Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article subject/title

Ok, this is the requested new section to discuss what this article is about. In order not to leave threads hanging that have come from above, I'll copy the segments that have generated this talk.

Evensteven, RfC: Qualified Support. Insofar as the biography includes material from this single issue, that issue should not overrun the biography article. If the issue itself is the article, it should be renamed or spun off. Given that the single issue must be treated with balance within a biography, so also the political commentary must be balanced within the issue. In a biography article, I see therefore very little room for the political commentary, and would suggest that the appropriate coverage might be a single sentence saying something like "Leading politicians including A, B, C, and D have all given statements supporting the requirement that a government official must obey the law.", and then provide a list of sources with the details, or a brief note if really necessary. Truly, the media coverage of the issue is not the biography itself, and shouldn't be treated as such. The issue seems bigger to me than the biography, and I'm inclined to think it needs its own article. That would have a little more room to include these statements, which might be individualized to a sentence each if anyone is so devoted to them. But the fundamental conflict is indeed that necessity to obey the law as opposed to the right of the citizen to act in conscience with respect to religious belief, often thought to be supported by the phrase "freedom of religion", itself a part of the law. So the issue strikes at a fundamental legal proposition of this nation, and the conflict induced can and does mean people may take sides, or express their own conflicts about it. It's good material for an article. However, it's very early to create such an article, because the only available sources at this time will be media reports, and reportage provides no context or scholarly synthesis (that's not its purpose). So actually writing this article may prove to be impossible at present, until some of the requisite sources are produced from the outside. Until then, WP stands (potentially) in danger of editorial squabbles that can't be reconciled, and I don't recommend stepping into that situation.
Interchange from "Proposed Addition section": Please see reference above in my response to the RfC. I just wanted to say that this article as it stands presently appears to me to be more of the issue article than a biography. (It's fine for such an article to provide biographical background such as this does.) It does make me wonder if the article shouldn't be renamed and identified with the issue. The issue is, after all, the prime reason for the notability of the person, and for the political commentary. Despite the cautions I stated above, it seems that things are under control at present. Just be careful of creating a soapbox for every politician who wants to make another comment. I'm sure there will be more to come. Evensteven (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Evensteven, I really like your thinking! The issue is the notable thing, and Davis is only the focal point. A new title would solve that problem, because this isn't a typical biography of someone notable for who they are, but for someone notable for an event. The event should be the focus of the title. Any suggestions? How about Kim Davis marriage license controversy? How about creating a new section to discuss this subject. Just move our two comments there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That would require consensus. I don't think I'm in favor of it. This person is at the center of the controversy and is causing all of it herself. I see your point, naturally, but this biography is not unprecedented. (An early twentieth century murderer Leo Frank is one example; I just saw a discussion for that article end today with a decision to keep it as a biography.) Agreed that we need to keep the reactions to a minimum. Prhartcom (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we are in basic agreement about the focus. Yes, she's the explosive primer for this controversy, but the controversy itself is the main subject, because she, as a person, is TOTALLY inconsequential. Yet she must remain a significant part of the controversy because she won't stop, nor will her involvement be forgotten. My suggested title retains her name, as it should. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The subject of this article is a person, who has already been shown to be notable. We don't use the MOVE function to DELETE an article and create another with same content. Of course, you're free to create a fork and recycle as much content as you like (with attribution of course). - Mr X 21:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A move would require consensus, and I see a new thread has been started below. BTW, using the MOVE function keeps the history, so in reality it's just a change of title. Everything would continue as usual, but a title change that is more accurate will help to focus editing on what's really relevant. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we have right here the essence of the conflict that is and is to come. I defined the issue as primary over the person, and its content as the legal conflicts inherent in the freedom of religion and in the fulfilling of the duties of civic office. BullRangifer thought that was a good characterization, and suggested the article is about that very thing, suggesting an article title change as a result. (I agree.) Prhartcom didn't agree (at least not necessarily). I think his key point is that the person "is at the center of the controversy and is causing all of it herself". And what we see here is what the two primary perspectives (points of view) are going to be about the whole matter. For if the issue is the person, the article shouldn't move. And if the issue is the person, then it is indeed because "she is doing it all herself", which amounts to an evaluation that the whole matter does not really concern freedom of religion at all. Now these two points of view are, in effect, a conflict that ones sees all the time in the news. This is just one news story that carries the particular headline, but all such stories reflect a fundamental opposition of opinion over what is and what is not freedom of religion, and often in relation to what is and what is not civic duty. One side characterizes the matter one way, and the other side characterizes it the other way. We at WP cannot decide the outcome of the conflict, of course, nor even influence it particularly. And we also cannot report the outcome, because the conflict is not at all settled, nor is it even likely to be. It's been going on for at least as long as I've lived (above 60 years), and shows every sign of sustaining itself beyond any one person's lifetime. So, we've got to expect that the world is going to continue to deal with matters like this one for quite some time, and that the very unsettled nature of the conflicts themselves are going to unsettle us at WP, especially because we will have the different viewpoints here that reflect the ones out there.

From above, again: "The IPs and non-autoconfirmed are currently walled out, [but wait until they're not]", and a response "They can be walled out again. No problemo." Sorry folks, I have to say "problemo". The opinions are already inside the wall. I think we need to recognize that, first. Second, I think we need to continue to be respectful and all those things editors bring up after things start getting out of control, but to do so now before things spin out, and in an effort to keep them from spinning out. I don't want to be a person that has fanned any flames. But while I have stated my basic orientation above, I'm not sure how to reconcile what we need to do here with those who have an alternate orientation, because even the WP issues around the article title and focus hinge on those orientations. It would seem that no matter what we do, it will look wrong to someone, and at the moment I don't have what looks like an idea for how to solve that, even while maintaining neutrality of tone and good faith. I wish I did, and if I get a brain storm, I'll certainly let you all know here. Evensteven (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Why not leave the article named as it is, but also choose another title named for the issue and make that a redirect? That way, no matter what someone's viewpoint, there's a path to the article that reflects the view. If the article also presents the views, neutrally of course, I see no reason why anyone would have reason to object to coverage of both. The media is going to be making a lot of noise about the reactions of politicians, of course, as everyone want to have a campaign message. I do think the article should work harder at more basic information, as the other stuff will be of highly perishable interest. But when no one can resolve something into one, why not resolve it into something multiple but balanced? Evensteven (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a little TL;DR for my ADD brain, so apologies if I've missed something important. I agree this is not a true bio as implied by its current title. She has absolutely no notability outside this issue. I think an issue-related title would be more appropriate, and I think a move is justified, not a redirect which would just sidestep the issue of correct titling. My problem is how to title it without being awkward or unwieldy, and I haven't seen any specific proposals. "Kim Davis controversy"? "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy"? "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy"? Something else? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Mandruss is correct. A title change would be best, and a redirect would just make the change more difficult. The idea of creating redirect(s) is a good idea though. Even multiple redirects is okay, but the article must use the best title. A redirect won't do for that purpose. So let's wait with redirects until we've chosen a title. Then make the move, and make the other suggestions into redirects. Let's start with some suggestions. When we've found one that most accurately describes this topic, and not the person, then we go with that one. I'll start a list below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I added an option that removes her from it. While she is central to it, she seems separate from it, like Obergefell or "Jane Roe". It sounds like they're going to appeal this to SCOTUS, and it's going to be a bigger issue than her. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested titles (just add to this list)

Please DO NOT make these into redirects, at least not yet.

1. Kim Davis controversy

2. Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy

3. Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy

4. Kim Davis marriage license controversy

5. Rowan County marriage license controversy

I'm not in love with the current title, nor any of the proposed ones. The Rowan County one is my favorite so far. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Of the current suggestions, I also favor Rowan County. I agree with comments above that the whole matter is bigger than Kim Davis and is taking on a life of its own, which is reason enough alone to change the article title to something not directly attached to her name. Evensteven (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If her story has sparked a wider debate, there's no reason that the scope of this article has to be expanded to cover it. There are other articles that could be updated, like Same-sex marriage in the United States. The part of the story that involves Kim Davis should be in this article. Since she would obviously remain the center of that part, it would still make sense to include her name in the title. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Regardless of where this controversy goes in the future, it will be identified with her, so the new title should still contain her name. I have numbered the current list for easy reference. The first four contain her name. Which of them summarizes the desired content of the article (which must be based on the content of available RS)? I lean toward No. 3. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest a formal move request for this to see what consensus there would be for moving it. As for whether I'd support the move, I'm undecided. I think there's a wider controversy at play as other clerks have been refusing to process marriage licenses, but in terms of the Rowan County clerk's office, it's all Kim Davis' doing. Name change or not, taking "Kim Davis" out of the title is unacceptable simply due to her now very well established notoriety and centrality to the matter. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The RM process requires you to specify the exact new name proposed, so we would have to agree on that first. If we can agree on that (i.e. consensus, not necessarily unanimous agreement), I don't think an RM is necessary; we would simply do the move. We have enough editing experience already present to make this decision. If we agree that a new name is in order, but can't reach consensus on the new name, then we could do an RM just to break the ~~stalemate.~~ stalemate. For that I guess we would have to use the most popular proposed name and get a thumbs-up or down on that. (Has anyone ever done an RfC on a title change?). ―Mandruss ☎ 11:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

At any rate, there would need to be a point where agreement on the new name is determined. Right now, there is only discussion, and not necessarily all !votes (positions) are registered. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, let's let this discussion percolate for a day or three and then we could maybe try a local poll. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As I have previously said, I am opposed to any move that changes the title, scope, and subject of this article so that it is not longer a biography. That is tantamount to deleting the biography. In any case, a move request would be required as this would be a controversial move that touches on a few different policy areas. - Mr X 12:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is in no way, shape, or form a biography of Kim Davis, and it never will be or should be. That's why the title needs changing. If you feel an RM is an absolute necessity, fine. We still need to decide what title it should propose, and the only efficient way to do that is by a poll. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it's not a biography, and I certainly know what I created and what was discussed at AfD. We started careening down the slippery slope when folks added quotes from the ACLU and ADL, which weighted the article toward being a news event. A RM is the correct process at this point. - Mr X 13:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well count me among the benighted. I could have sworn this article was about a woman's defiance of a court order and the resulting shitstorm, not about the woman and her life. We should begin immediately looking for reliably sourced information about her parents, her childhood, what schools she attended, any children, what other jobs she has held, anything significant she has published, any prior controversies or public statements, and so on. We also need to trim at least half of the content about this controversy, as it's only a small part of her life in total. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I have trimmed a few things already. We can only cover those aspects of her life that appear in reliable sources, but don't worry, I'm sure she'll write a book soon. - Mr X 14:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, I was being ironic as a literary device. I don't think we should do that, and I don't think that would serve our readers. This woman's life is of no interest to anyone (sorry, Kim, but neither is mine). ―Mandruss ☎ 14:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I realize that, and I was going to say something ironic back, like "thank you for your comment, Sir Mandruss, (k)night of the Wiki." ← As you can see, my comment was really not very funny, thus omitted. - Mr X 14:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a selective biography of Kim Davis. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

All encyclopedia biographies are selective by design as we only cover what is notable per our established policies/guidelines. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

All biographies are selective. That is correct. Wikipedia has policies relating to selectivity, as you correctly point out. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article title should not be about Kim Davis but about the events. My suggestion is for something along the lines of: "Rowan County, Kentucky marriage license controversy". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Today, if do top 5 a Google search for "Kim Davis", there are more than 15 million results and this article is in the top five search results. A search for Rowan County, Kentucky marriage license controversy yields about 335,000 results and the Wikipedia article is not even in the top 100 search results. If we remove her name from the title a lot of potential readers will not even know about this article. I think WP:COMMONNAME would apply.- Mr X 16:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: I've noticed you citing the Google hit-count estimate before. That number is so wildly inaccurate that I don't think it should ever be used in discussions. I've seen Google estimates in the millions when the true hit counts were in the hundreds. The is true for both Google Search and Google News; they appear to use the same algorithms for estimating hit counts. To get a true hit count, you have to walk through the pages of returns until you approach the end; at that the point the number changes to the true count. See Wikipedia:Search engine test#Google distinct page count issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Google searches aren't always a dependable measure, but they can be helpful, as long as we keep in mind that one source might be mirrored on 15,000 other sources. The margin of error can be huge, but it can still give a general idea if the search parameters are fairly strict.

Regardless of that, MrX does bring up a good point; the new title must include Kim Davis. WP:COMMONNAME does apply here. I think we agree on that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm aware that the raw numbers include tags, mirror pages, click bait, syndication, etc., and is only useful as a very rough indication of magnitude.- Mr X 03:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

At some point, very rough becomes so rough as to be meaningless, which was my point. Also I haven't seen much correlation between estimate and true - they don't seem to be consistently proportional - so it wouldn't be useful to compare two estimates. Thus I always use the true, and I tend to ignore any arguments based on the estimate. I want my argument to be as strong as possible, convincing as many others as possible, so I eliminate that potential issue. But do as you wish. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, on further research I see what you mean. Supposedly there is a rc=1 parameter that can be used to return an accurate count, but it doesn't seem to work. I'm still looking into it.- Mr X 17:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You do understand that the problem isn't just about mirrors, etc? That estimate isn't counting anything real at all. It's nothng but the output of a mathematical algorithm which is not remotely accurate enough for our purposes. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I vote for deferring discussion about what to call the article until we have decided what the article is. See above. It's not clear to me how much support, if any, MrX has for making this article not about the controversy. I understand that was his original intent, but it wasn't set in stone and it still makes little sense to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The controversy is obviously the most notable part, and the ONLY thing that makes her remotely notable. Therefore the weight of this biography must go towards great coverage of the controversy, with some background about this woman who started it. Her name must always be in the title; it will always be a biography; and like all articles here, including biographies, anything of significance found in RS is fair game for inclusion. Our biographies are NOT like other bios, simply because our rules for inclusion are different.

Stripped of the controversy, there would be no article about her. Since an AfD (rightly) determined we should keep this article, we should proceed with building it like any other article. BLP applies to all articles, talk pages, and living people, so make sure good sourcing accompanies the necessary inclusion of negative content.

Summary: This is a biography with heavy weight on the controversy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, fellow editors, if this article is about Kim Davis, being a biography and not something else, then I suggest that we need to prove notability. Do we need to resort to a request for deletion? That is certainly the end result if notability fails. Personally, I think the article itself should be retained, but not as a biography, because Kim Davis is notable only for this stand she is taking, and that event is the notable thing (and needs its article). Evensteven (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It just passed AfD by a wide margin a few days ago, and I imagine it will again. Submitting again so soon is generally frowned upon anyway. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think trying to get the article deleted would be disruptive in the extreme, as it easily passes notability as a bio, even more so than it did when someone tried to delete it five days ago. Feel free to start a move discussion if you think the article should be moved to another title.- Mr X 18:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is not to get the article deleted, as I said above. My point is that it is not a biography, because if it were, and if the AfD had been about the notability of Kim Davis alone, then it ought to have failed that AfD. My point is that it passed the AfD because of the notability of the event, which is what I stated above. I recognize your opinions on the matter, as I did from the start, and as I stated above, there are at least two types of opinions in the world roughly based on "this is all about Kim Davis" and "this is about freedom of religion", and those opinions exist here on WP too. But neither your opinions nor mine are something either of us can prove, nor can they really be reconciled (because of the divergent underlying viewpoints they represent). I'm willing to consider an article name change, and there are others who would also. I'm not willing to be a divisive factor among the editing community here, though, and I guarantee that a name change poll/proposal would be divisive. We are therefore back to my suggestion above that we consider supporting two names, one as is, the "event" name as a redirect, and write the article about both person and event, which is pretty much what has been going on, without undue strife. What do you think now? Evensteven (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me say also that I feel this suggestion serves all interests, and stands the best chance for producing the best possible article because of that. The multiple viewpoints all deserve to be presented, and the divergence of opinion is the whole reason there is so much controversy in the first place. No article "purified" to one perspective could represent what either the person or the event means. Evensteven (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like there are more points that we agree on than disagree on. I support an article about the events, and I think it should include the other counties in Kentucky, and perhaps the US, that have followed suit. I support redirects to this article from any of the other titles proposed on this page. Redirects are very uncontroversial. Whether they will help readers find the article is speculative, but it can't hurt.- Mr X 19:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is it not a biography? Included in the article is background on her pay history, how she got the job, her marriages and a few other points of close relevance to the same-sex marriage certificates at the center of the story. This is a biography that focusses on her relation to an important moment. She has been vocal and this is captured in audio and visual in the county clerk's office with both her supporters and the opposition vocalizing. True, it is not a well-rounded biography but it is an approximation of a biography. Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we have more points in common than not. I also thought the redirect approach would prove to raise fewer concerns, and it works to get a person to the place they're looking for. And I haven't said the article isn't a biography, but that a biography article needs sufficient notability of the person to keep from being deleted, and that the article was not deleted because its notability was not particularly that of the person. So, my idea is that the article can become a hybrid, which it already is in fact, and can serve both purposes at one time. MrX does have a point in that the "event" is not so singular, and another point that an issue article about the wider aspects of that issue, and all its related events, would seem to be a good idea. I would suggest that that wider "issue" article can exist side-by-side with this one, however, even if this one is treated as a biography/event/issue hybrid, and the subject of this article would restrict itself naturally to the aspects of the issue that revolve around Kim Davis's actions. WP has plenty of article overlaps already, with some serving a wider topic area and some more focused on a more detailed topic. Why not? Evensteven (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Another point about notability. An otherwise unnotable person can sometimes take actions and start chains of events that are highly notable, and bring that person into the limelight. Surely everyone can agree that that is the case here!? To me, this also argues for the inseparability of person and event, and the need to treat both in the article, explicitly, and consciously. Evensteven (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a biography with heavy weight on the controversy. Our bios are different from bios elsewhere. See my comment above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I've no objection to that characterization, and don't really care that much about what we call it, as long as it remains clear that both are foci for the article and both determine its scope. I just wouldn't want to argue about weighing one thing against the other because "it's one thing" or "it's the other thing". I don't think there's a need to shortchange either biographical information or matters of controversy out of a sense that the two need somehow to "be in balance". I don't think the article can be in balance unless both are given their full weight. They go together and support each other, which is what makes a "bio" like this different from some other "bios". Evensteven (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this biography include commentary or reactions from politicians?

NAC SNOW close. There is obvious consensus for including commentary or reactions from politicians. Let the fun begin. - Mr X 18:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should this biography include commentary or reactions from politicians? - Mr X 16:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Support – Barack Obama has Cultural and political image, George Walker Bush has Public image and perception. It seems reasonable that when Presidential candidates are discussing someone's case that we would find mention of it. The key should be keeping it verifiable, neutral, and proportionate. That is, we should strive to briefly represent the major point of views, and perhaps more briefly the overall spectrum of all the views (while attributing, but not endorsing each).--Nosfartu (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Support – Reactions from notable politicians, namely those running for President of the United States, are being reported in reliable sources and belong in this article. We can't censor the article. However, let us remember this article is a biography and not an event, so we should not put undue weight on these reactions. A couple of sentences perhaps, such as: "Politicians a, b, and c released statements of support for Davis; Mike Huckabee said "x". Other politicians such as x and y maintained Davis should follow the law; Jeb Bush said "z." Prhartcom (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Weak support - Honestly, if we were going to include reactions, it would probably better be in a separate article, like 2015 Rowan County county clerk controversy, although, hopefully, a better title than that one in particular. Personally, I might prefer that as a title than this one, because there is now also some information regarding the controversy, like her son who works there not having to issue gay marriage licenses, and her saying that she will not recognize any that are issued without here real approval, and so on. And, yes, I think that, maybe, that might be a higher priority article than this one. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A spinout sub-article could be justified if such content grew to an undue size and overwhelmed this article. Since this article is only about her because her refusal made her notable, it could be argued that such content really does belong here. It's what she's known for. It really does demand great weight here, but for reading purposes should still be kept smaller, and complete coverage could be left to a spinout sub-article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment Point taken; articles about events like the title you suggest are the way to document the story that happens to non-notable people like who Davis otherwise would be, but I suppose a biography here is fine. Davis is at the very center of this controversy and has caused all of it. Prhartcom (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I acknowledge that it is a virtual certainty that she is going to resign and assume some other political position, probably in some sort of "think tank," but, if she doesn't, wouldn't it really make more sense to have a separate article on the controversy rather than a biography until then? John Carter (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Support per Prhartcom's comment. A prior censorship refusal to include notable political commentary has no basis in policy or normal practice, and in fact goes against normal practice. That content is directly related to this subject and found in myriad RS. We are allowed some editorial discretion, but it doesn't extend to total omission. Such a refusal is actually editorial censorship, and thus a clear violation of NPOV. Such commentary must be considered, formulated properly, and then added. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Support for objectively connected politicians onlySupport per Prhartcom with caveats. As far as the example comment is concerned, we should consider the candidate's recent polling and even more importantly, where their statement fits on that side's (supporter/non-supporter) "bell curve". We should aim for a statement that's in the middle of that curve. Overall, here, we need to make this content brief and uninviting to expansion. Outside of this article, I think since there's implications in the state's governor's race, some mention should go into Kentucky gubernatorial election, 2015 or the individual candidate articles. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

To explain why it should be made uninviting to expansion, this is no matter of censorship, but a matter of having out-sized content about one aspect of a biography. We should strive to avoid that, hopefully in a preemptive manner by matter of the content's design. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Stevietheman, I may be misunderstanding you, so I apologize if that's the case. I need clarification. It sounds like you are encouraging a violation of NPOV through deliberate use of false balance. In a certain sense, we should ignore where they are on the curve. We actually want comments from all places on the curve, if they exist. If not, we present them and let the "balance" fall where it may.
I have seen this before, and it is not our business to create such "balance". We don't have to make a tally (although we could) of how many are "for" and "against", but should just present what's available. We should definitely not limit the number of inclusions so we only present one or two for each group as "examples" for each position. If there are eight "for", two in the "middle", and 14 "against", we present all of them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with size is a matter for a possible spinout sub-article. See my comment above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no false balance that even can be called for in this matter, as opinions from both supporters and non-supporters have been plentiful. As for wanting comments from all places on the curve, that sounds like it goes against the spirit of writing an encyclopedia, where we are called upon to keep it as brief as reasonable while covering the notable bases via due coverage. There are only two general sides here, and there's a pretty clear commonality of what's said on each side. We're not here to cover all possible stray rants. We're here to cover the gist of each side's position. We're not here to cover all possible soapboxing. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

We actually agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Good, because I was starting to be concerned. :) Seriously, the balance I called for was a real (rough) balance that is already in existence out in the wild. That's why I bristle at the idea I was calling for a false one. I have gotten the (maybe false) impression by some that they wanted to pretend that the world's full of supporters and comparatively lacking non-supporters. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Stevietheman, from what I've seen, only a radical fringe (and there are plenty of them) support her. Most mainstream sources, and the law, are very strong in their condemnation of her actions, which they see as her attempts to force others to obey her beliefs. That's not religious freedom. That's religious persecution of non-believers. In a democracy, that doesn't fly very well. As one source puts it: "Some people are comparing Kim Davis to Rosa Parks ... but Parks was arrested for demanding equal rights. Davis was arrested for denying equal rights." -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(no need to ping back, sometimes I'm just slow to respond or choose not to respond :) ) I concur with these particulars, but alas this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Since we have a media that presents both sides as more or less equal (even if not in terms of reason/representation), I don't know if there's much we can do to not allow the supporter faction a roughly equal say. This is basically one of my core critiques of Wikipedia, even while I love it -- while events are happening or new, we are constrained by today's "both sides are equally valuable" corporate media. If we had more of an independent media like we used to have, the Wikipedia content would be somewhat different (a higher quality, IMHO). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

We agree. That is exactly why I kept talking against a false balance. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm holding out on voting for now to see if other comments sway me one way or the other, but is there any reason not to start a spinoff article now, perhaps calling it the Rowan County, Kentucky marriage license controversy or possibly even include the Casey County/Casey Davis material and call it Kentucky marriage license controversy? There seems to be plenty of material to work with. - Mr X 19:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The general idea here is all right by me although this may well grow beyond Kentucky before it's all done. Let that article get the expansion attention and we'll just sum it up here. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Those spinoffs may become relevant, but they should result because of a demand created by bloating here. That demand will focus and dictate the exact working title of a spinoff sub-article. Before that happens, working on the same topic in more than one place is a recipe for disaster. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I think I've indicated already, this works fine in general here in the Wikipedia, but given this matter keeps blowing up and the IPs start roaming free again, I will probably choose not to come near this article. I have more important things to do than maintain a wild animal of an article, inside and outside of the wiki. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The semi-protection is working just fine. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I am changing my !vote based on discussion. I find there's no objective connection of any presidential candidates to this subject. However, if they state a position related to this case or this issue in general, that's certainly fair game for their articles. The only politicians objectively connected this subject are state-level Kentucky politicians who have some degree of power or influence with respect to how county clerks perform their work. A gray area would include gubernatorial candidates, as whoever becomes governor impacts related policies.
One might ask then: What if a notable presidential candidate personally injects themselves into this matter, such as appearing at a rally or intervening in some way in her case? I'll leave that open, but like Mr. X suggests, should an encyclopedia reward political desperation, and if not, how do we separate desperation from genuine intervention? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Qualified Support. Insofar as the biography includes material from this single issue, that issue should not overrun the biography article. If the issue itself is the article, it should be renamed or spun off. Given that the single issue must be treated with balance within a biography, so also the political commentary must be balanced within the issue. In a biography article, I see therefore very little room for the political commentary, and would suggest that the appropriate coverage might be a single sentence saying something like "Leading politicians including A, B, C, and D have all given statements supporting the requirement that a government official must obey the law.", and then provide a list of sources with the details, or a brief note if really necessary. Truly, the media coverage of the issue is not the biography itself, and shouldn't be treated as such. The issue seems bigger to me than the biography, and I'm inclined to think it needs its own article. That would have a little more room to include these statements, which might be individualized to a sentence each if anyone is so devoted to them. But the fundamental conflict is indeed that necessity to obey the law as opposed to the right of the citizen to act in conscience with respect to religious belief, often thought to be supported by the phrase "freedom of religion", itself a part of the law. So the issue strikes at a fundamental legal proposition of this nation, and the conflict induced can and does mean people may take sides, or express their own conflicts about it. It's good material for an article. However, it's very early to create such an article, because the only available sources at this time will be media reports, and reportage provides no context or scholarly synthesis (that's not its purpose). So actually writing this article may prove to be impossible at present, until some of the requisite sources are produced from the outside. Until then, WP stands (potentially) in danger of editorial squabbles that can't be reconciled, and I don't recommend stepping into that situation. Evensteven (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Support It is very commonplace to include reactions from political figures, especially in the face of political controversies like these. Lots of politicians have made such statements, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to include one statement from one politician. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you able to point out any examples of biographies of relatively unknown people who became involved in controversy, that have political commentary and quotes in the articles? I'm struggling to think of any myself. - Mr X 12:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That makes the point. It shows the great significance of this whole affair. It's not a flash-in-the-pan event. It sets legal precedent. It's a direct challenge to the Constitution in several ways, and to the Supreme Court. No wonder very notable people are commenting. It would be a crime if they didn't. There is no policy allowing us to ignore something like this, and NPOV and the purpose of Wikipedia require us to document it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Very notable people are commenting because they're are trying to boost their visibility. I'm sure you are aware that it wasn't long ago that Hillary Clinton opposed same-sex marriage. As for SuperCarnivore591's !vote, either it is "very commonplace to include reactions from political figures", which renders your argument moot, or your argument about the rarity of seeing political comments in this precedent-setting case negates SuperCarnivore591's argument. Either way, it's a wash. - Mr X 14:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly all that you're saying. Their motivations are irrelevant to this matter. BTW, if Clinton's previous opposition isn't mentioned in the appropriate places, it should be. Her change of mind should be documented. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Politicians' comments on things like this are always self-serving grandstanding. It's not necessarily what they believe, but rather what they believe will help get them re-elected or further their party's agenda. I don't see what value that information has to our readers. We don't include content solely because RS reports on it, even if they report widely on it; that is a misinterpretation and misapplication of WP:DUE. We apply a relevance filter to RS coverage. As for other articles, if that is your only or primary argument for Support, see WP:OTHER and please add an actual rationale to your !vote. Put differently, many articles about modern controversies omit politicians' statements, too, and that OTHER cancels out your OTHER, rendering any mention of OTHER a cherry-picking waste of words. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - This a biography, not a soapbox for promoting political platitudes. We should not be giving airplay to any politicians in this article per WP:NOTPROMO. Wikipedia is not a platform for influencing elections, or for allowing candidates to improve their polling numbers on the back of a controversy, which is precisely what Cruz, Clinton, Huckabee and Bevin are doing. I'm afraid that if we allow such commentary, it will inevitable consist of cherry-picked quotes, and we will have created an embarrassing WP:COATRACK and a poor excuse for an encyclopedia article. - Mr X 01:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to say this is a very strongly backed up position and I appreciate this line of thinking. On the other hand, if there are widely reported political statements from heavyweight politicians of the day, this would seem to come under "controversy" or "critical response" and these things are oftentimes useful in articles. I can see a line you're drawing that is interesting, though. If the response comes from a politician that has some kind of close connection to the policies surrounding Kentucky county clerks (and thus Kim Davis's office), their views would seem to have special weight. for example Senate President Stivers. The Kentucky governor's race also conceivably connects to this, as state policy with respect to how clerks handle marriage licenses is part of this matter. But the presidential race arguably has really no connection to it. In that respect, you're right -- what do they have beyond distant electioneering for making their statements? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Given our highly polarized political environment, virtually every politician has a "close connection" to this issue. To get elected (or re-elected), they have to come out as for same-sex marriage or against it, and any of these statements is essentially a campaign speech. I think you'll find that most Republicans are supporting Davis and most Democrats are opposing her. There is no informational value in that — readers already know these social issues are divided along those lines — and we do our readers a disservice by pretending that there is. If you want to include politicians' statements that go against their party, that might be noteworthy (although probably more useful in the politician's article than in this one). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, politicians are using this as a vehicle for advancing their campaigns. I was actually on the fence about adding material about Mike Huckabee's "involvement", until it became clear why he was suddenly so interested in mild-mannered Kim Davis of Kentucky—his polling numbers are tanking at around 4%. I do think some of the more notable politician positions on Kim Davis' unlawful actions should be documented, but rightfully in their own biographies, political positions articles, and campaign articles. - Mr X 12:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This makes sense. I see no objective connection from presidential candidates to this subject. Kentucky gubernatorial candidates are more a gray area, IMHO, because this involves state-level policies with regards to how a clerk conducts their work. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Tentatively oppose. Do politicians care about the case or the issue? If it's the issue then perhaps a stub included within the page, but only until a full page can be spun off.

As regards BullRangifer's post upthread, not it's not a radical fringe actually, it's a significant portion of the community. I've posted a legal reference downthread which suggests that not only does Kim Davis have the right to refuse but that the state has the obligation to accommodate her. And on a whim I did a quick Google and found this: [1]. Not suggesting it be included in the article but does an excellent job of describing a large section of the community. The issue at stake isn't whether laws were broken but rather who broke what law and why. When a mayor betrayed his office to illegally issue licenses he was praised. When Kim Davis refused to do a job she was never voted in to do - issue licenses per the new Supreme Court definition she was crucified. The analogy with Rosa Parks (once I'd looked it up) is actually a very good analogy - both were arrested not for demanding others do or not do something, but simply for demanding they be permitted their rights. 人族 (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Differences: 1) Davis was denying the civil rights of other citizens; Parks didn't do that. 2) Davis's freedom of religious expression wasn't in play, as her personal/private expression wasn't affected in any way. A government officer cannot pretend to be merely a private citizen and then argue freedom of religious expression to not follow the laws she agreed to follow and simultaneously trample on others' rights. Here also there is no parallel with Parks. Let's not turn this into a forum, though. No matter how it's viewed, IMHO, how the public is broken into camps doesn't seem to have any relevance to whose comments we include in the article. That's not how we judge notability and due coverage. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a forum, no. Here's the problem, Davis' and others view the situation as the same. Parks was legally denying the rights of white citizens by sitting in their area. I'm not arguing the ethics of the situation, and the law was changed (eventually), however at the time it was a question of a black woman's right to sit where she wasn't supposed to. Davis' situation is a woman who cannot approve same-sex marriage (I'll try to remember to use this form to keep everyone happy) and yet who is the authorizing agent for all marriage licenses issued in Rowan County. As discuss in the Volokh link below the government is trampling all over her rights. Yes the law says the licenses must be issued, however the law also says that she has the religious right to not authorize them. This parallels the Parks case where the law said Parks had to move but (Constitutionally I'm assuming) that she had the right to be treated equally. 人族 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Support, but strict circumstances - The opinion of someone like the President of the United States is notable and has a large social/cultural impact. A sitting U.S. Senator or something in that vein doesn't have the same bully pulpit, but it's a difference of degree and not in kind. However, in cases that touch on such a controversial issue and relate to a living person we really don't want to just pile on opinions by every Johnny Come-lately. Adding comments by someone like Barack Obama and Marco Rubio is defensible, but I really don't want to see statements by the likes of Deez Nuts, Ted Nugent, Matt Bevin, Perez Hilton, Rush Limbaugh, Oprah, Ben Carson, Kim Kardashian, et cetera piling up in this article like tea leaves clogging a sink. The fact that we're talking about such a sensitive matter makes being strict about sourcing and the notability of things pretty important. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to point out that we still have to look at the content of the commentary as well. Someone from the far right claiming that Kim Davis is similar is to Rosa Parks is engaging in a particularly vicious kind of libel given the lies that have to be made to take that position-- Parks was a private citizen prevented from acting freely due to heavy-handed government regulations while Davis is a government official that deliberately forbid the ability of other people to exercise their freedom, wanting more state power and more state authority than the law, as well as coerced other individuals to obey her will. It's very much like the far right claims about Holocaust denier David Irving as a free speech hero akin to Martin Luther King Jr. given the David Irving libel case (but, of course, Irving was the censor using the government to sue people for libel for calling him out-- Irving was no free expression martyr). On the far left side, we have some people making all kinds of horrible comments made about Davis' past marriages, her physical appearance, her accent, and so on. Both of those comments from the "gays are inferior subhumans" Christian far right types and the "southern women are inferior subhumans" secularist far left types really should be kept an extreme distance from this article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This RfC is only about politicians, and your comments are largely about others. Let's try to stay on topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Support as to candidates - This is so obviously appropriate that I added the information as to some candidates without even thinking to check the Talk page. One reason for the notability of Davis and the Rowan County litigation about her is that it's become a flash point among the Republican presidential candidates. Noting their opinions isn't promoting any of them; it's neutrally reporting on one aspect of the controversy. As for a comment from the White House, that's certainly a prominent opinion, and eligible for inclusion on that basis, but we can't include every prominent opinion that's voiced. We should take care to include reasonable representations of all significant opinions, but the article as it stands does that without including the White House comment or Hillary Clinton's comment (unless the matter becomes similarly important in the Democratic race). Include Beshear's statement because it's worth reporting that the state's Governor doesn't intend to intervene. JamesMLane t c 00:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What objective connection do any of the presidential candidates have to this person or to the issues surrounding the job Kentucky county clerks do? Is it really beyond tenuous? (noting that their reactions/positions can be covered in their own articles) Should this become the "unrelated presidential candidate reactions to Ms. Davis' actions/inactions" article? (given that the longer this drags on, the more reactions these candidates will give out like candy) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know which universe you're in right now, but at Wikipedia, the fact they commented about her and her actions establishes the only connection necessary for us to consider use. That doesn't mean we will, but it's enough. This is such a universally accepted principle here that I just don't understand your comment. Maybe a series of typos? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think your understanding that you admitted to earlier wasn't the case after all. You are saying that RS only matters again. I stand by what I just typed. These presidential candidates have nothing beyond a tenuous connection to this matter. Now, with Huckabee making an appearance at Davis's jail rally later today, I can see how he's forcing a connection as it likely will get a lot of coverage. He's physically injecting himself into the fray. Other candidates simply reacting is just filler content that strays away from the biography of Davis. Think about this issue five years from now -- nobody will care what Cruz said unless he becomes President. {cough}. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

My phrase "That doesn't mean we will, but it's enough" (for coming under consideration) indicates that I'm well aware that being cited in a RS isn't the only condition, but it's enough for coming under consideration. There is no need for any other "objective connection" (your phrase, not policy). There is no need for them to be a relative, friend, coworker, acquaintance, be a member of the same church, political party, or any other type of "connection". That they knew about her actions and commented is enough for their comment to be considered, and maybe rejected, but at least considered. Then the fun begins! We look at them and decide whether to use them or not. I have a hard time imagining that we don't actually agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Summoned by RfC bot. Yes, support unequivocally. Major national, even international news article. No reason to exclude. Coretheapple (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment - As one of the few opposers, I'm prepared to concede defeat on this issue. I'm not sure what Mandruss thinks, but we may be able to WP:SNOW close this is he consents. - Mr X 17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
He consents. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Massive deletion of relevant biographical content

I'm opening this section so that PraetorianFury can perhaps explain the wholesale deletion of biographical content that was crafted through the collaborative efforts of several very experienced Wikipedians.- Mr X 19:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Original research

PraetorianFury has added an OR tag to the Career section in spite of the solid refutations in the section above. I would ask PraetorianFury to show specifically where there is original research so that we can fix it.- Mr X 20:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is from 2011. It is unrelated to the current controversy in 2015. It is therefore WP:OR to include it. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The 2011 source isn't being used to support anything from 2015. 2015 sources are supporting the 2015 events. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a biography, not an article about a controversy. All non-trivial publicized aspects of her life can be included. That's not original research at all.- Mr X 20:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Although I think it is getting dangerously close to the grounds of WP:DE and/or WP:TE sanctionability for individuals to assert otherwise. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
How many times do I have to say this, it's an article about a person notable for a single event. The article didn't exist until the beginning of this month. No one had any interest in the Rowan, Kentucky County Clerk before then. So yes, all of the sources need to be related to the current controversy. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Except this is a biography about a person embroiled in a controversy rather than an article about a controversy. If the controversy is of interest to Wikipedia - a deletion nomination was rejected a while back, then background about the subject is relevant. 人族 (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the exact quotes from the article to make it easier to follow for people if that helps. I think WP:OR is mainly for "for which no reliable, published sources exist", but in this case we see the source, don't we?--Nosfartu (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Election history section

The inclusion of the Election history section seems, quite frankly, ridiculous. For heaven's sake, she's a county clerk in a very small county. So there's no need have a big, bold, colorful table showing the results of her election and primary. Talk about going overboard and allowing media hype to override common editing sense. Her election is covered more than adequately in the 2014 election sub-section; if you want to show the results then simply merge it into the sub-section as text. I realize there are a lot of other current content disputes, but it seems like this particular issue could be disposed of very quickly if you separate it from the others. Perhaps it could be snowed right out of the article. Lootbrewed (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it adds good information to the biography and the format is very easy to read. I'm in favor of keeping the election history as is. - Mr X 13:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It is quite ridiculous. It should be deleted wholesale, it adds nothing to this article. Who on earth is going to come here for the election results from Rowan county? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Massive deletions needed.

This article is shit. Considering how many editors are probably watching the article, it's kind of embarrassing. We've got sources that don't even mention the current controversy. We've got direct links to the Kentucky statutes. We've got a bunch of information completely unrelated to the current event. We've got information deliberately listed out of chronological order to appear more damaging. Consensus doesn't really matter when we're breaking all the rules, most glaringly WP:OR.

Mrs. Davis is known for exactly one event, and that's denying marriage licenses in 2015. We don't need information about her election to the county office. We don't need the results of the primary or general election. We don't need information on her salary. We don't need information on her mother. We don't need information on her husband. All this junk needs to go.

The first paragraph in particular is completely out of the question. The source does not mention the current controversy. I don't care how strong your consensus was, that's WP:OR, and it's getting deleted. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As it looks like we're going to be childish about this, here is the entirety of the source for the first paragraph:

For 32 consecutive years, Rowan County Clerk Jean W. Bailey submitted her staff wages budget to Fiscal Court for approval and not once was it altered. But that streak came to an end last week when Fiscal Court voted unanimously to reduce her office’s wage allocation in 2012 from $300,000 to $200,000. Under KRS 64.530, each county’s two “fee” offices – county clerk and sheriff – must get the fiscal Court’s approval of the maximum amount they propose to spend on wages and fringe benefits for ”deputies and assistants” during the ensuing calendar year. A “fee” office generates its operating budget from the fees it is allowed to collect by law for the services it provides to citizens. For example, the clerk’s office receives a $6 fee for the issuance of new motor vehicle licenses. Fees collected beyond the proposed operating budget are considered “excess” and must be turned over to the county general fund at the end of the calendar year. Judge-Executive Jim Nickell said he feels the magistrates took the unusual action because of a number of complaints they had received from county employees and other citizens who believe the clerk’s office staff is paid too much. Bailey’s request for 2012 listed five employees with total compensation of $197,818.98 in 2011. That figure was said to include regular pay, overtime, unused vacation and sick leave. She asked the Court to continue the $300,000 annual allocation that had been in effect since 2007.

@SuperCarnivore591: Where in this text does it say "Davis" ? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The links to the Kentucky statute are in no way irrelevant. It gives information on what law it is that Davis violated by refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. "We don't need information about her election to the county office". That is flat-out wrong as well, the intention for this article isn't for it to be a single purpose one where we just mention the controversy and not what she has done prior to it, specifically her job as deputy clerk. "We don't need information on her husband" is wrong to, as is pretty much all of your other objections, info on her husband is pivotal to the "Personal life" section, where it is specifically what you do, you list the person's spouse, as it involvse her personal life. You also don't seem to know what original research is, the first paragraph not mentioning the current controversy does not qualify, especially since it is sourced and relevant to her biography. You see, this is a biography on Kim Davis, not just an article on Kim Davis' controversies and what she is known for. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event. We aren't covering a President. We're covering a woman known for only one thing. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You said that the first paragraph doesn't even mention Davis, and this is the first paragraph of the article:"

Davis served as Rowan County chief deputy clerk, reporting to her mother, Jean W. Bailey, for 24 years.^[1] Kentucky law permits elected county officials to employ their family members and to determine their compensation; it is common practice in the commonwealth.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b Kappes, Keith (December 27, 2011). "County clerk's office budget reduced first time". Morehead News. Morehead, Kentucky. Retrieved September 6, 2015.

It clearly does mention Davis, and is relevant information on her job and what she does; it is relevant to her biography. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Uhhhhh, I just copy and pasted that source. No where in the source does it even include the word "Davis". You just copy and pasted part of the Wikipedia article as proof that the source includes Davis. Are you confused? Paste for me the passage in the source that includes the word "Davis". PraetorianFury (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You said "the first paragraph" didn't include Davis in your edit summary, and the fist paragraph of this article did include Davis, as I mentioned, yet you deleted it anyway. The paragraph you just put above is not the first paragraph of the article, either. Anyway, there's no way your deletions are going to fly, the article was better as it was before. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant source. The source for the first paragraph does not include "Davis", as I've said many times now. That's why it has to go. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

PraetorianFury. Everyone here knows our content guidelines inside and out. You, on the other hand, have deleted content under false pretenses [2] and you seem intent on edit warring. Please use the talk page before making such changes. - Mr X 19:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you, though? I'm not convinced you've read any of them. You have textbook cases of original research sitting in the article. You have entire paragraphs sourced to entirely unrelated sources. Allow me to quote for you from the policy you've clearly already read. From WP:BIO1E:

When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event... The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.

Why is this being written as if she's some notable person outside of this event? PraetorianFury (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow. You did it again. You removed a section because "The only source in this paragraph does not mention Davis at all. This is WP:OR" when in fact

"The highest staff wage in 2011 – $63,113 – was paid to Bailey’s chief deputy clerk, Kim Davis, who also happens to be her daughter.

Davis is listed at $24.91 hourly for a 40-hour work week and an annual wage of $51,812. She received an additional $11,301 in overtime and other compensation during 2011."
— The Morehead News

Please stop or you will quickly find yourself at Arbitration Enforcement.- Mr X 20:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I think part of the confusion here is that the source website breaks the article into 4 separate pages (see page number links at bottom of first page). The info quoted by MrX is on page two. PraetorianFury appears to have only read page one.Plvt2 (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

PraetorianFury, I share your concerns about this article covering a woman who is known only for one event, and I do think consensus can sometimes get caught up in the moment and go the wrong way. However, as long as the current consensus is that this woman should have an article, biographical and career information is entirely appropriate, even that which is not directly related to the current controversy for which she is known. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

And particularly do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point in an article which is subject to discretionary sanctions, which means that anyone who is found to cause too much disruption, and, honestly, I have to say that your unilateral changes are much more disruptive than anything else currently going on. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's get ArbCom involved. Let them read this article. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

So, because the article has problems, every single person that's edited it in some way or has watched it has collective moral responsibility? And they're all horrible people as a result? Wow, maybe there really isn't any other choice than to bring in administrators. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@CoffeeWithMarkets: Those complicit in maintaining it in its current state should be ashamed, yes. Wikipedia is not a political attack engine, but that is how it is being used here, by including the details of her salary and employment unrelated to the issue of marriage licenses. I'm sure we're all watching the junk articles being written about her, but that nonsense shouldn't make it to the encyclopedia. This article is proof that appeal to authority remains as fallacious a logical fallacy as it ever was, if editors of 9 years don't understand that. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article for a short time. I note that the edit-warring issue is at WP:AE now, so I've closed the report at WP:AN3. If people think the article is OK to go back to semi-protection, let me know. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The disruption was virtually all one user, and their last disruptive act (in the article) was about 23 hours ago, not counting the one that they self-reverted. We can assume they will be on best behavior while at AE. Looks like more cost than benefit to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, good point; I'll drop it back to semi. I'll keep an eye on it. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC: On the many problems in this article

Reading through this article, I found a number of problems, enumerated here:

The details of Kim Davis's career are of no importance to the controversy at hand. As WP:BIO1E says, for people who are notable for one event, such as Mrs. Davis, we should focus on the event, and not the person. The entirety of the "2014 election" section has nothing to do with what Davis is known for, so should be deleted.
Related to above, the source for the "Deputy clerk" section is from 2011 and has nothing to do with the current controversy, and so should be deleted. I believe it was included in an attempt to attack Davis' character and undermine her position.
The section "Election history" has the same problem as above, they do not mention the current controversy at all, and so should be deleted.
The section "Personal life" is not in chronological order. The internet likes to call Davis a hypocrite because of her multiple marriages, but her conversion to Christianity happened in 2011, after the multiple marriages. It is not our responsibility nor right to attempt to attack her in such an underhanded way. This section should be re-ordered in chronological order to make clear this consistency. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to resolve most of these issues here: [3], but everything was reverted. Does this article adhere to Wikipedia's policies on people notable for only one event, WP:Original Research, and WP:Neutrality? PraetorianFury (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You've listed what you think is wrong with the article, but you have not stated what you want other editors to comment on (which is the point of an RfC). Exactly what are you looking for from the rest of us? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've modified the RFC to make it more explicit. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Question for PraetorianFury - How are you interpreting WP:BIO1E? By my interpretation, WP:BIO1E says that if a person is known for only one significant event, we should not even have an article on that person, we should only have an article on the event. Your statements here could be read that you see WP:BIO1E as saying if a person is only known for one event, their article should only contain information on them that pertains to that one event. Am I reading that wrong? Can you clarify? Thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This article is comparable to the articles for other people notable for only one event, such as Michael Brown, or Trayvon Martin, off the top of my head. All of the sources in those articles are written in the context of the ensuing controversy. We don't get to just hunt around the internet for any information we deem relevant and include it in the article. This article was created in response to Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses. She is otherwise completely non-notable. There is enough material for an entire article, but that does not excuse the original research here. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You have previously been asked to point out where this "original research" you find is, and, so far as I can see, have failed to do so. Your contention seems to be that only sources directly relevant to the existing incident can be used, because, you apparently content, that the existing incident is the only thing she has done which is notable. That is, at best, rather hard to defend. Please indicate exactly how and why you believe the material in question meets the standards of WP:OR or drop the stick. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What has she done besides this that was notable? I will not attempt to prove a negative, it is your responsibility to prove that she has done something notable besides this. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You have been repeating the same point repeatedly, and refusing to directly respond to the several questions and comments directed at you. Despite your apparent belief to the contrary, it is not solely your opinions regarding the notability of the subject, the title of the subject, and the contents of the article which matters in the development of this topic. I can see no reason to allow this individual to continue to engage in tendentious and disruptive editing. Should it continue, I believe AE would be the appropriate venue to address it. And this is said by someone who has regularly self-described as a US Christian and political conservative. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've answered all your questions with policy citations and quotations. Your refusal to get the point does not mean I am not responding to your messages. Please, increase the visibility of this article by posting it to yet another noticeboard. I'd love to get more editors involved than you and your friends. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your failure to indicate any basis as per policy and guidelines for your seemingly obdurate tendentious refusal to support your position noted. At this point, as an involved party, should there be any further concerns regarding this matter, I will of course consider myself too involved to file such a request myself, but I would very much be amenable to having the matter taken to AE. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

When Wikipedia editors hunt around the internet for any scrap of information with which to attack this woman, and they include sources entirely unrelated to the issue for which she is known, that is WP:OR. When they deliberately obscure the fact that her marriages happened before her conversion to Christianity, that is biased. When they include all the most mundane details of her life when she's only known for one thing, that ignores our rules on notability. This is my good faith attempt to spell out, as I have in many previous comments, the problems with the article, and the policies that I believe it violates. That's 3 links to 3 policies. That's 3 explicit problems in the article. What more you want me to do, I don't know. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You write: "information with which to attack this woman" and "deliberately obscure", and then write "This is my good faith attempt". I suggest you be more honest and strike the "good faith" part there. Those are serious accusations without basis in fact. You haven't been AGF at all, right from the start. You came in with guns blazing, before you had investigated the sources, understood the discussions going on, or talked to anyone. You were antagonistic right from the start. It's been awhile since I've seen such a radical, up front and instant, battlefield approach to editing. It came as a surprise attack. I came around later and saw the article history and it blew my mind. I was glad I wasn't involved. I've met other editors with a battlefield mentality who caused problems (and even - tragically - had to get a Nobel Prize winner blocked for it), but not such a full frontal attack without any attempt at collaboration.
We have been documenting what RS say about her and the controversy, and we're not finished. You have not been involved. We have wrestled with how to present some negative material. You have still not been involved. In some cases we have not included it (censorship is a possible violation of policy, but oh well...), and in others we have included it, as we should. Again, you have not been involved. You attacked the article and editors without a clue, just striking out blindly, based on your own preconceived ignorance of what was happening here. That's not collaborative or AGF.
A talk page is like a negotiating table. Come join us. Don't stand outside and criticize. Join us, earn our respect, and then start civilly engaging in ways to fix problems. Those who have been negotiating have built a trusting relationship, one in which they agree, or disagree agreeably. You have to fit into that mentality and process to make collaborative change, and that atmosphere is unique to this article. Previous experience will help, but it's not enough. When you attack negotiators, you lose their trust and problems ensue. Seek to change your approach.
The existing RS which mention her in connection with the controversy (that's what we primarily use, and I think you'd agree that such should be our primary sourcing) contain lots of information about her personal life, history, marriages, religion, politics, etc.. (They also point to their primary sources, which justifies our use of those sources in connection with the secondary sources.) The sources place all that information in connection with the controversy, so using that information to document her life and beliefs in connection with the controversy is not OR; on the contrary, it's what we're supposed to do.
You throw around "OR", but seem to be misusing it. Maybe you mean "SYNTH violation", but we aren't doing that either. The sources do that for us, and our job is to include their synthesis in the article. And, if we do make such errors, we discuss it civilly and deal with it. No big deal. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Almost everything you said is proof of your assertion of ownership of the article.

You repeatedly assert "you have not been involved". This is not a requirement of editing. And it's plain to see all the many problems with this article. It's like a redditor or 4chan user wrote it by including all the dirt about Davis they could dig up whether or not it is related to the event, but with the arrogance of a Wikipedia editor, by including lots of details of her life to increase length and maybe balance it.
You implicitly threaten me with blocking again. More intimidatory tactics. It didn't work before, but keep trying.
You seem to think I need to earn your respect before I make my edits. This is false.
You want me to join your circle of friends, maybe then you'd rush to revert my opponents' edits? But unfortunately, I'm not here to make friends. And furthermore, I think this kind of editing is becoming a more and more significant problem, as editors now edit out of loyalty, rather than accuracy and quality. We shouldn't have to go canvassing whenever a dispute arises.
You say, "The existing RS which mention her in connection with the controversy." This source is from 2011. Perhaps they had a crystal ball and they knew what would happen in 2015? It's ironic you accuse me of "not reviewing the sources" when you miss something like that.
WP:OR is when we go out and do our own research rather than reading about the event and summarizing it. That has happened here. Since we should be focusing on the event and not the person per WP:BIO1E, anything else we find about her is original research. The example regarding plagiarism in the policy is analogous here. We're using primary sources to imply information about Davis. That's the WP:OR. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a non-neutrally worded RfC based on false premises, as well as having other problems. Please close it and carefully read WP:RFC before starting another.- Mr X 21:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree with MrX above. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If this was to be changed to an article just about the event, would anyone like to suggest a new title? Perhaps Rowan County, Kentucky marriage license conflict? -- The Anome (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

That one works for me. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Almost exactly what I suggested a couple of days ago [4]. So, yes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion already started → here.- Mr X 22:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion this should be a biography but it should stick to that which is pertinent to the non-issuance of marriage certificates. That means that we should not be talking about, as correctly pointed out by PraetorianFury, her multiple marriages and several other not-quite-pertinent points. Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:PSEUDO would seem to apply here, indicating that if the article is to bear her name, it should, in fact, be a biographical article. Whether that is the appropriate title for the article is another matter. However, the appropriate way to deal with the matter if one believes the article should not have to meet WP:MOSBIO would be for the article to not bear the title of an article which is clearly biographical. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - This is a biographical article. If John Q Public has a page, and the page goes on about details such as "Public was born in Chicago, Illinois", "Public graduated from MIT", "Public has three children, all boys", and so on... how on earth is that objectionable? The only complaint here that really has maybe a bit of merit is the point about Davis' marriages, but that doesn't mean that we should wholesale scrub mentioning of her personal life. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The assertion that this article should only cover information related to the event is based on what I believe is a faulty interpretation of BIO1E. The quote that Phoenix used, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.", is intended to indicate that when an individual is prominent within an event, there should be an article about the event and a separate article for a biography of the person. It says nothing whatsoever about what the biography should include. At that point, to my mind, traditional biography rules apply, and the biography should contain all information relevant to a person. The example they give is Gavrilo Princip. Using the arguments above, since Gavrilo Princip is only known for assassinating Archduke Ferdinand, that would mean that the Early Life, Weapon, and Legacy sections should all be deleted, since they don't relate directly to the event. (In truth, I can see a weak argument for at least one of those to go, but I'm absolutely not getting involved in another debate! :Þ) The Early Life is the telling section there, though. It highlights events and details utterly unrelated to the assassination, just like any biography would and should. Here at the Kim Davis article, it should be the same. That covers the first three points.

For the fourth point, it is not for Wikipedia to decide whether she's being a hypocrite or not. At best, we can only say what others have said, and if we do, it should be balanced and non-judgmental. Since there's no mention of hypocrisy in the "Personal life" section, that point is moot. The details of her marriages and children are entirely consistent with a biography, and there's nothing in that section that suggests any lack of neutrality to me. If it's not chronological, then yes, it probably should be, though keeping it grouped by subject is also an appropriate way to go. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 02:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@RobinHood70:The sources in the "early life" section all mention World War 1. In this way, the sources determined what information was relevant with regards to the event, not Wikipedia editors. What we're doing in this article is researching Davis outside of the issue. Why is her pay mentioned at all? I don't see any mention of employment or payment figures at Gavrilo Princip. I think the reason is that the internet loves to demonize Davis and they want to imply that she she earns more than she deserves for a job she got from her mom. What does this have to do with issuing marriage licenses? We're supposed to be above these kinds of childish attacks.

And I was never against including the information on her marriages. That is mentioned in reliable sources in connection with the event. My problem is that the section, as written, obscures the fact that her conversion was after her marriages. The internet loves to say, "Oh, Davis is such a hypocrite, her religion didn't stop her from cheating on her husbands and getting divorced!" But she didn't have her religion at the time. From what I can tell, her conversion was sincere, and she has been austere since it. But in this article, we say she is a Christian first, and list her marriages next. I would have overlooked the dates if I didn't already know what to look for, while reading that section. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on most of those points. Her pay is fairly irrelevant, at least as far as I'm concerned, unless nepotism becomes a significant issue in its own right, in which case we should be saying that she's been accused of nepotism by <whomever> and not making any direct implications ourselves. On the topic of marriage and conversion, I didn't see anything that bothered me in the personal life section, but there was one other place I remember reading where I thought it could use some balance. I haven't caught up yet today (and will probably unfollow this article shortly anyway), so it may already have been changed. I think any mention of hypocrisy should be balanced with the views of her supporters, who obviously feel that she has been forgiven for all previous issues. To your point about not having religion at the time, I've seen one article that suggests that she was already a Baptist prior to her conversion, but I haven't seen conclusive evidence from a reliable source. Her marriage licenses would seem to support this, but are not conclusive in themselves. But back to the topic at hand, if you feel a chronological order would be better, I say go for it. I felt that grouping by subject made sense, and if anything, I think reordering it chronologically might be confusing and lend even more bias, but it really depends how it's written. As long as no relevant detail is omitted, there's no harm in trying, or proposing on the talk page. (As I said, I haven't caught up yet, so if any of this is already outdated, please ignore it.) – Robin Hood ^(talk) 19:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree the pay isn't necessarily relevant, although, honestly, some might see $80,000 a year relevant in Rowan County, Kentucky, a county of roughly 23,000, which makes to about $3.50 per county resident per year, if her pay were paid entirely by the citizens of the county, which I imagine it almost certainly isn't. Considering some of those who have been turned down for licenses say "we pay her salary," I suppose they might consider it relevant, though. Also, that is about six times the county's per capita income, at about $13,000 as per the county page, so I suppose some might argue that indicating that she is comparatively much better off than most of the other residents of the county might be worthy of some notice somehow. Having said all that, I'd myself still say pull it from the article as excessive detail, but I could see indicating somewhere in the article that she is comparatively wealthy compared to the other residents of the county, if I could figure out a reasonable way to indicate that or a source specifically indicating as much. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Find some sources about the controversy where some gay couples say that, with those figures, and I won't have a problem with it. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Quote marks on ref name

This may be one of the more picayune discussions that I've ever started, but I'm puzzling over why some editors add quote marks to ref names that do not contain any whitespace. It's completely superfluous and makes subsequent editing a little more prone to errors, in my experience. - Mr X 23:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That's cool, you're fine for bringing it up. You're right; it is not necessary to add the quote marks around the HTML extension pointy-bracket '<ref name="X">' parameter if it doesn't have any whitespace. (It is necessary if it does, of course.) The quote marks are actually required by HTML specifications and won't render properly without them. The reason it is optional, and the reason it is okay if you want to omit them, is everyone's browser adds the quote marks back for us. It checks, and if we humans have mistakenly omitted them, it slides them right in there for us before the page is rendered. (Go to your browser and ask it to "view source" and you will see what I mean.) I, personally, like my code to be syntactically correct so I add them, but also: When I search to see if a particular ref tag is already named ('Has anyone used "<ref name="CNN"> yet?'), I like to search one way and not both ways. Wikipedia's guidelines are here: WP:REFNAME. Prhartcom (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. I assume that MediaWiki adds the quotes if they are left out, not the browser, since <ref> is a MediaWiki tag, not an HTML tag. In any case, I doubt that I will start using quote marks because I always exclude whitespace in my ref names, but of course I don't object to anyone else using them, or changing them. It's all good. - Mr X 03:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned it is an extension and yes, that must be right. If the quotes were left out of any HTML parameter in violation of the HTML specs your browser is coded to not choke on the error. Prhartcom (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting timing, MrX, given this user talk discussion on that very subject just a few days ago. Most of the argument for these quotes is purely academic and arcane, so, being a practical person, I ignore that part of it. As to this question, the guideline is one of the many guidelines that are so vague and self-contradictory as to be devoid of any guidance. To me the picayune practical costs of these quotes exceed the picayune practical benefits. Beyond that, for anyone who's interested, my comments are available in that thread. My take on existing refs differs from yours; unless and until the guideline is cleaned up, I don't think anyone should change existing ref tags, unless a local convention has been established (which I've seen happen in only two articles). Without that convention, one would be simply imposing their personal preference with no other basis for the change, a poor way to show respect for your fellow editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I remember you and I having a conversation about this almost a year ago. I agree with your reasoning about a local convention (or, my preference, first mover advantage). - Mr X 14:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevant information tag

Forgive me for not knowing; what is the relevant information in this article that is disputed? Let's get this taken care of and that tag removed with all speed. Prhartcom (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the editor who added it is currently the subject of an AE complaint related to that very template (among other things), it seems reasonable to reset and remove it pending completion of that. But that's just me. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you, I see what you mean. I have removed it. There is no consensus for that person's views. Prhartcom (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A massive citation

See citation [12] here. It's using <blockquote>...</blockquote> and is used five times in the article. Any opinions? Mine: Interesting technique, but very rarely used, and its effect on the tooltip and the References section seems intrusive. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand why someone did it considering the above discussion, but the correct format is to use the quote= parameter inside the curly brackets and to quote just enough of the material to get the job done. A sentence with Davis' name should be sufficient. Also, it is possible to change the URL to this to see the entire article on one page, but you have to dismiss the print dialog.- Mr X 13:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the use of the quote= parameter instead and just changed this newly added citation to do so. I didn't edit the text though; MrX could you please do that? Prhartcom (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Done - Mr X 15:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: Sorry, I don't get it. Why do we need "verification" there any more than in any other citation? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Technically we don't, but having the information in the quote field makes it less likely that we will have disruption, edit wars, and Arbitration enforcement cases in the future.- Mr X 16:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Reaction

I switched Reaction to Reaction to the Jailing since IMHO it clarifies what the reaction is to. The previous section currently ends with Bunning's order for Davis to be released. Seems like it is open to confusion hence my attempt at clarification. Rather than start a revert war I'll post here.

And in that vein rather than start a revert war about the reaction contents, I'm suggesting a change in phrasing to the "supporter" section. Current length is the same so I'm mostly adding sources and rephrasing in keeping with the prior opposition section. How about:

Those such as law professor Eugene Volokh argue that Kentucky law requires the state to accommodate Kim Davis' religious requirements, and that states courts already have the authority to order the removal of her name from marriage licenses.^[1]^[2]^[3] Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers [R] also came to her defense. "I am requesting Judge Bunning delay, withhold or temper his ruling in this case until the General Assembly has an opportunity to establish new frameworks under Kentucky law," he wrote in an amicus briefing to U.S. District Judge David Bunning.[49] After the ruling Liberty Counsel, the law firm defending Davis, wrote that "Kim Davis is being treated as a criminal because she cannot violate her conscience."[48] Davis's attorneys have also said she would not accept a proposed compromise to no longer be found in contempt if she agreed to not interfere with her deputies issuing licenses for same-sex couples.[33] After deputy clerks began issuing marriage licenses in her absence, Davis, through her attorneys, stated that any marriage licenses not bearing her signature were invalid.[50]

And since somebody else made the comparison, I stumbled over this: [[5]] :-D

Comments about the proposed change? 人族 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You are combining separate issues to save space in the table of contents, which will be problematic, but I'll respond to one of them. I reverted your heading change because:

It's a subsection of "Contempt hearing".
Pretend you're a reader. After reading the bit about her release, are you really going to be confused because you see no reaction to her release? Are you even going to notice that "discrepancy"?

It's possible to overthink section headings, and in my opinion that's what you're doing. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll wait a day or so and see if anyone has any comments on the proposed change to the "supporter" paragraph of the Reaction section then make a change in line with the above. May tweak it a little further to improve coherency but I think it better than the current version. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

References

^ McGurn, William (7 September 2015). "Why Must Kim Davis Be Jailed? A federal judge chose the nuclear option instead of finding a reasonable accommodation". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
^ Berlin, Craig (8 September 2015). "Kim Davis, Gay Weddings, and the Case for Marriage Privatization". IVN. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
^ Nothstine, Ray (4 September 2015). "Will More Clerks Be Going to Jail? 2nd Christian Kentucky Clerk Defies Ruling to Issue Marriage Licenses to Gay Couples". The Christian Post. Retrieved 9 September 2015.

Semi-protected edit request

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think the recent comparisons between Kim Davis and Gavin Newsom would be useful to add in this section. This URL includes both Mike Huckabee's comparison and Newsom's response. https://medium.com/@GavinNewsom/don-t-compare-me-to-kim-davis-2274cf53ebf4 Sah2000 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done Please read the template instructions: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

Also please add a new section for an edit request, rather than inserting the request in an existing section. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sah2000: You could also just drop those comments into a new discussion thread, without the edit request. That way the edit request requirements don't apply. That's probably the way you want to go with this. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a valid request, and there are reliable sources other than the one mentioned, but I don't think we should add this. We have reactions to Kim Davis. Do we want reactions to the reactions to Kim Davis? Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thanks for the tip. I'll do that.Sah2000 (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Eugene Volokh Article?

Has anyone seen the Eugene Volokh article in the Washington Post? Here's the link [[6]]. I think this would provide a balanced counterpoint to the Kentucky Trial Court Review perspective.

How about something along the lines of: Conversely Eugene Volokh, noted law professor, argues that the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act obligates the state to accommodate Kim Davis' religious requirements, unless denying them is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. While licenses must be issued, state courts have authority under the RFRA to authorise a modification such as the substitution of the authorising deputies name, or a title e.g. Rowan County, instead of Kim Davis' name thereby freeing her of the burden of appearing to condone same-sex unions. Can this be made more succinct? The noted law professor part is possibly non-standard however I think who or what Volokh is needs to be established to counterweight the apparent weight of the "Kentucky Trial Court Review" - a Facebook post rather than an academic journal article. 人族 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not an article, it's an op-ed. From what I've seen above the KTC Review is subscribed to by many lawyers as a newsletter, making it closer to a journal than any newspaper article. Also, it's not just the review that has said anything, try to gather actual articles. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine an op-ed by a highly respected member of the legal profession. Does that make it of less value than the KTCR Facebook quote that has been repeated in multiple articles including the Salon post referenced here? Please feel free to explain how it fails WP:RS. 人族 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not RS that's the issue, it's about WP:WEIGHT. The Review has been cited multiple times in other RS articles. We don't post things just to "balance". See WP:GEVAL. Also, it's not a post in Salon, it is an article. Now please stop your disruptive WP:SOAPboxing. If you have something constructive to add, then add that. Also, I see nothing to point to him being respected let alone highly respected. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm being disruptive? Seriously?!? The Volokh reference was brought to my attention, and Volokh's legal prominence pointed out by someone whose views I usually strongly disagree with. Obviously my word's not enough so here's some quick Google results: Volokh is a prominent First Amendment expert [7] and evidence of the Volokh article being referenced in a major American publication [8]. My aim is to ensure this article is balanced and impartial, leaving it to the reader to decide how they respond to the information supplied. If undue weight is given to one perspective then WP:NPOV fails. Consider the Reaction section. A legal expert and a columnist are quoted saying Kim Davis has no legal grounds for her position and her actions are akin to a governor who refused to permit black to enter a white school. In short, unjustified bigotry. The subsequent paragraph giving her lawyers and the Kentucky Senate President's positions are classed as support - yet the latter is merely a request for the federal judge to delay his ruling to give the state time to adjust its legislation. The selection and phrasing unduly weights this section. The Volokh point provides a counterpoint - a neutral legal expert who argues that while Kim Davis' actions are far from perfect, she does indeed have a legitimate grievance. 人族 (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jerod, but your comments are out of line. Disruption would be adding the disputed content without consensus. You don't get to declare someone disruptive because they decline to back down after you disagree with them. What we have here is called a civil discussion, and you're closer to disruption than the editor you accused of it. Cool it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel pretty wary of including general opinion pieces here, even if it's one from the Washington Post group's stable of writers. We're talking about one columnist here out of the very many that have opined on this topic. We could easily flood the page with columns. I've seen in an earlier version of this article (I don't know about this current version) referring to Jennifer Rubin of the Post as well, and I don't think that's a good idea either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how "respected" Volokh is (nor do any of us), but I've at least heard of him and he has been used in at least one other article that I've been involved with. That gives him some standing in my eyes. We have two articles about him, Eugene Volokh and The Volokh Conspiracy; presumably both pass WP:GNG. At this point, any comparison to KTCR is moot, as that has been removed. I think Volokh merits inclusion. But the proposed text weighs in at grade level 14.7 at Readability-Score.com, and they say material written for the general public should aim for grade level 8. I read it several times and came away with little if any comprehension of what it said. One of the sentences is 49 words long and my brain goes on strike after about 20. It needs to be written at a lower reading level (shorter words, fewer syllables, shorter sentences). If the legal issues can't be thoroughly conveyed with simpler English, perhaps some of those concepts are not essential to the content and could be omitted. "unless denying them is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest" ... essential? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This material could fit in the first paragraph fo the Reaction section, but it needs to be summarized. Something like: "Law Professor Eugene Volokh argues that Kentucky law requires the state to accommodate Kim Davis' religious requirements, such as by removing her name from marriage certificates." - Mr X 14:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Should not include article because it would be giving undue weight to a minority opinion. TFD (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too. Any such opinions should have to be shown to be noteworthy by multiple third party sources, or widespread, again by multiple sources.- Mr X 14:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate that I think including commentary in editorial opinion pieces is not a good idea in this circumstance (for Davis, against Davis, expressing a mixed view, whatever), and whatever gets added here needs to be carefully looked at for notability. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@CoffeeWithMarkets: Can you articulate what makes this story different from other social issue controversy articles? Is it the BLP factor? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the BLP factor matters significantly. Yet I'd also add that I think it's fairly clear in terms of past editorial consensus when it comes to articles like Abortion in the United States or Gun control in the United States, say, that opinion pieces really aren't anywhere near as good when it comes to citing information then third party sources and more unbiased works. That this relates to both an explosive topic as well as BLP concerns only makes the reason for caution greater. I'm sure that I could go to MSNBC.com, the Daily Kos, Patheos, and other websites finding legions of material condemning Davis in the strongest possible terms. Those don't belong here. Nor do materials that maybe take a different view on Davis but also lack the fact-checking that a real, serious journalistic report would have. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding another reaction

I think the recent comparisons between Kim Davis and Gavin Newsom would be useful to add in this section. This URL includes both Mike Huckabee's comparison and Newsom's response. https://medium.com/@GavinNewsom/don-t-compare-me-to-kim-davis-2274cf53ebf4

As another editor pointed out, we don't really need to get into reactions-to-reactions. I suggested this URL b/c it includes both sides of the comparison. Also b/c I'm not sure how to cite a Twitter post. (Also b/c I was a little lazy.)

I'm not sure if an exact change suggestion is still required, but this is what I'd put, if it were up to me:

"Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin and others have compared Davis's refusal to follow court orders to Alabama Governor George Wallace's 1963 segregationist Stand in the Schoolhouse Door incident; in contrast, Mike Huckabee has drawn a comparison to past San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom directing county clerk's to issue marriage licenses. [9]"

Sah2000 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinion pieces and editorial works are something that are pretty problematic to begin with in this circumstance, and I'm not sure that Medium.com qualifies as a reliable source. I feel that most likely it's not. It seems to be in the vein of Gawker. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If media in the act of reporting facts is only a partial type of RS support (see section #Eye of the Tiger above), then media opinion pieces are even less so. I don't think we can consider them WP:RS as they are not scholarly nor are they reporting facts about events. By our editorial discretion here they should be eliminated from consideration for article content. Evensteven (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor also cites a CNN article (I supplied it in the discussion at the bottom of the Reaction section above) so it's not an editorial/reliable source issue. I suggested that this is simply getting a little out of scope, pointing out it is a reaction to a reaction. Prhartcom (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If we can get reliable sources in contrast to unreliable sources, that's of course a good thing. I still feel wary about getting into the rabbit hole of "a reaction to a reaction" for the reasons stated above, though... after all, then you get into "reaction to a reaction that was to a reaction", and off we go into wonderland.

As well, I feel like Rubin's personal opinion on the matter is only somewhat notable (she's a prominent journalist, yes, but not a legal expert, and she's writing in an editorial piece), and I'd probably remove that too. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense; I would revert you again if you tried that. A scholar of the law is not a requirement to be in that section, notability and relevance is. Her astute statement is echoed by others; we aren't removing it and leaving the others and we aren't removing the entire reaction. Prhartcom (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Authorlinks in reference section

Hello - I recently added an authorlink for a citation in this article for Supreme Court reporter Lyle Denniston, and shortly thereafter it was reverted with the following rationale: "need consistenncy within the article, and none of the others use authorlink". The thing about consistency is that most of the other authors in the references don't have their own Wikipedia articles. (For any others that did, I would support authorlinking them as well.) Any comments on this? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

By consistency I meant authorlinks for the ones who do have their own article, obviously. There are more than one might think. To make that change, in my opinion, we would first need a consensus that the article will do that, and then you'd need to add all of the authorlinks. From that point forward, some of the rest of us would take care of maintaining the consistency (I would be happy to contribute to that, if the consensus is that it's worth doing). But consistency within citations (as seen by readers, not editors) is moderately important and applies to the authorlink parameter as much as any other. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I found I think 3 in the first 15 authors in the References section, or 20% based on that sample. I'll be Captain Obvious and say that we could also reach a consensus that this consistency is not that important; there are no Universal Truths at Wikipedia. At this point, it's a disputed edit without consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think authorlinks are useful, and we should use them, but only if the author has an article. - Mr X 15:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

After deep thought and consulting my accountant, I guess I'll Oppose because I feel the cost exceeds the significant benefit. And, it's a little-known and little-used parameter, so the consistency wouldn't be maintained after we regulars are gone. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I always use authorlink parameter if the person is notable enough to have an article. I don't think anyone is in this case (for me, it more often comes up for the "cite book" template. Prhartcom (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Each additional valid authorlink adds one quantum of improvement to the article, while having overall consistency of authorlink usage provides the user with no improvement to the article that I can see. I'd say, just leave it up to the individual editors: use authorlink when available, if you have the time and energy to add them. I certainly see no reason to revert an authorlink that contains the correct value--where is the benefit to the reader in doing so? Mathglot (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The community clearly views consistency within an article, on a multitude of things, as a generally Good Thing. More specifically, it views consistency within the article as to citations as a Good Thing, as evidenced by guidelines explicitly encouraging consistency in author name format, date formats, and so on. It seems reasonable to extend that concept to areas of citations that are not specifically addressed by guideline, unless someone can say why consistency in authorlink would be less important than, say, date format, which is almost entirely cosmetic (readers in mdy countries can read dmy just fine, and vice versa). We're not robots that can only do what the guidelines explicitly say, we're allowed and encouraged to apply reasoning, judgment, and common sense.
If an article uses authorlink whenever it can, it works like the wikilinks in the body; it provides hints at what's more important. Conversely, if the article links only certain authors among those who have articles, it can be misleading. It's very ad hoc and quite notable authors could easily end up without an authorlink. My preference, then, would be to omit all, code all, or mix, in that order. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with consistency. I'm in total agreement with consistency in principle. Authors in citations should be linked if they are notable enough to have their own article and not linked if they are not. It's not a problem if they are not linked, but it's silly to say "if we can't do it for all then we shouldn't do it for any." It's coincidence that almost all of this article's source authors are not notable enough to have their own article (it looks like consistency). For every case of a notable source author, we should definitely link their name to them immediately, as KConWiki, Mr, Mathglot, and I have said above. There are more important things to argue about. Prhartcom (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I know zero traction when I see it, so I added the Denniston authorlink. No consensus for consistency as to authorlink, add it or not at will. Thanks all for participating in the process. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks to all parties for their comments and for all the things that each do to improve the Wikipedia experience for its readers. KConWiki (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Possessive

The possessive form of Davis' name was "Davis" in its first occurrence, which is how it should remain per MOS:RETAIN unless there is consensus to change it to "Davis's".- Mr X 14:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I was only going for consistency; I had to pick one way and I went the wrong way apparently. You seemed to assume I was consistently changing the article to a way I preferred, choosing to revert me and leaving the article inconsistently applying the possessive "s", then realized your mistake and made the remaining corrections with an edit summary that continued to scold me for my actions, fooling no one. Prhartcom (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I realize that you were acting in good faith. I only said that there's no need to change it, and I gave the reason. None of it was directed at you nor did I assume that you did anything wrong. My only concern was sticking with the form that we started with and explaining why on the talk page so that it doesn't become an ongoing dispute. - Mr X 14:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of Stuff that Didn't Happen?

The second lead paragraph concludes with this sentence: Kentucky's attorney general decided not to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue charges of official misconduct against her. Is this really relevant for inclusion in the article let alone the lead? 人族 (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As the person who added it originally and updated it, the county attorney received complaints. Fearing a conflict of interest, he punted to the state AG who did a very upfront investigation about whether a special prosecutor was warranted. An ongoing investigation seemed noteworthy since it is a somewhat current event.

Now that he has decided not to proceed, it did feel less pertinent to me (I feel it belongs in the article, but am gray about how much content and where in the article that content appears). I wanted to allow a consensus to emerge before I removed it though to try and avoid any kind of edit conflict since it involves editorial discretion. This is especially sensitive since this article is apparently part of sanctions and already partially protected with ongoing monitoring.

One last point is it seems to be no appointment of a special prosecutor *for now*. The State Attorney General seems to want to monitor the federal case as well as Davis's compliance with it.--Nosfartu (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

A little bit more background information to assist in making an editorial decision:

Conway noted that the statute of limitations on charging Davis does not expire for a year. Attorney Rene Heinrich, co-counsel for Yates and Smith, (and who originally asked the county attorney to investigate) said she and her client "would have liked to see somebody appointed to explore further whether any law had been violated. But I certainly respect his position and we will let the whole thing play out in federal court."[10]

--Nosfartu (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not saying nothing happened. What happened is that the attorney general decided not to appoint a special prosecutor. That is significant and noteworthy, especially if one was aware that he was considering a special prosecutor. Without that statement, such a reader is left in the dark as to the current status of the special prosecutor question. I'm less decided about placement in the lead. Nosfartu has a point as to "for now", and perhaps we could find a way to clarify that using encyclopedic language. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It is important because any state charges against Davis would likely be brought by a special prosecutor. So there are at present no steps being taken to charge her under state law and the state will wait to see how the federal case resolves. Obviously readers want to know if she is being charged under state law and if not why not. TFD (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Deputies

The discussion that prompted this discussion is immediately above

The information about the deputies and protesters ([11]) is out of scope of the article and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It does not belong here. If one of the deputies actually resigned because of this, maybe include it. But protesters telling them to resign is about as noteworthy as a wet sock on the side of the road. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree as to scope, the article is about the controversy as well as Davis. No opinion on the rest, except that it doesn't jump out at me as inappropriate. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to have an article about the whole controversy, we need to make an article for it or rename this one. This current version is COATRACK. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been advocating for a WP:SPINOFF for a while now so that this article can be pared back. That would solve the problem and wouldn't require anything other than someone boldly creating it.- Mr X 16:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems like an overbold to me, leaving AfD as the only recourse for people who disagree with the split. Why not get consensus first? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Because no one has started a formal discussion, which tells me that no one believes a consensus will be reached. Meanwhile, editors rightfully claim that this article is starting to look like a place to hang coats. cf. my comments about political sound bites. - Mr X 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Then you may as well start that discussion, although it may take awhile to resolve. Hopefully we'll get feedback from far and wide. Prhartcom (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: Maybe the discussion should be a renaming of the article instead of what you suggest it should be spun off to? I say that as I suspect if it were spun off, the biography would later be deleted. Prhartcom (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

For anyone with vision issues, the split proposal is here. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, could you please explain what section of "NOTNEWS" is relevant to your argument. TFD (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

[budget-1] Kappes, Keith (December 27, 2011). "County clerk's office budget reduced first time". Morehead News. Morehead, Kentucky. Retrieved September 6, 2015.

[McGurn-2] McGurn, William (7 September 2015). "Why Must Kim Davis Be Jailed? A federal judge chose the nuclear option instead of finding a reasonable accommodation". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 9 September 2015.

[Berlin-3] Berlin, Craig (8 September 2015). "Kim Davis, Gay Weddings, and the Case for Marriage Privatization". IVN. Retrieved 9 September 2015.

[Nothstine-4] Nothstine, Ray (4 September 2015). "Will More Clerks Be Going to Jail? 2nd Christian Kentucky Clerk Defies Ruling to Issue Marriage Licenses to Gay Couples". The Christian Post. Retrieved 9 September 2015.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]