Talk:Kim Davis

Spinoff title

There is more than enough support for the split (see #Split?) to proceed with the new article's title. After having reviewed the most recent comments, I'm boldly declaring a non-unanimous consensus for Something same-sex marriage license controversy. Something is TBD, between the following four values:

1. Kim Davis
2. Kentucky
3. Rowan County
4. Rowan County, Kentucky, (this was presented by one editor as Rowan County, KY, but I don't think that would be MOS-compliant)

If we can get a consensus for Something, we can create the article. So let's do that, shall we? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Spinoff title survey

• 2 – Per Stevietheman and MrX. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• 2. Kentucky – Rowan County, Kentucky - So as not to confuse with Rowan County, North Carolina. There is something to be said for conciseness. Also, this would extend the scope just enough to include some of the other Kentucky clerk unlawfulmess. - MrX 13:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC), 15:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  Realizing that I contradicted my !vote from yesterday, an explanation is due. In this context, I think it's best to leave Kim Davis' name out of the title since there will also be a BLP in her name that will include a summary of the controversy.- MrX 14:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  It occurred to me that MOS:COMMA requires a comma after Rowan County, Kentucky, so I updated #4 accordingly. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Vote – I support either Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy or Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. I suppose I have a slight preference for the former given how the Kentucky state legal system has been embroiled in these issues. However, I think either are just fine; 1 and 2 both make sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• 2. Kentucky per my comment below. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• 1 Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy – The controversy, no question, spiraled around Kim Davis. It was her power trip. She caused all of the misery and excited all of her enablers. She created, perpetuated, and then refused to perpetuate this controversy. As much as I and, I assume, everyone else hates to admit it, she was always at the center of this universe. It would be disingenuous to call this a state or county matter; every single action that happened was caused by her and will always be remembered by her name. Why pretend this was about anything other than Kim Davis and what she believes? Do you really believe that, as readers go to the search box, they will type in "Kentucky" or "Rowan County"? No, they will surely type in "Kim Davis" and will find out soon enough that the name of the article (for better or most definitely for worse) was named after her. Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  This article, Miller v. Davis, David L. Bunning and Same-sex marriage in Kentucky will lead plenty of readers to the new article. And redirects are our friends. I don't really disagree with your premise, though. It's just that these things kind of usually start with one person and then blow up. Note that we don't call the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) the Rosa Parks riding at the front of the bus controversy. Note however that I'm not comparing Kim Davis to Rosa Parks in any way except to note how they are seen as ones who spark a wider controversy/movement. This is already much bigger than Davis herself, so the article should encompass the scope. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  I'll note that I was oriented to keeping "Kim Davis" in the title before, but that was when it was being discussed as a move/rename and before realizing that a larger scope was necessary to be involved. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• 1 or 2 - Option 4 is too long/tedious. Option 2 might be too broad to be honest, but it seems good enough. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

*2 - Kentucky, as Rowan County and Kim Davis are both too limiting. It started with her, and in Rowan County, but the controversy is spreading, and includes legal actions contemplated at the state level, both wrt Davis, and wrt changing the law. Evensteven (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Vote cancelled per comment below. Evensteven (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• 1 or 2. Perhaps both? In fact this is already set up, so why not just use that?--Nosfartu (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• 3. I don't see how using only Kentucky in the title can be appropriate; that would be like calling an article about an earthquake in Los Angeles the California Earthquake - it's way too non-specific. Also, while Kim Davis is notable, the core of that notability rests with her powers as the county clerk of Rowan County. If another county clerk replaced her but acted in the same manner, the outcome would be exactly the same. At the end of the day this isn't really about Kim Davis, it's about her powers as the county clerk. Therefore my final vote is with: Rowan County same-sex marriage license controversy -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• 1. No split, just a new title: Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Our content is based on RS, and the title must describe the content of the article. These are the elements in all RS about this matter. Her name is indelibly connected with her objections to same-sex marriage, manifested in her refusal to issue licenses. This is the title we should use for the existing article, and there is no justification for a split at all. See my objections below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I have to object to this as out of scope. We already have a strong consensus for split, we're past that, and it would be counterproductive to rewind and revisit that. Even if we did, your opposition would only reduce the consensus from 90% to 81%, still a consensus, and we'd still be back here again. There is a need to prevent this from stalling again. I'm sorry you were busy elsewhere during the split vote (I did ping you 29 hours before we closed that), but as far as I can see your argument would not have swayed anyone anyway. If you don't change or strike this vote, I feel it should be ignored as it is not a vote about the title of the new article, which is the question presented in this section. If one voted for city councilman in a presidential election, their ballot would very likely be discarded. As for no justification for a split at all, the justification is found in WP:CONSENSUS, the overarching Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't doubt my !vote will be ignored, but I needed to voice my objection. Yes, consensus can ignore policy, but that dooms such content to future problems because many others will constantly notice that policy has been violated. I would hope that editors would reconsider actually going against policy and COMMONNAME. That's what's happening. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I realize that the consensus is against me and against policy. Don't worry; I won't be an edit warrior who creates problems, but I will voice my opinions when necessary.
  BTW, the Split discussion was only open for two days, exactly the days where I was out of cellphone and internet range. I can't add a comment to that closed discussion, so that's why I added it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think this argument of BullRangifer deserves attention. I don't care if it means re-opening consideration. Consensus can change, when it needs to. My own vote above (for "Kentucky") was based on recognition of an expanding scope of the controversy, and I raised the scope question again in the comments section. Scope has everything to do with COMMONNAME, and with this split. I have said repeatedly that freedom of religion enters the question, with direct ties to same-sex marriage. While Kim Davis' opinions about those are definitely not uniformly reflected in religious communities, the controversy she raised will not be contained within her scope forever. And it's not. On Tue, 15 Sep, the Oregonian reported (on its front page) that Marion County [Oregon] Circuit Judge Vance Day, based on religious convictions, has stopped doing weddings. Like it or not, Kentucky may not be a reasonable scope; the issue is wider. Does anyone here really think that an issue-based article, restricted only to Rowan County, Kentucky, has any hope of remaining notable on its own? Kim Davis will. But the issue is still the issue, and is not confined. What's the scope of the issue article supposed to be? So long as this article is tied to Kim Davis' name, it remains largely as it has been; but not otherwise. I agree with BullRangifer that shutting down discussion prematurely only means continued difficulty. Vote percentage is never adequate on its own. Evensteven (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• The existing article survived an AfD. It is notable with its present scope, and that is what has been approved. Changing the scope is not justified. There are indeed meta issues involved, but they are other articles, most of which likely exist. Kim Davis might get mentioned in them, but that doesn't mean the scope here should change, or that existing content should be split off. There is no policy-based (which is not the same as consensus-based) justification for splitting off content from this article. Whatever deals with Kim Davis and her same-sex marriage license controversy is fair game, and certainly enough for a great article, so let's keep developing this article. I just don't see a need to change this article. It's a biography with primary weight on her same-sex marriage license controversy. That's the only thing that makes her notable enough for an article, and that's why that content should dominate the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Evensteven, I need to get an idea of your thinking about the potential scope you envision. The idea of larger issues has been mentioned by several. You are not the only one, but I'm addressing this to you. Please create an issues/scope list, possibly in a new section, starting with the biggest meta issue, and then narrowing it down and concluding with the smaller and notable controversy involving Kim Davis. Go ahead and number them. I'll propose some key words: same-sex marriage, religious liberty, religious persecution, United States, Kentucky, Rowan County, etc.. I think such a list will be a constructive exercise so we can actually see what's being proposed and envisioned. We need to know this before we consider titles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with BullRangifer: no split, just a new title: Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Davis herself is not notable enough to have her own article after a split; in fact I will be the first to nominate that article for deletion (and it will surely be deleted). I have lost faith in any editor who actually believes this article should not have the words "Kim Davis" in it's name. Prhartcom (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've come to this point of view gradually, but this is exactly where I have been heading. (And title-wise, it's a shift on my part.) Kim Davis is notable because of the controversy, hence that's why there's an article about her. If this is not that article, what could be? If we have articles about issues and the controversies they engender, then what is it about geography that could restrict it to place as small as Rowan County, Kentucky? The legal aspects dealt with by Davis are sometimes state laws, but the issues and controversies setting the whole into motion are more about federal law. I can't see where a split-off topic is going except to a federal US level. Hence your comments about the change of scope seem right on the money to me, and the split doesn't work. Consider my vote above cancelled. More in the new suggested section to come. Evensteven (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I also wholeheartedly agree with BullRangifer and Evensteven, after a split Kim Davis would not be notable by herself apart from the controversy, do not split, just rename the article Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. This is the way this article should have been handled in the first place. I also agree with Prhartcom that a successful spinoff means the Kim Davis article should be deleted. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion to split concluded several days ago with a clear consensus to do so. Also, it very improper to change not just the title, but the subject and scope, of a biography, to a controversy, which is what BullRangifer seems to wish to do. To do so would be tantamount to deleting the biography, which has to be done in accordance with the DELETION policy. Can you imagine the outcry if someone suggested changing Rosa Parks to Montgomery bus controversy? This horse has been beat to death. I think it's time to move on. - MrX 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• This biography has always been largely about the controversy. I seek no change in that regard, so your worries are unfounded. I only wish the title to accurately describe the existing scope and content. The scope and content remain the same. The title doesn't currently describe the content. This article has always been about the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy.
  Her name must always remain in the title, but that's not enough, simply because Davis has no notability without the controversy. It was because of the inclusion of the controversy that the article survived the AfD. The weight must therefore always be on the controversy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• User:MrX, it's ironic that you use an example about Parks which describes EXACTLY what you've just done to Davis. You got rid of the article about Davis, and improperly moved copy and pasted content (you violated attribution and history by doing that) from here to an article about the controversy without her name. Now that article doesn't even have to mention her name at all. Parks article still exists because she was notable for her historic actions. Davis is also notable for this controversy, but without that content, her article must be deleted.
  The proposed name change would have still allowed this article to primarily be about the controversy. It was not necessary to split it. There was no policy-based reason for the split.
  An AfD approved of THIS article. This is a backdoor attempt to express dissatisfaction with that result and delete this article, because without that content it must be deleted. Kim Davis is not notable without that content. To respect that AfD result, the new article needs to be created at the right title, which is Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Are you stuck in a parallel universe BullRangifer? Not only did I provide attribution in the edit summary by linking to the source content, but I also added a attribution template to the talk page. Also, I did not "get rid of the article about Davis". It's still here. You're soaking in it! As you well know, I advocate keeping the biography as well as the controversy article. I believe there is in fact consensus for the split, even factoring in yours and Mmyers1976's dissent.- MrX 15:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

BR, there was some sentiment for moving ahead with the split without consensus, but we started the vote in the spirit of cooperation and team play. We reached said consensus, easily. Now we're asking you for an equal measure of team play, and we're seeing none at all. That's all. Also, if you're going to throw out accusations of backdoor attempts, failing to put names on them does not mean they are not violations of WP:AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

OMG! I am so sorry. I wrote based on incomplete information, and thus my comments aren't accurate. I'm being disturbed constantly and had to leave my PC without clearing this up before you both replied. Let me do that in a moment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

When I saw MrX's "done" above, I mistakenly assumed that he had actually moved all content (since that was the proposition under discussion) to the Kentucky article, but had forgotten to move this talk page. That's when I wrote my comment above. Then I checked and discovered he had only moved the Reactions part. He is perfectly welcome to use that content, with attribution, and that's what he did. My apologies.

What's happening there is something I have described elsewhere on this page as a good thing. As long as we can keep this article with all its content, there is no problem. Sorry about the mix-up. Now I have to run...again! -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I assumed it was an oversight, which is why I attempted to inject some humor..- MrX 16:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So sorry for the screw up. (Also see my reply above in this same edit.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Spinoff title discussion

• Comment - As stated above, I'm supportive of either Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy or Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. I don't really have a preference either way. Including the county's name, though, I think may be unhelpful as the average viewer searching for information probably won't recall the exact name but will recall that it relates to a Kim Davis, living in Kentucky. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  @CoffeeWithMarkets: Could you make an entry in the survey, for organization's sake? No problem with two choices, provided it's clear that you favor them equally. And there's no need for the entire title; as I said, we're assuming consensus for the rest at this point. Something like "1 or 2, equally" would work nicely. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Casey County's Casey Davis has also gotten quite a bit of press (including this recent NBC News report) over his refusal to issue SSM licenses. So, perhaps 'Kentucky' is the correct choice? After all, does the rest of the country know one of Kentucky's 120 counties from another, and is that detail really important? Just a thought. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  Also note that the controversy has embroiled state figures into it, thus arguably making it a state-level matter. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  That's a good point. I would actually be fine with Kentucky.- MrX 15:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  Not to mention that the Carter County Jail is involved in a significant way. Three counties. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As one editor here who has expressed positions regarding the freedom of religion, I agree with the idea of this title survey to avoid the words "freedom of religion" in the title here, but only if that is the actual desire of the community wrt to defining the scope of the article. Gay marriage is one type of controversy which involves questions of freedom of religion, but it is not the only one to do so, so the scopes of the two kinds of controversy differ. If the article stays focused on gay marriage, it will nevertheless have to deal with freedom of religion to some extent. But if its scope includes all of freedom of religion, then it expands beyond what has heretofore been the limits that have been dealt with in the current article. So I've no opposition either way, but just want to be sure everyone is agreed on what they want the scope of the break-off article to be. It's the only way one can really be sure of a title anyway. Evensteven (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Why does a freedom of religion article need to change it's scope? Kim Davis Freedom of Religion Controversy would pertain solely to the issues covered in the biography - specifically does the government have the right to require a person with religious beliefs to act contrary to them? Judge Bunnings and the majority of the community appear to say yes, and Kim Davis went to jail because of this. A sizeable portion of the community is saying that's wrong etc. As regards the vote above - I'm abstaining, no good choices offered. 人族 (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  Blame me. I judged that the process was going nowhere fast, and that to make any progress we needed to simplify by excluding some minority views. Freedom of religion appeared to be one such view, and there have been compelling arguments made against it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll hold you responsible, but don't think there's reason to assign blame. Let me point out that while those who accept that there is a violation of freedom of religion involved here may be in a minority (I wouldn't like to guess what the percentage is though), I don't think that there are very many who would say that it hasn't been an issue. Most people would recognize how the issue has been raised and how it has driven Davis' actions, whether or not they agree. So the issue itself is not a majority/minority thing, it is more where people's views lie. And since different people say there is a violation (for different reasons of their own), and likewise those who say there is no violation say that for a variety of reasons, there are not just two sides to the issue, but a much more complex arrangement of perspectives. An article called "Kim Davis Freedom of Religion Controversy" would indeed have a scope much more like the current article, while "Kentucky Freedom of Religion Controversy" would have a wider one. Similarly, there might be difference in scope for articles similarly titled but with some form of "gay marriage" in place of "freedom of religion", yielding a different set of possibilities. To settle on a title, I think it is necessary to settle on the intended scope. Maybe they're one and the same discussion. Evensteven (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  The freedom of religion argument (as to title) has been made at length and does not have consensus. I believe WP:DROPTHESTICK applies at this point. We can't debate forever, and we have to be able to defer to a consensus that we strongly disagree with. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  I failed to notice that you already voted for 2, sorry. I was misled by a tl;dr about freedom of religion that was both pointless and out of scope in this context. I retract the drop the stick suggestion, but let's try to stay on topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  Ok, I'm not one to beat a dead horse. But in all honesty, I haven't noticed any strong consensus against the applicability of freedom of religion to the article's scope. And you may have noticed I'm not pushing for its inclusion in the title, just asking. Sorry if you consider my comments tl;dr, but I have always found that people who only want bullet items end up biting the bullet, because they don't understand what they think they do. But if I've offended you, or anyone here just by being too wordy, I offer my apologies, and I'll consider this my cue to sign off. Evensteven (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  Some of us have ADD or other issues, and tend to lose the ability to focus in something that long. It's not our fault, we can't help it (beyond meds, which only work for some), and it's not a question of laziness. Others aren't very good at condensing to the essentials, what you call bullet items, and that's not their fault, they can't help it either. I wasn't criticizing the tl;dr, only explaining my failure to read and understand all of it. So much for staying on topic, and that's my sin for the week. I think it was worth saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, no problem. And no offense taken here. Maybe I said it poorly, but I do understand the desire to move things along, and I think you're better at that than I am. I do find it hard to condense sometimes, but mostly because I tend to think wider a lot, and find bullet items can limit a person's understanding. But they do have their uses. Evensteven (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Spinoff ready to close?

As of Evensteven's vote, 2 has 71% of the vote based on my patented algorithm. CoffeeWithMarkets thinks we're in a position to close and I support that. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we are not ready to close after such a short amount of time. Prhartcom (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• A close is not necessary. There's obvious consensus for a spinoff article and rough consensus for the title. Someone should just start copying the material to the current redirect. - MrX 10:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It was the rough consensus I was referring to, hoping for clearer consensus. Prhartcom (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a big #Objection to FORK. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think someone should go ahead and start the new article as a draft, and, once we settle on the title, it can be moved over the appropriate redirect or simply copy-and-pasted into it, right? We know there will be a new article, that's already settled, so why let the title selection hold up that work? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Instead, start a new discussion to rename the article to "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy". Prhartcom (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And how long does such a discussion have to run before you and others are prepared to respect consensus and move on? That is not a rhetorical question, I'd actually like to receive a straight answer. It took ten editors six days to reach this point, not counting all the discussion that preceded the split vote, and now you propose to discard all that effort because you disagree with the result. At any time before the new article actually exists, must we stop, back up, and revisit the question once again if someone new shows up with a slightly different argument against it? Or even the same argument? I'm stopping short of calling this obstructionism, but it's certainly a classic illustration of why it takes so impossibly long to do anything around here. As long as progress is allowed to be stalled when anyone disagrees and says "consensus can change", very little progress will occur. But I'm tired of trying to help move this along, and it's time for me to back off. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Stick a fork in it. It's  Done. - MrX 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Objection to FORK

I'll have to admit I'm rather shocked at the proceedings above. I was gone a few days and came back to find radical violations of policy being proposed and nearly effectuated. Some of those titles shouldn't even be allowed on the table.

If a subject is NOT known primarily for controversy, then WP:WEIGHT dictates that a controversy should not be allowed to dominate their article, especially if it makes the article too long. It can then be spun off into a sub-article, much like what we've recently done with Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations.

OTOH, if a subject, like this one, is ONLY known for a controversy, then all that content should remain in their article. Creating a sub-article for the controversy is not a proper WP:SPINOFF, but WP:POVFORK an article without the controversy, which is not allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: The overall controversy is not a POV, so how could this be a POVFORK? We're not suggesting splitting only the freedom of religion POV, for example; that would presumably be in the new article but only a part of it, per WEIGHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. POVFORK isn't the best title here and I'll revise it. My main point remains. We have no legitimate grounds to create a Kim Davis article without all this content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We have a meta article Same-sex marriage in Kentucky. That article should cover, in general terms, the whole subject, but each individual who becomes notable for their role in these controversies should have their own article. Then the meta article would have a paragraph about each one, with a "main" link to the person's bio, where all the details related to that person's role would be found. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The objection should be noted in the discussions/!votes to split and decide what the new article should be named. At this time, the consensus is to split and we seem to have a rough consensus on what to name the new article. I thank you for your opinion, but I disagree because this controversy goes beyond this individual at this point, involving several other notable figures, and has become a state-level matter, but is also too large a topic for the more general Same-sex marriage in Kentucky. Kim Davis will remain notable enough for her own article for her major role in that controversy. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Moved to better spot. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggest Removing 2.2.1 Reactions Section

What purpose does this section serve other than a soapbox of opinions that may or may not be true or valid arguments by people unrelated to her and the incident? --Cutterx2202 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, at this point, "the incident" is pretty much by far the most written about thing about the subject, and, as such, opinions from qualified individuals, like judges, are probably worth discussing. The bulk of the section seems to be related to presidential candidates who have said something about the incident, and it is hard to say that something which seemingly every candidate out there has spoken about, in some way, does not deserve mention somewhere, and, right now, this article is the article for the incident. With any luck, it might be spunout shortly, but, until then, we still have to more or less adhere to all the guidelines and policies, which pretty much insist that a lot of that material be included. Granted, it is probably overlong right now, but the best way to deal with that is spinout, and that is in the process of being arranged. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Agreed that opinions from judges involved as well as actual case proceedings make sense, but that information would be in other sections. Most of the quotes in this section are 'from the hip' comments from random unauthoritative sources and have no place on this page, but as you said would be good fodder for a spinout event page. If a spinout does not happen, this section should be removed. --Cutterx2202 (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the article that we have right now is in an odd state because it's about to (and, really, it could be done at this very moment given that I think we have consensus) be split into two articles, one of which would appropriately bring up opinions about the legal issues while another would be narrowly focused on Davis herself. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The decision to include the Reactions section was formally agreed upon by consensus (see the archives). Prhartcom (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Regardless of whether or not we end up with a spinout article, that content is well within what articles here are REQUIRED to include. Keep in mind the purpose of Wikipedia: We document the sum total of human knowledge as found in RS. Opinions about events are part of that knowledge, and whether they are true or not is somewhat irrelevant. As they say, "That's a matter of opinion." Anything about the subject of an article, including reactions, is potentially fair game for content, and the commentator need not have ANY relation to the individual or the incident. Obviously we do use some discretion and consider weight and other things, but we don't drop such content. We need it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS, subject to WP:N and WP:WEIGHT. This isn't an opinion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:N applies to article creation, not article content. WEIGHT obviously does apply. If a subject is NOT known primarily for controversy, then WP:WEIGHT dictates that a controversy should not be allowed to dominate their article, especially if it makes the article too long. It can then be spun off into a sub-article, much like what we've recently done with Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. OTOH, if a subject, like this one, is ONLY known for a controversy, then all that content should remain in their article. Creating a sub-article for the controversy is not a proper WP:SPINOFF, but a WP:POVFORK, which is not allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:N applies to content as an article is content. I stand by my position, and disagree with yours (more said below). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you need to get your policies straight: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:N: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." It has nothing to do with the weight provided to issues within an article. TFD (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Stevietheman, looks like you made a mistake again. Prhartcom (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I continue to stand by my position. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not to be a pain, but there have been two quotes that directly and clearly contradict your position. Do you have a counter? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I was speaking in a general sense, which includes article creation. BullRangifer keeps suggesting that WP:RS is the only thing that matters. And part of our current discussion about this article is spinning off a new article that would contain reactions. I fully understand what they are quoting, but they are also missing the general point I'm making. I suspect they are interested in conflict more than they are interested in building and improving articles. I stand by what I said. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I see, I think. Perhaps there's some miscommunication involved. Aside from the one brief bit of snark, which didn't contribute to the discussion, I've seen no evidence that anyone is only interested in conflict. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I will admit that is my perspective. Argumentum Ad Infinitum is a form of conflict, in my book. Also, stating that WP:RS is all we need to care about when the policies/guidelines are achingly clear against that seems to invite disagreement. I'll leave it at that. If anyone wants to continue arguing about what I said, I will from this point let it slide as it's not worth anyone's time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

RS is obviously NOT the only thing to consider, and I would never suggest that (unless in a very specific situation later taken out of context), but it is the most basic factor, since all content starts there. When a title change is suggested which ignores the main content of RS and COMMONNAME, then I have to remind editors to take another look at RS. Other things like WEIGHT, UNDUE, NPOV, TRIVIA, etc. are always of relevance, but only later. We start with all the RS which contain potential content. Then (later) we use other considerations to determine how to include and frame it. We don't use editorial censorship to figure out how to not use it; We use it in one way or another, but sometimes only using the strongest sources. WEIGHT would be used to determine how we use it; WP:N would not be a factor in our considerations, and certainly not for inclusion, deletion, or omission.

User:Stevietheman, you've been here a long time, and you should know that WP:N is NOT a consideration for article content, only article creation. That's your current bone of contention in this thread, and you're refusing to concede the point. That's disruptive and raises questions of competency, since that is an important policy. If you don't get it, your reputation is shot. I don't think you want that to haunt you around here. You can fix this here and now so we can move on and put your embarrassing lapse behind us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Prhartcom (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Scope and title in a related issue/controversy article

I will produce a list (as suggested) of titles for the elements of the issues that might appear in a title. A selection from these (or added ideas) would likely produce an article title that will hopefully define its scope by that means. Since I don't think that that article is this one, perhaps we will find that there already is one. In any case, that article would be a place that could share some materials from here or refer here, and also be one that this article could relate itself to.

1. Religious liberty (same as freedom of religion): the biggest-scope, most far-reaching issue in sight here. Note that the freedom/liberty is not the same thing as any legal right to freedom. The liberty is an abstract thing, with applications globally. We have a "Freedom of religion in Georgia" article (Georgia the nation, not the state), for example.
2. Religious rights: a smaller scope, focused on the right to religious liberty, also a principle having a potential for global applicability. This scope considers specific laws that grant such rights, restrict the rights in some way(s), or deny those rights. It may also (more abstractly perhaps) consider principles of law, and (more concretely) whether or not those principles grant legal rights implicitly. British Common Law, for example, granted legal recognition to marriages in the absence of any ceremony or license.
3. Marriage: There is controversy about what it means already - "one man, one woman", and "same-sex" being the easily recognizable conflicting labels. The institution of marriage predates all the nations of the world, and their laws. It has generally (worldwide) always been practiced within the religious norms of the societies wherein they have occurred, in concert with those religions. It is no different in Christianity, where there is a 2000-year history in which marriage is defined in terms of its theology. "Same-sex" is a new definition, coming from outside religion, and gaining authority from societal law rather than religion, but in conflict with long-held religious belief. Hence the political and legal conflicts, and the controversy. This is a smaller scope than the religious ones above, a specific matter that intersects religious liberty and rights, but the specific one tied to this article. The scope of an issue article could focus on this particular conflict, or engage more widely into any conflicts of religious liberty or rights. In fact, there is potential for three different levels of scope here, and each might have an article.
4. United States: restricts the scope geographically, as other articles have already done, to the single nation. This seems to me most appropriate in an article when legal factors are at play, or perhaps other societal issues that are focused on the nation rather than on humanity generally. Kim Davis' controversy definitely goes no farther than this, being based so heavily upon the legalities of her actions, and those specific to the US. Yet there is no single action or controversy that doesn't touch in some way upon general principles. It is reasonable to divide these things into separate articles that can make appropriate references.
5. Religious suppression (or persecution): These are not the same thing, being a matter of degree. They are also a matter of interpretation, as to when some event imposes restrictions to what degree. I would avoid these terms in an article title as being too subject to points of view. It would be appropriate to deal with them internally within an article as a matter of presenting points of view, of which there might be many.

I do not personally favor an article more geographically restricted than "United States". The largest scopes are the more abstract therefore, not needing such restriction. The legal issues anywhere in the US are going to involve the 4th amendment, national law, and the Supreme Court, and other more local laws and jurisdictions enter in only in specific cases, like Kim Davis'. The issues are big; the case here is smaller. It seems to me that issue/controversy articles require a "US" scope at minimum. The legal issues are neatly confined when one considers only a single nation, and the US controversies seem to me to be quite notable enough for an article. But an article on US religious rights is one useful thing, and an article on US religious liberties is quite another thing, and I think both deserve articles. Much of the controversy is generated by the clash of law and religion, so the questions are different in those two contexts. WP will not have covered "the controversy" if it considers only law, so if it came to deciding between "religious liberty" and "religious rights", I would have to argue that "religious liberty" is the more necessary - much more. Evensteven (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't share the mind-set that an article's title has to be a POV battleground. I think an article can cover important issues that are not reflected in its title, and I don't think omission of an issue from the title implies that the issue is not important. I think this is classic overthink and a major waste of time. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A very nice list! Thanks. We have articles on all these subjects, and then some, and many articles which cover multiple aspects in one article. This article about Kim Davis is such an article. It documents a notable series of events which include elements of: her religious beliefs about marriage and homosexuality; Constitutional and State laws; Supreme Court decisions; resistance against such laws based on her religious beliefs; claims made by Davis that her religious freedoms are being violated; claims of religious persecution made by those who do not share her views; etc..

I think you can see that this article covers lots of territory! How do we know? Because RS tell the story, and it's our job to describe only those aspects related to Kim Davis. Other articles deal with some of the same subjects as they relate to other situations and persons. This is typical of how Wikipedia works. On any given subject, there will be a whole host of articles and sub-articles which are tangentially related and thus in the same category, and also in many other categories because they are relevant to all of them.

If we just continue to document what RS say about Kim Davis and the controversy, we will be doing our job. There is no need to complicate things. Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy covers the scope of the subject quite well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure it's not a complete list ("homosexuality" is a whole extra set of considerations). Now that I've arrived at thinking about scope in these terms, I'm not surprised that the other articles exist already. At the scale of the whole US, it's easy to see that the issues are the same issues all over, and plenty notable. And that's plenty of reason in itself not to rip content away from this article by a split. I don't see quite why there's been concern (even with a split) that this article would not survive an AfD, for however notability is attained, once it's there, it's there. Because this article is about Davis, I do not expect it to provide a lot of context about all the issues raised by her actions: out of scope here. That's why it's important to tie this article to those others with wikilinks, where references are made to the issues. They will provide the means to place Davis in a suitable context. I think the article now tends to overemphasize the legal issues with respect to the others, but I would have to admit that the media do the same, so I can't say there's an imbalance of reporting here. It is certainly reportable and involves ongoing developments. In balance myself, I have become much more satisfied with the function this article serves, and think it should be retained in its current state.

Mandruss, I don't share the mind-set that an article's title has to be a POV battleground? If you read something I wrote that you thought espoused that idea, please read again my comments about religious suppression/persecution just above. I'm advocating keeping loaded terms out of titles as much as possible. And I agree that articles can cover issues not mentioned directly in the title, but I'm saying here that naming these issues in the title is a way of satisfying COMMONNAME as well as identifying the central scope of the articles. But since those articles already exist and have names, the point is moot, and my list serves only to distinguish relevant topics related to each other and to this article. Evensteven (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

In terms of titles, the fundamental issues come up again and again, and I think it's clear that POV titles (especially titles that are objectively false) are problematic. As stated before, again and again, Davis did not exercise her free rights as an individual to avoid doing something based on her religious beliefs, and thus was persecuted. That's objectively, factually false. She forced other clerks, against their wills (apparently either physically threatening them, threatening their jobs, or both) to avoid granting licenses to couples. As a government official expressing the state, she forced those that wanted to get married to be unable to do so and actively tried to make it as difficult for them as possible, telling the couples that they couldn't just go to some other office because then their licenses would be invalid. One could perhaps word the article as Kim Davis' persecution of religious activity or Kim Davis' attack on religious freedoms or Kim Davis' discrimination against religious choices-- those would be inflammatory and I wouldn't support it, but at least those titles would be factually accurate. Wording that portrays Davis as the victim such as Kim Davis religious freedom controversy aren't just inflammatory, they're inflammatory and false. As stated before, it's akin to changing Barack Obama to Kenyan Muslim usurper. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, don't you mean Kim Davis' attack on civil rights? She's asserting religious freedoms, not attacking them. And I don't feel it's objective to say she's attacking civil rights. If they hadn't come to her office, I haven't seen any evidence she would be out campaigning against same-sex marriage. Not that I've read a whole lot of the coverage on this, I could be wrong. Anyway, since none of this is going to be in a title, I'm flirting with NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy covers the scope and content of this article quite accurately and neutrally. There is nothing remotely POV or controversial about that wording. This is the scope and content which passed the AfD. That title identifies the key person and the key issues, so it is the proper name for this article. No change of content is needed. It's fine as is. We can just develop it as more occurs.

The newly created Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy article is a meta-article with a larger scope. It can include much more than Kim Davis. As more content is added to it, I suspect its title will need to be tweaked a bit to more accurately describe its greater scope. (Maybe Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversies, once any other controversy gets included.)

Eventually that article will include all other clerks and judges involved in these controversies, together with any judgments and legal actions, etc.. Some might be notable enough to have their own articles, but not necessarily. Then it would end up with just one section describing this article, with a "main" link to this one. Similarly for any other notable individuals. That's how these types of articles link to each other and supplement each other. There is room for both, without any conflict. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed this is not a forum, and neither are the title segments I posted here POV. But now we're getting a lot of POV about them. Since the spinoff article seems to be set in stone, and since it is already named, both against my recommendation and contrary to BullRangifer's excellent points, I suggest that POV bickering cease and this section be considered obsolete. And, by the way, I am quite dismayed by the lack of good faith I am seeing by posts of this kind. I don't back down from fights, but this is not a fight, it is slander. Those of you who cannot keep a civil tone may go take a flying leap. Evensteven (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for losing my temper, sincerely. But it truly dismays me how completely some of you have misunderstood what I have said and why. I see little chance for correcting misunderstandings now. If you feel inclined to try, look at the press. The basics are there too. I've never brought a soapbox here. Evensteven (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Mugshot in main bio box

Can someone put the mugshot back into the bio box. I thought it was a good photo. 75.169.164.186 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No. See WP:MUG.- MrX 20:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As stated by other users, the Wikipedia consensus is clearly against that practice. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. A more neutral image would be appropriate for the infobox, if we had a copyright free image. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Trimming

Now that content has been spun-off to Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy‎, I think we should discuss how to refocus this article on biographical content. My bold edit yesterday was reverted, so I realize that there are different views on how (or if) we should do this. Here is my high-level proposal:

Keep the lead, Career and Personal life sections as is. Eliminate the Reactions section. Summarize the remainder of the Official actions and legal proceedings section and subsections to about 25-30% of their current size. This can be done by removing direct quotes and detailed analysis of the law, as well as the detailed tick-tock in the Contempt of court section.

I would like to hear what other editors think about this, so we can get some general consensus on how to proceed.- MrX 15:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully what's been said above. This has actually been addressed many times. The AfD approved of this article based on its notability. That notability is based on the controversy. Without it there is no justification for this article. It will just be AfDed again, and it will be deleted. This is a biography with weight on the controversy, the only thing which makes Kim Davis notable.

The other article is a meta-article with a larger scope. This one has a smaller scope, limited to Kim Davis and her same-sex licensing controversy. That is notable enough to justify this article, so all the existing content needs to stay here. Parts of it can be copied and used elsewhere, as you have done. That's okay, but deletion here is not proper. We don't want to see a backdoor attempt to bypass the AfD by hijacking this article. Anyone who wants a different scope is welcome to create such an article. That has no effect on this one, but, if done properly, may supplement it and make Wikipedia richer. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I've read the prior discussions carefully enough. I understand that it's your point of view that if we don't include the detail in this article, the notability of the subject collapses, but I, and I believe some other editors, disagree. The article should cover all aspects relevant to her notability, but the level of detail is excessive in my opinion. I'm of course biased toward omitting the political reactions altogether, although I do acknowledge that the reactions have created a vicious cycle keeping her relevant in the media. Nonetheless, I think some bold trimming is necessary. - MrX 16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think your approach works. No need to overthink this, folks. It will remain clear in this article why the subject is notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see the Reactions section just being removed entirely. Yet I'm not sure how much, if any, material can be removed from the Official actions and legal proceedings section as well as the Contempt of court section. Misinformation and lacking of understanding about who stated what and when about Davis' sentencing, about the judges actions, and so on is rampant, and while the stuff about "What does President Obama's office think about the Kentucky controversy?" arguably belongs in the other article and not here... exact details about Davis' encounter with various state officials is directly notable to her own personal life and is focused around her. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This should go without saying but I'll say it anyways: I'm not accusing anyone here of misinformation; I'm pointing out that a lot of coverage of Davis in the news media, in blogs, et cetera has been superficial and without details. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I applaud the creation of the meta-article Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy, although the larger scope indicates that a title change to Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversies is warranted, and quickly, to avoid an AfD. I think that such an article can serve a useful purpose, because, as has been stated by some editors, others in Kentucky have been involved in similar controversies related to their objections to same-sex marriage. I haven't noticed it in the press, but I haven't been looking for it. If that's really the case, then go for it. Create that article, but have the integrity, honor, and balls to do it without hijacking, sacking, and/or robbing this article of its legitimate content, because doing that is dishonorable and goes against the AfD.

What happens in the Kentucky article should have no effect on this article; none, nada, zero, keine, ingen, nada. In that very specific regard, there is a wall of separation between the articles, and they live their own independent lives. This one is about Kim Davis and her controversy. The Kentucky article is about similar controversies involving anyone in Kentucky, not limited to Kim Davis. The current content and scope here is what made this article notable enough to pass an AfD and no change of scope is needed, nor should it be made. All that needs to happen is to do what we always do with articles; we continue to monitor RS for potential content, and then seek to incorporate what is useful for further development.

I've also seen mixed messages. Sometimes it has been stated or implied that there is an attempt to remove the controversy so this is only a biography, and other times that there is an attempt to remove the biographical parts so it's only about the controversy. As far as my involvement goes, both ideas are false. (I can't speak for others.) This article has always been about Kim Davis AND her personal controversy. The original content and scope should be preserved and developed. The only real need is to have a more accurate title, which is covered by "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy". That sums it up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason, or consensus, to pluralize "controversy". The scope of the article is clear in the current title: Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. The controversy covers all of the concurrent events in a few Kentucky counties, mainly Rowan county, as well as the ensuing legal and political implications. As far as the level of detail in this article, I think we need to get a few more comments from other editors before deciding what to do. - MrX 04:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The title must reflect the content. The singular title was fine before more people were included, but there is more than one person involved. "Plural" is the defining word here, and simple logic and our name rules dictate a plural title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning, and so do several other editors who chose the current title. There are plural clerks and plural counties, but only one controversy centered on Kentucky. You're welcome to open a RM if you believe that a new consensus has since formed.- MrX 14:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you are clearly creating an article there which is NOT limited to Kim Davis' actions, but is still about same-sex marriage controversy (ies), with focus limited to Kentucky. I get that, and always have, but that makes it a separate article, not a spin-off of this one. It only shares some content and has no bearing on the Kim Davis-related content here, ergo there is no justification for "removal" of Kim Davis-related content from here. Everything related to Kim Davis must stay here. You're welcome to "copy" material from here which is related to "same-sex marriage license controversies" in "Kentucky" to your Kentucky article, but nothing that's related to Kim Davis should actually be "removed". It's what makes her notable, and without it this article ceases to be notable.

Your attempts to "remove" content are an improper and unnecessary attempt to bypass the AfD's recognition that her notability is based on her controversy. Why do you have to do something unnecessary to create your Kentucky article? Hijacking content isn't a good thing. That content can be in both places. For example, if you want to build a house, it's unnecessary to "remove" wood from your neighbor's house to do it. That's theft and vandalism. Just build your house and leave your neighbor's house alone. OTOH, borrowing ideas is fine.

The Kentucky article is a sub-article of a larger topic (and article, if we had it) on Same-sex marriage license controversies in the United States, which would itself be a sub-article of Same-sex marriage in the United States (also a category), which is a sub-article of Same-sex marriage. There are numerous possibilities for related articles. Here are a few: Same-sex marriage in New England, Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy, Marriage license#Controversy in the USA (Kim Davis should be mentioned there), and Religious views on same-sex marriage. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Confusion because this isn't a pure biography

I think some of the confusion is based on a misperception of this article. This article is not a biography like Bill Cosby. Cosby is notable for a whole lot of things completely independent of his more recent problems with sexual abuse allegations. Therefore, a spinoff sub-article was justified when that content grew to be of such proportions it created an undue weight problem. Therefore the sub-article "Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations" was created. There is very clear precedent and policy-based support for such a spinoff with the Cosby article, but there is none for this article.

We don't have any justification for doing that here, because her notability is exclusively related to her controversy. That's why ALL that content should remain here. (It's still okay to copy some and use it elsewhere.) There is no policy-based reason for creating a spinoff sub-article for the "controversy" content. In fact, no such reasons have even been given! I haven't seen them. I've only seen "it's a consensus", but that consensus must be based in policy, and I haven't seen a policy-based reason. So far, I've only seen another (Kentucky) article created, but without any new and unique content to justify its greater scope, or its existence. That needs to be done. Otherwise it won't survive a coming AfD, and it will come if nothing happens soon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There can be only one article, and it is about Kim Davis and the controversy she created. She is not notable without it. An article about her life with only three brief paragraphs: her controversy, her nomination into office, and her religious life will not be allowed to exist. Maybe next year after she becomes a celebrity known for something else, but definitely not now. Prhartcom (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is a biography, weighted toward the the person's history for the past few months.The subject's role is significant enough and the events enduring enough to justify a independent article. There has already been a discussion which reached consensus for a biography and a spin-off article about the controversy. While consensus can certainly change, it's not appropriate for one or two people to continue litigating the point. Consensus is the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals.- MrX 03:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A consensus must still be based in policy and precedent. The AfD approved of THIS article in its current form; a biography with a weight on the controversy. There is no justification for removing the controversy. Kim Davis is not notable for anything else. A biography without the controversy would not survive another AfD, and this seems like a means to undermine and go against that AfD decision. I suggest you respect it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And it is. I'm not aware that anyone is suggesting that the controversy be removed from this article, only that it be trimmed to a concise summary.- MrX 16:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

An experiment in visualizing possibilities

To make this easier to understand, let's assume (wrongly) that we are allowed (and we aren't) to do what was done with Bill Cosby's article. IF we did that, we'd have two articles:

• Kim Davis (county clerk) (the "main" biography article)
• Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy (the spinoff sub-article for the controversy content, but only if it creates undue weight)

That should make it easier to actually SEE it. The problem is that without the controversy content, the notability of the biography is gone, and the weight is not proper, since most of the content is supposed to be on the controversy. Why? Because of our policies and because of what RS dictate. They dictate that we preserve that balance. No weight of RS about Kim Davis have any other balance.

But to carry on with this experiment, let's assume that a spin-off is created. How should it be done? A spin-off sub-article always retains the key part of the name of the original, which is why it must retain Kim Davis name, just like the Cosby sex allegations sub-article retains Cosby's name. The Kentucky article does not do that, and it's a much larger scope, not a "sub" (narrower) scope article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. The Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy was created by, escalated by, ended by, and is all about no one other than Kim Davis. This is not that difficult to understand, people. Prhartcom (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

May I ask what policy or guideline you are deriving "A spin-off sub-article always retains the key part of the name of the original" from?- MrX 03:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Precedent, which is based on simple logic. A "sub" must indicate the object of which it is a "sub". It must be plain that the sub-article is a spin-off from the Kim Davis article. One does that by keeping her name in the title, just like pretty much all other sub-articles do (for this type of biography).

Pretty much all spin-offs of this type of article do it that way. Please show us one like this which doesn't do it and you will have found the exception that proves the rule. Your rather novel way of doing it isn't just unique, it's unheard of.

You don't seem to have been reading the discussion above very carefully. Read about the Bill Cosby sub-article situation there. In this regard, the spin-off TITLE situation is the same, even though the REASONS are vastly different. In that case there is a policy-based justification for a spin-off, but not here.

You are (incorrectly) proposing to make a spin-off of the controversy portion of the Kim Davis article. Okay, if you're going to do it, at least do it right and keep her name in the title. I have shown the proper method above. I don't think it's right to do it, but at least use the right title, because the "Kentucky..." article has a larger scope. Most of the Kim Davis material in it needs to be pared down, as discussed on the talk page there. Right now there is a an undue weight problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There are several holes in these arguments. First, the controversy article is a fork, not a sub article. Second, your assertion that "Pretty much all spin-offs of this type of article do it that way" lacks evidence, and is not consistent with my own experience. Third, the Bill Cosby articles have no bearing whatsoever on these article. Perhaps you should tell the editors there that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists here.- MrX 14:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2015

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: Withdrawn. The suggestion was submitted after a content fork article already existed that covered the suggestion. As nom, I wasn't aware of that, and the only supportive comments also seemed to be made without awareness (or at least without comment) about that. (non-admin closure) —BarrelProof (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy – [suggestion changed to insert "license" after discussion began] Per WP:BLP1E. This woman is primarily notable only for one thing – the controversy surrounding her refusal to issue marriage licenses – and that is what the article is primarily about. If she had not refused to issue marriage licenses, there would not be a Wikipedia article about her (and there wasn't one until she did that). The biographical information in the article is primarily only interesting as background information to explain her actions (and other people's actions) in that regard. She is known to most people as "the woman in Kentucky who is refusing to issue marriage licenses because of same-sex marriage", not as "Kim Davis the county clerk". —BarrelProof (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Questions - Can you explain how you believe each of the three BLP1E conditions are met for this subject? Also, how do you reconcile the fact that she was already a public figure before these events, with the requirement that BLP1E only be applied to low-profile individuals?- MrX 04:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• I must admit that I didn't go reread the exact wording of WP:BLP1E before submitting this. Perhaps the rationale is better expressed as WP:ONEEVENT than WP:BLP1E. In any case, I note that there is no separate article about her refusal to issue marriage licenses and the controversy surrounding that one notable action, and I believe there is no adequate justification for a separate article on that topic, since that's really practically the only thing that this article is about. A separate article about the controversy would merely be a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK. Since I believe that's what this article is about, I think that's what the title should reflect. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• You said "I note that there is no separate article about her refusal to issue marriage licenses". Are you aware of this article Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy that was spun-off as the result of a discussion resulting in a clear consensus?- MrX 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oops. No. I wasn't aware of that! Can I withdraw this? It doesn't make sense to have two articles about the same controversy. Shouldn't a lot of stuff be deleted from this article if there's another one about the controversy? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1E persion, the event and not the person, same as with any person associated with an event they caused, it is the event that has the notability. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support, per BarrelProof. This makes total sense. The current title does not reflect the content and scope, and that's totally wrong. There is no need to change the content or scope, only to bring the title into harmony with the current content and scope. This solves that problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous very recent discussions where this was hashed out. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 09:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  The previous RM was about whether to refer to her as "politician" or "clerk" – rapidly settling on "county clerk" (which I personally supported during the discussion). It was not about whether the title should be about the person or her notable action and the surrounding controversy. That RM was also closed after only seven hours of discussion, so it did not necessarily fully explore all the issues. Some of the discussion since then has been about whether to create a second content fork article, which I don't support for the reasons I just elucidated. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  There have been multiple discussions since that RM about this subject. To avoid argumentum ad infinitum, I would prefer not to re-discuss any of it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  The discussion in which consensus was reached to fork the content is here: Talk:Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)/Archive_3#Split?.- MrX 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support except the title should be Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. BarrelProof, where have you been; we discussed this above; your title sounds like Davis herself is the one getting same-sex married. It's about her refusal to issue same-sex marriage licences, remember? You have time to change your proposal; go ahead and do so. As BullRangifer noted above, the current title does not reflect the content and scope; the content and scope is correct but the title is wrong as Davis is notable for only one event. MrX, who created the article as a biography has argued to keep the article a biography as they imagine Davis will someday be a celebrity known for books, tours, etc. but that is not the case today; Davis has retreated to her office and closed the shutters; the controversy is over. All that is necessary is bring the title into harmony with the current content and scope. Prhartcom (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. I had the same thought as well, but others had already started replying to the RM and I didn't want to disrupt the flow by changing the suggestion in a way that wasn't relevant to the comments being made. Sorry for not noticing that the suggestion had come up before. I have now inserted "license" above. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support only if the name of the article excludes Kim Davis. The focus of the article should be the marriage licenses and the county, not Kim Davis. Suggest (as we have already discussed above) changing the article name to Rowan County, Kentucky same-sex marriage license conflict. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, why? Prhartcom (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I already stated why, above. Kim Davis is a 1E, at best. It's the marriage licenses that are the center of the controversy, not Davis. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Who caused, perpetuated, and ended the controversy? I'm thinking you have another reason for your view. (I have started a discussion below.) Prhartcom (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"I'm thinking you have another reason for your view." Frankly, I don't care what you think about my view. I didn't !vote to have my honesty questioned or to be grilled as to my motivation. If that was what you wanted to do, I suggest next time you fully disclose your motives for starting an RfC and let editors know ahead of time that if they !vote contrary to your agenda, they will be on the receiving end of unfounded accusation(s). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - We already have a controversy article, which resulted from a prior consensus. This RM seems like a refusal to accept that consensus. Further, no one has yet made a policy-based argument that this subject meets all three WP:BLP1E conditions. Specifically,
  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - The events are 1. Her election, 2.Media attention about nepotism and salaries, 3.her refusal to issue marriage licenses, 4. her SCOTUS appeal, 5. her arrest for contempt of court.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - As an elected public official, she was already notable. WP:LPI instructs "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Does anyone argue that Kim Davis has not sought media attention?
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - Kim Davis not only has a significant, well-documented role—she has a central role, and one that is arguably of historic significance.
  • The proposed title, Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy, would substantially alter the intent of this article, which is to document a person's life, and their role in a historic series of events.
  • The proposed title, Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy, would contravene the precision criteria of a good TITLE which says "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." The proposed title would create significant confusion with Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy.
  • The proposed title would run afoul of WP:POVNAME. There are exactly zero Google news results for the search phrase "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy", so the only purpose that would seem to be served by renaming this article to that title, would be to permanently shame the subject. I would argue that this would wantonly violate Arbcom's proscription against such titles and I won't rule out bringing it before WP:ARCA to seek Arbcom's clarification, should this RM pass. - MrX 14:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course this statement is false: "There are exactly zero Google news results for the search phrase "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy". Not sure why on Earth you would say that. Prhartcom (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A news search for "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy" yields No results found for "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy". with InternetExplorer; "Your search - "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy" - did not match any news results." with Chrome and Firefox. Try it yourself: [1]. Same result with Bing: "We didn't find any results for "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy"." [2]- MrX 15:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you're doing it with quotes; you are unfairly looking for an exact match of that exact phrase. Who is going to use that exact phrase in their reliable source? Of course the controversy about Kim Davis' denial of marriage licences can be phrased in other ways. When you remove the quotes you can see many articles sourcing the Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy. Incidentally, searching for the exact phrase "same-sex marriage license" returns a ton of articles about the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You really need to make up your mind. First you said, "Of course this statement is false: "There are exactly zero Google news results for the search phrase "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy".". When you were shown how the statement isn't false, then you say, "Who is going to use that exact phrase in their reliable source?". Why not just admit you are wrong on this one? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, I have made up my mind. When you type in that phrase without quotes you get a ton of results specific to this controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2015 (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.

Two articles or one? (Or three?)

As others have been doing, I have been reading WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E very closely, guidelines that help editors decide to avoid a separate biography article in addition to an event article. If all three conditions for not having a biography article are met, then the separate biography article should probably not exist in addition to the event article. Let's take a look.

Before we start, notice that the guidelines appear to assume that editors have already decided that the event article should exist. The guidelines are to help editors decide if a second biography article should exist in addition to the first event article. So we probably should have started with the event article and not the biography article.

1. Reliable sources cover Davis only in the context of a single event. Is this true? Yes, this is very clear and I doubt anyone is arguing otherwise, as there is not a single only two reliable sources referenced by the Kim Davis article that is unrelated to this controversy. It is starting to look like there should be an event article but not a biography article. (Note: I doubt an entire article would be allowed to stand citing only those two local newspaper sources.)
2. Davis otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Is this true? At first, it doesn't sound like Davis is a low-profile individual; not at all. However, it is clear that, as of today, Davis has not yet published her book, started her speaking tour, or done anything other than this one event. If she ever does begin to do anything notable outside the one event she is notable for then this condition is not met at that time. So even though she doesn't seem like a low-profile individual, I suppose she is by definition. So I suppose this condition is met. If so, it is really starting to look like there should be an event article but not a biography article.
3. If the same-sex marriage license controversy event is not significant or Davis's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Is this true? No way. I of course have to admit: Not only was the event was significant (so there should definitely be an article about the event) but the event centered on Davis and her role in it; others involved in the event always revolved around her; the event was always caused by, perpetuated by, and ultimately ended by Davis. So now, for the first time, it does not look like all three conditions to not have a biography are met. So maybe we should have a biography article about Kim Davis in addition to the event article.

One more thing. WP:BIO1E says: "Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people." OMG. If so, that could mean there is an exception to the three points we just went over. Since Davis has not done anything else notable other than this one event, then a biography about her might be a pseudo-biography: "If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event." In that case, this "common sense" exception probably means we should not have a biography article about Kim Davis in addition to the event article.

But at the very least, we should have started with the one event article. And it should have been named correctly: Kim Davis same-sex marriage licence controversy. Then later, when Davis is notable for more than one event (even though she certainly was front and center of that one event), then reliable sources will begin to cover the other events that she is a part of (her books, her tours, whatever) and we can have a proper biography reflecting those sources that cover those other events. But until then, because of weight, a second biography article written today covering Kim Davis would be only a pseudo-biography. And it would be probably be deleted. But the Kim Davis same-sex marriage licence controversy event article would continue to exist.

P.S. We can also have a second event article discussing the first event in a wider scope, including the other two clerks in Kentucky, called Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy event article. But we probably shouldn't have the second article without the first Kim Davis same-sex marriage licence controversy event article.

Comments? Prhartcom (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Why avoid mentioning Kim Davis' name in the title of an article about the controversy?

Some editors above have decided that, at all costs, the title about the controversy should definitely not include Kim Davis' name. I am at a loss why anyone would argue that. Please enlighten me below. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)