Primary. If this is a personal matter, which it seems to be, I suggest you take it up with Calfee or Hurley. There is no issue referenceing Calfee as the winner of the Primary on the Hurley page, for he won. However; Hurley was not included on the November ballot and therefore, any reference to that General election ballot including Hurley is not a relevant post on Hurley pages.

Yes, your reference above mentioning that all successors are mentioned, is just that. Mentioned that they lost in a Primary and the successors name is listed as such on the mail photo section, as well as the predecessor. Other than any election that both were included in, neither are mentioned past that specified election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudon YR (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have some interesting notions about what does and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Julia Hurley is the subject of an article because she served in the state legislature. Accordingly, it is reasonable and appropriate for the article to fully describe the circumstances of the end of her term in office, including who succeeded her. She is the protagonist in her biography, but she is not the only character in it. --Orlady (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her term ended in the Primary, not the General. How is it that you see the two elections connected to Hurley? Her election was lost in a Primary, to Calfee, not in a General. Your continued reference to one specified story, again, not including Hurley's name or information in it at all, is either a personal issue, or in your terms, something everyone needs to know. Had Calfee completed anything note worthy other than defeating Hurley, he would have his own page, yes? So why do you continue to add this person's general election win, again, nothing that involves Hurley? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudon YR (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of children[edit]

As I continues to scroll through to continuous edits made by ORLADY, I found one in particular that stood out. Apparently, ORLADY33 added Hurley's daughter to the page, her name that is, and ORLADY immediately corrected this addition by stating no children need to referenced by name and removed the edit, adding in the photo section, child:one to the edit.

I have also noticed that suddenly, ORLADY has been adding a reference to Hurley's childbearing age being in her teens, as if this were relevant to any page, as well as a quotation about abortion to a family section, created by ORLADY, AFTER stating that creating a family section was not plausible.

I have also taken note, that no other family edits have been made by ORLADY to any other female politician page, including Speaker Beth Harwell, who has all three children listed by name, without their birth-year or Harwell's age at time of pregnancy. Why then, does ORLADY feel the need to not only continue adding a family section, after removing ORLADY33 addition, and on top of this, not removing or adding specified additions to other female elected officials, and for that matter, all elected officials age upon their children being born? Loudon YR (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)LoudonYRLoudon YR (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information about family is a standard topic in biographical articles. You will find it more often in articles about male politicians than in articles about female politicians because there are many more more men than women in politics. The fact that it isn't included in some articles doesn't mean that it's not encyclopedic. However, because Wikipedia tries to respect the privacy of nonnotable people, the names and other identifying details about a notable person's children are generally omitted -- particularly for minor children. See WP:BLP. I have removed the names of Beth Harwell's children.
To be continued. --Orlady (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, I thoroughly understand that there might be some sensitivity about documenting the birth of Julia Hurley's daughter, but the source for the content in the article is a column that Ms. Hurley wrote for the largest-circulation daily newspaper in the metropolitan area (a source that you added to the article under an earlier username), so she's been very public about it. Moreover, the column presented the information in a political context, since she proudly stated her anti-abortion stance and her choice to have the baby. This appears to make it an important part of her political biography. --Orlady (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your opinion and not a standard procedure in documentation. Many references of, and I will use Beth Harwell as an example again, of writings by Harwell include her children, none of which you have taken upon yourself to mention or add to a political profile, nor have you taken it upon yourself to so thoroughly "search" for things to add to other female politicians, or any politicians bio's for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudon YR (talk • contribs) 17:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that someone whose entire edit history has been focused on this one article is going to the trouble of criticizing me for not having edited other articles in the fashion that you think those other articles should have been edited. As for "standard procedure for documentation", please note that standard procedures in Wikipedia are not based on your personal opinion or mine, but rather are outlined in policies and guidelines, including (but not limited to) WP:Verifiability, WP:Citing sources, WP:Biographies of living persons, and Manual of Style. --Orlady (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Hurley. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julia_Hurley_(politician)&oldid=1202850467"