Jump to content

Talk:Monique D. Davis

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



Interactions with atheist

[edit]

Might it be useful to note what the purpose of the hearing was so readers understand how irrelevant Ms. Davis' statements were? -- Anonymous concerned US citizen Apr 9 2008

While this article almost certainly needs a section on the controversy regarding her comments to the atheist constituent, I had to remove the slanted, almost polemical section added today. -- nae'blis (205.167.180.131 (talk)) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous editor was not so slanted as you might think, since you have removed what seems to have been an accurate transcript of what Davis said. I don't blame you for thinking it unbelievable. I have added the transcript as per the original news report, and a link to the audio recording. The audio is very interesting; I am left with the impression that Davis momentarily forgot where she was, as she seems to move from appropriate measured tones to the cadences of a Baptist preacher. Trishm (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd not the transcript that I had a problem with. It was the phrase "the infamous Trinity United Church of Christ to which United States Senator Barack Obama belongs" and the section header "Bigotry against Atheists". That was the slanted part, but I didn't have time to rewrite it at that moment. --nae'blis (75.81.63.236 (talk)) 13:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely accurate to characterize Davis' comments as "Bigotry", to wit;
Bigotry: - intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views
Wageslave (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, that [link to Barack Obama] looked like political point scoring.Trishm (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Noting that she is a member of the Trinity Unity Church is certainly not biased, nor is it biased to say that the church is infamous given the press coverage it has gotten. Maybe someone should change the sidebar (a feature which I detest) to point out that she is a member of Trinity Church and not just the United Church of Christ, as the two are not clearly the same. The fact that Monique is connected with Jeremiah Wright and Senator Barak Obama is fascinating, and why shouldn't it be said in this entry? Rather than making the connections, would you have us whitewash the entry, because that is what it seems like you are doing in my opinion. But I won't press it any further, you go ahead and keep the fine readers of Wikipedia in the dark.Koshki (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The membership of Trinity Church was accidentally lost in dealing with an edit conflict. However, the connection with Obama seems rather tenuous, and including it in an article of this size would seem to be unduly politically motivated. By the way, Wikipedia works a lot better if comments are directed towards improving the article, rather than attacking editors. Trishm (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I'm utterly horrified and angry beyond words at what Davis said in her interaction with Sherman (I am a committed atheist)...I'm also a Wikipedian and it seems very wrong for the Wikipedia entry for her to have just one sentence summarizing her entire biography - followed by about a page of quotation on that one incident. It's hard to imagine that her entire career has nothing more of note to be said about it. IMHO, this article either needs to be expanded with a LOT of other information about her term in office and life before reaching office - or it should be WP:AfD'ed as being a miserable biography placed here with just one highly POV goal (although...she deserves it!). SteveBaker (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's not like this event is going to be at all notable or memorable in five days. Perhaps if the issue goes to court it would be more notable. As it stands, having the majority of the article be about the incident is ridiculous. — Sam 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk)
If other editors are interested in adding additional material, they are free to do so. But this incident is significant. I have added the Keith Olberman "Worst Person in the World" award to the description.
It is almost counter-intuitive to argue that because she had been unnoteworthy before, that the sudden interest in including documentation of this incident should not happen. This incident is the most noteworthy thing about Monique Davis, if you disagree, feel free to add other material, this isnt a "either-or situation". It should be both.
To say "It's not like this event is going to be at all notable or memorable in five days" is not material to the wikipedia's purpose. This incident is significant, and should be documented here with rigor.
Wageslave (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From a non-US perspective, it is the incident that is notable, not the person per se. That a civic representative could say those things on the public record is absolutely astounding. If more balance is required, and I agree that it is, then by all means add more biography.Trishm (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coming to it from a non-US perspective four years later ... it was the one incident I came to this article to look up. It's going to be the one thing she is remembered for - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs major work

[edit]

We don't quote the entire content of a copyrighted article on Wikipedia. Summary good, adding the whole thing, not so good. I'm removing that immediately. Jtrainor (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's giving undue weight to this one incident. There's no way the whole transcript needs to be up there. It can easilly be cut down to one or two quotes as Zorn did in his shorter version. - Maximusveritas (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think copyright's a red herring here. Let's just focus on making a good article. Which, in my view, needs only enough of an excerpt to convey the flavor of the incident. As with anything here, anybody who needs the full details can click through. William Pietri (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, copyright is not technically an issue here, as the contents of government proceedings are normally considered public domain, and not subject to copyright. I do agree that it can probably be shortened, though. Samer (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council for Secular Humanism?

[edit]

Is "Council of Secular Humanism" supposed to be "Council for Secular Humanism"? I suspect, but don't feel very bold since there's nothing on their homepage about it. Swooch (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it, it was mentioned in the blog entry referenced. --George100 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Not including the quotes that are involved, and just saying that they resulted in controversy makes no sense. Moreover, in the US, government transcripts are considered public domain, and not subject to copyright. In other words, quoting the transcript, and only the transcript, does not violate any rules. That said, I have cut the quotation down to a few sentences that highlight the key points of her position, and the grounds for the criticism thereof.

As for removing Mr. Olbermann's words, those are subject to copyright. Samer (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, we are not including the entire content of his work (the program), we are quoting him, in context, on matter of public concern. Not only do I not believe his comments are "copyright" in this context, that if they were, this would be a perfect example of fair-use.
We are merely providing a commentator's brief quote on the matter.
Wageslave (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much copying constitutes "fair use" in this context (I'm pretty sure there is a rule, but I don't know what the rule says), but you can't argue that his commentary itself isn't copyrighted. That said, I'm not going to delete the whole thing (though 143 words isn't exactly "brief"), but the article itself needs work. Samer (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"2008 incident"

[edit]

The term "2008 incident" is too general and broad. We should change this to reflect the nature of the event. Incident is a catch-all term, and we should refine the article to reflect the situation.

Im not sure what it should be called, but "incident" seems unncessarily vague.

Wageslave (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

[edit]

Someone from an unregistered IP added: "You can fax her here to ask for her resignation . . . ." etc.

I think we can all agree this does not belong on Wikipedia. Samer (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman page

[edit]

I believe this should be removed: "A few days later, Olbermann also named Sherman Worst Person in the World, and called on him to apologize to Davis, for his comments about Davis after their encounter."

Sherman's comments after the incident are not salient to the article. Anyone wishing to start a page on sherman and include it there may make sense. This page is neither a document about Sherman or a list of Colber's WPITW.

I removed it, and it was restored, without discussion, I'll remove it again later.

Wageslave (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above text in this comment was originally added to the main article instead of the talk page in this edit. I have moved it here where it belongs. -- HiEv 15:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Sorry about that - I must have crossed wires, I apologize. It was a mistake when I added that on the article and not here in the talk page. Wageslave (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who posted it, and I respectfully disagree; if these were comments that had nothing to do with his testimony or with Davis, then I would agree completely. But they are directly related to her outburst at that hearing, so I don't see how they can be considered "not salient." [This is not as bad as, but is along the same lines as, arguing that the lawsuit filed against Durham as a result of the Duke lacrosse case isn't salient to an article on the original case.] If other people agree with the original editor, I won't complain, but I believe it is relevant. Samer (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sherman's comments were made on his blog, and are a non-notible person's opinion. Davis' comments however took place on the floor of legislature, and were extremely poorly recieved.
I just dont see it as being relevant, as I said, perhaps it should be added to a page about Sherman, or a page listing WPITW.
Wageslave (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under normal circumstances, they would be considered non-notable. But they were a direct response to the events detailed in this article, and ultimately drew the exact same response (if we're going to include much of the text of Olbermann's comments on Davis, I think it's reasonable, from a NPOV standpoint, to include the fact that he denounced Sherman a few days later). Samer (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This section of the article is about Davis' comments. Who she made them to is really, in the context of the situation, really a minor note. When you say "ultimately drew the exact same response" is really misrepresenting the situation I believe.
Is there any other editor with insight into this?
Wageslave (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sherman was "denounced" for using the word "Negro" in what was misinterpreted as a negative way by his critics, and others just repeated those claims with little or no investigation. Sherman himself has said on his website, "There was certainly no intent to act like a racist. I was mistaken when I thought that the words [Negro and Black] were fully interchangeable and have removed that word from this web site." As he later explained in his "Tuesday, April 15" entry, he used the term "Negro" without prejudice, in the same way that Martin Luther King Jr. and the United Negro College Fund use(d) the term. An accurate neutral explanation of this situation may be out of scope for the Monique Davis article, therefore I am wary of its inclusion. I would say that the current "A few days later, Olbermann also named Sherman Worst Person in the World, and called on him to apologize to Davis, for his comments about Davis after their encounter." line is unfairly vague, with no explanation of what "his comments" refers to, and should either be made more detailed or removed. Still, to me the whole second incident seems to be much ado about nothing, thus of negligible notability. -- HiEv 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur and will remove it. Wageslave (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that (I'm the one who mentioned it in the first place; as is, I don't think it's as necessary as it was before). Samer (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum--the above statement was predicated on the version of the article as of my last edit (4.21.08) which did not include Olbermann's quote. Samer (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Who exactly did she apologise to? The Comments on Atheism section is quite long, and it only says 'she apologised to him', I take it this means to Sherman. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New "Comments on Atheism" section in the "2008" area

[edit]

This was a small article until Davis' "comments on atheism" in legislature. Adding additional information on Davis is worthwhile for certain, but that event is clearly the most notable and deserves to be treated in the way it was prior to this influx of material.

Please refrain from making significant alterations to that section without reviewing the discussion that was undertaken to produce it.

Wageslave (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to undo the removal of the section again. Please goto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_House_of_Representatives#Members_of_the_Illinois_House_of_Representatives

And review the form of those articles. None of them take this "verbose chronology", adding this running chronological history of Davis' serves to *de-emphasize* her most noteable incedent. Instead of adding this type of list-by-date, the topics should be organized like we see here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Acevedo

Which has a nice form. I disagree with putting the article in this form. I strongly disagree with the current by-year-chronology. Please, do not remove it again. Wageslave (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-politics career

[edit]

This says she was a teacher for 26 years, her own website says "educational administrator". Matching up her birthday, education level and when she started politics, this suggests to me either the NBC5 story is wrong, or "educational administrator" means "teacher". Does anyone have any insight? Both seem perfectly plausible to me. WilyD 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This [[1]] page says she was an "educational administrator", but then it includes this in her membership biography:
Chicago Teachers Union, 1967-2002
Being a member of the Teacher's Union I would imagine makes her more likely a "teacher" than an "administrator" being that the latter could mean managment.
It may be best to say teacher.
Wageslave (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Democractic Party of Illonois (or however they're arranged)'s website says both, so I put both. Over 26 years, one can imagine she was a teacher, vice-principal or principal or any number of other admin positions. With a masters, in many (most?) jurisdictions she certainly could've been a VP or a P. WilyD 21:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sounds good. Perhaps she moved into managment but kept her union membership while there. Do you have a source link for that? Wageslave (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.housedem.state.il.us/members/davism/index.htm Usually you can't stay in your union if you're promoted to management, but some intermediate level position may be the case. WilyD 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 September 2013

[edit]

Please replace the current External links with these (current standard format):

184.78.81.245 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - most of these links were added. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 September 2013

[edit]

Please add this in External links after Illinois General Assembly:

Note: THERE IS NO EASY WAY TO NAVIGATE FROM ONE SESSION TO ANOTHER WHICH IS WHY I TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK EACH OF THESE UP. TWICE. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The guideline for external links suggests that each link should be useful and should not contain information which would be included in the body of the article if the article became a featured article. The only additional information provided by the additional links (beyond that provided by the current Assembly link) are the committees she served on each term and that information seems like it could be included easily in the body of the article. Celestra (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2015: minor grammar edit in first sentence

[edit]

In the first sentence, please change

"Monique Dionne Davis (née McKay; born August 19, 1936) is a American educator and Democratic member of the Illinois House of Representatives, representing the 27th District since 1987 (elected on November 4, 1986)."

to

"Monique Dionne Davis (née McKay; born August 19, 1936) is an American educator and Democratic member of the Illinois House of Representatives, representing the 27th District since 1987 (elected on November 4, 1986)."



("a" to "an")


Thank you. 12.180.133.18 (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monique D. Davis. 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) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monique_D._Davis&oldid=1257616269"