Talk:Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Scope needs to be filled out

Since this is a meta article (in comparison to the Kim Davis article), and therefore the scope of this article is much larger than Kim Davis, you need to include relevant content about other similar persons, situations, and controversies in Kentucky. Note that WP:N is not an issue for such content. It is covered by the notability of the subject of this article. Currently (because much of the content is identical) the result of the AfD for the Kim Davis article establishes that notability, as long as she is prominently mentioned here. If not, an AfD could be filed by anyone. Adding other relevant content shouldn't be a problem. With time one would expect that just as much content about others would be added so that she becomes one-among-many in this article.

So, who else has been covered by RS? Add them. They don't have to be notable enough for their own articles to be included here. They are vaguely mentioned in the lead, but not in the body ("Other county clerks in Kentucky took similar stands against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples."). That's a violation of WP:LEAD, so I'll remove that sentence. It can be restored when such content has been added to the body. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to help. I suggest structuring this article something like this:

• Lead
• Background (or Overview)
• Rowan County
• Casey County
• Washington County[1]
• Reactions

- MrX 12:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Great! That looks good. If there are RS to back up such content, then go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

More content added

Now that more content has been added (there are at least two other clerks), I have mentioned that fact in the lead, slightly changed (by move) the title, and adjusted the level of the section headings, all to reflect the actual content. I also added a lead paragraph to the beginning of the Kim Davis section, with hidden editorial information and instructions. Feel free to improve it.

As more information and sources are found, keep enlarging and improving the article. The content about the other two clerks could also be enlarged, by Kim Davis' portion will still dominate, as it should.

We do have an undue weight problem. Regardless of how many other clerks get involved, if any, Kim Davis will likely always have the largest weight here, but right now it's really way too much content about her. It needs to be summarized better, since the main article is still at her biography (which still needs a title improvement).

A few paragraphs, with a "main" link, should do the job. The easiest way to do it is to use the lead from her bio. That will bring this series of related articles into line with normal practice here. That's how we've always done it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Title

There was no consensus for moving this article to Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversies. The controversy has many facets, but that does not mean that there are a plurality of controversies. Before the article was created, the title was discussed and consensus favored Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. See talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#Spinoff title.- MrX 03:40, 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) 06:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I fail to understand why the singular word "controversy" can't apply when we're talking about an issue that relates to one specific area or topic but involves multiple people. See, for example, the article global warming controversy. A great many people are involved with researching climate change, doing so in multiple nations, but it's fitting to use the term "controversy" because it's a singular subject. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Moot point. We're working with this title now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Coercion of other clerks to obey issue

Aside from Kim Davis, has any of the other individuals that have objected to issuing same-sex licenses also tried to force other clerks to follow their lead? There's multiple different cases here, but it's not clear. Going to a restaurant and having waitress X happen to not serve you is pretty different than waitress X ordering every other waitress and waiter to leave you alone, X giving out threats. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, no other individuals are on the power trip that Kim Davis is on. That question can be answered by reading this article, the Kim Davis article, or any of their reliable sources. Prhartcom (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Given what I've read, here and elsewhere, I went ahead and tweaked the lead to this article to clarify things. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because there is a current, active AfD discussion on the Kim Davis article being deleted. Further, that article might be merged with this one. What's more, I see no conflict in this article remaining even if the Kim Davis article remains. One is a BLP, this one an article on the events she started in motion. Considering the legal ramifications of the denials of marriage licenses and the strong possibility the licenses currently being issued without the county clerk's name attached are actually illegal, it's very likely the license issue will continue whereas her 5 minutes of "fame" will not. ---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis (county clerk) has survived two deletion nominations by very wide margins. An RfC has determined that there should only be one article. Logically, it follows that this, the newer, less complete, WP:SPINOFF article should be deleted. - MrX 16:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, and as MrX is the creator, I must comment that MrX is showing much grace in this matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... ( The Kim Davis article is currently in AFD with discussion to merge here, further having an article under the name Kim Davis violate WP:BLP1E.) --KoshVorlon 15:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

First, having a KIm Davis biography does not violate BLP1E, as has been thoroughly demonstrated on the article talk page and in two AFDs. Second, this article is spinoff article of the original article. The original article which has much more information, a full revision history, and has twice failed deletion nominations by a large margin.- MrX 16:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This should be moved...

To Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, since while the topic is broader that would be a more helpful title. Then we might be able to have a reasonable, adult conversation about what material to take from Kim Davis (county clerk) and what not to take. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the right thing, shifting this over to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversies. We can now bring in the content that we need before perhaps tweaking the name a bit more. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No, moving is the wrong thing to do. Just delete this and rename the Davis article. That solves all the problems. That's where all the content and further development has occurred, and that's where all the history is as well. A rename is all that's necessary there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up after mess making...

Can we, at long, long last, have the stick be dropped at least for one moment? The consensus is for some kind of article framed as Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversies (or something very, very similar) in the main page, the Kim Davis (county clerk) page. We shouldn't have the worst sort of edit warring going on here. If there's some proposal for a better title, fine. There's a place for that.

This is the place: Talk:Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)#Requested_move_6_October_2015

Thank you. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverted non-consensus controversial move

CoffeeWithMarkets was reverted for disruptively moving this article. There is a discussion taking place whether or not to move article Kim Davis (county clerk). Will this editor please take part in the discussion. Prhartcom (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Strike out your bald-faced lie that I was being disruptive as well as your bald-faced lie that I wasn't taking part in the discussion. Please. Either do it or I will remove your comments for you (or will strike them out for you), since I'm at the point where I can't really tolerate more sheer, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred from you and your fellow obsessives. Note as well that since you don't follow procedure (neither do your guys generally), I'll be trying to follow procedure for you and won't revert your revert of my action with the title. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you wouldn't correct the record, I had to go ahead and change it for you (given the objective fact that I was a part of the discussion on the Kim Davis page and have been for days and days now, well before the move that just happened here a bit ago. I even voted in your RFC, yes, well before the move that just happened also. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Phartcom was correct, it was disruptive. It was also pointy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, CWM moved it twice. A proper revert would put the article at Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. Any change from that article title should be done only after a formal discussion to reach a consensus using the move request discussion process. Instructions on how to suggest renaming an article can be found at WP:RM. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have move-protected the page to prevent any disruption. I'd be happy to make any small changes to the title, if there's a consensus to do so. Otherwise, this page will only be moved, or deleted, or merged, or whatever after the requested move discussion linked in the section above, or some other discussion, has reached a consensus. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please return the page title to Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. That is the title it had before today's non-consensus page moving began. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"this page will only be moved, or deleted, or merged, or whatever after the requested move discussion linked in the section above, or some other discussion, has reached a consensus." Oh, thank God, thank you very much. We really need some kind of technical restriction in order to force these guys to follow procedure. There was an RFC. It concluded. The conclusions lead to another RFC. The fair-and-square response that should have happened was that we hashed things out like adults at the RFC. Hopefully, that can still happen (not optimistic though, given the behavior of the editors). Fingers crossed, though. Thanks again. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, thank-you for protecting the article and restoring the disruption caused by the moving editor. Question: Myself and another involved editor, MrX, tagged the article for speedy delete as this was decided at RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?), but the moving editor twice removed the tag. Can you please check history and restore the tag for us, if you agree, that is? Prhartcom (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have several points in reply: 1) My reading of the consensus in that discussion is that it's not overwhelming. 2) I am not that familiar with the previous discussions, at this time 3) I believe the tagging would be outside the scope of CSD G6. 4) I believe it would be disruptive given that there's a current discussion going on. 5) There are BLP issues involved in placing all the content in the article about the person. For me then, I won't action it, but I can't prevent you trying. I would prefer to see the current discussion resolve itself. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you, I respect this advice. I have nominated the page for deletion at the link below. Prhartcom (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The present state of this article was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)