Talk:Mark Kelly/Archive 1

Reporting of non comment
Please report from reliable sources and add references. Please do not report what has not been reported without referencing it. --Kleopatra (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you making up new policy on the fly? As long as something is true that is an absolute defence to any claim of libel or ill faith. And that applies whether something has been "reported" or not. As long as its true, got it? Daniels Weeking (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Not really. Wikipedia requires BLP information be Verifiable.
 * The policy in a nutshell: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
 * --Kleopatra (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kleo is completely right, according to Wiki policy. Tvoz / talk 20:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

tightened
I've removed several unneeded subheads in the section about the Giffords shooting - yes, this is of course an important part of his life story, but with the headers it was starting to get too much weight in this article about his whole life and career. The detail could probably be cut down a bit too, but I didn;t do that, just removed section heads that were not adding anything and tightened language, combined paragraphs for readability and MOS considerations, and changed first name refs to surname as is wiki style. Tvoz / talk 20:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Kelly is scheduled to be commander of STS-134
I think it is misleading to say that "Kelly is commander of STS-134". Maybe some sources say that his is currently commander, but STS-134 has not yet begun. To say that he is the commander could be misinterpreted as suggesting the mission has already begun. No information is lost by saying "Kelly is scheduled to be commander of STS-134" (which is also true!), so for clarity, I think this should be changed in the lead. Mlm42 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I think it is the terminology used once the crew has been selected, I can see where it could be confusing, so see the revised wording. Tvoz / talk 05:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The new wording works for me. Mlm42 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Kelly is the commander now
NASA calls him the commander. The mission does not begin at liftoff--it begins well before with planning and training. See NASA press release, where. ..
 * NOTE: The mission does in fact begin at liftoff, but he is commander now of 134, a planned mission. More below.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Participants will include: -- Mark Kelly, commander, STS-134 -- Peggy Whitson, chief, Astronaut Office -- Brent Jett, chief, Flight Crew Operations Directorate"

Release at http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/feb/HQ_11-036_Kelly_Returns.html

A lot more goes into a flight than the flight itself and personnel are in their roles once a mission is defined and training begins.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, but it can be confusing to a reader, so saying he was chosen as commander, I think, is accurate to your point but may reduce confusion. What do you think? Tvoz / talk 16:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Is commander" is more accurate, however, the way you've rewritten it is not something I'll lose sleep over--and it leaves what he currently "is" open to the mind of the reader. Within NASA, there is no doubt that he "is" the commander (right now), which even Dianne Sawyer called him. As an aside, he also is a Navy Captain, but he's especially notable because of his role at NASA. For now I am going to edit so it's not passive. Thanks for your edits.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to mess with it right now . . . maybe later. Overall the whole article is much better thanks to you. Cheers, --Utahredrock (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Note that it does still say "is commander" in the STS-134 section, and I don't propose changing that, so I think it all works together.  Tvoz / talk 17:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the usage later down is clearly under the heading "Pending mission". The reason I suggested the change is because the first few sentences of the article should be as unambiguous as possible - regardless of NASA's usage in press releases. I should also point out that NASA always gives the "Mission duration" of shuttle missions, and for this calculation they are consistent: the mission begins at launch and ends and landing. This is why it's confusing to claim the mission begins before lift-off. Mlm42 (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Our friends in Houston would disagree, but at least we can agree that the wording is acceptable to both of us. Utahredrock (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of this NASA page is: "When the clock reaches zero, the countdown ends and the mission begins!" Seems pretty unambiguous to me that NASA thinks the mission begins at launch. Mlm42 (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're correct there, however, Kelly is "currently the commander of sts134. The fact the mission hasn't launched yet is not relevant. Shuttle commander is a NASA rank. It is the equivalent of aircraft commander. The person's military rank has nothing to do with that. The mission begins at liftoff but the job titles begin when training starts." Aug '09 in the case of 134. Unfortunately this is original research from NASA--I can't find anything equivalent on the website. It would be more accurate and unambiguous to lead the bio stating that "Kelly is the commander of 134," which as you point out doesn't begin until liftoff--that is correct--but the title began in 2009. Prior to liftoff, STS-134 exists as a planned mission--which is clear to anyone who goes to read more about 134. It is less clear what the status of the crew is right now. They do in fact have an actual rank as they plan and prep for the mission. I'll have to see if I can find a source that says this vs. original research.--Utahredrock 16:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so something like "Kelly is also commander of the upcoming mission STS-134" would also be clear enough - because the word "upcoming" occurs before the name of the mission. Mlm42 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that edit will work, just removed the passive voice.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on STS-121
Kelly suggested during an in-orbit press conference that the wake-up songs should be made known to the crew in advance when he said:


 * "Sometimes we know ahead of time what the music is going to be and who it's for, other times it's a complete surprise and you just get woken up by it and have to scrabble around thinking of something profound to say about it."--Utahredrock (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I searched for a phrase out of that and found these pages:,  Both probably from the same AP interview. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great. I found a better quote. May return to the wakeup music. This is the flight--I think--when G Giffords had them play U2's "Beautiful Day," something that's received a fair amount of media coverage.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article previously stated that STS-121 was Discovery's third longest mission. Per the following source:


 * http://www.myfoxorlando.com/generic/news/nasa/space-shuttle-discovery-history it would have been the fourth longest mission at the time of that flight. While this makes it one of Discovery's longer missions, it doesn't seem worth including.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not that important, but I think it was the third longest: only STS-114 and STS-120 were longer. That list you linked to isn't in chronological order, so you have to be careful. Also it says STS-120 was launched in 2010, when it was actually launched in 2007.. and it says STS-124 was launched in 2010, when it was launched in 2008.. yikes.. that's sad. Anyway, the sortable List of space shuttle missions is way more reliable for determining what's actually true. Mlm42 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, that list appears to be in chronological order (with the correct dates), but they have written the wrong dates. Mlm42 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about STS-124, not STS-121. In either case, this isn't particularly important. Mlm42 (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source needed on Merchant Marine Acad. accomplishment
I believe the following was in his NASA bio at one point, or maybe somebody who knows him added it. We need a source for:

"While attending the USMMA, he achieved the position of Regimental Executive Officer, the second-highest position in the Regiment of Midshipmen, known informally as "RX"."--Utahredrock (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been removed until/unless a source is found.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Another sentence removed
Kelly's steadfast optimism offered hope for his wife's recovery.

And a source: --Utahredrock (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Referenced or not, I think "steadfast" qualifies as a word to watch, so should be changed. Also "offered hope" is unclear.. offered hope to whom? Mlm42 (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

B-class assessment
This article looks pretty good, and in particular it appears to satisfy the B-class criteria. A few stylistic points:

The lead

 * The lead could be longer. At the moments it's pretty short; maybe more about his three previous spaceflights could be summarized, as well as more about the Tucson shooting.
 * Until a day or two ago there was a paragraph summary of his spaceflight experience. The thing is, the space flights are prominent and not too far into the article. We could bring the paragraph back, but saying he was a veteran of three shuttle missions seemed sufficient for the opening. Still, I am open to other ways of doing it. I also added more on the Tucson shooting and it's impact on Kelly as well as what he came to represent as a result of the shooting. I think the sources back up what I wrote, but I'll wait to see what others thing. There is no question, and some articles say this, that this incident, sadly, has given him a type of fame that flying the shuttle never did.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's remember that the reason Kelly has a Wikipedia article is not because of his wife - it's because he's an astronaut. The lead should reflect that. Mlm42 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that people will not like the idea of saying Kelly represents steadiness, hope, optimism . . . here's one more source with the same conclusion. It's from Fox's chief religion correspondent: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/04/years-national-prayer-breakfast-truly-inspirational/
 * I believe that these qualities are why so many people are interested in Kelly after the shooting, I just don't know how or if you put that in an encyclopedia.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, sentences like "Kelly's steadfast optimism[4] offered hope for his wife's recovery." are simply not encyclopedic. A more NPOV way of saying this might be "Giffords' nurse believed that Kelly's optimism and support helped his wife recover." But I'm not sure that this should be in the lead. Mlm42 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead section overhauled
With generous input from MLM42 and Tvoz, the lead has been significantly reworked.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The body of article

 * There are a lot of quotes; while some of the quotes are great, I think most of them are unnecessary. At times this causes the article to feel a bit unencyclopedic. So it may be better to summarize some of the quotes in prose, or paraphrase them. I also think the number of quotes is detracting from the article's neutrality - It kinda feels like some of the quotes are attempting to glorify Kelly. See the essay WP:QUOTEFARM. Some specific examples:
 * In the STS-124 section, there is a quote from Space.com. If there's no reason to doubt this report, then it's unnecessary to say "Space.com reported that", and quote them directly. I think it's better just to paraphrase: "Following liftoff, inspectors found that..".
 * Done.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * After the shooting Kelly said that he and his wife had "talked dozens of times" about the risks she faced in her job. This is somehwat confusing, because it is about events happening prior to the shooting, not after; and "dozens of times" doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. In light of the next sentence, this sentence could be removed entirely.
 * The next sentence (Giffords told Kelly..) is also confusingly worded. Maybe something like: "Prior to the shooting, Giffords had expressed concern to Kelly that someone might approach her at a political event with a gun." Or if there's reason to doubt the truth of this statement, you could add "Kelly told ABC news that..".
 * If you watch the interview, Kelly also says that she explicitly worried about being killed--which is different than being approached by someone with a gun (which he also mentioned). I will take another crack at this later unless someone else has fixed it.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reworked the paragraph and moved it to end of section. Nice ending with Kelly's tough optimism for the prospects of his wife's recovery.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In the STS-124 section, Kelly's quote just prior to liftoff deserves a little more explanation - in particular that Kibo is the research module they are taking to the station, and its name in Japanese means "hope". Both of these facts are later down the article, but they should be next to the quote. Generally speaking, the quotes should have more explanation to go with them (like the "You looking for a plumber" quote, could be tied more explicitly to the malfunctioning toilet).
 * Done, or at least attempted to handle these suggestions--all good.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, it's generally looking good, and thanks for all the work that's been put into this article. Mlm42 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mlm42 for your helpful comments - will take these into consideration as we try to move this article from where it was a month ago to where it is now and where it could be. Tvoz / talk 19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. Agree with most of the suggestions and some were already on my list to work on (context for Kibo in particular). RE the wording about her fear of being shot, totally agree. Have messed with that a bunch already and it's still not right. I definitely want to keep improving this. As far as the quotes, I am open to change there, but I do think direct quotes add to the article overall--are there too many or not the best ones? Perhaps.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A point on citations
By the way, as per WP:INTEGRITY, it's preferable to only have one ref-tag at a time. That guideline page describes how to bundle multiple sources into a single footnote. Mlm42 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but before I bundle the citation, I am curious if the paragraph will stay or not; or if it will be edited enough that not all sources are needed.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just making a general comment, because this is an issue throughout the article.. I'm not sure which paragraph you are talking about? Mlm42 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I got all of them except for paragraph two. That's the one I don't want to deal with until some other editors look at it.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All should be gone now.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Still too many quotes
I think the biggest thing that might hold this article back from getting GA status is that amount of quotes in the Tucson shooting section - because it makes the article less neutral (GA criteria 4). At the moment it seems over half of all words in this section are part of a quotation.. pretty much every paragraph has multiple quotations. This should be reduced..(again, see WP:QUOTEFARM) I think it would be a huge improvement if this were reduced to about three or four key quotations for the entire "Personal life" section. Mlm42 (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Quotes vastly reduced by elimination or paraphrasing

 * Gave it a shot.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good improvement. I think the following quotes could be outright removed.
 * "It was a terrible mistake," Kelly said, "as bad as it was that she had died, it's equally exciting that she hadn't." This quote is confusing, and doesn't really add anything to the paragraph, so it could be removed completely. (he was excited that she died?)
 * This quote is essential and not confusing. He says it was exciting that she hadn't died. How often do people get the news that someone died only to find out that, no they're still alive? This is a vital quote and should not be paraphrased.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One way of reading the quote it that he was "equally" excited about two things: 1) That she hadn't died, 2) That she had. It's confusing. Presummably he means he was "as excited as he was sad", but that isn't clear. Probably better to paraphrase this one. Mlm42 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "She has Tombstone, Arizona in her district, the town that's too tough to die. Gabrielle Giffords is too tough to let this beat her." If you check out Tombstone, Arizona, you learn it is a tourist town, and doesn't sound that bad at all. I think this quote seems out of place in that paragraph, and doesn't really add anything to the article.. the reader will understand by this point that Kelly supports his wife and is optimistic; no need to reiterate it.
 * Tombstone is now a tourist town, and it is known as the town that's too tough to die. Here you have Kelly showing some defiance and expressing optimism (the second sentence) about his wife's prospects. It too should not be paraphrased, it adds to the article. Encyclopedic should not be boring. If you watch the interview you can see that he's working hard to stay optimistic, this captures that very well.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is there's no reason to say the same thing twice. The article already discusses his optimism and his support for his wife. This quote adds to the "overstatement" of this point - which is contrary to WP:BLPSTYLE. Mlm42 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Kelly said that prior to the attack, "I thought the world just spins and the clock just ticks and things happen for no particular reason." Again, the previous sentence says how the incident brought him closer to God, there's no reason to add this not-particularly-enlightening quote.
 * I have no religious agenda, however, his spiritual views (he never discusses a religion) were impacted by this event--according to his words. This quote sums up how he looked at the world, and how that changed. That's important in a bio. While it could be paraphrased, it would weaken the writing.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the quote doesn't address how that view changed, it only addresses how he used to look at the world. I seems to me that this quote is being used to advance a position regarding how his view changed, attempting to get the reader to infer his view changed. It's this kind of non-neutral presentation of quotes that I am against. Mlm42 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The next two quotes are also about Kelly's religious beliefs. They aren't particularly encyclopedic, and definitely aren't neutral. he realized, that "You pray where you are. You pray when God is there in your heart." Saying "He realized.." makes it sound like the article is agreeing with him. I think that entire sentence could be removed.
 * I'll get rid of realized though none of what Kelly says is about religion, not that there would be anything wrong with that. He talks about spirituality and spiritual practices, like praying. Why is that a problem? Such things are important--whether you agree or disagree with what his conclusions are.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have used the word "religious", but rather "spiritual". Anyway, I agree his beliefs are important and should be included in the article. But quotes aren't the best way to do it. Also, there isn't enough context for the quotes to justify their place in the "aftermath" section. It isn't clear, for example, whether or not he believed in God before the shooting. This section implies that he didn't. Rather than implying, it should say one way or the other; or if it's not known, then say so. Mlm42 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences of the final paragraph are good (Kelly believes that there's now a chance to change..). Kelly's long-winded quote doesn't add anything to these two sentences.. the content of his quote has already been paraphrased in those two sentences, so the whole quote could be removed.
 * The quote addresses a key aspect of the aftermath of the shooting. For weeks there were countless, high profile, discussions regarding what was and wasn't acceptable dialogue. I'd argue that that culminated in the mixing of members of congress for the state of the union speech. This quote is key because it shows Kelly distancing himself from that discussion, but not completely. It ends with him taking a position saying "look, this was a horrible tragedy, these people died, yeah it's good for people to talk about these things, maybe something good will come of it." While that could be paraphrased, it would weaken the writing of the article. It's a bio about him and so this is highlighting his statements on something that immediately after the shooting became a central part of people's reactions. As one of the people most directly affected by the shooting, his views are important.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But again, the previous sentences say exactly the same thing, in a more concise, clear way. We should be avoiding overstatement here. I thnk removing the quote would strengthen the article.. there's an entire section about the shooting, and this quote doesn't add anything new. Mlm42 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd make these changes myself, but I'm guessing you'd rather they be discussed first. Mlm42 (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input. I request that we let other editors look at this, hopefully some reviewing it for GA.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

←MLM42, thanks for your measured replies. Some points I think are good, some I disagree with still. I need to let this sit for a bit. Hopefully I will stick by that and spend less time on the article than I did last week. If I succeed there, I'll still be back for more edits/improvements. With respect, --Utahredrock (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment on point of view
An article should avoid the editor's point of view. Per policy, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

This does not mean that an article should avoid the POV of the subject. In fact editors have a duty to write objectively about a subject, and at times that includes the subject's POV (in a bio especially). Inclusion of such information in an article doesn't mean an editor agrees or disagrees with that POV. The question is, does it accurately represent the views of the subject of the bio--as reported by reliable sources?--Utahredrock (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kelly (astronaut)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight  Ja Ga  talk 20:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark E. Kelly → Mark Kelly (astronaut) — As per WP:QUALIFIER, using the middle initial to disambiguate his name is not usual, so I think using his profession is preferable. This is a widespread issue (see Category:American astronauts), because the official NASA biographies often use their middle initial. --Mlm42 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the article should be titled "Mark Kelly (astronaut)", as per the policy WP:QUALIFIER. It's a pretty straight forward application of this policy, I think. The page move I did was reverted, so I'm bringing this up here. Although in his NASA biography is titled "Mark E. Kelly" (which is pressumably where all the astronaut articles get their names), this isn't the common name. News organization refer to him just as Mark Kelly, and indeed this is how he refers to himself. Mlm42 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've brought the general issue of middle initials in astronaut article titles here. Mlm42 (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. As near as I can tell via Gnews searches, limited to this astronaut by cosearching with "Giffords", news coverage of the astronaut is more likely to omit the middle name, although usage does vary, even within single sources (the NYT is, near as I can tell, inconsistent but leans towards "without the middle name").  The NASA page uses the middle name in the article title as seen within the page but omits it in the document title. Of course, leave the redirect. --joe deckertalk to me 03:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is uncommon for anyone to regularly refer to themselves or be referred to by the media (or others) with their middle initial. Yet the use of a middle initial is a common way to differentiate people, especially if they have common names. Approximately half a million people have read or viewed this article since January 1 and they didn't seem to have any problem finding it. While Kelly's job as an astronaut is his most notable achievement, he is still Mark Kelly, a person. Using his middle initial is a common way to differentiate him from other Mark Kelly's and it's abundantly clear--through a variety of ways (already employed)--to know that he is Mark Kelly the astronaut. At most, Mark Kelly (astronaut) should redirect to Mark E. Kelly, as I believe it already does.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A reading of the naming conventions at As per WP:QUALIFIER includes the following:
 * When there is a usual way of distinguishing two people of the same name, use it. Examples:

* Martin Luther King, Sr. and Martin Luther King, Jr. (note also Martin Luther King III) * John F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy, Jr.
 * If there is no usual form of conventional disambiguation, place a disambiguating tag in parentheses after the name. Examples:

* William Henry (gunsmith), William Henry (chemist), William Henry (congressman), William Henry (actor), ...


 * Therefore the tag seems like the second choice per the policy and the initial the first choice.


 * NASA, a major intl organization (also part of the guidelines, in addition to search engines) uses "Mark E. Kelly" in his formal bio--which seems to be the NASA standard. The NYTimes uses Mark E. Kelly here, the Washington Post here, Fox News here and Yahoo/The Daily Beast here. Also, many dozens of internal Wikipedia links currently go to Mark E. Kelly.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're picking and choosing references. And anyway, the Washington Post article uses "Mark Kelly" in the title; the Fox News page "Mark Kelly" occurs five times, and "Mark E. Kelly" once. Even the webpage header of NASA's official bio uses "Mark Kelly". If one takes an unbiased assessment of reliable sources, usage without the middle initial is more common. Mlm42 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that it's more usual to disambguate two Mark Kelly's by saying this one is "the one who's the astronaut", rather than, "the one who's middle initial is E." Mlm42 (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Support per WP:QUALIFIER and just some good old-fashioned common sense. Notice that in the usual way part of WP:QUALIFIER initials are only used to disambiguate once (George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush), and in that case the people share the same profession. That's in part why it is usual to differentiate between the two men in this way more than any other. However there is no usual way (at least not in the sense WP:QUALIFIER means) to distinguish random people with the same name, i.e for where there is no set precedent. In that case it makes far more sense to include what the person is most renowned for in the article title to help people find what they want.

I'll reiterate here what I said on the project:

"''The whole reason we have guidelines over article titles is to try and direct people as clearly as possible to the information they want to obtain. Lets use some common sense. What is the likelihood they at least know the person's profession? Fairly high I should imagine or they wouldn't be looking them up. What is the likelihood they know the persons middle name?  It is clear it makes most sense to disambiguate using the persons profession.   The only reason why the article name guidelines say it's preferable to use the subject's name found in reliable sources is because that's often the standard form people will search for them in but in the case of the names of people it's usually a **** poor method of disambiguation. Yeah sure, if the viewer found the biography on the NASA site they might use his name with the initial, but they'll still know he's an astronaut anyway. But most people won't have been on the NASA site.''" ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation vs. article name?
 * Wikipedia's disambiguation for Mark Kelly already uses the proposed change. It works well. If that's the issue then this is already resolved. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kelly_%28disambiguation%29 There doesn't seem to be any evidence that anyone is having a hard time finding the correct Mark Kelly.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because I changed that link. The thing is Wikipedia has an official policy page specifically about article titles; I don't think this article should be an exception to that policy. Mlm42 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. If he doesn't commonly use his middle initial himself then under WP:COMMONNAME the article should be moved. Use of middle initials or names that the individual himself doesn't commonly use to disambiguate article titles is not recommended. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another example of a major media outlet, one of the most definitive, using Mark E. Kelly. --Utahredrock (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see the article because I don't have access; but a google search for "mark kelly" astronaut site:nytimes.com, I get 1200 hits where they don't use his middle initial. Compare that to a google search "mark e. kelly" astronaut site:nytimes.com, where I get 1600 hits. Yes they use slightly more with his middle initial, but I don't think it's enough to break the  (profession) convention at Naming conventions (people). Mlm42 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this isn't another example, since you already cited the New York Times. Mlm42 (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * mlm It is a new article in the NYTimes.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 20:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

– It's clear to me that the American astronaut and husband of Gabby Giffords is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as opposed to the other Mark Kelly's. Mark Kelly the astronaut has had 12,368 in the past 30 days (40,195 in the past 90 days). The closest another Mark Kelly article is in terms of page views is the keyboardist with 5,204 in the past 90 days. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mark Kelly (astronaut) → Mark Kelly
 * Mark Kelly → Mark Kelly (disambiguation)
 * Oppose. Hardly anyone had heard of Mark Kelly before his wife was nearly assassinated.  His current spike in popularity is likely to decrease over time.  Give it a few years and his hits should return to a more accurate baseline.  Powers T 22:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The shooting of his wife happened almost two years ago. Clearly the popularity of his article is lasting as it has remained beyond any BLP1E-type concerns. "Give it a few years" fails WP:CRYSTAL. He is more popular now, and that's the extent of what matters here. We cannot know if he will continue to be more popular in the future or if it'll come back down to previous levels. Again though, it's been nearly two years and his page views and sources are head and shoulders above the other Mark Kellys. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you've got it backwards. We don't change primary topics based on short-term popularity spikes.  Two years is a good length of time, but I don't think it's long enough to accurately gauge his long-term popularity.  Powers T 02:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But you're missing the point - among "Mark Kelly's", he's way ahead of everybody else, and has been for at least two years. Even if his fame fades a bit, there's no indication that someone else will eclipse him.. and anyway, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isn't necessarily about long term popularity, it's about usage. Mlm42 (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To an extent, though, it has to be at least medium-term, else we'd end up changing article titles far too frequently. Powers T 19:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that the term "Mark Kelly" referring to the astronaut would have to be "more likely than all the other topics combined". I've glanced through the page views of the Mark Kelly's, and while I agree that the astronaut is currently getting more page views than the others combined.. his page views really go it bursts. But even discounting the bursts (presumably due to linking from the main page, or media activity), his baseline seems to be about 150-300 hits per day. The keyboardist is about 80 per day, and the others are about 10 per day or less. So even by discounting his bursts of interest, I would say he's the primary topic. A google searches also seem to heavily favour him. Powers' statement is not an argument against moving the page. Whatever the reason, the astronaut has been the primary topic for over a year, and is likely to remain so until another more famous "Mark Kelly" comes along... Is Powers suggesting the keyboardist will have a surge in popularity? Mlm42 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:RECENT, local to US, and not "more likely than all the other topics combined" in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What search in Google books did you use? There weren't very many Mark Kelly's in my Google Book searches, but the majority were for the astronaut.. look more closely at the results, or show us your search. Mlm42 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Recentism is an essay that discusses journalism-like articles and article content that skews towards more recent events. None of that suggests we should ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC outside of very short-term spikes in traffic. It's almost been two years since the Tucson shooting at this point. As for the "local" argument, compare to the deletion argument of WP:FARAWAY; he doesn't need to be an international figure to be the primary topic. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Googling suggests that this subject is primary. None of the other subjects on the DAB even make it to the first page, although there is a result for an actor named Mark Kelly. Kauffner (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear primary topic. Also, for In ictu oculi ' s reference, this is not local to the US; I'm British. -- W.  D.   Graham  13:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Muboshgu has demonstrated that the astronaut is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If he ever ceases to be such, we can and should reverse the move. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2012 (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.

The baby seal incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUyoU-juHTk

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/mark-kelly-pulls-dog-off-sea-lion_n_2952911.html

Is this wiki PR or the whole story? I edited will this topic be hidden from history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.112.75 (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Straw Buyer gun purchase incident
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/03/09/hypocrite-gabby-giffords-husband-mark-kelly-buys-ar-15-which-he-called-assault-weapon/

"Do as I say, not as I do peasants", represents a vital characteristic of ethical conduct and frames the illusion of "astronaut hero" with actual day to day realities of societal behaviors in context with personal priorities of entitlement and equality. Que no?

Will the wiki history of Kelly's mendacity, or at minimum double-standard, remain silent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.112.75 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yet another example of Wikipedia's blatant political censorship. 2001:5B0:50D7:9E18:BD89:F3EE:2763:55AE (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Gun control Advocate section
Is this comment necessary, or could it be written more clearly? It sounds like Kelly was using THE gun that Giffords was shot with, when in fact he is using the SAME MODEL gun.

In April 2013, Kelly was photographed at his mother-in-law's house in Arizona, with Giffords watching and cheering him on while he used a Glock 9 millimeter for target practice.[50] This is the same gun that was used to shoot Giffords.Zabadu (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Gun control Advocate section
Is this comment necessary, or could it be written more clearly? It sounds like Kelly was using THE gun that Giffords was shot with, when in fact he is using the SAME MODEL gun.

In April 2013, Kelly was photographed at his mother-in-law's house in Arizona, with Giffords watching and cheering him on while he used a Glock 9 millimeter for target practice.[50] This is the same gun that was used to shoot Giffords.Zabadu (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Pronoun use confusing
I find it easy to get confused about which brother is referred by the pronouns in the (4th) paragraph about Mark's brother. I'd suggest using names more and pronouns less but I'll let someone else do it. Fholson 14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Kelly. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723042544/http://mynasa.nasa.gov/pdf/149873main_sts121_press_kit.pdf to http://mynasa.nasa.gov/pdf/149873main_sts121_press_kit.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Kelly. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203054035/http://giffords.house.gov/2011/01/statement-from-us-navy-captain-mark-kelly.shtml to http://giffords.house.gov/2011/01/statement-from-us-navy-captain-mark-kelly.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Political Activity?
Hi fellow Wikipedians, There are attempts to encourage Mr. Kelly to run for office; in the latest go-round it is to run against Sen. Flake in 2018. Is this worthy of note? Here are some examples.
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/01/31/mark-kelly-arizona-democrats-dream-candidate/?utm_term=.b4052b1f9187#comments
 * https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/4/1668887/-AZ-Dems-Seek-to-Draft-Astronaut-Mark-Kelly-for-US-Senate (don't know if Daily Kos is considered sufficient for third party sourcing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.32.208 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Kelly. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.twinstuff.com/twinnasa.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715051053/http://caldwells.patch.com/articles/nasa-astronaut-mark-kellys-wife-shot-in-arizona-2 to http://caldwells.patch.com/articles/nasa-astronaut-mark-kellys-wife-shot-in-arizona-2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311102303/http://www.kvue.com/news/state/US-Rep-Giffords-moved-to-TIRR-Memorial-Hermann.html to http://www.kvue.com/news/state/US-Rep-Giffords-moved-to-TIRR-Memorial-Hermann.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead Image
I understand Mr. Kelly is a former astronaut so the lead image should be his official NASA portrait, but since Beto O'Rourke's 2013 U.S. House official portrait lead image was replaced with a 2019 version to reflect a more recent look of Beto, perhaps we should do the same for Mr. Kelly such as this 2016 or 2019 version:

Good idea, probably
This is probably a good idea. I might also recommend moving the image with Mr. Gorie up to the NASA career section to make it appear just below the infobox to give a good idea of line from "politician, former astronaut," for users who do read the page particularly extensively. It can also be replaced with the NASA portrait in that location, but portraits probably are best in the infobox section for most recent portrayals of their appearance.

I also considered replacing the initial statement of his position as being neither of those titles but simply "astronaut-politician," as this may best for users just skimming, but, may be inappropriate since he has not actually held any elected office (and I am a new user and the first statement is the most important).

As a former graphic artist though, both of those images are not particularly good. The former has a plain black background and the latter has very poor lighting. I would keep the current one now but do agree with the idea of changing it soonish.

Desz.XCVII (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Astronaut portrait in infobox
Should Kelly's official NASA portrait be included in the infobox for consistency? Other American astronaut-politicians include it, such as Bill Nelson and Jake Garn, while others, such as John Glenn, don't. 2601:88:8101:E300:B044:95EB:EA81:FC1B (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Mark Kelly had not been sworn in as US Senator from Arizona even though it says so on his Wikipedia page
According to the respective Wikipedia page, Mark Kelly was sworn in as the junior United States Senator from Arizona. However, his name is not mentioned in Senate roll calls, and Martha McSally’s name is still mentioned. Kelly’s name is not on the Senate member page. McSally’s name is mentioned on the page. Mike Pence, who would be swearing in Kelly, is not currently at the Capitol. I ask that the page be reverted to how it was before until we can know for sure he was sworn in (i.e. video evidence, Kelly’s name in roll calls, etc.). Muhibm0307 (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

According to C-Span, Mark Kelly will be sworn in at 2 PM EST. https://www.c-span.org/video/?506932-1/swearing-senator-elect-mark-kelly Muhibm0307 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Papal Blessing and surname
For STS-134, it mentions a papal blessing, and says it was directed to "Giffords" - there was no other astronaut on that flight with that surname, it presumably refers to Kelly using his wife's surname. As referencing Gabby Giffords as "Kelly" would be incorrect, certainly it would be wrong the other way, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:4200:4410:45A:5745:8C73:125A (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Image and caption
Why does the caption state that this is his official portrait? Is there any evidence for that? Also, I believe SenatorKellyOfficialPhoto (cropped).jpg would be a better photo to use, considering other senators' portraits are not cropped. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Characterization of Giffords and Kelly's nonprofit organization
I will modify the sentence, "After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting the following year, Giffords and Kelly founded the nonprofit Americans for Responsible Solutions, later renamed Giffords, which campaigns for universal background checks for firearms and red flag laws" to "...which promotes gun control." Only one of the sources for that sentence mentions red flag laws or background checks. However, all three of them mention that either Kelly or the nonprofit promote gun control. The original I think selects policies that seem more moderate which therefore has the effect being misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.137.14 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Better to add sources that explicitly mention universal background checks and red flag laws, as it's more specificity. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)