Template:Did you know nominations/Timothy N. Philpot
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Timothy N. Philpot
edit- ... that former Kentucky State Senator and Family Court Judge Timothy N. Philpot regrets that "no one calls me 'crazy' anymore"?
- ALT1:... that Family Court Judge Timothy N. Philpot described the Supreme Court decision to legalise same-sex marriage as "pretty close to insane"?
- ALT2:... that Family Court Judge Timothy N. Philpot has said that homosexuals are "not bad people" but their relationships are "sterile" and "just entertainment"?
- ALT3:... that Family Court Judge Timothy N. Philpot does not "mention Jesus inside the courthouse very much, even when I know he is absolutely the only answer to the problem in front of me"?
- ALT4:... that Family Court Judge Timothy N. Philpot does not decide cases based on litigant's sexuality, despite having been described as having a "deep disrespect for LGBT people and their families"?
- ALT5:... that Family Court Judge Timothy N. Philpot wants to put a rainbow on the back of his car because homosexuals have "stolen" the symbol?
- ALT6:... that Family Court Judge Timothy N. Philpot regrets that same-sex marriage means that straight men cannot hug the way they used to?
- Sources: ALT0 and ALT3 are supported by this reference and all the other ALTs are supported by this reference.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kalanemi (Ramayana)
- Comment: I recognise some of these may be judged "unduly negative" and thus declined, explaining why I have offered so many alternatives.
Created by EdChem (talk). Self-nominated at 14:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC).
- "Unduly" is relative to the subject's overall character and reputation. In this case, this seems actually tame. EEng 23:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- EEng, I have had recent experiences with allegedly unduly negative hooks, so I offered several options here hoping the reviewer will find one or more acceptable. Philpot is likely similar to other Republican politicians in Kentucky (this is the state that gave us Kim Davis (county clerk)), and I do think comments from lawyers that he does not inject his views into cases is positive evidence of character. EdChem (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you understood I was endorsing the hooks. Anyway, who says they're negative? If he's up for reelection, he might see Wikipedia's highlighting of such statements as a veritable boon to his popularity, given who his constituency is. EEng 00:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, EEng, I understood your comment as positive – I'm sorry if my reply did not come across that way. :) As for re-election, he doesn't have to stand until the November 2022 elections, IIRC. If he were standing this year, I would have noted it as the hook could not run until after the elections. EdChem (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you understood I was endorsing the hooks. Anyway, who says they're negative? If he's up for reelection, he might see Wikipedia's highlighting of such statements as a veritable boon to his popularity, given who his constituency is. EEng 00:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- EEng, I have had recent experiences with allegedly unduly negative hooks, so I offered several options here hoping the reviewer will find one or more acceptable. Philpot is likely similar to other Republican politicians in Kentucky (this is the state that gave us Kim Davis (county clerk)), and I do think comments from lawyers that he does not inject his views into cases is positive evidence of character. EdChem (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral, seems to have no policy issues, and the matching phrases brought up by Earwig's tool are all quotations. I have chosen to approve ALT0, which has an inline citation to a reliable source. The other hooks may be OK but I have not checked them. Good to go with ALT0. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cwmhiraeth, I appreciate the review and the tick. I realise now I was a little unclear, though, re the proposed hooks. ALT0 was my fall-back position if all the alternatives were seen as overly negative. Did you choose ALT0 because you thought it was the most interesting, because otherwise I would be interested in which you saw as the most interesting without being unduly negative. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, as you know, I have come in for quite a bit of criticism recently over reviews and promotions, and BLPs are not my area of specialism, so I did not feel that I was a good judge of the remaining hooks. I also assumed that the original hook was your chosen option, and in this instance I liked it best too. If I was to choose one of the others, it would be ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I completely understand your caution, and think it is wise of you to take care with a case such as this. ALT0 was my fall-back option, not my preference, but it is entirely my fault in failing to communicate that. If you don't mind, I'll post at WT:DYK and ask for input from the editors more comfortable judging where the line is on "unduly negative" relating to BLPs. My own recent experience suggests I see the line differently from some others, so seeking input is the sensible approach for us both. Many thanks for your review. EdChem (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine by me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cwmhiraeth... link to discussion. EdChem (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine by me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I completely understand your caution, and think it is wise of you to take care with a case such as this. ALT0 was my fall-back option, not my preference, but it is entirely my fault in failing to communicate that. If you don't mind, I'll post at WT:DYK and ask for input from the editors more comfortable judging where the line is on "unduly negative" relating to BLPs. My own recent experience suggests I see the line differently from some others, so seeking input is the sensible approach for us both. Many thanks for your review. EdChem (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, as you know, I have come in for quite a bit of criticism recently over reviews and promotions, and BLPs are not my area of specialism, so I did not feel that I was a good judge of the remaining hooks. I also assumed that the original hook was your chosen option, and in this instance I liked it best too. If I was to choose one of the others, it would be ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cwmhiraeth, I appreciate the review and the tick. I realise now I was a little unclear, though, re the proposed hooks. ALT0 was my fall-back position if all the alternatives were seen as overly negative. Did you choose ALT0 because you thought it was the most interesting, because otherwise I would be interested in which you saw as the most interesting without being unduly negative. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
EdChem I did read the article, and I did check all the hooks against the article and the sources. I can verify that all hooks are mentioned in the article, and all hooks are sourced with the exact sources you have listed above. I would recommend ALT3 as as the hook even the judge could live with on the Main page. The rest are not attacks on the the judge, but reveal his public statements in a snippet kind of way. Because it could be argued that his remarks are controversial and quoted out of context, I can see where some at DYK would be hesitant on the BLP issue. I think ALT3 would be good to run with on this one. — Maile (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Maile66. I tried hard to be fair and not misrepresent Philpot in the article or the proposed hooks, but sought input because multiple views are less likely to allow an unduly negative hook, let alone a BLP-violation. I certainly prefer ALT3 to ALT0, so thanks for looking and checking the ALTs. EdChem (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)