Talk:Kyle Duncan (judge)

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)

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 TalkContribs 17:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks like "Kyle Duncan" is this person's most-frequently-used common name in sources. — JFG talk 18:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: per WP:COMMONNAME. Marquardtika (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * I understand your point but focusing much of the discussion on the dissent seems inappropriate since this is an article about Duncan, not Dennis. I feel it could be reworked to focus less on Dennis's dissent while still discussing why the opinion was controversial. However, I don't think it's terrible in it's current form. The ATL stuff is mere opinion and just doesn't belong, whether the source is used in other articles or not. Tchouppy (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Varner, the logical problems are obvious. If every person can change gender (a biological fact) simply by saying so, then logically every person can change height just by claiming to be whatever height they wish to be. In other words, if reality isn't regarded as real, all bets are off. If a person's weight isn't what they like, they can simply declare that they weigh some other amount of pounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2020

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  20:25, 05:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Duncan → Kyle Duncan (judge) – no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on page views  Joeykai (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, and turn the base page into a disambiguation per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 04:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: per nom. Marquardtika (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Kyle Duncan.jpg