Talk:Doug Jones (politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Open RfCs and surveys

• #Example section

Neutrality

This article is not unbiased. It reads like it was written by his campaign staff. It must be noted, as with many who write uneducated and biased piece dealing with Politics, that a Right wing act or idea cannot be "Radical", only the Left or Leftist ideology can be "Radical". Right Wing ideology is "Reactionary". His stances, politically, would not be viewed as "Middle of the Road" or he would not be considered a "Moderate Democrat". Recommend complete re-write to improve neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.95.1.11 (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I was initially suspicious of the Moore and Jones pages. Turns out that Moore rarely talks about the high-profile notional political issues or public policy relevant to AL. He mostly talks about God and the Constitution and how they are the infallible basis for his myriad controversial positions on secondary to fringe issues. I'm not trying to unnecessarily knock him, but he's not someone who is best portrayed in the well-sourced, information-heavy environment that is Wikipedia. He strongly appeals to an unhappy and increasingly politically marginalized group of people, the neoconfederate/Christian Right intersection. His success gives them voice which is functioning democracy. They're not dead in Alabama, and Roy Moore states that emphatically to the rest of the nation. That positive portrayal of Moore doesn't really have a place in a current political page. Doug Jones, too, just happens to warrant a squeaky clean page. He had a decent, successful career that only once became high-profile. That KKK trial is legitimately praiseworthy, and he otherwise was just politically active enough to squeeze into a spot in a state where Democrats don't matter. He's new to politics, so there's not much to say about his political poistions beyond his public statement. Red state Dems and blue state Reps tend to have refreshingly respectable and reasonable stances. He focuses on healthcare, jobs, bipartisanship, and Alabama-centric matters. Talking about bipartisanship in relation to the three issues that matter most day-to-day will always sounds great. He also is clear about his controversial stances but otherwise downplays them. There just hasn't been much controversy in his campaign, and he ignores Moore, more than most. There's just not much in the way of well documented, negative information to include. In fact, these strike me as pretty stellar Wikipedia articles during election season. Sometimes Wikipedia standards are just kinder to certain backgrounds and styles, and that's not necessarily a value judgement. Inexperience and pleasant but unrealistic stances are a large part of what make Jones's page so favorable. On another note, Radical Right is an accepted term that seems to describe Moore to a decent degree outside of his Chritianity. That being said, for non-academic political spectrum distinctions, I prefer far right - center right - centrist - center left -far left. That way you don't need to deal with pointless rants about National Socialism. Finally, Jones isn't to the left of Democratic mainstream on anything I know of; he is preaching bipartisanship, local issues, corporate tax reduction, and toned down statements on guns and minimum wage. If that's not a moderate democrat, I don't know what is. These days party moderates are still fairly partisan. Susan Collins is in her own tier, but Jones would probably settle into the more partisan end of the next tier (Murkowski, Manchin, Heidtkamp, and a few more). He's seemed moderate enough, and there's a pretty consistent moderate streak from red state Dems. Your comment is a bit silly, but I enjoyed auditing these articles, and wanted to mention that they seem like good work. It's not easy getting some of the concrete statements from Moore, especially. He does long interviews on very small local tv stations that post video without transcript. They tend to contain shockingly little content despite there 30-50 minute length. Hope I didn't break etiquette too badly with this. SwervinAround (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As a current resident of Georgia and former resident of Alabama, I can say that, were I a U.S. Attorney in this part of the country at the time Jones undertook the prosecution of Klansmen (and even now), I would have had to think seriously beforehand about the implications for my personal safety and that of my family prior to participating in those actions. Please do not lightly consider that those prosecutions are a simple part of his resume. Further, I challenge any wikipedia user who feels that Jones' record is misstated or is unbalanced to contribute to whatever he/she considers might be a more accurate and balanced description. We all benefit from such efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Righterofwrongs (talk • contribs) 05:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Image

I'm having difficulty finding an image. There should be a free one as his U.S. Attorney portrait is public domain. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have a good image of Doug Jones that they have taken themselves? It is shocking that there isn't one given the media coverage that this race has had. Thriley (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I've looked on Flickr and there's nothing, obviously I can't travel to Alabama to photograph him myself but good approaches would be trying to find his old U.S. Attorney photo as Muboshgu said, it's 20 years old but it would be PD, look on YouTube to see if there's anything, and possibly email his campaign. If he is elected U.S. Senator the problem is obviously solved as there will be an official photo. MB298 (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who got the Jones campaign to release images of Mr. Jones. They also asked me if there were any other pictures that we needed. Feel free to hit me up if you are all looking for something Inunotaisho26 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Inunotaisho26 would be good to get something from the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing case.Casprings (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 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 to Doug Jones (politician), now that it has been open long enough to see that there is no opposition to a move, and there is a clear belief that whatever the move is should be done quickly. Someone should start a new RM to deal with the primary topic question, and ideally everyone who participated in this discussion would be notified. I'm leaving move protection on for now so that a primary topic won't be established in the middle of a new RM without a clear consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Doug Jones (attorney) → Doug Jones (politician) – It's kind of obvious now that he's been elected that he's more of a politician than an attorney. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 03:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

In favor of "Doug Jones" title

• Move to Doug Jones. I think as a senator, he is much more notable than all of the other people named Doug Jones. Davey2116 (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones, agree with Davey. MB298 (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones. A United States Senator is immediately more prominent than any of the other Doug Jones profiles we have here.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move per above reasons --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones; with all respect to Doug Jones the actor, Doug Jones is the clear WP:PTOPIC at this point. Mélencron (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• However, Doug Jones (politician) is also preferable to the current title, and in the event that this option receives less overall support, I would still support a move from the current title – i.e., to Doug Jones (politician). Mélencron (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Doug Jones, now that he will be a senator. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy move to Doug Jones - The U.S. senator is clearly the primary topic. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones, agree with above, clear WP:SNOW here. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones: A U.S. Senator is easily more notable than some actor. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones: I think this is the primary topic. The actor is not obscure, but I think the U.S. senator will be what more people will look for long-term. Neutrality^talk 04:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move, as US Senator is far more significant and likely hit than the other subjects. Brianga (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones, agree with above, clear WP:SNOW here. -Volvlogia (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move More notable then all other people named Doug Jones.Casprings (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move per WP:SNOW. Clearly the most notable Doug Jones -- to wit, this tweet. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move per primary topic. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones: A U.S. Senator is clearly more notable.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 05:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones: With all due respect to the musician Jones, a U.S. Senator would receive much more exposure especially now some people are talking about Jones running for president or VP. Ueutyi (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy move. Massively more notable now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy move - he is primary topic. I have never heard of this actor and he is not anywhere close to being a household name. Doug Jones the Senator elect is making headlines around the world and will continue to do so, as articles about him were drowned out by the trainwreck that is Roy Moore, and more articles will focus on Doug Jones life and this historic achievement. Doug Jones had a very notable career as an attorney before he ran for office, and as he is not a career politician, I do not support (politician) as a disambig. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy move to Doug Jones - The U.S. senator is clearly the primary topic. 91.230.41.202 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones: the best known Doug Jones. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

*Move to Doug Jones. A US Senator elect is pretty much necessarily more notable than almost anyone else with the same name. This includes a fairly prolific sci fi/fantasy actor. Additionally, this particular US Senator is poised to be particularly influential as a red state Democrat. Doug Jones fundamentally alters the balance of the Senate, as well as Senate races next year. This is not simply a question of current events and the recent election. Jbbdude (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — This comment was added after the discussion was closed. Bradv 21:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

In favor of "Doug Jones (politician)" title

• Move from here. I don't necessarily agree that he's got enough worldwide prominence to unseat the actor so I'd go with Doug Jones (politician). CityOfSilver 03:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). Did you guys above just forget Doug Jones (actor) exists and recently got a major starring role in The Shape of Water? I really don't think the page views will stack up when all is said and done. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move but to Doug Jones (politician). The actor is pretty famous, I suspect that most people contributing here are Americans watching the election results. Doug Jones is a recent, prominent actor. pluma♫ ♯''' 03:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). He could be a one-term senator, who knows if he will do anything more than simply win an election. People are all fired up now, but I'd be surprised if people even recognize the name in a few years. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to (politician) That will clearly be his most notable role, thus should be the title used to disambiguate his article SecretName101 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). The actor's too famous for the politician to simply be Doug Jones. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Pageviews for the actor and politician. 427,483 actor, 402,972 attorney. Any declaration of a primary topic is recentism, and unsupported too. The actor's on the new Star Trek and again is getting buzz for The Shape of Water, and he's probably more notable worldwide. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). This is what disambiguation pages are for.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Second--Mpen320 (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Move to (politician) The name is just too common.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). Was just coming here to do this. No evidence Jones is yet the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Let's give that some time. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). There's enough "competition" for primary topic to keep the name alone as a disambiguation page. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). Given the existence of another Doug Jones, whose merit is equal, in terms of noteworthiness and acting skill (if not better in the latter), and given the great number of persons who have the name Doug Jones, etc., look, just use a disambiguation page for it, and make Senator-elect Jones the politician. Javert2113 (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician) at least for now. KConWiki (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move as secondary choice. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). He's definitely the more prominent of the two, but the actor is sufficiently well-known and in the news of late that it'd be best to give the "Doug Jones" page to neither, lest readers get misdirected. Elixiri (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move per primary topic. I personally prefer Doug Jones (U.S. Senator). However, I also understand this might not conform to the rest of Wikipedia. I looked at the other Doug Jones and Douglas Jones entries. Some of them I am convinced are not even notable by Wikipedia standards. However, Doug Jones (actor) and Doug Jones (international arbitrator) meet the level of fame/notability/prestige/etc. as soon to be Senator Doug Jones. The former is a film and television actor with thirty years including main roles in Star Trek: Discovery, Hellboy, and a main guest role in an Emmy nominated episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The latter has been inducted into the Order of Australia. Doug Jones (politician) is preferred to Doug Jones (attorney).--Mpen320 (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Doug Jones (politician). While I think Jones's victory in this extraordinary, very closely-followed race, paired with the general notability of modern members of the Senate, is enough to make Jones the primary topic at Doug Jones, I respect the opinion that such a move would be premature. Speedy moving to (politician), however, is very much appropriate. Rockhead126 (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). He has a senate seat for the next 2 years. Though he is probably going to be the most prominent Doug Jones, I don;t think thats enough for him to by the Primary Doug Jones. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy move to Doug Jones (politician). The only logical choice to make, here, to avoid confusion with the actor. Stolengood (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). Everybody is interested in this guy now (because the election was today), but he's not going to maintain this level of interest (or remain in the Senate) forever. I don't think we can establish one single WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Doug Jones". As others have noted, Doug Jones (actor) has built himself a solid career over the past 30 years - among other things, he's been in Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth, Mimic, Buffy, and The Strain. He's also currently starring in CBS's new Star Trek series, and has a main role in Guillermo del Toro's new movie (The Shape of Water). Saying that Alabama's Doug Jones is the Doug Jones reeks of WP:RECENTISM to me. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 08:31, December 13, 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician).Given that there is a current actor with the same name I think this is the best move. While he is gaining a lot of media attention for a surprise election victory, he isn't the so well known that he should be the primary article. Finnegas (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). Too many other Doug Joneses on Doug Jones, at least one of whom is quite notable, to elevate this one that far above all others. —Anomalocaris (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician): I agree with Rockhead126, above. = paul2520 (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). I don't see this as a contested move. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). Problem with just "Doug Jones" is WP:RECENTISM. He may be the most notable Doug Jones today, but he won't be in a year's time. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). Multiple prominent Doug Joneses? Let a disambiguation page sort the mess instead of assigning a primary. This produces the least amount of confusion for readers. --SapphireSkies (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician). If there's any primary topic it's the actor. Been prominent for years. Anything else would be a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Doug Jones (politician) Once the recent political talk dies down Doug Jones will just be a first-term senator only serving two years of a full term, unless he gains more prominence during that time I don't see any reason to make him the more prominent Doug Jones. Sprawlhacker (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

*Move to Doug Jones (politician) Make Doug Jones a disambiguation page. Kudo417 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — This comment was added after the discussion was closed. Bradv 21:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Doug Jones (actor) is the primary article that would suggest this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd oppose a move to Doug Jones. This Doug Jones is the primary topic tonight, just the perfect example of WP:RECENTISM. He may remain important to Alabamians, but for most of us he will soon become just another senator. He needs to do much more than win an election to be notable enough to be considered primary topic with so much competition from other Doug Joneses. Due to the common name, the first thought is "which Doug Jones?" which creates issues of WP:CRITERIA recognizability and preciseness WP:PRECISION. Wait a year or two and this will look absurd. As soon as a Star Trek movie comes out, tens of thousands of Trekkies will be looking for the other Doug Jones, which raises the issue of WP:NPOVTITLE. Let the excitement settle down a couple of months. If Senator Jones proves to be big deal in DC, we can reconsider. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• I have undone the previous closure per IAR and move protected this page to let the RM play out. There was no consensus for either title when this was previously closed, and the best outcome under our moving policy is to allow the full discussion to play out from the stable title. Normally this would be subject to a move review, but this was so hasty and done without a clear consensus for one title over the other, that I believed the best option was to immediately restore the page to the stable title while a discussion was ongoing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree with TonyBallioni's action here, but I don't feel there's a plausible SNOW argument for Doug Jones over Doug Jones (politician) here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Closing an RM after 23 minutes when there is no consensus for one option over the other was not appropriate, and waiting 7 days for a move review to conclude that an RM should have lasted longer would have been pointless when a new RM was ongoing. It would give the title that has been moved to a structural advantage in a subsequent RM as it has become the stable title. WP:RMCI gives the closer of any potential RM more than enough leeway to evaluate multiple options, and it could very well turn out that this RM decides that he is neither the primary topic or that (politician) is the incorrect disambiguator. This is currently a highly visible BLP, so restoring to a stable title until a new one is decided is in the spirit of RMCI and in line with the protection policy, which prefers that a page protected in an RM stay at the title it was at when it was started. I am neutral in this requested move, but felt that a close in less than an hour here was hasty and inappropriate, and would only make it more difficult for the eventual RM closer to do their job. I think this is certainly within the discretion that WP:RMCI allows for uninvolved admins during high profile move discussionsTonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I feel that almost everyone voting for Doug Jones would prefer Doug Jones (politician) as the location of the page were the question asked. I agree that move review would be a pointless waste of time in this situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
        • There's no deadline and it is the night of the election itself, so you're going to get the people who are most interested in politics currently. Part of the benefit of having it play out as a full RM that lasts longer than an hour is that you get truly disinterested parties involved, and are able to only have one RM as compared to multiple ones. The basic principle of move discussions is that the stable title is maintained while a discussion is under way. If in a week there is still no consensus between the two titles, but a consensus for a move, a closer will at their discretion be able to determine which is the best title under our naming procedures without being unduly influenced by a bold move. If there is a a true SNOW result for a move to one or the other within the next few days, myself or another uninvolved admin can move it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I support both options. But, what if (though highly unlikely) Moore's recount request produces his victory? GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's almost impossible Moore will manage to get the results changed. But in the event that he does, I would still support politician, as Jones is still best known for his Senate run over his US Attorney tenure. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Can we just move to Doug Jones (politician) and THEN take some time and discuss whether to move to Doug Jones?ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There seemed to be unanimous agreement to do that (with 20 voters) a few hours ago, so I performed that move, but then an admin disagreed and reverted. I'm not going to argue because I would assume the admin is more familiar with Wikipedia policy than I am. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 08:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Also agree. Best to have this debate in stages. The move to Doug Jones (politician) seems like a no-brainer. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy move. Any of the options work - please pick one of them, at least temporarily. The current name looks amateurish. EuroAgurbash (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this should be speedily moved as there is no argument that Doug Jones isn't a politician at this point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with EuroAgurbash &Knowledgekid87. If no one objects in the next hour. I'd propose just making the move. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James, DGG, Sandstein, and MelanieN: - Could any active admin consider the SNOW close discussed above? NickCT (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Wait 'til January 2018

Can we please wait until Jones is sworn in January 2018, before we add the navboxes? GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably not, even with semi-protection there are too many editors to add it. Historically, special election victors are sworn in very quickly, but it's not entirely clear that will be the case here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Which navboxes? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add {{United States Senators from Alabama}} or something, it's premature. Use the arrow html so that it doesn't show up. He won't be sworn in until January. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

See page history: I've hidden some of the premature additions, until Jones succeeds Strange. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I see we do have a navbox as "senator-elect". I think that is common practice; are people here objecting? --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Holy moly, been checking related articles & templates. Jones is being edited in as US Senator already. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC}

Lead section unclear

"He prosecuted the remaining two Ku Klux Klan perpetrators of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing which killed four African-American girls in 1963,"

This sentence makes no sense. If he was born in 1954, he wouldn't have been practicing law in 1963 at 9 years old. Can someone find the correct date and fix this please? 205.132.171.177 (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The indictments and trials for the 1963 murders occurred between 2000 and 2002; sometimes justice moves very slowly. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Would it make sense to say "Beginning in 2000, he prosecuted the remaining two Ku Klux Klan perpetrators of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing of 1963, which killed four African-American girls..." 207.222.59.50 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The sentence right before ends with saying he was the US Attorney from 1997 to 2001, and the sentence at issue says the "remaining" KKK perpetrators, so I think most readers understand the text. Summaries in the lede are usually at their best when they are concise and avoid extra verbiage. But I will leave it to other editors here if they want to weigh in on suggesting changes. Comments, anyone? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 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: not moved. There is a clear consensus that we should leave this here for now, until and unless the new Senator becomes the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (closed by page mover) Bradv 05:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Doug Jones (politician) → Doug Jones – I think this is the primary topic. The actor is not obscure, but I think the future U.S. senator is both what people will currently search for and what has long term historical impact. Casprings (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose If not for Doug Jones (actor), I would probably agree, but I think you can't ignore the actor's presence in trying to establish a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. You say Jones (the politician) could have a "long term historical impact", but I'm not buying that. We went through this in the past with "Scott Brown", after Scott Brown (politician) won Massachusetts's Senate seat in a surprising upset. He got moved to the main Scott Brown page under a similar argument to yours (that his shocking victory and his elevation to the US Senate immediately made him the most notable "Scott Brown"). But, people don't serve in the Senate forever, and after his term expired, people lost interest in him, his page views dropped, and he was moved off of the main "Scott Brown" page and over to the "politician" dab. If anything, considering the Jones's historical pageviews, the actor probably could make a stronger case for being the primary topic, as compared to the politician. To summarize, I believe trying to say that Alabama's Doug Jones is the Doug Jones is nothing but pure WP:RECENTISM. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 01:30, December 14, 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the other “Scott Browns”, I think there is a really good argument to move that page.Casprings (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:TOOSOON to tell how prominent he will be. I'm not saying that he eventually could become the primary topic, but it is definitely not the case now. —cnzx (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the actor, trying to make the politician the primary topic is WP:RECENTISM._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blatant recentism. The actor had more page views before yesterday, and I imagine this Jones won't overtake him significantly after the dust settles. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose malformed, the target is a dab, not primary in books and WP:RECENT. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Those who want to comment on contemporary politics should pay some attention to the news coverage in the real world . DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @DGG: - Don't really understand the logic here. I'm very versed with the Alabama situation. Obviously it's big news. At the moment that is..... Doesn't mean that WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply. NickCT (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. He's a US senator now, which is a very select and notable club, and clearly trumps the somewhat obscure actor and other entries. As DGG says, the story of his election has made headlines around the world.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:TOOSOON Wait a few months to see how things settle down. Jones is globally prominent right now but we need to take a longer term view than WP:RECENTISM. Timrollpickering 12:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's wait until the news dies down and see how many views he's getting. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 13:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to Doug Jones. He is going to be a U.S. Senator and far more well-known that the actor. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @WhatsUpWorld: - Who says? The actor has at least 1/2 as many references as the politician. NickCT (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the politician is going to become far better-known than the actor, that's all. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ever read WP:CRYSTALBALL? NickCT (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not unverifiable speculation, he's going to be a U.S. Senator and thus have considerable influence on U.S. policy. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per others' comments, WP:TOOSOON and WP:RECENTISM. Wait and see.Wikibojopayne (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Canuck's rationale. Nevermore27 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to Doug Jones. He now is a national known figure and will serve in the Senate and is much more known than any other Doug Jones.Qballer82 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support National figure and is to serve on the Senate which is more known and worth establishing Jones as the "Doug Jones". --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. (I had already supported this move in the previous RM.) Davey2116 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TOOSOON and WP:RECENT. He is currently predominate due to a recent election, and we can not tell at this time who will be primary topic. Let's wait and revisit the issue before moving the page again. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 23:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support as clearly the primary topic, at least for the next three years -- a national figure vs obscure persons. If / when Jones is no longer in the Senate, the article name can be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TOOSOON and WP:RECENT. Thriley (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per User:Zxcvbnm - Pretty blatant WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. We could reconsider this eventually, but it's way too to move the page soon right now, particularly as Doug Jones (actor) is highly notable. Plus, as soon as you type "Doug J..." into the search bar, this link pops up, so it's not as if the "politician" parenthetical is an inconvenience. Elixiri (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion and per the 'Scott Brown' and 'Scott Walker' examples. If he somehow excels in policy making or stands as a leader for a major issue, thus rises above the Senatorial pack, at that point primary might be reconsidered. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose... I understand the arguments for the move, but agree with the point that this would be recentism. I say weak, because I do believe it's a matter of time before the move is justified, but that's simply not the case right now. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, he's likely only going to be a US Senator for 'bout 3 years. He didn't win because he was a Democrat. He won because his opponent was Roy Moore. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I said previously, this is a clear example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:POVTITLE. Today's news is tomorrow's fish wrapper. This article received a big boost for a day or two, but is already dropping off sharply in page views. Maybe Caspring's WP:CRYSTALBALL is clearer than mine, but mine says there is very little chance of "long term historical impact." For most of us he will soon become just another one-term senator, and most people remember the names of very few US senators – outside the US, most people know none at all. Another Doug Jones was a world champion heavyweight boxer back when boxing was still cool WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and actor Doug Jones is starring in the latest version of a worldwide entertainment phenomenon. Due to the common name, the first thought for many is "which Doug Jones?" which creates issues of WP:CRITERIA recognizability and preciseness WP:PRECISION. I've already been annoyed when I typed Doug Jones (A and accidentally ended up at Doug Jones (Politician) instead of Doug Jones (Actor) due to the Doug Jones (Attorney) redirect, so I can't imagine what the Trekkies would think if they typed Doug Jones and ended up at an article for a short-term senator. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's certainly possible that he may build a stronger case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the future than he has right now, but with several other Doug Joneses listed on the dab page it's far too early to say that the Senator-elect is the primary topic for all time going forward just because he's currently the most newsworthy. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pure recentism. If there's any primary topic it's the actor, who's been well-known for years. This chap had a burst of publicity but it'll soon die down. Just being a US senator does not make him automatically a primary topic. Most politicians in all countries are relatively obscure even during their lifetimes, let alone in terms of long-term significance. US senators are no different, especially to people in other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Super Duper Strongly Oppose. I am confused as to why we are having this conversation so soon after discussion was closed on it. As I said a short while ago, Doug Jones (actor) and Doug Jones (international arbitrator) are two pages in which an individual will be just as notable.--Mpen320 (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The name is one of those that could be very common. Indeed, as some individuals in this thread have pointed out, there are some other people with the same name. Additionally, this person (The Senator-elect) from Alabama seems to have gained enough notability for people to understand that it is indeed him we are referring to when addressing him as Doug Jones (Politician) across Wikipedia VP101 (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Canuckian89. --RevivesDarks (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support because there are only 100 Senators while there are many actors. Senator Doug Jones will likely be the person people are looking for if they Google Doug Jones. If he doesn't get re-elected in 2020, then change it back to the current name since he will likely be irrelevant again. Maybe we can add a line for redirects like on Susan Collins' page. Political Geek (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • So you think every US senator should become the primary topic of their name? Not sure that's a Wikipedia policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are five other Doug Jones articles listed on the disambiguation page and the name is not an unusual one. I don't feel any of the pro-arguments demonstrate that the politician is absolutely the primary topic now. As for what may happen in the future, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. 79.65.126.84 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Senator-elect taking office?

Doug Jones is currently the Senator-elect, however, the navigation boxes seem to say that Doig Jones will become Senator-elect on January 3rd. Should this we changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Flying Soda (talk • contribs) 06:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

In External links, delete Jones & Hawley (he resigned and the law firm has been renamed) and replace with this template

• Doug Jones at Curlie 174.197.3.64 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Partly done: Removed completely per WP:ELNO#13 Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Only Dem in deep south?

The definitions of the Deep South are unclear, but assuming it means only FL/GA/SC/TN/AL/MS/LA/AR wouldn't he be the only Dem Senator from this region following the defeat of Bill Nelson in Florida this year? Should this be mentioned? Or, is Virginia considered to be part of the Deep South, and therefore Tim Kaine and Mark Warner are also deep south Senators Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem you read the article Deep South if you are including all of FL and TN, let alone VA. More to the point, it's hasn't been uncommon in quite a while for the vast majority of senators in the Deep South to be Republicans. Before Jeff Sessions resigned in 2017, there were no Democrat senators in the Deep South. The US senate is very strongly gerrymandered, don't you think? It seems a flawed system when 50.01% of the voters in a state can elect 100% of the senators representing that state, leaving the other 49.99% with no real representation in the Senate. somebody uninvolved (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn’t Doug Jones (Senator) make more sense?

For a title?Casprings (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)