Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Breaking out of process stuff from the main move thread

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Boldly closing what probably should never have been created in the first place. If somebody wants to revert and reopen this cluster ****, so be it, but I don't see the point of its continued existence. Safiel (talk) (signature date deliberately omitted)

Extended content

The competing options

The RfC shows consensus for one article. Currently we have at least three:

Of these I would argue that the last is the best by some way.

The question to be answered here is, what should be the title of the final article? Candidates appear to me, based on the discussion above, to be:

  1. Kim Davis (county clerk)
  2. Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy
  3. Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy
  4. Miller v. Davis
  5. Rowan County same-sex marriage license controversy

Feel free to add any other obvious options. Please could we have a rough show of hands for each, indicating order of preference. Obviously any number of redirects can be created for the convenience of the reader, so this is purely about the title where we should combine the substantive content. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing is out of process

  • Oppose: Cannot combine a WP:RM and a WP:MERGE request. Each requires a specific protocol. Softlavender 01:20, 10 October 2015‎
  • Oppose - Out of process. RM is thataway ↑ AfD is thataway → - MrX 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Out of process. Admin responsible is being called to the carpet at ANI. Prhartcom (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as out of process. -- The Anome (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This really screws things up so only more confusion reigns. See my comment at AN/I. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Due to this SNOW opposition, all the discussion below should be hatted and closed. Any conclusion based on a faulty foundation will only create more problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There is not SNOW opposition, look at all the participation below. And the above is just ludicrous intransigence against any effort to figure out appropriate implementation of the RFC that concluded "one article" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I totally agree about "one article". Do you know what we mean (here) about "out of process"? It's when a proposition fails to take into account previous information and decisions, and then forces one to choose between illegitimate options. (The "Kentucky...." article is no longer among the choices, and Miller v. Davis has never been among the options for use in dealing with the title. It's a legitimate stand alone legal article.)
  • The choice has been reduced to choosing between Kim Davis (county clerk) and Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Since we know that a pure biography is not an option, since she is not notable apart from this ongoing controversy, we need to recognize that the current title is inadequate because it does not include the controversy. That's why the move to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy is the only thing to do.
  • We just need a change of title (by moving to the redirect) so it actually describes the content, while preserving the history. Nothing else need be done! Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy fits the bill perfectly. A move would solve ALL the problems and everyone gets their wish: (1) those who want a biography will find some biographical content, and (2) those who want an event article will find a whole lot of content documenting that. Can we just settle this all by moving it to the proper title, the one which accurately describes the actual content? Please? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Any editor looking at the RfC above can see that there is definitely not consensus to rename this article "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy", which is good news given what a horrible idea that is (see my comment below). Once that RfC closes as no consensus we can begin anew with the renaming process. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • See my response above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This whole thing is out of process (SNOW, see above) and should be hatted and closed. Any conclusion based on a faulty foundation will only create more problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This whole thing is out of process (SNOW, see above) and should be hatted and closed. Any conclusion based on a faulty foundation will only create more problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This whole thing is out of process (SNOW, see above) and should be hatted and closed. Any conclusion based on a faulty foundation will only create more problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In the interest of clarity for those who are interested in working constructively to improve the article[s], and not just rehashing the same old arguments, I have created a separate section for these comments, and moved in some comments which were about the process in general and not the particular options. Feel free to revert my edits, I've pretty much lost all interest in this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis (county clerk)

(second choice). I still believe that at the time this article was created, Davis failed independent notability and a biographical article should not have been created at that time, but since then she's probably stayed in the news long enough for enough different events that she's probably achieved independent notability, though I still think an article on her controversy could cover it. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Retracting comments due to concerns this poll is out of process. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. Strong Support - I view this !poll as a redundant out-of-process part of the overall shenanigans taking place with this article, but two AfD snow keeps means this article stays the way it is until there's another AfD that changes that. This subject is notable as an individual biography - I shouldn't have to make new arguments past the two snow keeps where I and many others already made their arguments. If there is a need for deeper coverage of the main event involving this subject, that's what subarticles are for. Also, I was just editing Troy Yocum and realized that he is known mainly for one big event, with a very minor notable item preceding that. I was reminded of, hmmm, Kim Davis. Last, per the two snow keeps, I intend to use whatever Wikipedia enforcement mechanisms that are available to hold this article in place in lieu of a (repetitive) third AfD that somehow overcomes those two snow keeps. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    The AfD "keep" is that the content is notable, not that a particular title is where the content must be. One of the close specifically clarifies this. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    That is an assertion -- the fact is that this biography was kept. And I will seek all appropriate enforcement. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    I would suggest that you actually read WP:AFD before you go off shooting guns to enforce something. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    I will use all processes available for enforcement and read anything I need to read to do it. Thank you for the kind suggestion. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    User:TheRedPenOfDoom is correct; User:Stevietheman would be wise to keep up; here is just one example of this. Prhartcom (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    Stop pinging me! And my position is fully caught up. I will do everything available to enforce these snow keeps. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. Davis appears to me to have passed the threshold for being considered a public figure, not just locally as a local politician, but globally (and independently of Miller vs. Davis, which is also article-worthy in itself) at the point at which her representative announced the meeting with the Pope. -- The Anome (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    The Anome, it doesn't sound like you understand the discussion. Of course Kim Davis is notable; no one is suggesting that she is not. This particular question is an out-of-process poll for requesting which title would be the best name for this topic, which is part of a formal move request from a title of a biography to a title of an event. Prhartcom (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    The meeting with the pope was not because she was a great clerk of court or even because she was a great catholic - she is not even catholic. it was entirely tied up in the controversy and presents no evidence that she is notable outside of the controversy.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    Oppose per WP:PSEUDO -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy

  • (first choice) Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Retracting comments due to concerns this poll is out of process. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (first choice) -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)) Retracting comments due to concerns this poll is out of process. This whole process should be hatted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose -- see my comment below. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy

  1. (second choice) Guy (Help!) 14:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. (first choice) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. (second choice) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Second choice. -- WV 23:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    This option is not available as that title has been rejected in an AfD. It's a redirect and the tiny bit of unique content has been merged. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    You would have a hard time coming up with a more inaccurate misreading of that close. "The result was Procedural close as merge We have an RfC recently closed as supporting one single article, the content of this, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Miller v. Davis need to be merged to a single article and an appropriate title chosen." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    TRPoD, I am not (mis)reading the close at all because I did not refer to it. You are referring to the closer's comment (a decision that is against process, as Miller v. Davis was never an option for merging, and rejected as a new title for the Davis article), while I am referring to the actual !voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. There were five "delete" !votes (including the nominator), a clear majority for delete. Even the single "Keep and merge" didn't affect anything, since the unique content had already been merged. Unfortunately the closer chose an illegitimate option (normally only keep or delete) in his closure, hence the continued problems.
    It's important to understand that the "Kentucky...." article was intended as a larger scope article, but it had only a smidgin of unique content which was merged (the rest was an exact copy/paste of the Davis article, so when it was gone, there was nothing left). That's why this title is not an option as a replacement title for the Davis article. The Davis article remains as the single article, but needs a better title, and RfCs and the AfD determined that the "Kentucky..." title was not to be used as a replacement title. It was rejected at the AfD, even by the closer. Therefore it's not a legitimate choice anymore. It has been rejected for that purpose and should not be on the table again. Pinging Ivanvector, Pincrete and Sarah, so they can see why this option shouldn't be open again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Why should the option not be open? Is this against process? If you want an article about an event, not about a person, you name it after the event! This logic has been understood ever since the Adolf Hitler Second World War article got renamed! I was accused of 'imperialism' on the previous RfC for suggesting that readers outside N.America might want to know the where/what of the article subject. I still think the where/what logic is better. I was summoned initially by bot, to give an uninvolved comment. I have given it. There is an awful lot of 'telling commenters what they are allowed to think' going on in this RfC, for reasons that are a puzzle to me. Pincrete (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for pinging me, there's a lot happening here. Again, as I read it, the discussion in that AfD was regarding the content of the article being a duplicate of the one we're talking about now, not about its title. I don't see any reason why this title should not be considered, and indeed it is my first choice (as mentioned) for the location of an article about the marriage license controversy in Kentucky. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. (first choice) (though would support stand-alone biog, pruned).Pincrete (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Second choice. Sarah (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Miller v. Davis

  1. (first choice) Guy (Help!) 14:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    Guy, now I understand why you are editing disruptively on this page: Because you yourself have a personal motivation to choose Miller v. Davis, an option that was never discussed before now. As I said to you below, you have no consensus for this disruption, unless a consensus of editors decide that it is a viable option. Prhartcom (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    I know that I have brought up Miller v Davis as a good target for merging at least three times. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    Feel free to bring this up on WP:ANI, I already created a section there. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. I see no great harm at the moment in merging this one into Miller v. Davis, though it may be a straightjacket for editors looking to integrate other published data about Kim Davis' personal biography, and she will probably soon have indisputable second-event notability deserving restoration of this article even if you don't consider anything to date to count for that. However, this Talk page's RfC cannot be taken as justification to merge other articles, i.e. Kentucky same-sex marriage controversy and Miller v. Davis. That would be a mistake because this one case has overshadowed the others, but not obliterated them, and because there is simply too much content to merge with that. Wnt (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. (second choice) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. First choice - -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. First choice per nom. -- WV 23:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. First choice. Sarah (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    Comment - There was no consensus in the previous RfC to merge Miller v. Davis with this article. In fact, only one person (TheRedPenOfDoom) out of 16 commenters supported it. JzG, in the closing statement of this AfD, inappropriately introduced the idea that "... the content of this, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Miller v. Davis need to be merged to a single article and an appropriate title chosen". That closing statement does not represent a consensus documented in any discussion to date, and is either a glaring error, or an attempt to override consensus. As no satisfactory explanation has been offered, I am inclined to assume the latter. Currently there is a consensus to keep Kim Davis (county clerk). This straw poll cannot change that.- MrX 01:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Rowan County same-sex marriage license controversy

  1. (first choice) -- Reasoning: Just as the Oklahoma City bombing or Aurora shooting don't mention individual names in the title, the foundation of this story is not dependent on a person but rather their actions ---- For example, if we completely removed Kim Davis from the equation and substituted another county clerk who acted in the same manner, nothing about this story would change because it's not really about Kim Davis per se, it's about the power of a county clerk to deny people marriage licenses. If this were a tabloid magazine we would have her name in the title and in ALL CAPS, but this is an encyclopedia ---- Regarding the choice of Rowan County as opposed to Kentucky, the reason the 1906 San Francisco earthquake is not called the 1906 California earthquake is due to specificity, which should be applied here as well. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. (second choice) - per the discussion above. I think that Kentucky is better per WP:PRECISE but this one does work. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please indicate order of preference, don't sign in any title that you would not support at all. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me Guy, but there has been zero discussion for complicating the issue by introducing the article Miller v. Davis. No one but you is suggesting that a choice needs to be made between that article and this article. You have no consensus for complicating the issue by introducing Miller v. Davis. Leave Millar v. Davis out of it. All this time we have been deciding the number of articles we need to have on this topic ("one") and, of the remaining one ("Kim Davis (county clerk)"), should it be named as a biography article name or as an event article name? Soon we will need to decide what consensus has decided for this rename discussion. Prhartcom (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Your comment makes no sense. There is consensus to have one article, we currently have three, the question remaining to be resolved is which should be the merged article. You might also want to read Jimbo's comments on this, on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not see how there is consensus for anything. The RfC comments are all over the map. I believe this whole separate discussion is premature.Enos733 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy, there is indeed a consensus for "one article", but Miller v. Davis was never a factor in that decision! It's a different article which should be left alone. The idea of "one article" was to force a choice between Kim Davis (county clerk) and Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. You misunderstood that and then unfortunately closed the AfD as a "merge", including Miller v. Davis in the mix.
Well, we still took your cue (we would have done it anyway) and the merge was effectuated: (1) content in Miller v. Davis was already summarized in the Kim Davis article; (2) Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy was turned into a redirect and the tiny bit of unique content was merged into the Davis article.
Now that options have been reduced, the remaining issue from RfCs is to rename Kim Davis (county clerk) to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. It's the only option left. Why? Because the current title is inadequate because it doesn't include the controversy. We just need a change of title (by moving to the redirect) so it actually describes the content, while preserving the history. Nothing else need be done! Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy fits the bill perfectly. A move would solve ALL the problems and everyone gets their wish: (1) those who want a biography will find some biographical content, and (2) those who want an event article will find a whole lot of content documenting that. Can we just settle this all by moving it to the proper title, the one which accurately describes the actual content? Please? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This is an RfC, that is, you would like the comments of uninvolved editors. Quite a number of us cannot understand why Ms Davis should be named at all. This looks an awful lot like a determination to 'save' the biog article by making the event and person one thing. Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Update to my comment:Yes, a couple of editors have mentioned the article Miller v. Davis. My point is it is wrong of you to ignore the rename proposal and to try to introduce a false dichotomy by saying we now have to choose between this article and the Miller v. Davis article (remember, the Kentucky article has been "merged" and is no longer applicable). See above where I mention editors are "often unable to resist introducing their own wild schemes". The Miller v. Davis is fine on its own unless a consensus of editors say it is applicable to this discussion. Instead, let's stay on track: Do we, or do we not, rename this article to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not ignoring it. I am trying to work out which of the three or four available titles is most correct. The discussion above is hopelessly muddled on that, and any admin trying to close it will probably end up at the end of a shitstorm form the various partisans here. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's fine to include it as an option. From my perspective we could have two separate articles on the controversy and on the particular court case, although I am less convinced about the court case article. I'm interested in opinions, but mine is that the controversy extends beyond the court case, so the article about the controversy should not live there. My vote reflects this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@JzG: No, you're helping to muddle what is otherwise a simple question "should the title of the article be changed from "Kim Davis (county clerk)" to "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy" ". Injecting more options is flatly disruptive and insulting to the editors who have tried to keep the discussions focused. Also, since you unceremoniously deleted my request on your talk page, I'll post it here:

This poll that you started is way out of process to the point of being disruptive, given that we are currently running a move request to determine if the article should be renamed. You also framed the question in a non-neutral manner. I am very concerned that you are acting in both the role of admin and editor on this topic, which is shocking considering that you are currently involved in an Arbcom case for the same inappropriate conduct (WP:INVOLVED).

Please close this new discussion that you started, and wait for the move request to conclude before start another overlapping discussion. Please don't continue to use your admin privileges on this, or any of the related articles. Thank you

- MrX 17:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
And since Guy deleted my request on his talk page also, I'll post it here also:

Re: Your Kim Davis disruption. Guy, did you see my comment about your talk page behavior? I am truly surprised that you would do this. On Wikipedia, we act according to consensus. Please reply now to the objection I and others have posted to your out-of-consensus direction you are trying to take the discussion. If it is possible, please try to undo the damage. Prhartcom (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone thinks it matters, I endorse Guy's course of action here. There have been many suggestions as to what is the appropriate title for an article about this controversy, it makes perfect sense to discuss them, rather than preemptively siloing discussion between two arbitrarily-chosen suggestions. Furthermore, the actions to date of opening a new procedural request for every single possibility has yielded neither consensus nor clarity, so this one is worth a try. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Process is evil. This seems to me to be the most expedient way to end the argumentation and proceed towards a resolution, so that people can get on with editing instead of arguing over where they should be editing. As long as we have multiple articles, one subset of people are basically wasting their time, and that is sad. The sooner we have one article, the sooner people can get on with making it exemplary. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Sidestepping a formal discussion that you have already voted in, after closing closely-related discussions as an admin, and asking users to choose from your arbitrarily selected list of titles is definitely what I would call an evil process. Is it necessary to raise these concern about this disruption and your INVOLVEMENT at ANI to get you to recognize how inappropriate this is?- MrX 17:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
No one is saying we don't appreciate your attempt at a process. We object to your attempt to take the conversation in a completely different direction that almost no one but yourself endorses, then using your admin authority to attempt to make it happen. I can't believe you don't know that administrators involved in a discussion are not supposed to do that. Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is completely out of process and it's starting to border on disruptive. Please let the move request complete before starting another discussion about titles, merges, splits, deletes, etc.- MrX 15:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree completely, as my comments above so indicate. This is way out of line. Prhartcom (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is this Wikipedia's shenanigans page? This is the latest outrage. Even though I don't agree with renaming this article, if a proper process ends up with that decision, I'm fine with that. But this is the latest in the series of improper processes. I see an admin getting too closely involved with this to the point of putting his thumb down on the final result -- not just here but also hinted at in the closing of the "controversy" article. This poll, which is clearly disruptive and adding yet another layer for us all to come back and !vote, our precious and valuable time be damned. I'm going to be blunt so don't read further if you are sensitive. This whole series of one poll/process after another is a bullshit clusterfuck and is leaving a massive shitstain on the Wikipedia. I am utterly ashamed of the Wikipedia right now. Never in my 11 1/2 years as an editor have I seen such epic fucking bullshit. This all reminds me of extremist politicians (of any ideology) who won't stop until they get their exact way, no matter what they damage or who they hurt along the way. This crazy bullshit needs to end. NOW. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 23:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • A related discussion has been opened here: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User JzG: ADMINACCT and INVOLVED - MrX 23:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Given that everything appears, process wise, to be stuck in the same hole as has been for several days now with the personal conflicts still going on (the above several comments are a clear as crystal example), I think it would be wise to 1)close this "The competing options" sub-section, 2)Let the "Move" RFC proceed as per procedure, and 3)Bring in some other pair of eyes from another administrator. Please note that this is not a criticism of any one specific person (this is bigger than that). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Close this. I concur with CoffeeWithMarkets. This whole section is out of process, presenting options which have been rejected and should not even be on the table. It ignores and overrides decisions and !votes in previous RfCs and AfDs, and that's very wrong, thus creating more confusion, not less. Please close this. There should only be one Davis article, and then the Miller v. Davis article as a typical stand alone legal article (and it's an unfinished process). The only question left to decide is a better title for the Davis article. That's all. Really. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure I agree with BullRangifer and others on this. There seems to be rough consensus for the two-article solution -- one on the court case, one on Davis and the rest of the affair -- and the only question left to decide is a better title, if any, for the Davis article. -- The Anome (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
We decided by a recent RfC that there would be only one Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy article, with, as you said, a title that has yet to draw a consensus. There are other articles in existence that are about the related court cases. Prhartcom (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This keeps being stated as if it's more significant than it really is. How people respond with !votes to a given question in a poll only carries so much weight. Their actual behavior carries weight as well. A majority may say there should be only one article, but that may not be true consensus. If there is no consensus to remove any of the 2 or 3 articles, for example, that indicates we don't really have consensus for just one article. I think it's pretty clear that there is no consensus to rename or change this particular from being a biography and being titled accordingly. --В²C 14:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Primary topic?

Now is not the time for a formal proposal, while the other RM is still open, but isn't this use of Kim Davis clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Kim Davis"? All the other uses listed at the Kim Davis (disambiguation) are truly obscure. Perhaps 10 years from now this Kim Davis will be just as obscure, but that is clearly not the case today. --В²C 14:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's been on my mind as well. The traffic stats alone support this being a primary topic by a factor of about 100.- MrX 16:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I fear WP:RECENTISM is rearing its ugly head here. There's not even consensus at this point that Davis should have a separate article, let alone be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at this title. For the moment, disambiguation is better. Kim Davis should especially not be an article about the marriage license controversy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
If I may offer a slight, but important, correction: This article has already been merged from the two articles discussed in the RfC (Kim Davis (county clerk) and Kentucky Same Sex marriage License Controversy). There is a standing consensus for this article to exist as a result of two AfDs. The only thing being debated at this point it the title of the article, not its subject or scope.- MrX 19:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, but since we're about to rehash the exact same argument that is happening above, nothing good can come of elaborating here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
MrX is correct; there is no mistake about what has already been decided by consensus. Prhartcom (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If any of the other uses of this name were anything but totally obscure you might have a point. RECENTISM only suggests we give weight to the long-term historical perspective, not totally dismiss anything that is recent.

At this point Davis' role in clarifying the meaning and impact of the supreme court ruling on same-sex marriage is undeniable. Like I said, the significance might dissipate in ten years, but the situation today, and for the foreseeable future, is quite obvious.

I also want to address the question of whether Davis should have a separate article. The question is, frankly, absurd. WP is replete with articles about people far more obscure than Davis, including the other people named Kim Davis that have articles on WP. It's funny how every now and then this issue is raised in the context of someone with enormous but sudden notoriety. Yes, it's sudden, but it's enormous. When countless reliable news source each have multiple articles centered on that person, there can be no question about that person's notability being far more than sufficient to warrant a biographical article. Also, it's not like something happened to occur to Davis that could have happened to anyone. She's not famous for being hit by lightning twice, for example. She's famous for something she did (or, rather, didn't do) - a decision she made. The story is all about her.

Finally, I think the article speaks for itself - it's far, far more developed than the majority of our biographical articles, most of which are barely beyond the stub stage. The idea that this article should be transformed into something other than a biography makes no sense. --В²C 19:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── В²C, you wrote: "The idea that this article should be transformed into something other than a biography makes no sense." Total agreement! Who has suggested a "transformation"???? I have no idea what you're talking about. The articles have been merged and the article's scope and content are perfect as is. No change is necessary in that regard. The only question is whether the current title describes the content accurately.

IIRC, you believe she's notable enough for this article to have a title with only her name. Other editors believe the controversy is the most notable factor and wish to have the controversy mentioned in the title. A compromise, which should satisfy meet the concerns of both sides, would be to include both elements in the title, per the requested move above, while making no change in the content. That is the proposition. Only that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer is correct; this is the only question remaining. Prhartcom (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Who has suggested a transformation? The only question is the title? Really? Did you guys read the currently open proposal above? I quote:

Please provide either the word support to make this an event article...

.

Anyway, like any other biographical article on WP, this one is about the person and what they are notable for. Every other such article is titled with the name of the subject, disambiguated if necessary. Nobody has explained why this article should be treated differently. The fact that the issue with which she is associated is the most notable factor is irrelevant to that (though it speaks to the need for an article about that topic separately), because we have countless other articles for which some issue is more notable than the person, but the person's name is still the title of the article. Here are just a few: Timothy McVeigh, Norma McCorvey, Rosa Parks, Andrea Yates, etc. The idea of somehow incorporating the notable event into the title of a biography article has no basis, unless maybe it's necessary for disambiguation (though I don't know of an example of that either). This is why the proposal is to transform the article into something other than a biography ("an event article"), because changing the title from her name but leaving it a biography makes no sense.

BullRangifer has repeatedly claimed this article is currently not a "pure" biography, apparently a term he has invented for the convenience of defending his otherwise indefensible position, as if a "pure" biography is a thing. It's not. Many biographies are mostly if not exclusively about the one notable event or thing that made the subject person notable. That does not make the biography "impure". There is no such thing. There is no consideration for such a concept in our criteria for deciding titles. This is a biography, period, and should be titled accordingly. --В²C 16:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

В²C, yes, we've read it. Yes, the only question is the title, as this is a Move discussion. We each either support or oppose renaming the article to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Deciding on this particular title decides whether it is an event article or a biography article. It is easy to see that the article contains elements of both. This is fine. We have only the one article to express Kim Davis (the person) and what she did (the event). The article is a cohesive unit describing the controversy and who caused it, perpetuated it, and ended it. To me personally, it seems obvious that the biography elements of this article qualify it as a pseudo-biography. To me personally, it is obvious that Davis is notable for only one event. To me personally, it seems obvious that the move to the new name will encompass this cohesive unit into a better name. But this has been discussed ad-nauseam before you arrived (feel free to browse the archives). Let me know if I can answer any of your questions. Prhartcom (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing unique or special about the fact the subject of this biography is notable for only one event. Stating it as if it is does not make it so. That characteristic applies to many if not most of the biography articles we have, many of which are about more obscure people than Davis (who at least was an elected official before the extra-notable event) made notable by far less significant events. Why is this even a discussion, let alone one warranting archives of discussion? What more needs to be said than quoting from ONEEVENT? "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The sheer volume of media coverage clearly establishes the high significance of the event. Green tickY Davis' large role is unquestioned. Green tickY Again, what is there to discuss? Seriously. This has to be one of the dumbest discussions I've ever encountered on WP, and, believe me, that's saying a lot. --В²C 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this has to be. Prhartcom (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
В²C, maybe I misread you. I interpreted your "transformed into something other than a biography" to mean a transformation of content. The proposal above is expressly not about the content, only the title. The title determines if the article is viewed as a biography or an event. The content remains unchanged.
The current title is for a biography, while the move would be to a title describing the event. The event is clearly notable. She is considered unnotable apart from the event, ergo a pure biography (IOW without the controversy) would not survive an AfD. That's why the article has its current balance/mix of content. We can't separate her from the event by creating a pure biography for her, and another for the event, so we have kept that content together because three AfDs and multiple RfCs have concluded it should be that way. Since she and the event are synonymous (the event does not include anyone else, not even the other two clerks), many of us believe her name should be included in the title for the event. It is HER controversy. The event being the most notable thing, we need an event article title, hence the proposed move to that title. The title is the only thing being "transformed", and the title defines and describes the article, which is an event article with a tiny bit of biographical information.
So, did I misunderstand you, or are you reading into the proposal something other than is intended? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood the proposal. What do you think "Should the Kim Davis (county clerk) article be an event article or a biography article? " is asking if not, should the content be transformed to be an event article, or should it stay as a biography article? What can "to make this an event article" mean if not "transform the content [to be an event article rather than a biography article]"? Especially when contrasted with the oppose alternative: " leave this a biography article ". Those are the words used in the proposal. Perhaps Prhartcom can clarify what exactly was intended by these words? I mean, the current content and format is consistent with a biography article. If the title were changed as proposed, then the content does not make sense. I mean, there's even a biographical officeholder infobox on the article. You can't change the title to reflect an event without changing the content. It would be silly looking, to say the least. --В²C 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm basing my understanding on the proposal itself, a move to a better title. That's all. The existing title is a biography title, the other one is an event title. There is no proposal to change the content. It just isn't there. You are assuming that, but you can only assume that because you are not as familiar as I and several others (especially Prhartcom and MrX) are with the history of all these articles, their multiple AfDs, and multiple RfCs. We have arrived at this point to determine ONLY the title. We have already settled the other matters about the content. We have been trying to narrow down the decisions, and it's now down to the last one, the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by the "proposal itself", BullRangifer? You seem to think it's just the Kim Davis (county clerk)Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy title change part, but that ignores all of the text that follows which uses very precise language, and explicitly proposes making this article an event article rather than leaving it a biography, which clearly implies a content transformation at least to some degree. You can't have a biographical infobox, for example, which this article has, in an event article. Why do you ignore this part of the proposal?

Anyway, I just wish somebody would already close this so we could move on and propose the plain Kim Davis title, which should settle this whole thing once and for all. --В²C 06:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

В²C, you are still overinterpreting the phrase ("Please provide either the word support to make this an event article or the word oppose to leave this a biography article ...") in a manner which makes it go against the actual move request, which is only about the title.
This is a "Move" request. I'm referring to the heading. If this were a "Split" proposal, we'd have another type of RfC, in which it were proposed to do what you're saying, split off (transform) the controversy into another article and keep this one as a pure biography. It seems to me that you are interpreting it that way. Am I wrong?
To make that interpretation, you have to ignore this other wording: "Consensus has decided that there should be only one article..." You also have to reject the RfC creator's explanation to you above: "Yes, the only question is the title, as this is a Move discussion."
Why don't we just ask the creator of the RfC, who happens to be Prhartcom, what they mean by the phrase? (For clarification, it was introduced here, but was not intended to change the meaning of the RfC. Maybe it should be tweaked so we don't have others making this interpretation.)
Does Prhartcom mean it as you interpret it (split into two), or as I do (only change the title and keep the current single article as is)? His many replies to you, including below, make me think he's more in agreement with my interpretation than yours. He, I, and MrX, are the editors with the most knowledge and experience with these articles and their numerous RfCs and AfDs, yet you, a newbie to them, seem to know more. Hmmm.... When new eyes at RfCs speak without doing due diligence, we end up with these long, protracted, and ridiculous situations. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The other point you keep missing is that you seem to think there is something unique or at least unusual about this biography being mostly about an event and have only a "tiny bit" (I dispute that) of biographical information. Several times several of us have listed quite a few examples, and there are many, many more. But you keep commenting as if they don't exist, and this article is some kind of anomaly in this respect. It isn't. --В²C 05:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
В²C, you seem to be extremely confident in your understanding of the intent of the proposal, despite the fact that you just arrived here at the article a few days ago. But what if you were wrong? That would be unthinkable, of course, but what do you think of this idea: We could contact the person who proposed the RM and ask them if you are right about your assumptions, or if BullRangifer is actually the one who understands the proposal? Would that help? Or alternatively, we could all just agree that you are right. Which do you think we should do? Prhartcom (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Guys, I'm just going by the plain English meanings of the words in the proposal, coupled with the actual current state of the article (which, for example, includes a biographical infobox which would be inappropriate in an event article). Prhartcom, I asked above, and I'll ask again. Please clarify what is meant by the words "to make this an event article" if not "transform the content [to be an event article rather than a biography article]"? Especially when contrasted with the oppose alternative: " leave this a biography article ".

BullRangifer, I don't believe anything I've written even suggests that I might think PrHartcom or the proposal wording proposes a splitting of the article into two. Are you deliberately misreading my words? If not, please identify the words that I actually wrote that can be reasonably interpreted to mean that I'm interpreting the proposal to be proposing an article split.

Let me put it this way. Say the proposal passes and the title is changed to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Do you really think the article can remain as-is except for the title change? Don't you think the opening sentence would have to change, which currently mentions only her and not the event at all? What about that biographical info box? What about the first subsection entitled Career which is exclusively about her career? The sections on her Personal Life and Election History? You really think no changes are required to transform this article from being the biographical article that it is to be being an event article as proposed? What are you thinking? --В²C 15:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, В²C. We would need to work a few things out, sure, when the RM reaches consensus, but it's not important to passionately argue about the hypothetical until then. Prhartcom (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. The net result is that the article would be transformed from being the biography that it is today to something that is not a biography. That's all I said, something I thought was very obvious, and yet I was taken to task for it.

Now, can we all agree that the proposal is not JUST about changing the title, but that if the title is changed then the article will have to be changed/transformed so that it is no longer a biography? It's an important point because the implication is that if this proposal succeeds we will be left without a biography on Kim Davis, which I think makes no sense given her notability. Yes, her notability stems almost entirely from one event, but it's a highly publicized event in which she is the key/central figure. Therefore, we should keep this biography about her. Don't blame me for the faulty reasoning in the last discussion which resulted in the expression of an understandable but impractical desire for only one article. I was not part of that. --В²C 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── No, you're still misunderstanding it. I agree with Prhartcom. If some very small tweaks are necessary, so be it, but the basic scope and content remain the same. No substantive change needs to be made. We just need a title which adequately describes the content, and puts the emphasis on the controversy, which is very notable, and not on Davis, who is only notable because of the controversy. The reason for keeping her name in the title is because it is HER controversy. She defines it. No one else is involved. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you're still misunderstanding. Whether the transformation from biography to event article is accomplished with "some very small tweaks" or through major changes is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making. The net result is the same: this article will no longer be a biography; we will no longer have a biography article about Kim Davis. That's the problematic and absurd result of this proposal succeeding, not the number of bits that have to be flipped and added or deleted to get this article from here to there. Now do you understand? --В²C 16:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Your thoughts on the matter have been duly noted. There is no need to continue passionately hammering this point. Prhartcom (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. However, my thoughts have not been duly noted by BullRangifer. BullRangifer has repeatedly demonstrated a total and complete distortion of what I have been saying. As recently as his latest post he revealed this again, which I just explained. Instead of addressing the main point - the problem with not having a biography on WP about Kim Davis - he (and you to some extent) cling to an irrelevant point about how much the article has to change to cease being a biography, starting with denying that any change will be required, then conceding that some change will be required but only "some very small tweaks" (as if that's relevant), throughout evading discussion of the main point. --В²C 17:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"my thoughts have not been duly noted by BullRangifer." It appears you need to be either reminded of or have it pointed out to you that no one is obligated to respond to comments or edit Wikipedia. If you have a personal beef against BR simply because they aren't taking public notice of your "thoughts", take it up with them elsewhere. This is not the place for it. You've made your point several times over. As Prhartcom pointed out, it's time to stop hammering your point and move on. -- WV 18:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would you think I need to be reminded that no one is obligated to respond? I'm simply disputing Prhartcom's claim that my thoughts have been duly noted, especially with respect to BullRangifer. Of course he's under no obligation to even read what I'm saying, let alone understand it and respond. I'm all for agreeing to disagree, but that's impossible when one party doesn't even understand the position of the other, which is clearly the case here, or at least was as of BullRangifer's last comment. Anyway, I've started a separate section on this particular question, #What is the justification for NOT having a Kim Davis biography?, where anyone interested can address it, because this is way off topic for the Primary Topic question that is supposed to be the topic of this section. --В²C 18:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I think you need to be reminded of it because you are essentially saying you won't move on until BR addresses or acknowledges your comments. Which, according to WP:OBLIGATION is an unreasonable expectation. Now, at this point, because you are obviously not getting the spirit of WP:OBLIGATION, it's obvious you also need to be reminded or made aware of the importance of dropping the stick when it's time to do so. -- WV 18:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, please explain why you accuse me of "essentially saying [I] won't move on until BR addresses or acknowledges [my] comments", which I categorically deny, or retract your baseless accusation on me as an honest misunderstanding. Thank you. --В²C 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Prhartcom stated: "Your thoughts on the matter have been duly noted. There is no need to continue passionately hammering this point". To which you replied: "my thoughts have not been duly noted by BullRangifer. BullRangifer has repeatedly demonstrated a total and complete distortion of what I have been saying.". Your response indicated to me that you unhappy BR has not responded to what you want BR to respond. Hence, my reminder to you of WP:OBLIGATION. If, in fact, that's not what you were saying, the problem isn't in how I read what you wrote but how you wrote it. -- WV 20:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, okay. Yeah. I am unhappy that BR is responding not to what I'm saying but to some distortion to what I'm saying. Of course that's frustrating. But that's a far cry from thinking he's obligated to respond, or anything like that. --В²C 22:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
My original comment to you was designed to remind you of the policy/guideline. There was no accusation that you thought he was obligated. That said, your comments seem to indicate you do feel that way and have decided you will hold him responsible should he choose not to "duly note" your thoughts. Per Wikipedia policy/guidelines, that's an unreasonable expectation and BR is not obligated to validate your feelings on the matter. I hope we can move on now -- it seems we have wasted enough bandwidth and talk page space over it. -- WV 22:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:OBLIGATION has no applicability to this situation. OBLIGATION simply reminds us that users never have an obligation to ever edit (in any context) rather than not edit. BR has been responding to everything I've said. So even to someone not aware of OBLIGATION, it would never be an issue because BR is very responsive. My frustration stems not from him not responding, but from him responding to a distortion of what I'm saying. I don't know why, but he has had issues with not understanding others as well. For example, in the #poll section he did not understand how Safiel's explanation substantiated his or her !vote. Yet it was quite clear to me. Another user commented above about something BR said as follows: "You would have a hard time coming up with a more inaccurate misreading of that close." Anyway, surely you can understand how it can be frustrating to be in a discussion with someone who is not responding to what you're saying, but to a twist on what you're saying. That's what I meant about my comment not being duly noted by him. I hope you can understand that. --В²C 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
What I now understand is you are personally attacking BR with this comment: "I don't know if he has a reading comprehension problem, English is not his first language, or what...". You really need to strike those comments. -- WV 23:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. In an already heated discussion like this, language like that is the last thing we need, and more of us should speak out against it. It is self-defeating to tolerate disruptiveness for the sake of peace. That's about all I have to contribute here. ―Mandruss  23:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
When this discussion finally resolves itself we are so going to hide it to the size of a single line. Thanks to BullRangifer, Mandruss, and Winkelvi for doing what you could and congrats to MrX. Prhartcom (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Prhartcom, yes, please do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
В²C, I'm going to echo Prhartcom's astute comment above: "Your thoughts on the matter have been duly noted. There is no need to continue passionately hammering this point." ....and just like I suspect he feels, neither of us agree with you, but because you refuse to accept our explanations and continually act as if you, a newbie to this subject, know more than we do, it is pointless for us to keep discussing this with you. Your thoughts have been duly noted. Period.
We have long since reached the point where your behavior, including opening a new thread on a settled matter, is a massive refusal to accept explanations and change your POV, or refuse to drop the stick. Keep in mind that IDHT doesn't mean that one literally doesn't "hear", it means that one doesn't learn and change positions, or at least leave the playing field, since no one can force you to change your mind. It's time for you to drop the stick and stop creating more disruption. We want to simplify things and reach a conclusion. You just complicate them.
It would be wisest for you to stay away from this since you don't understand it, even though you think you do. Take my word for it, you really don't. This is far over your head, not because of any type of intelligence issues, but because you lack the knowledge and experience with these particular articles. They have a very complicated history, largely because of people like you. You have ideas which have already been rejected in RfCs and AfDs. We don't want to rehash them just to pleasure you. That's very disruptive.
BTW, my mother tongue is English, and I speak three other languages and use two languages at home, every single day. My last college professor told me that my English writing skills placed me in the top ten of all the students he's had in his 15 years of teaching, and his classes average 250-300 students per class, and at least three classes every day. (Don't judge my skills by my writing here or in emails or texting!) My parsing skills are good enough for my legal deposition in a case to be used by the judge, with few changes, as the wording in their final decision, but I'm not a lawyer. I have lived in six different countries, and many US states. I have attended at least five colleges in two countries, two medical professional schools in different countries, have two different medical educations in different languages, and have had a good and successful career. I've been around the block quite a few times. Oh, the best of all, I'm still married to my first wife (36 years). I won the lottery! Face-wink.svg
So, it's time to end this discussion. There is no point in continuing it. We have better things to do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the justification for NOT having a Kim Davis biography?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per close of the above move thread. That decision renders this thread moot. Safiel (talk) (signature date deliberately omitted)

Extended content

The indisputable implication of this proposal passing is that this article will cease being a biography on Kim Davis, and that there will be no biography about Kim Davis on Wikipedia. Is that acceptable? Why? She is the central driving figure in an event that captured months of nationwide attention, and has helped clarify the implications of a supreme court ruling about a controversial socio-political issue. For us to raise the bar of notability so high as to justify not having a biography article about such a notable person would mean excluding perhaps a majority of our biographies. Or, making this exclusion be a special case for some reason. What is that reason? What is the justification for not having a biography article about someone as notable as Kim Davis? And please don't answer this with reasoning that could also be used to justify transforming countless other biographies into event articles, unless you're prepared to defend that too. --В²C 17:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

And in case anyone thinks not having a Kim Davis biography is justified by WP:ONEVENT, be sure to read it, especially this part:

  • "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."
Green tickY The sheer volume of prolonged media coverage clearly establishes the high significance of the event.
Green tickY Davis' large role is unquestioned; she's central.

WP:ONEVENT clearly supports having a biography on Kim Davis. --В²C 18:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The justification is that we cannot have a "biography" about Davis that is not entirely about the controversial event because there is nothing written about her relevant to an encyclopedia article other than her involvement in the controversial event -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing? Some of the content of the article as it stands contradicts your assertion. There is much more documented about the subject of this biography than there is about many of our other biography subjects. What is the justification for applying a higher standard to this subject than we do to many, many far more obscure subjects? Her notoriety? Wouldn't that be ironic! --В²C 19:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── В²C, you are misreading that guideline. "WP:ONEVENT clearly [DOES NOT] supports having a biography on Kim Davis." (I was thinking of WP:PSEUDO, so interpret the following in that light.) The "separate article" is the event article, with only a redirect for the name, ergo, no separate biography article at all. ONEEVENT PSEUDO denies you the separate biography article you wish, but we're still going to give you what you want, in a certain sense, at least as far as content goes. Prhartcom can correct me if I'm wrong.

From WP:PSEUDO:

  • "If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context.
  • "Is the person notable for any other events in their life? In most cases, as noted above, a person who is notable only for one event does not merit a full biography under their name." (added in revision, with bold emphasis 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

From WP:ONEEVENT:

  • "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." (added in revision, with bold emphasis 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

We have the interesting situation that two guidelines are relevant and intersect here, ONEEVENT and PSEUDO. During this whole process, I have been cognizant that both apply, and I suspect that Prhartcom also shares this view, so we are trying to follow them as closely as possible, while seeking a compromise which works. In the process we may or may not be creating a precedent for a better way to deal with such unique situations. I don't know for sure. (added in revision 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

We are compromising here because she is synonymous with the event. She IS the event. RS and COMMONNAME favor this approach. This means we end up with an event article, but with her name in it, and it includes some biographical content. You get that much. Call the article what you wish, but you do get biographical information. A compromise is the only best solution here.

This compromise should be somewhat satisfactory to everyone: (1) those who want an event article get it, and (2) those who want a biography will find that information in the article. We have many types of articles here, and there is no guideline which dictates a hard and fast division between these two types. Editors have the freedom to adapt things as necessary. This situation requires a compromise in the title. She is too notable, because of HER controversy, to be left out of the title.

The guideline(s) (ONEEVENT and PSEUDO) leave open the possibility for a future, separate, biography article, IF she gains significant notability for more than the controversy. Who knows, she may become a TV reality star on her own show! She may even become a politician (not the civil servant type), running for office on a homophobic ticket pursuing the Biblical death penalty for all American gays.

We can cross that bridge if we ever come to it, but we are not going to use crystal ball thinking to create a pure biography now.

So the conclusion to this is that we arrived at a compromise position, long before you arrived. I hope you accept this olive branch which has been offered to others. Olive branch.svg -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Revised. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer,
  1. The issue of whether to have a combined or separate biography/event articles on this topic is not settled. The "consensus" reached in the last discussion[1] is dubious, as acknowledged by the closer: "Consensus appears to be for one article, but without prejudice to future review as there is non-trivial support for two [articles]."
  2. In the WP:ONEEVENT statement "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate", whether separate article is referring to the biography or the event article is irrelevant to the question of whether it supports one or both articles in such situations. If it supported only one article, then we could argue about which one, but that's not the case here, since the event in question is highly significant, and Kim Davis' role within it is dominant. So ONEEVENT is supporting both articles, therefore it is supporting having each one, including this biography article. That's only logical, is it not?
  3. The situation in which ONEEVENT suggests an "independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate" does not apply here. That situation is: "when an individual plays a major role in a minor event". Kim Davis' refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of the landmark Supreme Court decision, is no minor event. I presume that goes without saying (correct me if I'm wrong). But assuming you agree this is not a minor event, the suggestion that an independent article may not be needed does not apply here, implying an independent article is needed. Not to mention that even if you were to argue the event is minor, all ONEEVENT says is that the independent biography article may not be needed; it does not say there must not be one or cannot be one.
  4. I'm remain baffled by all the resistance to having separate biography and event articles related to Kim Davis, but I know that position is not supported by policy. From reading through the archives it seems that people are applying some kind of unstated rule, something like: "Kim Davis doesn't 'deserve' a biography, so I'm opposed to it." The problem with that "rule" is that whether someone "deserves" a biography article (as determined by some unstated subjective standard) is not something we're supposed to take into consideration in deciding whether there should be a biography about that person.
  5. I look forward to hearing your explanation for why you believe ONEEVENT does not support separate biography and event articles in this case. I note that ONEEVENT was not even referenced in that last discussion. Even the criteria given at WP:PSEUDO indicate a separate biography article on Kim Davis is warranted.
Cheers. --В²C 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
В²C, I must apologize. I got mixed up and wrote ONEEVENT, when I was thinking of content in PSEUDO. I have significantly revised and added content to my comment above. Please read it carefully. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
"Deserves" is, indeed, the wrong word. The right word is "qualifies", and as editors we are allowed -no, required - to make that judgement. And the conclusion is: no, she doesn't qualify notability-wise based on WP:1E. The article on her is a WP:PSEUDO bio and the title needs to be changed to reflect focus on the event, not her. -- WV 18:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
WV, ah, well, yes, qualify is a much better term. So, what part of 1E disqualifies her from having a biography? I addressed everything in there that seemed applicable to me, and explained why I thought that showed she did qualify per 1E. Why do you think it disqualifies her from having a biography article?

As far as WP:PSEUDO goes, the tests it recommends are:

  1. Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage? YES: [2] [3] [4] [5]
  2. If the person themselves received substantial coverage under their own name, such as Madeleine McCann or Damilola Taylor, then they may merit a biography. Green tickY
  3. Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage? YES
  4. Is the person notable for any other events in their life? YES (elected official, multiple marriages, children out of wedlock, visit with Pope... all might not make her notable per some people, but reliable sources disagree and have covered it accordingly - that's why we know about it, and, more importantly, why users are likely to seek a biography about her)
So by this analysis of PSEUDO she qualifies for a biography as well. By what analysis do you think WP:PSEUDO disqualifies her? --В²C 19:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. Can we write anything encyclopedic about her other than her involvement in the controversy? HELL NO -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • According to the two very recent AfDs, there is NO justification for NOT having a Kim Davis biography. We cannot override the decisions of those two extremely recent AfDs. Case closed. Could we please stop talking about this like it was even an option. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • according to to recent AfD's there is no reason to not cover the controversial event documented in the article. Read the close however, and they specifically state that what the name of the article should be is up for discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
If the close said that, then it is not in line with the clear consensus on both AfDs, anbd should be ignored. Softlavender (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • We aren't having an AfD discussion because this isn't AfD. We are having a discussion about a article name change, not deleting an article. And yes, it's quite "legal" and proper to have such a discussion. And, if you note, there were a number of people who !voted and said the name of the article should be changed but the article could still exist. Besides, nothing is really over and done in Wikipedia. It's not as if AfD is the highest court in Wikipedia-land. -- WV 22:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender, you wrote: "there is NO justification for NOT having a Kim Davis biography". That means NOT having a biography is NOT justified; meaning we should have a biography about her. Is that what you intended to say? The point of this discussion here is that the RM proposal is to move away from a standard biographical title, meaning NOT having a biography article (which is not justified, as near as I can tell).

TheRedPenOfDoom, since Kim Davis meets notability criteria (far better than countless other people that are the subjects of WP biographies), any information about her, found in reliable sources, like her date and place of birth, marital status, career information, etc., is all encyclopedic, by definition. Also, please note that "Can we write anything encyclopedic about the person other than their involvement in the event?" is NOT one of the test criteria questions at WP:PSEUDO - so why are you asking it? --В²C 22:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The bio article MUST stand per the two very recent AfDs. This is beyond discussion or dialogue or RM. We cannot override those two very clear AfDs. This is not up for or open to discussion, and any effort to expunge or merge or re-focus the bio article will be reverted per the AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks for clarifying. I agree 100%. This is why I started this section, because this proposal is to change the title which would effectively transform the article from a biography to an event article (if the RM succeeds, there will be no biography article about Kim Davis on WP), and is getting considerable support. I don't see any justification for such a move in policy (nor in the comments), and now see that this is reinforced by those AfDs, so I'm wondering on what grounds people are justifying NOT having this biography. So far there is nothing here too. I mean vague references to 1E and PSEUDO, but no explanation of why either supports having no biography. It's quite clear to me that they do not. --В²C 23:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The AfDs said that the content should remain, but the AfD results were astoundingly NOT community consensus that we should violate WP:PSEUDO to maintian the content under an inappropriate name and focus. The AfDs were in fact specifically closed stating that where the content should finally land should be discussed. Your repeated assertions contrary to the facts do not help to anything but paint you as a disruptive zealot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please identify what they see in PSEUDO (or 1E) that disqualifies Kim Davis from having a biography article? I honestly don't understand what you're seeing there which I've explained in detail above. Where is a comparable analysis at least attempting to show that PSEUDO does not support a biography about her? --В²C 23:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please look at this article and point out one encyclopedic thing that is not intimately connected to the controversy? That she is a county clerk? - hella non-encyclopedic and entirely intertwined into her not performing duties as a clerk that is the center of the controversy. That she was married before/had kids as a single mother? Nope, completely non encyclopedic and the interest is tied intimately into painting her as not only a bigot but a hypocritical bigot. That she met with the pope? that is not encyclopedic on its own and first her lawyer pitching the meeting as papal support for her controversial actions and then the vatican backing off any consideration that the meeting had to do with her controversial actions.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I discovered that I mistakenly wrote ONEEVENT, when I was referring to content from PSEUDO, so I have revised and added significant content to my previous reply with this edit. Please study it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. While I do not want to get into the question of whether the right question is whether there is "one encyclopedic thing that is not intimately connected to the controversy," the fact that she is an elected official would meet the standards of WP:Politician (as I describe earlier). There was RS coverage of her election prior to 2015 (See this article as an example: Davis following her mother as county clerk. Elected office holders are and can be notable for holding office. For local office-holders, this is done on a case by case basis, with judgments based upon city size, amount of media coverage, and other factors. Regardless of why the subject earned national and international media coverage, at this point, I she easily passes WP:Politician. Enos733 (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
local county clerks do not meet WP:NPOL in any way shape or form. a local puff piece mentioning the fact that she has the same job as her mother is not significant coverage.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
TheRedPenOfDoom, (why is that a red link?) whether she is notable for being a county clerk is not relevant. The point is saying that noting she is an elected county clerk is encyclopedic, as long as it can be cited to RS. Also, and I mentioned this above, your challenge -- point out one encyclopedic thing that is not intimately connected to the controversy -- is not a hurdle specified by PSEUDO or by another policy or guideline that needs to be met. You just made that up to justify your belief that a biography is not warranted in this case. But you can't just make up your own criteria like that. You have to specify what PSEUDO requires and how that's not met here. I have specified what PSEUDO requires and explained why those requirements are met. If you want to disagree, then please present an argument based on similar analysis. --В²C 20:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Some editors like to keep a clean userpage, so it's red. Here is their status: "reviewer, rollbacker, 131036 edits since: 2007-11-05" -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: I have to question your WP:COMPETENCE if you cannot see how her being elected county clerk is entirely inseparable from the controversy over the fact that she has refused to do her job as county clerk. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom:, of course they are separable. She was an elected county clerk long before she used that position to deny the marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Surely you can see that? In any case, even if everything notable about her found in RS, including her date and place of birth, is somehow inseparable from the controversy, such a fact would not disqualify her from having a biography per any WP policy or guideline, including PSEUDO. So what's your point? --В²C 16:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
And again, you are appearing to display a lack of competence in being able to interpret and apply the very straightforward language of WP:PEUDO "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? In the second case, it is likely that the event or organization is notable, but that the individual is not." and "Is the person notable for any other events in their life? In most cases, as noted above, a person who is notable only for one event does not merit a full biography under their name." Yes, she plays a key role in the event, and no, nothing other than her role in the event is anywhere near notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
TheRedPenOfDoom, I addressed those specific sections in detail above, including giving a series of examples of "reliable sources [that] cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage". Did you miss that? Please read the section before responding if you want to claim competence. If you have read it, then address it, instead of acting as if it was not written, if you want to claim competence. --В²C 16:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
they are not covering "her" - they are covering "her as she is involved in the controversy" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Huh? These are exactly the kind examples of "reliable sources cover[ing] the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage" that PSEUDO says must exist to warrant a bio article for the person, and they clearly do exist. [6] [7] [8] [9]

And that's just a partial list. Here is another one: [10].

These articles in RS all "cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus" of the article. Each of these examples meets the PSEUDO requirement fully and without qualification. You can't deny that. Nor can you make up other restrictions like this coverage doesn't count because these articles all also happen to mention the event for which she is most notable. Almost any article about any notable person is going to mention what that person is most notable for. Of course. That doesn't disqualify the article from meeting the PSEUDO requirement - nothing in PSEUDO even hints that it would.

Nice try. Got anything else? --В²C 17:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── From Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians:

3. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"."

She was and is only a local politician who was never notable for more than that. She became notable for this controversy, and all the sources you dig up (which document content which is in the article) were written because of and after this controversy started. The few bits of biographical information from before the controversy (which is in the article), was not enough to make her notable. It is only this controversy which does it, so the event is the primary subject, and the title should emphasize the event, hence the move/retitle request above. Since she is synonymous with the event, we include her name as well. TRPoD and Prhartcom have explained this to you above. I don't care whether you call the article an event article or a biography. Do as you wish. You are getting both. All the content is there, so just drop the stick. Your disruption needs to stop. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 20:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move 6 October 2015

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

Not moved, per absence of consensus. Too much electronic ink has already been spilled on this issue. It is possible to have an article on the controversy (including any aspects that do not involve this article subject), and a separate article on the subject, who has become individually notable in that her biographical details may be of interest to those with only a limited interest in the controversy at issue. The subject is a public figure who had received news coverage prior to this controversy arising. She was involved in multiple widely reported incidents only tangentially connected to it (such as her meeting with the Pope, her widely reported change of political party affiliation, and the announced Westboro Baptist Church protests against her marital situation). There is no consensus to move this article, and strong reasons have been provided for maintaining an article on the individual. bd2412 T 14:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Kim Davis (county clerk)Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy – Should the Kim Davis (county clerk) article be an event article or a biography article? Consensus has decided that there should be only one article (at least for now) at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?). In the words of the closing administrator of that discussion, "Normal practice would have been to write about the incident first, not the person, per WP:BLP1E" then write about the person later when they become notable for more than one event. Many editors have discussed this already at the discussion linked above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination) (which was closed with Snow Keep). Please provide either the word support to make this an event article or the word oppose to leave this a biography article and give your rationale. Thanks to all for your efforts on this subject. Prhartcom (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Poll

This gigantic mess and can of worms wouldn't have happened if we hadn't have had editors who would rather disrupt Wikipedia to make a point instead of actually being interested about fairly implementing policy. Not to mention having a complete and utter unwillingness to admit any kind of compromise or view any alternate opinions as valid, the kind of 'talking to a brick wall' situation that I've seen in Israeli-Palestine related articles with their editors (and I emphasize with given the situation). Here, though, I don't really have empathy for people that just have to 'make a point'. We could have just had a simple situation in which there was just an article about the controversy rather than a psuedo-biography that's questionable awkwardly separated off from other topics. But I guess that would be too easy. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Alright, so we now have this article here- "Kim Davis (county clerk)"- and the other article Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversies. If cooler heads prevail and adult behavior resumes, then we can have an intelligent conversation about how the controversies are more notable than Davis herself. And also talk about what material from here belongs in that other page. It would be nice to get back to sanity. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
CoffeeWithMarkets, I'm sorry, but many of us do not know what you are talking about. You cannot vote to "delete this article on Kim Davis", as that discussion was closed with a Snow Keep. As well, no one is being nasty; we have had valid discussions on this topic that have all assumed good faith. This is another example of a rational discussion. It would help if you would provide an actual !vote instead of a comment. Prhartcom (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
My vote is exactly like I said. Drop the stick. Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Stop being unreasonable. Stop refusing to have discussions. Stop acting that other people have bad faith and you are holier than thou. That's my vote. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
"Time to drop the stick, drop the nastiness, drop the unreasonableness, and stop behaving like children...If...adult behavior resumes, then we can have an intelligent conversation" Gawd. Time to WP:AGF and start having more respect for your fellow volunteers, CoffeeWithMarkets. -- WV 17:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Please go back and actually read the history of this article. There are people that are determined to make a point using Wikipedia and won't stop until they've beaten the dead horse into submission. Few things are more frustrating than being subject to nastiness and attacks before having said people turn around and play victim as if somehow describing them fairly (in reasonable, measured terms) is a horrible thing.
I know that I have a tendency to be too nice. Should I be deliberately trying not to hold back and be this nice? I'd rather not. I'd rather see the stick being dropped. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Going to post again that, for the record, I think that we should have Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Shifting stuff over there and making that the central page is a good move. Support for Shift, move, transfer, send over, etc, however you phrase it. It's a move that it would be pretty nice if we could have debated fair and square, like adults (no, MrX and Prhartcom etc, I'm not being a horrible subhuman here and trying to "vote again"- I'm just reiterating the core point). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
CoffeeWithMarkets, if that is what you believe "for the record", then it sounds like you support the proposed move. Will you actually cast a !vote, then? I ask because you have only provided a "comment". Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Please remove or strike out your personal attacks. Thank-you. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
CoffeeWithMarkets - having read all of the above, there isn't really anything which could be considered a personal attack. I'd take a step back for a second and calm down a little :) samtar (msg) 18:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel pretty calm. I'm just wondering why. I'm starting to wonder if maybe it's some kind of suspicion that my political views aren't right or that maybe there's something wrong with my sexual orientation or gender identity for this crowd that edits this article, that maybe that's the cause of things. I know that people have told me that if you're LGBT that you should never, ever edit in some place that relates to LGBT issues people then people will just immediately single you out and find some kind of a problem-- even if they happen to agree with your editorial decisions (like how I type in bold support, move, and other words and yet get hounded because somehow I've not typed enough times that I want contents moved over). It's like a relationship thing. "You haven't said this enough times, so I'm going to badger you over and over again until you say it more." Oh, well. I'm pretty much ready to wash my hands of LGBT-related Wikipedia altogether and this is just as good as any straw to put on the camel's back. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Not that anyone should care, but I'm gay and I think Kim Davis is at this point, painfully, obviously notable for a singular biography. I won't allow what I think of her politically and personally to play into this position. And boy is she painful (avoiding the use of many choice epithets). :) Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. My being gay has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Kim Davis is notable enough for a bio, nor should it. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Renaming this biography to Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy inappropriately cast a negative light on the BLP subject. Doing so would substantially alter the intent of this article, which is to document a person's life, and their significant role in a historic series of events. Article titles should be concise and recognizable. There are exactly zero Google news results for the search phrase "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy", probably because she doesn't possess the controversy nor would common sense dictate that the controversy be named after her. The only purpose that would seem to be served by renaming this article to that title, would be to permanently shame the subject. WP:NDESC is clear that non-neutral words implying wrongdoing are not appropriate in article titles, especially if they are not the common name of the subject. As to the recurrent WP:BLP1E argument: I have yet to see a credible argument about how this subject meets all three criteria. It simply doesn't.- MrX 16:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how use of the words "controversies" or "controversy" are inherently mean, nasty, etc and therefore can never be used.
Compare, say, with Leibniz–Newton calculus controversy. They're not living people, yes, but they are people (they were living), subject to biographies that need to be run to strict standards. Does that title, in and of itself, mean that Sir Newton was somehow clearly in the wrong? I really don't think so. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Going to just go ahead and third that "textbook" comment. Agreed completely as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay, is it at the point now that merely talking and voting can no longer happen, and we have to drop any pretense whatsoever here? Do we really have to fight like animals? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Note to all editors: The editor above was just reverted for disruptively moving the Kentucky article without consensus. The editor's move was reverted. Prhartcom (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
One of these days, the page content is just going to be moved/transferred-over/shifted-over/etc. One of these days, it will be like what we would have had if procedure had been followed in the first place (an article about the controversy, not centered as a psuedo-biography around Davis that isn't a real biography as per the other, many comments that use that term). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Why? Not being sarcastic or anything, but asking genuinely. Just saying "I oppose" by itself only is unclear. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The problem I see here is that BLP1E and PSEUDO are a bit at odds in a case like this. While there are differing views on how much of BLP1E this article satisfies, it's clear that this is a significant event and that Kim Davis' involvement has been substantial. Therefore, there should be a biography. PSEUDO argues that this shouldn't be a biography, though with a little digging, most of its criteria actually fail. The very first one, for example, would be shot down by this CNN article...but you can argue that that's still in the context of the event, at least somewhat. All in all, I think the arguments in support of a separate article are greater than those in favour of a single article, hence my vote, but I can certainly understand both points of view. If this absolutely must be a single article, I don't see how we can make this about a single event because I see a minimum of two events here: the original refusal and the issues surrounding her meeting with the pope. In that context, a biography makes more sense to me. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please explain why "[Kim Davis] is a textbook WP:PSEUDO-biography" is an offensive comment. Also, please explain why "Just saying "I oppose" by itself only is unclear". Thank you. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • also please explain what of any encyclopedic relevance we will have in a "biography" about Davis other than the controversy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per many things I've said before. Also, Robin Hood reasoned it out pretty well. Mr. X made some useful arguments too, although I'm not sure I agree totally with the "negative light" part. Overall, I think we should stop wetting our pants over this and just have the two articles. Let's settle this sucker down, please. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
We just decided that there will be only one article. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Per two snow keep's from the wider AfD process, this article must be kept with its current name or we have a breach of process as far as I can tell. We also have an earlier (maybe too hasty?) consensus that decided to have the separate article that expands upon the controversy. I understand that there's been nothing to stop editors from re-opening these matters over and over again, but there seems to be a process issue that keeps having us come back to decide the same thing. I support having two articles as its currently stands, but I can also accept the spin-off article decision being rolled back for now. At any rate, two recent snow keep's of this specific article should be a clear signal to any closing admin. That should even override any local decision in this RM. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe the "keep" decisions were about whether to delete the article or not. They were not (at least not primarily) about the name of the article. After that, we had an RfC discussion about whether there should be two articles or one. That was closed with a decision to have only one article. If that decision stands, we then need to decide what the name of that article will be. That puts us past the point of discussing whether she is sufficiently notable to justify a biographical article or not and whether the controversy surrounding her refusal to issue marriage licenses is notable or not. It forces us to choose which one is more notable. If we need to make that choice, I think that her refusal to issue marriage licenses and the associated controversy are more notable than her biography as a person. Her biography as a person is primarily only interesting to the public as background information to explain her refusal to issue marriage licenses. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
BarrelProof, that's an excellent summary of why and where we are now. The only relevant decision left is which title to give that one article. She is only notable for the controversy, so the weight of her biography must be on the controversy content, and that's the way it is. Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy fits the bill perfectly. A move would solve ALL the problems and everyone gets their wish: (1) those who want a biography will find her name in the title and some biographical content, and (2) those who want an event article will find it described in the title and a whole lot of content documenting it and her sole and central role in the controversy. The proper title must accurately describe the actual content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose She's clearly notable beyond BLP1E. I thought we were past this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Please identify clearly what she has done that is notable outside of the controversy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support moving the article so that it is about the controversy, not a purported biography of the person at the center of the controversy. I'm not completely sure what title the article should have, but it The title shouldn't be "Kim Davis (county clerk)". An RfC just closed with a conclusion that there should only be one article discussing the controversy surrounding Ms Davis. Assuming that this conclusion sticks, then the article should be about the controversy, not a biography of Ms Davis, because this controversy is the only thing that makes her very notable. I previously submitted an RM for this article, which is now found at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 September 2015. When I did that, here is what I said, which I think still applies: "Per WP:BLP1E. This woman is primarily notable only for one thing – the controversy surrounding her refusal to issue marriage licenses – and that is what the article is primarily about. If she had not refused to issue marriage licenses, there would not be a Wikipedia article about her (and there wasn't one until she did that). The biographical information in the article is primarily only interesting as background information to explain her actions (and other people's actions) in that regard. She is known to most people as 'the woman in Kentucky who is refusing to issue marriage licenses because of same-sex marriage', not as 'Kim Davis the county clerk'." I later withdrew that RM because I learned that another article had already been created with the controversy being its scope, and it clearly wouldn't make sense to have two articles that are both about the controversy. Now a decision has been reached through an RfC process that there should only be one article. This brings me back to my previous suggestion. The controversy is more notable than the clerk, so the article title should say that it is an article about the controversy, not an article about the clerk. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
BarrelProof, agreed, and that is what this move proposal is about. It sounds like you support the move. Could you please say so at the beginning of your rationale? Prhartcom (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Yes, I support the move, although I'm trying to avoid completely making up my mind between "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy" and "Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy". I think the one you suggested is probably the better one (and it's the one I suggested in that prior RM), but I would be open to either one. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015‎ (UTC)
Ask yourself, what is at the center of the controversy, the state of Kentucky or Kim Davis? If you were searching for the article for the first time, would you start typing "Kentucky ..." or "Kim Davis ..."? Prhartcom (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, to the best of my understanding, the controversy seems centered around the person, not the state, and the case is a federal case filed against an individual person (who holds a position at the county level, not the state level) – Kentucky is not part of it – at least not very directly. As far as I know, if she were in a different state (at least if she were in any nearby state), the result would probably be roughly the same. The only reason I might look for it under Kentucky rather than under her name is that her name is harder to remember than Kentucky's. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've been against a biographical article and for only having an article on the controversy since Day One and that's still my position, but this has been talked and talked and talked about over and over and over, and our side lost, there will be a biographical article on Kim Davis herself, those of us who oppose this need to have the good grace to know when we are beaten, and stop beating this dead horse that can only distract our attention from making this article and other others the best they can be. For that reason, just to WP:SNOW this discussion so we can move on to more productive matters, I oppose the proposal. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I support the move per WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Note to all editors: Guy is an administrator who closed the Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination) discussions. Prhartcom (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
While that is true, it should not be interpreted as any sort of claim of authority. I support this move personally and based on my own interpretation of WP:BLP1E, not as any form of outcome from the RfC, which can't really be interpreted as giving any clear steer on this. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - it is a BLP1E reason. IntelligenceAgent (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support rename. This will bring the title in line with the contents. Davis does not deserve a pure biography separate from the controversy. Since this article is primarily about the event, and since she is the only person involved and keeping it going, we have a classic person/event article, with the main weight on the event. The change of title will describe the content much better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly should be an event article, not a bio (per: WP:BLP1E - "Subjects notable only for one event") as the Kentucky marriage license controversy is certainly the only thing she is notable for! Having a stand-alone bio article is tantamount to Wikpedia publicizing and adding to her personal notoriety. Probably even more appropriately, this article should be merged with the Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy article. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Per two recent snow keep's of this article, I would like to see an admin to explain how this RM is not a breach of process. Isn't there some limit to how many of these !votes we have to be put through? Also, I don't want to breach WP:AGF but at the same time this subject is highly politically charged, and I would ask !voters to examine whether they are applying the overwhelming negative feelings against this subject around the world to deciding whether or not this subject is not treated as a biography. I share those negative feelings, but if I look at this objectively, this is obviously a bio with wide sources referring to her by name rather than "the controversy". The problem we had before was that content about the event in this article (specifically, political reactions) was threatening to overflow -- that was the rationale for a separate article to expand upon the specific controversy. Perhaps that particular decision was made too hastily -- I don't know -- but we did have an apparent consensus to do that at the time. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Stevietheman, you're right about wondering aloud of other's motives; we've all seen blatant bias even though NPOV is a Wikipedia pillar. In one !vote above, the editor admits they are here to sabotage the !voting (and that editor pretends they are a contributor to the article). You may even be right about her deserving her own biography. That would mean she was notable before all this happened and has since become notable for things other than this one event. I've seen two administrators disagree with that idea, however. Prhartcom (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
(no need to ping me ever from this page please :) ) If you go back in previous discussion, it was discovered that she thinly met GNG before this series of events. This discovery taking place after the main event is actually irrelevant to whether she is declared notable enough for a biography. There's no time limits for this discovery. Also, as several have noted, it's no longer just one event. It's a series of notable events involving a person, and as far as I can tell, with my 11 1/2 years of wiki experience, a series of notable events involving a person is a biography. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees with your assertion that Kim Davis is notable for many events. On the contrary, there are some who believe Kim Davis is notable for only one event (that caused other events to occur, like anything does). I apologize for pinging you below; I missed seeing your request until now (I was only trying to be courteous to you). Prhartcom (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If it's an assertion, it's an assertion backed up by seemingly unlimited reliable sources discussing these series of events. This didn't come from my imagination. It's those asserting it's one atomic event who have a far more difficult task of proof. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 07:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (putting this here, rather than responding to each !vote that invoked BLP1E). WP:BLP1E does not apply. The test for BLP1E requires that all three conditions be met:
  • Condition #1 is not met because there are several events (her election to a political office; refusing to do her elected job; her appeal to the US Supreme Court; her arrest and incarceration; and her meeting with the Pope)
  • Condition #2 is not met because she is not a low-profile individual. She had already been covered in reliable sources because of her elected political office.
  • Condition #3 is not met because the event is significant and the individual's role is both substantial and well documented. So much so in fact that I can only assume that those citing this section of the policy have either not read the policy, or expect that the RfC closer will not read the policy.- MrX 13:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I suppose this pathetic woman is halfway between deserving her own biography and not deserving her own biography, like Joe the Plumber or George Zimmerman: deserving of a biography that doesn't go anywhere. I feel sorry for the editors who wish to support such a lost cause. Prhartcom (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Surely we need to stay objective and not base any decision on whether the subject is 'pathetic' or not. Also, as long as an individual is notable (and Kim Davis surely is), they get an article whether or not their story continues. Continue feeling sorry for those of us who are only being objective. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Stevietheman, I'm sorry to remind you of the same fact I gave RobinHood70 below: The talk page is not the article. I am allowed to tell you how I personally feel about the article subject on the talk page, (not that anyone is interested). I'm happy to remind you that I am an objective contributor to the article. Prhartcom (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
We have already been round this loop. Condition 1 applies to notable offices. See how many articles there are in Category:County clerks. Condition 2 applies because her profile is related solely to the incident in question. Condition 3 applies because the event and the individual are one. There is only one subject (per the recent RfC consensus), so the question is, is it one biography or one event? And the answer, of course, is that it's one event because the event is what's notable, not the person. Without the event, there would be no biography. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that that's still an wrong interpretation. Condition #1 says low-profile individual, not "notable offices". WRT condition #2, There is no "incident"; there are a series of noteworthy events. WRT condition #3, "the event and the individual are one" is just silly. Person ≠ event. - MrX 13:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Prhartcom: Referring to Kim Davis as a "pathetic" woman and feeling sorry for editors supporting the cause of keeping a bio indicates blatant bias; you should not have been the one to initiate this move.
@JzG: I'm sorry, but I have to go with MrX on this.
Condition 1: Whether her refusal is what catapulted her into the limelight or not, she is now known for several events, not just one; the fact that she's only a county clerk is irrelevant at this point.
Condition 2: She is no longer low-profile, since everyone in the Western world probably knows her name and face at this point except for the pope, apparently (and even he knows who she is now).
Condition 3: The event and the individual may have been one to start with, but now they are not. There are several events now, as MrX outlined.
And before anyone accuses me of some kind of bias in trying to promote Kim Davis, I'm gay and I'm Canadian, so clearly I have no interest in supporting or advertising Kim Davis. I'm simply reacting based on the facts at hand. Robin Hood  (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
RobinHood70, I was waiting to see who would be foolish enough to say that I am biased. You are confusing the article with the talk page. I am one of the primary contributors to this article, and I have never injected any bias. If you have any other attacks for me I would be happy to refute them. Prhartcom (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Being a contributor to the article does not inherently exempt you from being biased. But even so, you're proposing an action that affects the article while displaying a clear bias. That's not neutral. It's no different than real conflict of interest vs. potential conflict of interest. Either presents a conflict, even if no inappropriate actions have occurred. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. Robin Hood  (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
You are actually accusing me of being biased in my contributions to this article? Seriously? Without any evidence? That's a fight that you're not going to win. As for accusing me making of personal attacks, I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. If it helps, I have struck one phrase I stated above. On discussion pages, we assume good faith. We don't make accusations to each other. Instead, we discuss the points we make with the objective of improving Wikipedia. Prhartcom (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I never said that. What I said was that it was inappropriate for you to start a move discussion when you're inserting your bias into that very same discussion, as you did above by referring to Kim Davis as "pathetic" and that you felt sorry for other editors who didn't see things the way you do. That seems to me like a pretty clear conflict of interest. Regardless of that fact, though, the discussion was started, and with so many responses to it, I think we have to see it through to its conclusion, even if it's now about the fourth such discussion on whether or not this article should exist and where (which, notably, have had different results, depending on the specific discussion). As for personal attacks, I was referring to you calling me foolish. It wasn't a foolish thing to be concerned about bias. Ensuring a neutral point of view applies equally to moving an article as it does to the contents themselves. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Re: Condition 1, the subject met GNG (albeit thinly) before this series of events because of other facets of this non-notable-on-its-own office. This was discovered after the main event, but there's not any time limit on such discovery. Re: Condition 2, there are a series of events involving her, and biographies are for describing a series of events regarding a person; otherwise, where do biographies come from? Re: Condition 3, again this is a series of events. Re: your argument that without the event, there would be no biography, that may be true as a matter of process (how this all transpired), but given my responses on these BLP1E conditions, there are clear rationales for a biography. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
it is not a "series of events" - it is the cumulative reaction and fallout to her not doing her job. If it were a series of discrete events we would have multiple articles about the distinct events. BUT as the discussion on this page showed, we have consensus to cover the action (or lack of action), the fallout, and the reaction in one article because they are so closely interrelated as to be unintelligible if viewed separately. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's not overly parse this. It's clearly a series of events, even if there's some relation between them. This subject is notable as a singular biography according to the gigantic mass of reliable sources which we cannot objectively ignore. Again, if biographies are not for describing a series of notable events regarding a person, what are they? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: being a county clerk is an elected office when it comes to claiming that as an elected person she is not covered by WP:BLP1E, but the fact that she is, as far as I can tell, the only county clerk for whom we are making a claim of notability, somehow doesn't matter? Forgive me if I am unpersuaded. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
She met GNG before this series of events, and as you can see from the discussion, many make plausible arguments that BLP1E doesn't apply. That's it in a nutshell. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that we shouldn't overly parse this Stevietheman, but many dispute that this is "clearly" a series of events, as opposed to a single event (that caused other "sub-events"). Prhartcom (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I stand by this objective position, and I'm turning off my ping notifications. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move, oppose this title - horribly WP:POV title: the controversy is not Davis' controversy. I tend to agree that Davis is notable by our standards only for her involvement in the controversy. However, her role in it is so significant as to be worthy of a biography. WP:BLP1E gives John Hinckley, Jr. as the archetype of such a person, notable for only one event but the event is so significant, and his role in it so significant, that we have kept a bio for him separate from the event. I see Davis the same way. But we shouldn't be naming this controversy after her: reliable sources don't, and she's a key figure in it but not the whole story. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Kim Davis the the architect of this controversy. She has been at the center of every single thing that has happened during this controversy. All reliable sources about this controversy, without exception, mention Kim Davis. She, enabled by her attorneys, started it, perpetuated it, and ended this controversy. It is truly the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that that's true. There are several other clerks in Kentucky who refused to issue licenses either to same-sex couples or at all, independently of Davis. At the center of the controversy are Christian conservatives, of whom Davis is certainly one, and who likely think that the controversy is with the Supreme Court, not with them. Anyway it's our policy not to title articles this way if a more neutral option is available. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I would love to agree, but not when you throw up a straw man argument like that. Of course there are Christian conservatives out there. We're not talking about them. Yes there are other Kentucky clerks that claimed to not have the right paperwork, we mention them in the article, but they had no desire to speak out or cause a controversy. Guess who did. Prhartcom (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've clarified my position above. As I've said in the parallel AfD, the article we have currently is an article about the controversy, and it should be titled appropriately. I don't see that there's a strong consensus or a particularly strong case for Davis having a separate biography, although I stand by my position above that we could do it. Either way, Kim Davis (county clerk) (if it is to exist) should be nothing more than a neutral biography about her life; the controversy should be written about under a different (neutral) title. Since the article we have now is about the controversy, it should be moved to a title about the controversy, but I remain opposed to this title, for reasons stated above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Also I wouldn't be opposed to having Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy as a redirect to a neutral title, per WP:RNEUTRAL. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The real question from WP:PSEUDO is the third prong "Is the person notable for any other events in their life?" To help answer that part of the question, I look to WP:Politician where point 2 says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." While "major" is not well defined, in my mind a county-wide office holder would meet that standard. WP:POLOUTCOMES also suggests that the subject would survive AfD. The seventh point states "Politicians who .. (b) have received national or international press coverage, e.g. for acting as a spokesperson on a major political issue or for breaking the law, are also often found to be sufficiently notable." Enos733 (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Even your justification crumbles: "Is the person notable for any other events in their life?" NOPE. Not even close.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Not really, but It doesn't matter anyway. She had a major role in a major series of events. That alone more than justifies an independent biography.- MrX 17:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Davis is notable for only the one event, the same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it doesn't if her "biography" is merely content the controversy -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Should have never been notable in the first place. Her personal life has gotten notable. Her four marriages came to light right after her stance went public. Also, it makes the title more complicated for readers to search as the article is really the biography. --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move and current title / Support merge -- It is clear to me that there should be one article named Rowan County same-sex marriage license controversy ---- My reasoning for this is straightforward. Just as the Oklahoma City bombing or Aurora shooting don't mention individual names in the title, the foundation of this story is not dependent on a person but rather their actions ---- For example, if we completely removed Kim Davis from the equation and substituted another county clerk who acted in the same manner, nothing about this story would change because it's not really about Kim Davis per se, it's about the power of a county clerk to deny people marriage licenses. If this were a tabloid magazine we would have her name in the title and in ALL CAPS, but this is an encyclopedia ---- Regarding the choice of Rowan County as opposed to Kentucky, the reason the 1906 San Francisco earthquake is not called the 1906 California earthquake is due to specificity, which should be applied here as well. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Good points. Does the title need to be that specific, though? Our standard (WP:PRECISE) is for titles to be as precise as necessary to identify the topic, but no more. Do you think Rowan County is too specific? I wager most pepole know that Kentucky is a state at least, but I'm reasonably up to speed on this and I didn't know the name of the county. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying, I'd never heard of Rowan County either, but it is the epicenter of this whole thing, irregardless of its unfamiliarity. It also appears in lots of sources. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I get that, but does naming it Rowan County make it more difficult to find in searches? I suppose redirects can solve that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff, all right. Then according to your logic, why not Rowan County clerk same-sex marriage license controversy? Prhartcom (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Because that wouldn't make sense. The controversy includes other players, for example those people who have been denied marriage licenses. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff, anyone is very welcome to make a generic article about the subject of "Same-sex marriage license controversies". The subject is notable, so the content can include non-notable individuals like those other clerks and the individuals affected by their actions. You will be able to find some mention of other individuals and make a decent article, but putting them all together, their collective splash on the national and international RS won't approach what's happened with Kim Davis. That article would then mention Kim Davis as the most notable objector, and devote a whole section to her, with a "main" hatnote pointing to her article, where the full story about her controversy would reside, all per summary style. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Leave it. What do you make of articles like this? She might have been a BLP1E, but that horse has got out the barn already. You might as well move Allen Ginsberg to Allen Ginsberg obscenity controversy. Besides, any article with "controversy" in the name is a badly named article. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. We have Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy and Miller v. Davis, so there is no need for this biography, whether under this title or some other. The content should be trimmed and merged into one of the others. Sarah (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    If you look at the archives you will see that there was an RfC to spinoff Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. There was then a discussion to reincorporate everything under one article. There have been two recent AfDs attempting to delete this biographical article, both of which closed as "snow keep". This discussion is a move request (move to a different title). It's not a discussion about merging content, trimming content, or splitting content. Part of the reason we keep having the same discussions is because folks can't seem to stick to the questions or proposals at hand.- MrX 23:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • MrX, I couldn't agree with you more. Half of the !votes and comments here have ADHD disorder: pitifully unable to comprehend the proposal, certainly not its scope or history, ignorant of the true situation, occasionally paranoid, and often unable to resist introducing their own wild schemes. This forum is not exactly working for the reader's benefit. Prhartcom (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
A merge with Miller v. Davis (not Kentucky same-sex marriage controversy) is a reasonable sounding option, provided the content is preserved. (Even the small personal life section should be preserved, since many commenters have asked whether her Christian beliefs permit her to deny requests for divorce in her county) I don't see that one up for a vote anywhere. Wnt (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Look at the views this biography is getting and the fact it's the #1 top viewed article in WikiProject Kentucky. People are wanting to know about the person Kim Davis rather than an artfully named article. Go figure. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 07:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Article traffic statistics Prhartcom (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - To reiterate my comments in the poll that follows, I intend to do whatever I can as a Wikipedian to have the two snow keep's enforced, barring a third (repetitive) AfD that somehow overcomes those snow keep's. These various attempts to override these decisions are out-of-process (and that's being kind). Like I said in an earlier edit summary, "I. have. had. it." Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Stevietheman, you're tilting at windmills using a weird straw man argument. Has someone again suggested deleting this article? No. The two AfDs failed. A third attempt would be a blockable offense for disruption. The proposition before us is just a change of title so it actually describes the content, while preserving all the content and history. This has always been, and must remain, the central article, but with a better title.
  • Right now the title describes a pure biography, and there is a huge consensus that she doesn't deserve it. This controversy is her only claim to fame. This article's current scope and content are properly weighted to emphasize the controversy, including her central role, which all RS confirm. The new title must reflect that. There is comparatively little purely biographical information. You need to drop the stick and aggression, and just calm down. Try some caffeine-free tea! -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Any editor looking at this can see that there is definitely not consensus to rename this article "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy", which is good news given what a horrible idea that is (see my comment below). Once this closes as no consensus we can begin anew with the renaming process. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Several points here. Somedifferentstuff, I'll point them out, because many of my comments are based on all the RfCs, both AfDs, and knowledge of the relevant article histories, not just on what's happening here:
  1. "Any editor looking at this". That's myopic. As noted above, my comments look at the big picture. Many !votes and comments here reveal a failure to do due diligence and may be misleading and pretty much worse than worthless. Such editors should be ashamed of themselves, because they just muddy the waters and create disruption. It's best to stick to what you know about, and be silent on other things.
  2. "definitely not consensus to rename this article "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy"," Okay, has anyone made that claim here? Please name them, because I haven't made such a claim. There is a different consensus I mention right above: "a pure biography, and there is a huge consensus that she doesn't deserve it." That consensus is found through a knowledge of all the RfCs and the two AfDs. We need one article, and it's not supposed to be a pure biography, but a biography with the main weight on the controversy. The suggested title serves that purpose perfectly because it retains her name and also describes the controversy. It accurately describes the scope and content of the article. No other change is needed.
  3. As to any consensus about the final title of "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy", there is none, but the last AfD did contain many comments favoring exactly that as a better new title. It covers our needs, and also abides by all the RS and WP:COMMONNAME.
  • Response -- BullRangifer, I'll respond to each of your bullet points separately without interjecting above:
  1. Largely disagree with bullet #1 -- Looking through the numerous opinions above we see a wide range of editors with varied commentary explaining why renaming the article "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy" is such a bad idea -- The fact that we have so much experience compiled above makes for an even stronger case against it, not the contrary.
  2. What you have done here [11] is stated that there is only one choice for the article title which everyone knows is complete nonsense. There are currently a few choices of what this article will ultimately become and you need to be respectful of that.
  3. I agree with you here in that there is no current consensus regarding the final name of the article. From the short polling below it was clear that Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy was not a favorite -- I've already made my case [12] for what I believe the article should be called but the renaming process is far from finished and hopefully we can have a similarily high editor turnout as was seen previously.
  • Thanks for your response. As noted elsewhere, this process is way out of line and seriously muddies the waters, and many commenters new to the subject have not done due diligence, which is why their opinions you value so highly are often worse than useless. They are speaking about matters of which they are ignorant.
  • Participants here must see the broader picture, and only those who have seriously done due diligence and/or have participated in the development of the relevant articles, the various RfCs, and the two AfDs, can really see that picture and factor it into their decisions. That's why RfCs and AfDs can be so frustratingly disruptive, because they allow such driveby editors to have any influence. Editors who are new to this situation can still offer comments based on policy, but even then many of their comments reveal that we are way past dealing with and solving those issues. It looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the controversy is at least as notable as the individual, probably more so. That being the case, there is no reason for it not to have a stand alone article. In an article of that type, it would certainly be relevant to include a brief personal description of the sole individual whose personal conduct seems to be directly involved, that being Kim Davis. Having said all that, I suppose leaving this page as a sort of dab to the articles on the individual case, the Kentucky case, and the legal case might not be unacceptable, or, perhaps, stubbing it of pretty much all but the directly personal information with links to those other articles might be acceptable. However, under the circumstances, I do believe BLP1E applies because, to the best of my knowledge, the material about the subject as an individual pretty much includes almost exclusively material related directly to the controversy, which makes it open to reasonable question of a kind whether she as an individual person has ever been subject to sufficient purely biographical content to meet notability for a separate article, or whether all the information which might be used to defend the existence of her separate biography is also, perhaps, material generated as a direct result of the controversy, and, in at least some cases, specific for the purposes of use in discussion of the controversy. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed name support position of Somedifferentstuff, Ivanvector and others that the EVENT is what is important, (eg Kentucky same sex etc.), how can it be an answer to a pseudo-biog to enshrine the name of the individual in the name of the event? That becomes a pseudo-biog, pseudo-event article, the proposal is ambiguous (what was controversial about Davis's marriage licence?) and is only informative to those who already know who she is. I said on the prev. RfC, that those outside the US don't know, and have little interest in Ms Davis herself, the event is interesting though. OK we cannot crystalball, but who will know her name in 2-3 years time if this event is her sole 'notability'. Pincrete (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the move proposal, as nominator. The Kim Davis article is a pseudo-biography of the classic definition: She is notable for only the one event. Many, many editors have made comments above yet they have not really contributed to the article; others have not even read the whole article. Yet, they !vote. As much as I am glad to see that readers do consult the article by the thousands each day, I realize that she is already starting to be forgotten for her one event. Except for two cited sources, every reliable source used by this article is concerned with the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, the one event. The criteria for BLP1E do not apply; this must be a case for WP:IAR. As much work I and others have put into this article, I want to continue to see readers enjoy this article for months to come. Kim Davis started, perpetuated, then ended this controversy. Quite soon, it will be forgotten. But until then, let's get the name of the article right, and let's keep it named like it is now: for Kim Davis and her same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have thousands and thousands of tiny biographies on WP on people about whom very little is known beyond their birth date and one aspect that made them famous. I mean, just click on SPECIAL:RANDOM and it shouldn't take you very long to find one. Took me 23 clicks to find this one: Alain_Rémond. Ms. Davis is already far better known than is this French author who is quite obscure in the English speaking world. This is not a matter of WP:OTHERSTUFF because it's not a cherry-picked example - it comes from just a few clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM, indicating there are plethora of similar articles. We should have an article about anyone about whom people are likely to seek biographical information. Where she from? What is her birthdate? How many times has she been married? Etc. For better or for worse, her story is now part of history. Maybe only a small part, but there it is, and it is incumbent upon us to tell it. Personally, I'm not opposed to having a separate article on the controversy too, but if we're only going to have one article, it needs to be the biography. --В²C 02:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • В²C, I don't understand your "oppose". There will be no change in the content. Your reasoning would indicate you should support this move. The only change would be the title, not the content. Currently the title does not describe the contents adequately. There is biographical information in this article, and there is the controversy which makes her notable. It has repeatedly been emphasized that she's not notable enough for a stand alone biography separated from the controversy, and it's also been emphasized that one article should do the job. Well, this article has both aspects, but you wouldn't know that from the title. The controversy is the main thing, so it should also be in the title. We would still have the biography you wish, but with a better title. Please change your !vote to a "support". -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being unclear. I support the existence of a biography article about Kim Davis. This article. I support changing the content of this article to be biographical. Therefore I oppose a change in the title. If there is a need for an article about the controversy which brought her fame, that needs to be a separate article. But that's secondary here. The main point here is that this article remain as a biography and be titled and written accordingly. --В²C 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if you wanted a change of content or a change of title. It is the proposal which is a bit confusing, since it could be interpreted as if a content change is an option, but that's not what's on the table because that idea has previously been tried and rejected. What's left is only the need for a better title.
    Your clarification indicates that you do "support changing the content", but that's not what's on the table. You need to assume that the content will not change. (Splitting off the controversy has been tried and rejected, that's why we're here.) We do have a biography, and that's what you want. That won't change. It's just that the current title doesn't adequately describe the contents. She is not notable enough for a pure biography, so the biographical content is combined with what makes her notable, and the title should reflect that. I hope that explanation doesn't leave more confusion. Face-wink.svg -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Kim Davis is already more notable than the subjects of probably at least half of the biographies on Wikipedia. To contend she is not notable enough for a "pure" biography is simply absurd

    The only thing wrong with the current title is that the subject's common name, Kim Davis, is inexplicably disambiguated. She is clearly the primary topic for "Kim Davis" (every other use is truly obscure). There is no reasonable argument for the title of this article to be anything other than Kim Davis. But we'll get to that once this proposal is closed without consensus.

    I'll just also note that your argument, "so the biographical content is combined with what makes her notable, and the title should reflect that", if valid, would mean that every biography on WP would have to be re-titled, because every biography has "biographical content [that] is combined with makes [the subject] notable". Sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument for changing the title of this or any biography. I am literally laughing out loud about that. And shaking my head. Just saying. --В²C 15:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • В²C, you can stop laughing now, because we actually agree on several points. Face-wink.svg You must not have read what I've previously written many times. My statement, rather obviously, means that she is not notable apart from the controversy. I have written that many times. Because of the controversy, and solely because of it, she is now extremely notable. We can agree on that. The insignificant local notability she enjoyed before all this mess is documented in the article. That's the "pure biography" part. The rest is about her involvement in the controversy which makes her notable.
    BTW, I also agree that she is now the primary Kim Davis. The disambiguation page should be retitled to Kim Davis (disambiguation), and if we decide to retain only her name in the title here, then it should be changed to Kim Davis. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    Great! --В²C 16:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Re BullRangifer's She is not notable enough for a pure biography, so the biographical content is combined with what makes her notable, and the title should reflect that. It is precisely this logic which seems so dishonest, we can't have a biog article, so we'll make it about the event, but give it HER name, rather than a where/what/when name. I think she probably IS notable enough for a biog, but if she isn't, so what? Basic information about her role will be in the event article. Consciously mixing biog and event seems a very bad idea. I endorse everything I've read by Somedifferentstuff, Ivanvector and Born2cycle, let's not make a soup of the contents or names of the articles. Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I will not clutter up this page with any long winded banter, but I will simply endorse the reasons in opposition of other editors. I have seen many, many articles here on the most inconsequential of individuals, most relevantly political activists. Yes, Kim Davis will be LONG forgotten by the American public by next election day, but notability is not temporary. Safiel (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Safiel, please read my comment immediately above to В²C, because it also applies to you, unless I'm totally misreading you. Your !vote should also be a "support". We're not deleting anything or changing the content, only requesting a title which describes the content. Right now the title looks like a pure biography separated from the controversy, and that idea has been rejected. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • BullRangifer, did you read the proposal here? An oppose !vote means "to leave this a biography article". Clearly that's Safiel favors, for the reasons given. --В²C 13:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Safiel's intent isn't totally clear to me. Do they want an actual change of content or not? If they do, that idea needs to be dropped, for reasons explained in my reply to you above. They need to only choose the best title which describes the content most accurately. I have replied to your clarification above, and they can read that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a move/merge to an event article, like how we recently moved Ahmed Mohamed (student)'s content to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. If she becomes notable for a second thing, like leaving office to host a talk radio program, then maybe she'll merit a bio article. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Robin Lionheart, is your opinion that because "she is not notable for a second thing, like leaving office to get a talk radio program" she does not "merit a bio article", based on any guideline or policy? If so which one policy or guideline and what exactly does it say that supports your opinion about this? --В²C 16:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I was obliquely referencing our notability policy for "People notable for only one event" (WP:ONEEVENT). "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No POV

The Kim Davis article has always been properly NPOV. The Reactions section of the article naturally provides both left and right leaning reactions. The newest reaction that was just added is a "new" reaction that happens to be left leaning and from a legal expert. It was added as its own paragraph. It has now been moved to the appropriate first paragraph of the Reactions section, appearing there in chronological order.

This newest reaction had also been added to the lede; to the first paragraph, no less. This "new" reaction does not belong in the lede; it has been reverted and removed. Any reaction is, of course, one-sided. We don't put the latest one-sided reaction in the lede, excluding all other reactions. If we do that, at the very least we put in another reaction from the other side. There has never been a reaction in the lede so I removed the "new" reaction.

The edit summary tried to explain that it is okay to inject POV in one direction so soon in the article, as POV "reflects the mainstream views and controversies". While I understand the editor's sentiment and even have a POV myself, I don't believe we should inject POV into the article lede for any reason. It is simpler, clearer, and is a better service to our readers to leave out all reactions from the lede: give the reader a chance to focus on the facts of Kim Davis herself and her controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that we pretend no POVs exist and the everything is equally "neutral" or that we create false balances - it means that we represent the views as they are held by the mainstream experts and per WP:LEAD we include the summary of these interpretations in the lead itself. The fact that this incident is "the clearest example of someone who wants to use a religious liberty argument to discriminate" yet is why there is so much interest in it. To bury that from the lead is what would be an unconscionable violation of WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
TRPoD said it very well. There is no policy against including POV in the lead. LEAD requires it if the body includes it first. This is an extremely notable and insightful comment and should be in the lead. It's her highest claim to fame, even more than the controversy itself, because it touches on much broader issues which apply far beyond homosexuality and gay rights. It touches on her extreme understanding of religious freedom, an understanding which would support a Sharia law type Christian religious dictatorship in the USA, and there is more content on that matter to be added.
Before this controversy started, she had already prepared a religious freedom defense, contacted her superiors, and planned this controversy. That content will be included. We just need to get all this title business settled first and get back to editing. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 20:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

──── It's rather odd, and a violation of LEAD, that we don't mention any reactions in the lead. We should, and this reaction should be included. It would be logical to make this content the last paragraph. -- -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 20:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

We could consider adding two to four reactions to the last paragraph of the lede. But this talk above is not going to fly. We don't add a single POV, that happens to be your own, to the first paragraph of the lede. The lede's purpose is to summarize the tone of the entire article—an article that we have worked hard to ensure remain neutral. You are attempting to inject your own personal bias in the first paragraph, apparent from You said "her extreme understanding of religious freedom, an understanding which would support a Sharia law type Christian religious dictatorship in the USA." We're not here to tell the world about your noble cause. There are other points of view of Kim Davis that you are not considering (i.e. her insistence to simply remove her name from licenses and not be forced to personally issue them). If we stick to simply presenting all the facts about Kim Davis, left and right, the reader will make up their own mind about what to think. And if we leave the reactions out of the lead, the reader can at least focus on those facts in the first several sentences. Let's hear from others, i.e. MrX. Prhartcom (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
This reaction should be included in the article, but is not representative of the totality of reactions to justify including it in the lead, especially as a contextomy. The lead should include a summary of both the support and the criticism of Davis in DUE proportion. It should also include a mention that Davis has been satirized in social media, and in various forms of fiction and entertainment.- MrX 22:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Which is your personal contribution to the article, so naturally you want that. Great; everyone is protecting their own personal turf. We need editors who can put their egos aside and care more about the article than their own personal contributions to it. Otherwise, MrX is right; the lede must remain representative of the totality of the article in due proportion. I am making sure that this is what occurs. Prhartcom (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Prhartcom, don't ping me again to ask for my input, only to criticize my motivations when I give it. What we need here is less ego and fewer inflammatory comments.- MrX 23:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
MrX, you're right; sorry about my reaction to part of your reply. What you said was correct; The lede is the introduction and summary of the totality of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Prhartcom, you accuse me of adding my POV? Really? Please strike all of those comments. They are clear personal attacks, and you should know better than "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views..."
Just because I happen to think it's a pretty good statement doesn't mean I wrote it. Divorce me from the equation and it stands alone as a remarkably true statement. Just because I happen to side with the mainstream view should not leave me open to your personal attacks. By your logic, no editor should allow you to include any RS which happens to support your POV. Don't you realize that by censoring opposing POV you are "protecting your own turf"? That's not how the Golden Rule works, so let's keep this type of petty bickering out of this. Okay?
Now back to what I wrote above, because you seem to have ignored it: "We should [include a summary of reactions], and this reaction should be included. It would be logical to make this content the last paragraph." MrX also seems to feel we need this type of content in the lead. The lead, in its entirely, should sum up the entire article. The individual sentences and paragraphs sum up individual significant topics and mention significant points. Take a look at WP:CREATELEAD for more about creating leads. (You might also enjoy my new essay at WP:Essence, because it's very relevant here.) -- -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 23:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer, you're right, I have struck those comments. We agree that the lede is the introduction and summary of the totality of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As far as keeping the article "neutral", that's a misunderstanding of NPOV and WEIGHT. All kinds of POV must be documented, and biased sources should be used. The mainstream view is that she is not doing her duty, so the due weight of the article should read in favor of the mainstream view. We must present that balance, because that is the balance found in RS. That should be the impression received by readers. NPOV means that we, as editors, don't insert our own unsourced opinions, or use censorship to hide views we don't like. NPOV does not mean "neutral" or neutered content, nor does it mean a false balance between opposing POV. -- -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 23:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is about the passage you personally contributed? What exactly are you proposing for the article? Prhartcom (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for striking your comments. Much appreciated. I'm talking about this, which I had added to the lead, at the end of the first paragraph [13]:
  • Davis has been described as "the clearest example of someone who wants to use a religious liberty argument to discriminate."
Per my comments above, I agree that it's probably not best to add only that comment, as it should accompany other content about reactions. It's a bit different from most of them, as it's not exactly for or against, but a simple statement from a very notable attorney, author, and subject expert. The more controversial part is in the body, where it should be. I deliberately did not include that in my addition to the lead.
I'd like to see it restored, but not necessarily in the first paragraph, but at the end of the lead would be fine. A summation of the for and against reactions could also be attached to it, most likely immediately before it. That way the coverage of reactions ends with a very different type of reaction, not with a Good or Bad reaction. That leaves a better, more neutral, taste in the mental mouths of readers.
As I look at it again, the end of the first paragraph is still a good place, because of the significance of the statement. It is her highest claim to notability, even higher than her controversy. That's what sets this statement apart from all others, and justifies placement so early in the lead. -- -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 01:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

References

I assume you mean "paragraph", not sentence. No, not the first paragraph, as it is a non-neutral reaction, not a neutral fact. I'd feel better if you acknowledge, so that I know you understand, that none of the reactions to this controversy are neutral, certainly not this one. Yes, if we add this to the end of the lede after all the neutral facts, we need other non-neutral reactions as well. I'll put some thought into what other reactions we can add; let me know if you have some ideas. Prhartcom (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Oops! You're right. Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Let's take a look at what we agree/disagree about:

  • We agree that it would be best to summarize the reactions and add that at the end of the lead. I still think the one sentence is important enough for placement at the end of the first paragraph. It's her highest claim to fame. She's totally unique.
  • We disagree about the subject of "neutral".

What policy dictates that we cannot document and include "non-neutral" reaction[s] or facts in an article or lead? I think you're still misinterpreting NPOV, but if you're referring to some new policy, I'd like to see it, because this would mean the radical neutering of millions of articles here. We could no longer document "the sum total of human knowledge", and we'd be violating NPOV by exercising censorship of any non-neutral opinions, facts, or sources in an article.

NPOV refers to editorial, not content, neutrality (philosophy). Wikipedia, represented by how its editors create content, must remain neutral, IOW it must not have any "declared or intentional bias". The only bias we are required to have is to favor reliable sources, which often means the mainstream POV.

If we do it right and distribute due weight appropriately (more here, and less there), readers should sense that the article has a bias. It must not come from editors, but from the sources, and readers should sense that the mainstream and best sources have an opinion on the subject, one which is disputed by a minority fringe whose opinions are currently considered incorrect. That sensation of bias will obviously offend fringe believers. We see this all the time at articles on fringe subjects, such as homeopathy, chiropractic, and psychics. Believers don't like our articles, so we must be doing something right. Face-wink.svg

The POV in the content we include must be presented "as it was" in the sources, without our interference. We must not neutralize the points of view, neither by hiding or censoring them, nor by giving them more weight (undue) than they have in the sources. There are some types of articles where POV is not a problem, but most articles include POV, and we must present them.

It appears to me that your objections and whole premise of "No POV" (the heading above) rests on a false foundation, a misunderstanding of NPOV. Am I wrong? Am I missing something here? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 03:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. No, I'm not advocating we neuter Wikipedia. I'm saying look at the article now, compared to how you want it to be. It is very neutral. We don't tell readers how to think, we don't tell readers what other people think. We present the facts without commentary and allow readers to make up their own mind. That is an amazing accomplishment considering the subject matter. As human editors, we certainly have a POV, yet we have not allowed it into the article until the Reactions section. (Once I allowed mine into the talk page and was crucified for it. It is similar to yours.) When the reader gets to the Reactions section, they finally read POVs on both sides. They read what other people think. As they read them, they decide, "I agree with this reaction, I don't agree with this reaction." You do this too. But fortunately, until they read those reactions, they had none: The article had only been presenting neutral facts up until that time, and because that is all we had done, we had not told readers what other people think about the situation. We had not told them how to think.
Now we have a proposal to introduce reactions sooner in the article, into the lede. That is allowable under WP:LEAD and therefore, I must agree with it. I agree that it is better to have the lede be a microcosm of the entire article. In the article, we tell readers what other people think at nearly the end of the article. My suggestion is: let the lede tell readers what other people think at nearly the end of the lede. Like the body, it gives readers a chance to read the neutral facts first. Then they read what other people think, and decide which ones they agree and disagree with, after reading the neutral facts first.
It looks like I haven't even convinced you that what you wish to add has a POV in only one direction and is not a neutral fact, because you keep repeating how important it is (probably because you came up with it yourself). However I urge you to realize this reaction is POV, it is not neutral, and therefore, we're not making it the third sentence in the lede. We're making it one of the last sentences in the lede, and next to some other reactions, after the reader has had a chance to read a neutral introduction to the subject.
It's a good suggestion and it makes sense. I hope we hear from some other editors. Prhartcom (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"we don't tell readers what other people think"???? Not true. That's exactly what we do. At least you later walk back that statement: "In the article, we tell readers what other people think at nearly the end of the article."
There is nothing in policy which dictates the order in which information is presented. I like to present it in the lead in the order it is found in the article. Yes, we often save the most controversial stuff for later in the article, except when the article is about a controversy. That's what we have here.
You are once again reverting to personal attack behavior here: "you keep repeating how important it is (probably because you came up with it yourself)." I didn't "come up with it", I found the reference. By your reasoning, if you find a reference which sides with your POV, we should leave it out or deprecate it by tucking it away at the end. This cuts both ways, which is why it is forbidden behavior. It is expected that editors find sourcing, and it's natural that they would be more familiar with sources which share their POV. That's perfectly okay, and is a good thing. That's why NPOV content is best developed when editors with opposing POV collaborate. If you want to cut the other side out of the process, you'll end up with a censored article. Keep in mind I am not objecting to sources which you find which support your POV. I know how to write for the opponent and support it, unlike you are doing right now. It's essential to the process, so stop hindering it.
Otherwise I'm fine with including this quote and type of content at the end of the lead. I can compromise. We are currently in violation of LEAD by leaving it out, so please go ahead and develop such content. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 15:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer, we have the same POV, you know. It doesn't matter that we do, because we write neutrally, but I just want you to know that as an FYI, I agree with you. I have simply been defending the article from editors who try to inject their POV at the top of the article. But I am happy to see that you and I agree now that this addition of yours should not go at the top as you had said, it should go at the bottom of the lede. Yes, give me some time and I will develop this content. Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Your signature is messed up. It looks like templates can't be called from a signature. Prhartcom (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the Mike Huckabee would be a contrast to the Roberta Kaplan. Sound OK? Prhartcom (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
As usual, you do good work! Definitely an improvement. I'm experimenting with the new signature. The idea is that a copy paste can be used as a ping. Try it and see if that works. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Trimming header farm

I have commented out the ArbCom warning tag and NotaForum warning tag, as things are well calmed down here. Should the Kim Davis situation flare back up again, they can easily be restored, but I think for clarity sake, we can dispense with at least a couple of headers from the large header farm. Safiel (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC) .

Guild copy edit request

I have submitted a humble request to the WP:GUILD of Copy editors for this article. In around a month, the article will have yet another improvement. Prhartcom (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: I am appreciative of the work of Guild editor Twofingered Typist of the Guild, who has completed their copy editing of this article. Their message to me and my reply to them is at my talk page: User talk:Prhartcom#Kim_Davis_(county_clerk). Prhartcom (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis is one of 59 people IN THE WHOLE WORLD to be a Time Person of the Year nominee

For those of you who still think Kim Davis is not sufficiently notable to warrant having a dedicated biography on WP, how do you reconcile that with the fact that she is one out of only 59 nominees for Time's Person of the Year for 2015? Out of over 7 billion people on this planet, 59 have been chosen as nominees for the person who shaped the world more than anyone else, and Kim Davis was one of those 59. And yet she shouldn't have a biography on Wikipedia? Really? This is taking WP:1E and WP:PSEUDO way too far, folks. --В²C 17:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

57 people, one group of people (refugees), and one horse. It's quite the list. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
slow news year I guess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This is probably big enough to reevaluate the consensus for one article, which doesn't seem to have been much of a consensus anyway. Since the article that we have now is mostly about the same-sex marriage controversy and just has some biographical tidbits tacked on, I'd suggest spinning those off into a new biography, but that's going to make the history messy. It would probably be better procedurally to spin off the controversy to a separate article, even though that was already tried and eventually reverted. What do others think? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a biography article that is dominated by material about whatever the subject is most notable. Almost any bio about an athlete is like that, for example. So, I see no reason to WP:SPLIT the current article. There is room for improvement in the content, of course, but the person and the events for which she is famous are too closely tied together to warrant separating, IMHO. That is, too few people (if any) would be interested in her but not the events, or vice versa. The only problem is the title - it should not be disambiguated. --В²C 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Davis is notable all right, but only for the one event. Prhartcom (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
What's wrong with it is that the current "biography" only includes details about the controversy she was involved in, and she hasn't done anything else that we would write about otherwise. The tacked-on biographical info has no bearing on the controversy at all and is completely irrelevant to it. As far as the inclusion standards are concerned, she didn't exist at all right up to the point where she decided to stick her nose into the wrong side of a civil rights issue; what she did before that isn't important at all, and the only thing she's done since then is just this one thing. Athletes, on the other hand, have pursued their craft deliberately and for a significant time, and they are notable for excellence in their fields. The intricate details of how they pursued their sport, often from a very young age, are absolutely relevant to their biography. When athletes get involved in controversies we write about the controversy separately to protect the balance of the biography, and also to protect the integrity of the event article. For example, our article on Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation doesn't start with a description of Michael Vick's playing career, nor does the O. J. Simpson murder case feature any of O. J. Simpson's acting career, nor do any of the three (at least) separate articles covering the Lance Armstrong doping case cover his life in any kind of detail. Davis is not a special case from any of these individuals - the article on her controversy should not be littered with irrelevant details about her life. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector, you contradict yourself. First you say the article "only includes details about the controversy she was involved in", then you immediately refer to "tacked-on biographical info" (those are details that are NOT about the controversy she was involved in).

More importantly, you are holding this biography to standards to which no other biography is held. We have countless biographies with even less "tacked-on biographical info" than this one, but you don't insist they not exist. Why are you picking on this one?

Prhartcom, it's not just one event. There are at least these events, all of which were covered separately in reliable sources:

  1. Becoming a county clerk
  2. The refusal to issue marriage licenses
  3. The court case
  4. The court ruling and aftermath
  5. Jailing
  6. Release
  7. The fiasco with the pope
  8. Nominee for Time's Person of the Year
Besides, even if there was only one event, 1E clearly states: "...the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified".

Kim Davis was absolutely central to each of the events listed above, and the significance of most of the events was high enough to attract nationwide and even worldwide news coverage. The fact that the community has had trouble coming up with a good "event" title is because there is no one event: there is a series of events all of which concern Kim Davis. It only makes sense to make the article about her and her involvement in these events, just like the article is currently written, and title it accordingly, with her name, undisambiguated per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C 02:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Precisely what is your point and purpose in starting this discussion section, Born2cycle? What do you hope to accomplish and how does this discussion contribute to the encyclopedia and improve the article? -- WV 02:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree. The only reason she's notable is the controversy, and that is the only reason she's considered for Time. The title is still a problem, because it does not describe the event, but only her name. If we were to agree to allow a stand alone biography, it should not be disambiguated, but simply be titled Kim Davis, and then split off 95% of the content into an event article which still uses her name in the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
100% agree. Well, I disagree on using her name in the title, but if it gets us past this endless naming dispute then I'm fine with it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

────────── Winkelvi, to answer your valid question, Born2cycle's goal on Wikipedia is to rename mis-named articles (see User:Born2cycle#Great RM decisions of his).

Born2cycle, please listen carefully. This discussion that you are so adamant about having, which Winkelvi (probably wearily) wants to know why you're having it, has been discussed before by all of us (except you) in the archive pages long before you ever showed up. Seriously. You missed it. You're late to the party. We talked ourselves to death for weeks and when the dust settled, nothing was decided. The only thing we all accomplished was the realization that nothing would ever be accomplished: there was not going to be any consensus anytime soon—the article must stay one single article, structured and named the way it currently is. Meanwhile, some of us were trying to improve the article at the same time. Then you showed up, full of vim and vigor, clueless about those weeks of discussion, demanding to talk about it again. Dude, just read the archives. Ivanvector has spoken sensibly in the paragraph above (starting with "What's wrong with it ...") and so has BullRangifer. Even Jimbo Wales weighed in at one point (he agreed that Davis experienced only one event and that this article was only a pseudo-biography). Suggestion to you sir: Type in the article space instead of the article talk space and make this article even better for our readers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

<APPLAUSE!> Thank you for expressing so completely and succinctly what I, and no doubt others, are feeling and thinking, Prhartcom. You get the Thanksgiving Day Obvious Truth Award. In short: you rock! Gratefully, -- WV 16:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Primary topic adjustment

I don't think there's any disagreement here that this controversy is currently or universally the primary topic for Kim Davis; that is to say that a reader who comes to Wikipedia and types "kim davis" into the search box is probably looking for the information in this article, and not one of the other Kims Davis. As such, it's standard practice (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) to move Kim Davis out to Kim Davis (disambiguation), and create a new redirect at Kim Davis targeting this article. That doesn't settle the naming dispute for this article, but it improves the situation overall.

I've been waiting on this for the latest move review to close, but that seems like it could still carry on for a while, and I'm going offline for a few days anyway so I'll just leave this here and you guys can talk amongst yourselves. Happy Thanksgiving! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Read section above on this same page: The result of the move request was: No consensus. And that's fine. Prhartcom (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. See you in a week. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Ivanvector. Prhartcom, the move request decision above is a) still under review, and b) not the adjustment Ivanvector is suggesting. The RM was primarily about changing the title of this article; what Ivan is suggesting affects only the dab page (currently at Kim Davis). As such, it really should be formally proposed on the talk page there. --В²C 06:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent additions need to be edited down/removed

David Ermold himself, one of the first to be denied a marriage license by Davis, has added a paragraph to this article here, describing how he and his partner were denied their license as reported in a viral video at the time, providing a few inappropriate references such as YouTube video and primary sources. I will be editing this down, possibly removing it.

Unrelated, another new paragraph was added, a single sentence, stating that NPR listed Davis' visit with the pope as one of it's most read stories, including a reader's comment. This is trivia and is not needed in the article. I will be editing/removing this as well.

Comments would be appreciated below. Prhartcom (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

Why does this article mention Kim Davis' marriage history outside of the section called 'personal life'. Since this is often quoted by liberals to minimize her religious beliefs, the inclusion in the introduction smacks of bias. Other Wikipedia articles do not state marriage history in the introduction and this should be no different. Recommend removal of the marriage history from the introduction (since it is not a substantive biographical introduction or a Neutrality Dispute tag should be placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.152.172 (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This passage in the article lead is factual, reliably sourced, and written in a neutral way. An article's lead is simply a summary of the article and of course would provide information from many sections of the article body by definition. I feel certain that many Wikipedia biographies mention their subject's marriage in their article lead. It stays. Prhartcom (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Kentucky Gov. Orders Clerks’ Names Removed From Marriage Licenses

These links might be useful references for this article: • SbmeirowTalk • 12:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Pope Francis supports conscience objection

No matter what Pope Francis thinks of the Kim Davis question he openly supported the right to conscience objection. There seems to be an attempt to erase this from the article and to give it a bias. There are plenty of RS that show it. So, the John Allen quote makes all sense. This is one of the many RS about his support for conscience objection. [14]78.29.157.211 (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course the Pope supports conscientious objection, but that's a minor piece of information in relation to Kim Davis. That's why mainstream sources have really not said much about it.- MrX 23:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Father Federico Lombardi words don't mean that Pope Francis didn't knew who was Kim Davis, her case or gave her words of encouragement. The question is that it is uncertain if she had the right to act that way in regard to the "right to consciencious objection", that was granted afterwards by the new Republican Governor, Matt Bevin, who supported her case. No, its not a minor piece of information. Its liberal media who tended to minimize it, and liberal media in the United States, like one of the sources given, the Los Angeles Times, criticized a lot Pope Francis for his meeting with Kim Davis. You simply are following a liberal bias to downplay the meaning of the meeting.78.29.157.211 (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 2015

Bumping thread. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus - after 6 days of inactivity on this discussion and a clear division in application of policy, there is no indication we'll be able to find consensus any time soon on this issue. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There are two other uses of Kim Davis on Wikipedia.

There is no comparison. This Kim Davis article got over 300,000 views in September, and thus clearly meets the PRIMARYTOPIC criteria: "highly likely — much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined — to be the topic sought when a reader searches for" Kim Davis. Granted the number of views are likely to subside in the future, but we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, neither of the other uses has ever come close to this amount of notoriety, and the criteria is likely to apply for a long time into the future, if not forever. There is certainly no justification for disambiguating this title at this time. Some may argue that the parenthetic description is necessary for WP:PRECISION, but, again, this is exactly the type of situation where PRIMARYTOPIC applies. В²C 20:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Updated to be a multi-move to reflect move of dab page too В²C 23:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per request. I agree there's no question about this subject's international notoriety. This is the Kim Davis now. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose as this is still a WP:PSEUDObiography of a controversy masquerading as a "biography" and the primary topic is still the controversy, not the person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • TRPoD, I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per TheRedPenOfDoom. -- WV 21:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • TheRedPenOfDoom and Winkelvi, after multiple AfDs and RM failures, that ship has sailed. Per WP:CONSENSUS developed at those discussions, this is a bonafide biography article, and, if I may add, far more encyclopedic than many, many other biography articles on WP, including the two other Kim Davises I listed in the nom. --В²C 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • read the close. there was no consensus to remain here, it is just here by default. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Two wiki-wide AfD's were snow keep's. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
          • your tendentious misrepresentation of the AfD is getting more than a little old. "The result was Snow keep, please request moves at WP:RM not WP:AFD" and "The result was Procedural close as merge We have an RfC recently closed as supporting one single article, the content of this, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Miller v. Davis need to be merged to a single article and an appropriate title chosen". per the close of the AfDs, the content is appropriate, but under what name is under discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
            • I just stated a fact. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
              • no, you stated a partial fact, omitting critical context, that you were well aware of given that your similar misrepresentation in the previous move discussion was pointed out to you then, as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
                • I think we can all agree that there there is no consensus for NOT having a Kim Davis biography. And, there is no consensus to change the title to reflect the event one way or another. So we're stuck with the status quo, which is a disambiguated biographical title. Therefore, the question before us is only whether we should retain the current title with the parenthetical disambiguation, or move it as proposed to remove the disambiguation. Either title is consistent with a biography title. The only question is about the disambiguation. --В²C 01:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • WV, I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── BullRangifer, it is really inappropriate for you to tell editors who have !voted the way they see fit to change their !vote, or their opinion will be discounted. How is it you have a way of seeing into the mind(s) of the individual who ends up closing this RfC? -- WV 17:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment To be a little magnanimous here, it's possibly too soon after other battles, with the nerves of many rubbed raw. Having a healthy delay before this request might have been the best idea. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Understood, and I considered that, but WP is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Let's treat it, and each other, accordingly. In other words, let's focus on the merits or problems with this proposal. --В²C 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Hear, hear. We shouldn't use this discussion as a platform for re-arguing whether the article should be deleted or whether it should become a controversy article. The question is, does making this the page that readers land on when searching for our Kim Davis improve the encyclopedia, or not.- MrX 21:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Wikipedians are human beings, and whether or not the wiki-legalisms fit, there have been emotionally scarring battles-a-plenty here. It would have been within reason to wait a while, especially because there's no discernible damage from retaining the current name for a while. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Most Supreme Support™ per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the data presented by nominator. Not only have our readers indicated that they continue to seek this biography, but there are strong indications that Kim Davis has already left a small, but lasting, impression in the historical record. - MrX 21:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note that this is a malformed multimove request, as the suggested destination name is already occupied. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Fixed. --В²C 23:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, as nom. Opposition based on WP:PSEUDO is irrelevant here, as the biographical nature of this article would not be affected in the slightest by this proposed move, and repeated discussions have shown there is no consensus to delete or transform this article content or title based on PSEUDO anyway. With respect to the title, then, we have the quintessential PRIMARYTOPIC situation. --В²C 05:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. She is obviously the most notable Kim Davis. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 06:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, clearly the primary topic. Even if there were only an article on the controversy, "Kim Davis" should redirect to it with a hatnote to the dab page. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose basically per TRPoD. A biography on Kim Davis the county clerk should be the primary topic for Kim Davis, but this article is still not a biography on Kim Davis, it's an event article about a controversy she was involved in. It should be either fundamentally rewritten or appropriately renamed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector, I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @BullRangifer: there is no need whatsoever for you to post this same notice after everyone who writes an opposition to this move request; your badgering is not helpful to the discussion at all. I understand very well what the proposal here is, I assume that everyone else who's commenting here does as well, and I trust that any neutral closer will read what I wrote and understand my point; I really could not have given it more clearly. As such, I have no further elaboration to give. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Ivanvector, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that in order for the proposed title (undisambiguated Kim Davis) to be appropriate for this article, then the article must first be "fundamentally rewritten" (to be more of a biography than an event article). I disagree with you about this article not being biographical as it is (it just happens to also cover the event for which she is most notable, which is not unusual and certainly not inappropriate for WP biographies, but I digress), though of course there is room for improvement (but that's par for the WP article course). That disagreement aside, doesn't your objection apply to the current (disambiguated) title just as much as to the proposed (undisambiguated) title? After all, the disambiguation is typical biographical disambiguation - noting the subject's occupation - and has nothing to do with the event. So while your objection is clearly stated, its applicability to this proposal is not. At least not to me. Are you simply trying to hold the current title hostage, so to speak, even though you recognize its incongruity with PRIMARYTOPIC, to inspire (shall we say) the building of consensus to change the content? In general do you support moratoriums on title changes when one dislikes article content? Is there any policy basis for such a practice? Perhaps you could expound on that? --В²C 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Happily. Regarding my objection, yes it does apply equally to the current title; I had expressed that in a now-archived thread. I don't at the moment support a moratorium on anything, for Wikipedia is nothing without discussion and continuous improvement. What I continue to support is that per WP:TITLE a page's title should as precisely as necessary (but no more precisely) describe its content. To extend that, I see no reason why this article should be preemptively titled according to what its content should be when its current content is a (slightly) different encyclopedic topic. So my argument is twofold: 1) if this is a biographical article about county clerk Kim Davis, who I agree is the most notable of the Kim Davises we have articles about, then its title should be Kim Davis; concurrently 2) if this is an article about a notable event which involved this person (no matter how primarily) then its title should be one which describes the event. At the moment I believe 2 is much more true than 1, thus my !vote above. Does this help? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, per primary topic. Yesterday when I saw this proposal, I went into the Kim Davis disambiguation page and improved it; take a look. Unrelated side note: I don't think we're ever going to resolve whether this should be titled as a biography or as an event; the last discussion closed as no consensus. Anyone objective should be able to see that this article has a little of both, and that's fine. Anyway, her controversy is dying down and this is a harmless improvement. Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose, now drop the stick — This situation on Wikipedia is just getting childish. We already just finished a RM discussion, and now we are opening another one? Can't we just drop the stick and do something more productive than fight over the name of the article? I am new here, so please excuse me for sounding rude, but I think there is bigger issues we face here on Wikipedia. I oppose moving this page per TheRedPenOfDoom. Thank ya'all. IntelligenceAgent (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

    • Some of us are trying to align the title of this article with policy (specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). We are not fighting. We have no sticks. If anyone is fighting, it is those who oppose this effort, with arguments that are not even relevant to this proposal. --В²C 23:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose WP:RECENTISM this is verging on being still being news. We should wait to see what kind of long term popularity she has, since you're basing it on accesses. So, wait a year or two. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • 70.51.44.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the subject of this article is clearly the primary topic today. It certainly can be revisited in two years, but why wait two years before remedying an obvious problem today, especially given the very low notability of the other uses of "Kim Davis" making it highly unlikely that she will no longer be the primary topic ten, let alone two, years from now? --В²C 17:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This nomination is based solely on accesses, which is a RECENTISM issue. Waiting a year, or two, will see if there is any enduring access-levels. In a year, we can also more rationally analyze whether this is a WP:BLP1E person, since it will no longer be a news event. We don't flip-flop articles around based on temporal spikes in activity in other article names, so I don't see why we should start here. It's just like when new movie releases happen and people want to move the new movie to the base name. We should wait and see if the temporary spike in activity leads to a permanently higher level of activity. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose basically per the IP above. The 300k figures have already dropped off sharply - in the past 30 days, this article has been viewed around 136k times, and has since flatlined under 2k views per day. Sure, that's still significantly more than the other two, but let's see if page views are still even that high in 6 months. Let's not play musical chairs with article titles, please. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

::Thank you for your common sense Parsecboy. IntelligenceAgent (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Common sense would suggest we look at not only views (where this Kim Davis continues to beat the others), but also media coverage differences between the Kim Davis's. Have the others ever gotten the kind of heavy international coverage this Kim Davis has received? Highly unlikely. Do others have a chance of ever coming close to the coverage this Kim Davis has received? We don't know, but it doesn't seem likely. It's not the worst thing in the world to wait before renaming this article (one could even call this RM kind of a trivial pursuit), but I think common sense suggests it will be very difficult for another Kim Davis to reach this level of fame/infamy. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 04:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
You're looking at it the wrong way, Stevie - the question is not whether the other Kim Davises will rise to the level of this one, but whether this Kim Davis will recede back into obscurity. I would argue that is essentially a certainty. The news cycle has already moved on and people have lost interest, and page views are already reflecting that. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Parsecboy, are you seriously suggesting that it's likely that this Kim Davis will no longer be "highly likely — much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined — ... the topic sought when a reader searches for [Kim Davis]" in six months? --В²C 17:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. The media cycle has already moved on, and barring any further incident (which appears unlikely at this point), I doubt many people at all will be typing "Kim Davis" into the search bar. As I said, page views have fallen off a cliff, and will only continue to decline precipitously. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This statement is absolutely correct. I have stated many times on these pages that the controversy is over and it won't be long now before Kim Davis is as forgotten as Joe the Plumber (about 200 page views per day). I still support the rename per primary topic and because it doesn't do any harm; I'm proud of the article; but let's hear no statements about how wonderfully popular this Kim Davis is. Prhartcom (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Even though I am happy to state that the two editors above are correct when they inform us that Davis' future popularity looks bleak, their popularity argument missed something: Davis' future bleak popularity is still likely to be more than the popularity of the other Kim Davis'. Those others each have daily page views of approximately 20, whereas this one will probably drop to around 200, so "that's still significantly more than the other two" and even the other seven; this one is likely to remain at least ten times more popular and be the primary topic for the foreseeable future. Couple that with the lack of harm this rename would do (there will still be a disambiguation page and it will be linked from a hatnote at the top of this article) and you have no good reason to object to this, certainly not for the reason they give. No, we're not going to "wait and year or two" and we're not "playing musical chairs", we are being reasonable, logical, and sensible. Prhartcom (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Not to mention that Joe the Plumber did not have anything to do with any consequential legal issues. Kim Davis' actions clarified the meaning of a particular Supreme Court ruling. Finally, we're not supposed to speculate about what may or may not be primary topic in the future. --В²C 22:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archiving

@Safiel: I noticed that you removed the bump code but only just now after I restored it. Oops. As long as the move review drags on I think it would be best to leave the discussion here. However if you think or if everyone thinks that it's better off in the archive then please feel free to revert me, but then I suggest that the banner link up top be corrected to point to the archive. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Sorry. I really just finally got disgusted with the whole thing. This has been dragging on for a month just in move review and months before that. I finally just accepted the truth that we will NEVER, NEVER, EVER reach a consensus on anything, even if we prattle on about it to the very end of time. Maybe things are as they should be, or maybe they are wrong, but time to drop it for at least a few months and move on to new battles. I won't revert, but I am washing my hands of this whole thing. Safiel (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
People are still reviewing this in detail from the MR, and it would be a hassle to have to dig it out of the archives.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Move review?

Bumping thread. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing as WP:RM is now underway at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015_November. That eliminates any further need for this discussion. Safiel (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Puzzled by the RM closing above, I left an inquiry on the closer's page[15], but there has been no response. I know of no policy that allows ignoring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because that determination might change in the future, especially when all the other uses of the name in question are so obscure, no such policy was cited by those in opposition, and yet the closer claims "a clear division in application of policy".

Puzzling closing explanation by a non-admin closer, and no response to inquiry about their reasoning. Anyone else think this should go to move review? --В²C 17:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems as if the closer may have counted votes, or simply gave inappropriate weight to essay-based arguments like WP:PSEUDO and WP:RECENTISM. It's troubling that they have not responded to your inquiry on their talk page. As such, a move review would be a reasonable next step.- MrX 18:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Tiggerjay has been active since your message. Could be they just missed it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Since it was a close made by a non-responsive non-admin, perhaps we should ask an admin to revert the close (only admins are supposed to close non-obvious RMs) and let an admin close it? --В²C 00:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Closes are not supposed to be reverted just because a non-admin closed them. Tiggerjay hasn't been on since my ping above, but if you think it's been enough time to respond then the next step is move review. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I've seen a number of RM closes reverted for that reason. The RM close instructions are clear that non-admins are supposed to close only if there is a clear presence or absence of consensus. While counting !votes arguably results in clear lack of consensus here, that's not how we determine consensus. By considering policy I think it's a classic situation that requires careful thought, precisely the kind of RM that non-admins are not supposed to close. The Move Review process is supposed to be about questioning the decision. Here we have a procedural issue. --В²C 02:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Born2cycle, let it go. The other discussion closed with no consensus also. That's just the way it has to be. And that's fine. Prhartcom (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, often they are reopened for just that reason, but WP:NAC specifically says not to do it. Anyway, I don't think you'll get the result you want at a move review, the discussion was pretty clearly no consensus and Tiggerjay was not involved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not about what result I or anyone else wants. When you say there was "clearly no consensus", do you mean by counting !votes? By trying to measure what result the participants wanted? This is the crux of the issue here. None of that should be relevant to determining WP:CONSENSUS, which is unfortunately but understandably often confused with the dictionary definition of "consensus". How does WP:CONSENSUS look when you weigh the arguments in terms of which are based on policy and which are not? That's all that should matter in an RM discussion evaluation. --В²C 17:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
What I mean by "clearly no consensus" is that there was no obvious prevailing opinion in support of the proposal among the involved editors, nor one opposed to it. I'll save my detailed analysis for the move review I think you're going to open regardless of what Tiggerjay or anyone else says here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree there was "no obvious prevailing opinion in support of the proposal among the involved editors, nor one opposed to it". But that's not how WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to be determined on Wikipedia. You're conflating determination of dictionary consensus with determination of WP:CONSENSUS. As did the closer, despite his reference to "a clear division in application of policy". I see no basis in policy on the opposition side, which is why I asked him to clarify. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.". --В²C 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Look, I don't know what you want to hear here. I disagree with you. We disagree on how consensus is determined and we disagree on whether it was determined correctly in this case, and indeed we disagree on whether consensus developed here at all. We also disagree fundamentally on the original proposal, and even if you could convince me by continuing to flog this particular dead horse, there's nothing that either one of us could do about the issue, save for going to move review. Unless you want to take further action in the appropriate venue, this issue is settled. We both should have taken Prhartcom's advice a few lines up. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Disagree with me all you want; I think we can agree that doesn't matter. The important issues here are much broader than this particular RM - how they happen to manifest themselves here is why we're talking about them here. First, there is the issue about how we determine titles. Now, there is the issue of how we determine consensus. What's more concerning is that you apparently disagree with Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining_consensus. True? --В²C 20:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree to that. (Kidding) - I can see from your user page that continuing to flog dead discussions until you achieve your desired result is your modus operandi. That said, I also see that you have a great deal of experience in the area of proper article titles, and tireless pursuit of perfection is not a terribly bad thing. I'm genuinely interested in your analysis of the closed discussion, since we seem to be on opposite sides of the issue here. Mine is below the outdent. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • In my view, the major policy/guideline points that were debated are (1) whether this Kim Davis is the primary topic for Kim Davis (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and others), and (2) whether a biographical title is appropriate based on the article's content (WP:PSEUDO mostly). Others came up but did not influence the discussion. On (1), most editors agree that PRIMARYTOPIC is satisfied by the proposal. A small number of editors cited WP:RECENTISM in opposition, but this view did not gain much traction even among other editors opposed to the request. On (2), the opinions are more varied and less clear. Several editors opposed the request on the basis of the proposed title not supporting the content of the article (PSEUDO). A small number of supporters opined that page titles are not restricted by article content, while others insisted that this argument simply could not be considered, but neither group of supporters provided a policy-based rationale to support their position. Thus I conclude that there is consensus that Kim Davis the county clerk is the primary topic for "Kim Davis" (important), and simultaneously that there is no consensus that the article here should be titled "Kim Davis" (not a consensus that it shouldn't be, just no consensus overall). Taking into account that several previous and recent move requests and other discussions have failed to reach consensus on a page title, this proposal to rename the article also failed for the same reason.
Of course I'm very clearly involved, so I'm interested in your analysis. If anything develops out of this, we can cart the whole thing over to move review. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The major policy/guideline points that were debated are (1) whether this Kim Davis is the primary topic for Kim Davis (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and others), and (2) whether a biographical title is appropriate based on the article's content (WP:PSEUDO mostly). Others came up but did not influence the discussion. On (1), most editors agree that PRIMARYTOPIC is satisfied by the proposal. A small number of editors cited WP:RECENTISM in opposition, but this view did not gain much traction even among other editors opposed to the request. On (2), the opinions are more varied and less clear, but nobody made clear how this point was even relevant to the proposal, since a) the issue was raised previously and remains unresolved, and the WP:PSEUDO argument applies equally to the current title as it does to the proposed title. Thus I conclude that there is policy-based consensus that Kim Davis the county clerk is the primary topic for "Kim Davis" (important), and the article should be moved accordingly.

The point is: whether the article should have a biographical title or not is a separate question from what the title should be given that it is a biographical title. For better or for worse, the article currently has a biographical title. That ship has sailed, at least for the time being, per the previous discussions. So, given that the article is to have a biographical title, at least for now, the only question raised by this proposal is whether that biographical title should be Kim Davis or Kim Davis (county clerk). Given the consensus view that the subject of this article is the primary topic for Kim Davis, the article should be moved. --В²C 00:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Either go to WP:MR or do not. Do not imitate it here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur with SmokeyJoe Either go to WP:MR or drop the subject entirely. This discussion here is pointless. Safiel (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur. Use WP:MR, since the logical IAR would only cause more trouble. It's a clearly bad close. A simple count of !votes is wrong. If the oppose !votes had been analyzed, the closer would have seen that several of them should have been discounted and ignored before counting, since they were not addressing the actual request, but dealing with other unsettled matters which are unrelated to this needed name change. An experienced closer would not have allowed them to hold the process hostage, but that's what has happened. The other problem still needs to be settled, but in another venue/process. Improper closes have also caused problems with that issue. This is the disadvantage of allowing uninvolved people making such decisions. They don't understand the history of the issues and disputes. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 02:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The point of this section was to see if there is consensus to go to WP:MR. Apparently, there is. Thank you. --В²C 16:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • MOVE REVIEW: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015_November  Done --В²C 20:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kim Davis (still) in the news

COI editing

I have just added more documentation to the COI template above regarding the directly involved COI editors: David Ermold and David Moore (User:DavidErmold; this editor was contacted here) and James Yates and William Smith Jr. (User:Someoneyouarenot; this editor was never contacted). FYI, I'll be cutting some or much of this added information for the betterment of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: This editing is complete. Prhartcom (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)