Talk:Annise Parker

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The lede

I've tightened up the last sentence of the lede, as it was a bit wordy. I may be doing some more work on this article, as I found it on WP:BLP/N. Unitanode 21:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"top 10 U.S. city"?

What is a "top 10 U.S. city"? The articles cited seem only to note Houston is the 4th most populous city, and it would be the most populous city to have had a gay mayor. Шизомби (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Top 10 US city" = the 10 largest cities in the US. I suspect you're misunderstanding something, though, because you seem to think there's a contradiction or inaccuracy where there isn't one — yes, it would be the most populous city in the US to have had an out gay mayor, but there's no contradiction between that and the fact that it would also be the first one of the country's ten largest cities to have accomplished the same. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any contradiction, it just wasn't clear what a "top 10 U.S. city" was, by geographic size, or population, or quality of life, or what. Шизомби (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification, sorry I misunderstood. For what it's worth, though, in actual practice when people talk about the rank of cities without specifying which measure they're comparing, the intention is virtually always by population. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reference to Houston needed as being a Bible Belt city?

Should any reference be made to Houston as being the first and only Bible Belt city to elect an openly lesbian mayor?
Native94080 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that Houston is a Bible belt city. There are certainly people here with that cast of mind, but there are many who are not. It is safe to say that Houston is not typical of Texas or the South. I think that is a POV problem. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this will affect the dispositions of the population toward gays living in the Bible Belt?
Native94080 (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Bible Belt geography section, Houston is in the "notably absent" section. The fact that that list is 'Citation needed' should be discussed in that article, but it'd be best to be internally consistent (wiki vets please feel free to find a guideline on this one way or the other, I'm very new to editing). Thebwt (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Party affiliation

City of Houston elective offices are officially non-partisan, but most Council members have ties with one party or the other. The Harris County Democratic Party made endorsements in some races in the last election, but not in the Mayor's race where both runoff candidates have ties to the Democratic Party. Annise Parker has only run for municipal offices and thus has never been listed on the ballot with party affiliation. Nevertheless, I know her personally and her ties are definitely with the Democratic Party. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

She was a delegate or alternate to the 2012 national Democratic Convention. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ellis link

He is listed as Annise Parker's successor on the City Council and I think that is correct. The link, however, goes to a disambiguation that does not seem to include this Mark Ellis. Should the link be kept? Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Graduate from Rice to be Mayor?

Wasn't Parker the first Mayor of Houston to be a graduate from Rice University? Cite: http://culturemap.com/newsdetail/12-11-09-annise-parker-is-houstons-next-mayor/ Not sure if that's too trivial, but still something that might be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.121.199 (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controller

The City of Houston uses the term "controller", not "comptroller". [1] Postoak (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicle endorsements correction - Citation help needed

So, I was able to change the text in the article, but (I'm new) couldn't figure out how to add the citations. The links for the changes are here. Can someone help me out?

General Election co-endorsement: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6673001.html

Runoff Election Parker endorsement: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6733416.html

98.200.117.160 (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"first elected gay mayor of a major US city"?

I'm not sure the article is accurate when it says that Parker "and the first elected gay mayor of a major US city." Sam Adams is the openly gay mayor of Portland, OR, and he took office a year before her. David Cicilline was also the mayor of Providence from 2003-2011. Are Portland and Providence not major US cities? We could simply change 'gay' to 'lesbian,' and then it would seem correct. Dhicks3 (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives three sources for that.
1) The WSJ says, "the first openly lesbian mayor of a major American city."
2) The Houston Chronicle says, "first openly gay person to lead a major U.S. city."
3) The NY Times gives us, "Houston became the largest city in the United States to elect an openly gay mayor....Several smaller cities in other regions have chosen openly gay mayors, among them Providence, R.I., Portland, Ore., and Cambridge, Mass."
To me, it looks like the vague wording is the problem. While the Journal qualifies with "lesbian" (as you suggest) and the Times clearly pushes aside Providence and Portland with Houston being larger. Maybe we should ditch the vague Houston Chronical and split it up into her being "the first out lesbian mayor of a major American city, making Houston the largest U.S. city to elect an openly gay mayor." - SummerPhD (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how Portland or Providence are "small" cities... smaller than Houston, but not small. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.8.58 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you see anyone saying Portland and/or Providence are "small". You're creating a false dichotomy and arguing against it. The sources simply don't include them in their ideas of "major". - SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted an edit that called it "one of the top 5" cities. The sources do not say this. Ignoring, at our peril, WP:SYN, the largest other city (by population) mentioned is Portland, OR, at #29. I have no idea where "top 5" would be the distinction. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article should change the wording from "gay" to "lesbian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.110.90 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this a few times and thinking about it a while, I think I would agree with SummerPHD's suggestion for the following line: "the first out lesbian mayor of a major American city, making Houston the largest U.S. city to elect an openly gay mayor." This seems to be the best way to word it, since it appears to be somewhat controversial on here to exclude Portland or wherever. It is the most accurate and least POV way to state her notability. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

Annise Parker and the City of Houston demanded pastors turn over sermons as part of an effort to police free speech. Pastors are required to turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court. As reported by Fox News, "The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law in June.

The Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures – far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot.

However, the city threw out the petition in August over alleged irregularities.

After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.

The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnnise_Parker&action=edit&preload=Template%3ASubmit+an+edit+request%2Fpreload&editintro=Template%3AEdit+semi-protected%2Feditintro&preloadparams%5B%5D=edit+semi-protected&preloadtitle=Semi-protected+edit+request+on+16+October+2014&section=new&preloadparams%5B%5D=Annise+Parker# Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref></ref> Pflaherty10 (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to totally rewrite this. WP is almost assuredly not going to say "Annise Parker and the City of Houston demanded pastors turn over sermons as part of an effort to police free speech". I think this should at least talk about Parker's stated intention here, i.e. to gather evidence for the upcoming litigation about whether there were enough signatures for the referendum. More here: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/houston-not-going-after-conservative-pastors.html ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I reverted a poorly worded addition on this matter yesterday, but a better written bit that meets WP:NPOV can be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be included at all. The district attorney said that Annise Parker had nothing to do with the subpoena and it came from his office directly. I'm not happy about it regardless of who is doing it, but her only involvement is with the city ordinance and as part of the city council that threw away the referendum. Fox News is probably using Annise Parker's name to refer to her administration and not her specifically. This is, of course, synth on my part to assume that but the fact is that she did not issue the subpoena.--v/r - TP 18:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fairly convincing. I only glanced at the Fox News article. I didn't get much further than the by line (Todd Starnes, not reliable) and the first couple of paragraphs to see the bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Todd Sterns has his usefulness. He brings issues that would otherwise be forgotten to light. But yeah, you can't depend on him to just report the facts without embossing them with his own rhetoric.--v/r - TP 19:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article clearly spells it out: [2]: "Mayor Parker agrees with those who are concerned about the city legal department’s subpoenas for pastor’s sermons. The subpoenas were issued by pro bono attorneys helping the city prepare for the trial regarding the petition to repeal the new Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) in January. Neither the mayor nor City Attorney David Feldman were aware the subpoenas had been issued until yesterday."--v/r - TP 21:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

Fox News is not giving all the facts about the subpoenas. It is a safe guess that Fox News is using the subpoena issue as a rallying point to drum up a nationwide reaction against the ordinance. Also the mention of the restroom provision is misleading. Transgender people would be protected in their legitimate use of restrooms, but an ordinance is still standing against use of wrong-gender restrooms for a disruptive purpose.

Also, I think the subpoenas were issued by an outside pro bono firm, not by the Parker administration or even the City Legal Department. I am looking for a source on that. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The children are not public figures and I deleted their names. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Democrat" affiliation in userbox

User:RJN keeps removing the Democratic Party from the infobox. Plenty of sources describe her as a democrat: LA Times, Huff Po, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, Time. This fact is not controversial and even if it were, plenty of sources support it. The rationale is "municipal elections/positions/politicians are nonpartisan". Whether or not municipal elections/positions/politicians are partisan or not has nothing at all to do with whether she is a democrat or not. So, the removal seems odd. Does anyone else support the removal? Why?--v/r - TP 06:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partner or wife?

I reverted an edit that changed the description of Kathy Hubbard from 'partner' to 'wife'. I'm honestly not sure which term is preferred, but the edit was made by a brand new editor who has only made that single edit, which raises flags. If I made a mistake I hope that someone more knowledgeable will revert it back. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, thanks. Leschnei (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Annise Parker. 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) 21:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annise Parker. 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) 09:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annise Parker. 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) 04:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy sections

  • @Loyalmoonie: Per WP:CSECTION, we typically don't use "Controversies" as a section title. These sections become coatracks for negative material that is often unbalanced and violates WP:NPOV. Instead, controversial material should be weaved into the article narratives in a logical manner such as chronologically with their other life events. If you've seen it done elsewhere, it's wrong there and should be changed to conform to this style. Especially on a biography.--v/r - TP 00:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I'm the one that added that content, you're probably wrong. You should assume good faith.--v/r - TP 00:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Houston Equal Rights Ordinance" is a much more descriptive section header than "criticism". It tells us what to expect in that section, which is another reason titling a section "criticism" or "controversy" is not a good idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is censorship, as you believe that using the terms "criticism" or "controversy" is offensive (when it is not), when the former terms are for inserting such material. The only reason you are fighting me on this is because you know you are wrong, and have decided that misusing WP:AGF is the only way to get what you want.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's censorship considering I, personally, added the meat and potatoes to this article. You're arguing about the seasoning and claiming the roast is ruined. It's silly. But, as long as you're not going to revert back to a controversies section, then we don't have a problem here.--v/r - TP 03:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Annise_Parker"