Talk:Kyle Duncan (judge): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:02, 17 January 2020

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

United States courts and judges Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Requested move 17 December 2017

The following is a closed 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: page moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Kyle Duncan → Kyle Duncan – Subject of the article seems to be more commonly referred to as Kyle Duncan. Since he doesn't appear to use his first name as much (see his firm's website) I think it's appropriate to request this move. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 17:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks like "Kyle Duncan" is this person's most-frequently-used common name in sources. — JFG ^talk 18:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per WP:COMMONNAME. Marquardtika (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subject refers to himself as Kyle Duncan, he is listed that way at his law firm and most sources use Kyle Duncan. Safiel (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

name change

page should be renamed Stuart Kyle Duncan . Thats the name he uses on all official documents ~ source ~ official at the Fifth Circuit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.50.172 (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US v. Norman Varner

Tchouppy: I feel that you're missing the point with the Norman Varner section? The part about changing the name on the old order isn't controversial or particularly notable. The original district court denied the motion, and both Duncan and the dissent would have effectively denied it as well. Ergo going at length about it isn't interesting, about how it's six years old, about how the dissent would have let the district court's ruling stand (which was somehow turned into "the motion was meritless"). The part of Duncan's opinion that raised eyebrows was the 6-page long dicta about how if Duncan called Varner "she" then by definition courts everywhere would be forced to accept "xer" and whatever crazy pronouns academics at the University of Wisconsin cook up, and this is the part that is most roundly criticized in reliable sources and the dissent. Ergo Wikipedia's coverage, too, should be on the notable part - Duncan's opinion on the pronoun request, not on the change-the-name-of-an-old-court-order part.

For Above the Law, I could take it or leave it, but I checked and there are a number of other Wikipedia articles citing Above the Law and it has its own article, so it seems a notable enough "editorial" source as long as opinions are cited directly to it rather than in Wikipedia's voice. (Judge Dennis's article, the dissent, also includes criticism from Above the Law - not added by me, to be clear.) SnowFire (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 page should be renamed Stuart Kyle Duncan . Thats the name he uses on all official documents ~ source ~ official at the Fifth Circuit  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.76.50.172|72.76.50.172]] ([[User talk:72.76.50.172#top|talk]]) 07:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== US v. Norman Varner ==
+Tchouppy: I feel that you're missing the point with the Norman Varner section?  The part about changing the name on the old order isn't controversial or particularly notable.  The original district court denied the motion, and both Duncan and the dissent would have effectively denied it as well.  Ergo going at length about it isn't interesting, about how it's six years old, about how the dissent would have let the district court's ruling stand (which was somehow turned into "the motion was meritless").  The part of Duncan's opinion that raised eyebrows was the 6-page long dicta about how if Duncan called Varner "she" then by definition courts everywhere would be forced to accept "xer" and whatever crazy pronouns academics at the University of Wisconsin cook up, and this is the part that is most roundly criticized in reliable sources and the dissent.  Ergo Wikipedia's coverage, too, should be on the notable part - Duncan's opinion on the pronoun request, not on the change-the-name-of-an-old-court-order part.
+For Above the Law, I could take it or leave it, but I checked and there are a number of other Wikipedia articles citing Above the Law and it has its own article, so it seems a notable enough "editorial" source as long as opinions are cited directly to it rather than in Wikipedia's voice.  (Judge Dennis's article, the dissent, also includes criticism from Above the Law - not added by me, to be clear.)  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 16:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)